content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
In 1932, Eugene Wigner, in an attempt to link the physics of many-particle systems (statistical physics) with quantum mechanics, defined a new way of describing the quantum state~\cite{PhysRev.40.749}.
It took the form of a probability density function in position and momentum but, interestingly, it could take on negative values.
Now named after its creator, the Wigner function is usually presented in advanced quantum optics texts as an integral combining the notions of Fourier transformations and autocorrelations.
The function rapidly established its usefulness when its ability to take on negative values enabled physicists to be able to visualise quantum correlations in ways that were not previously possible.
This capability is most commonly seen in the superposition of two macroscopically distinct coherent states~\cite{PhysRevLett.10.277,PhysRev.131.2766,Carmichael}.
In~\Fig{fig:classic} we show an example of the Wigner function for such a superposition, the famous Schr\"odinger cat state.
Such a state is very similar to those presented in~\cite{Deleglise:2008gt} where it was demonstrated that non-classical states of light can be made.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0]
\pgftext[bottom,left]{
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim={210 150 130 100},clip = true]{figure01}
};
\draw[thick] (5.4,2.5) -- (7,2.5) node[anchor=west] {\ket{\mathsf{alive}}};
\draw[thick] (3.1,2.5) -- (2,2.5) node[anchor=east] {\ket{\mathsf{dead}}};
\draw[thick] (4.4,3.5) -- (5.5,3.5) node[anchor=west] {\sf Quantum Interference};
\draw[thick] (4.7,0.75) -- (5.5,0.75) node[anchor=west] {\sf Quantum Interference};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{fig:classic} The iconic textbook example of a Wigner function for a Schr\"odinger cat state.
The bell shapes represent the \emph{`alive'} and \emph{`dead'} possible states for the \emph{`cat'} and the oscillations between them indicate the quantum coherence between these states (\emph{i.\ e.\ }the classic ``both alive and dead'' statement).
A similar Wigner function without these interference terms would represent a state with a classical coin toss probability of being either ``alive'' or ``dead'' but not both.
The presence of the interference terms indicates that this Wigner function represents a state that is in both states (``alive and dead'') at the same time (a superposition).
}
\end{figure}
Similar schemes to those used in~\cite{Deleglise:2008gt} for the direct reconstruction of the Wigner function for light have been in existence for some time (see, for example,~\cite{PhysRevLett.78.2547,PhysRevA.60.674,PhysRevLett.89.200402,PhysRevLett.87.050402,PhysRevA.70.053821}).
These schemes all have the same feature that they, either implicitly or explicitly, rely on the fact that the Wigner function can be written as the expectation value of an appropriately normalized displaced parity operator or, equivalently, the expectation of parity for a displaced state~\cite{doi:10.1080/00107514.2010.509995}.
In quantum mechanics, parity is similar to the usual notion of point reflection in that it maps a co-ordinate to one of opposite sign, the difference being that the co-ordinate in quantum mechanics is an observable operator.
What this means is that to reconstruct the Wigner function representation of the quantum state, all that is needed is a mechanism of displacing the quantum state and measuring its parity.
Such operations are well established in the quantum optics community~\cite{PhysRevA.72.053818}.
A similar procedure, designed and built around finite-dimensional systems, is however still lacking.
To address this lack of a mechanism for displacing the quantum state and measuring its parity for finite-dimensional quantum systems, we propose a phase-space formalism that allows for a full representation of a product Hilbert space and offers easily understandable visualizations.
Focusing on the latter, the symmetric-subspace approach, for example the one presented in~\cite{PhysRevA.49.4101} where Wigner functions are constructed via a multi-pole expansion of spherical harmonics, is quite visually informative for harmonic-oscillator type systems~\cite{PhysRevA.6.2211,Kano1974} and those with spin-$1/2$ symmetry.
In more detail, it was Arecchi \textit{et.\ al.\ }\cite{PhysRevA.6.2211} that first derived spin-$1/2$ atomic coherent states described by continuous functions of Euler angles.
These states satisfied the same mathematical properties as the Glauber-Sudarshan infinite-dimensional coherent states~\cite{Glauber1969,PhysRevLett.10.277} but offered discreteness and Bloch symmetry to the corresponding Hilbert space, thus allowing them to be used to describe an assembly of spin-$j$ particles.
Soon after, Agarwal~\cite{Agarwal1981} rewrote the Wigner, $R$ and $P$ functions in terms of Arecchi's atomic coherent states, thus allowing for the study of various spin-$j$ systems under the Moyal quantization~\cite{Moyal1949}.
These parametrizations allow for easy visualizations of various quantum systems via Dicke state mappings~\cite{PhysRev.93.99,1612-202X-4-12-009} to a multi-pole expansion of spherical harmonics, for example, but they do not allow for a full representation of a product Hilbert space.
As such, all symmetric-subspace Wigner functions are limited insofar that they cannot correctly show entanglement or represent the set of states that lie outside of this subspace (which, for large numbers, is nearly all of the Hilbert space).
To address the issue of the full representation of a product Hilbert space, we propose that the the phase space needs to be parametrized by more generalized coherent states such as those derived by Nemoto~\cite{Nemoto2000} and Mathur \textit{et.\ al.\ }\cite{Mathur2002}.
Such states can be used to construct characteristic functions beyond those written with atomic or three-level coherent states~\cite{Agarwal1981,Wolf6247,Luis-052112,Luis-495302,Klimov055303}.
These characteristic functions~\cite{TilmaKae1}, by satisfying the Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence~\cite{Stratonovich56}, are informationally-complete \SU{N}-symmetric, spin-$j$ descriptions of finite-dimensional quantum states (``qudits'')~\cite{Shibata1976,PhysRevA.59.971,Braunstein-1004.5425,Klimov-1008.2920}.
This work is in contrast to that proposed by Wootters~\cite{WOOTTERS19871} and others for generating characteristic functions of $N$-dimensional discrete systems.
There, the motivating mathematics are built around analyzing \emph{``systems having only a finite number of orthogonal states. The `phase space' for such a system is taken to be not continuous but discrete.''}~\cite{WOOTTERS19871}.
The phase space generated by such generalized coherent states is continuous in its parametrization (see~\cite{Boya2,UandCPN}), allows for Wigner functions to be generated by the methodology given in~\cite{1601.07772} (the expectation value of an appropriately normalized displaced general parity operator), can completely represent product Hilbert spaces of qudits (thus producing phase space signatures of entanglement) and gives a method for visualizing said functions that is equivalent to that done for symmetric subspace representations, which we now discuss in more detail.
\section{Background}
While it has been known for a long time that parity displacement could be done for continuous systems~\cite{Klauder-Sudarshan,Glauber1969}, following much work on the use of Wigner functions of discrete systems~\cite{Wigner1984,Agarwal1981,PhysRevA.59.971,Braunstein-1004.5425,Klimov-1008.2920,Luis-052112,Luis-495302,Klimov055303,TilmaKae1,Weyl1927,Moyal1949,Varilly:1989gs,WOOTTERS19871,PhysRevA.53.2998,VOURDAS1997367,PhysRevA.65.062309,PhysRevA.70.062101,Wolf6247}, it has only recently been proposed that any quantum system's Wigner function can be written as the expectation value of a displaced and/or rotated generalized parity operator~\cite{1601.07772}.
Mathematically this can be expressed as
\ba
\label{rDO0}
W_\rho(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)&=&\EX{U(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) \Pi U^\dag(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) }_\rho \nonumber \\
&=&\Trace{{{\rho}} \left\{U(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) \Pi U^\dag(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) \right\}}
\ea
where $W$ is the Wigner function and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace$ is the set of parameters over which displacement or rotations are defined (typically this would be position and momentum); ${{\rho}}$ is the density matrix; $U(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)$ is a general displacement/rotation operator, or collection of operators; and $\Pi$'s definition is motivated by the usual parity operator.
The conventional Wigner function in position and momentum space is obtained if $U$ is set to the displacement operator that defines coherent states, \ket{\alpha}, from the vacuum state, \ket{0}, according to $D(\alpha)\ket{0}=\ket{\alpha}$ and the operator $\Pi$ is defined to be twice the usual phase space parity operator so that $\Pi \ket{\alpha}=2\ket{-\alpha}$~\cite{PhysRevA.50.4488}.
For a given system the choice of $U(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)$ and $\Pi$ is not unique but in~\cite{1601.07772} it was stipulated that a distribution $W_{{\rho}}(\Omega)$ over a phase space defined by the parameters $\Omega$ is a Wigner function of ${\rho}$ if there exists a kernel ${\Delta}(\Omega)$ (which we show can be written as a similarity transform, with respect to a ``displacement'', of a parity-like operator, i.e. ${\Delta}(\Omega)=U(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) \Pi U^\dag(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)$ - and the Wigner function is the expectation value of this similarity-transformed operator) satisfying the following restricted version of the Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence (reproduced verbatim from~\cite{1601.07772}):
\begin{enumerate}[label=\sffamily \footnotesize \upshape S-W.\arabic*]
\item\label{D1} The mappings $\Func{{{\rho}}}=\Trace{{{\rho}} \, \ensuremath{\OperBare\left(\Param\right)}\xspace}$ and ${{\rho}} = \int_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace} \Func{{{\rho}}} \ensuremath{\OperBare\left(\Param\right)}\xspace \ud \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace$ exist and are informationally complete. Simply put, we can fully reconstruct ${{\rho}}$ from $\Func{{{\rho}}}$ and vice versa\footnote{For the inverse condition, an intermediate linear transform may be necessary.}.
\item\label{D2} $\Func{{{\rho}}}$ is always real valued which means that $\ensuremath{\OperBare\left(\Param\right)}\xspace$ must be Hermitian.
\item\label{D3} $\Func{{{\rho}}}$ is ``standardized'' so that the definite integral over all space $\int_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace} \Func{{{\rho}}} \ud \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace = \Tr{{{\rho}}}$ exists and $\int_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace} \ensuremath{\OperBare\left(\Param\right)}\xspace \ud \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace ={\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}}$.
\item\label{D4} Unique to Wigner functions, $\Func{{{\rho}}}$ is self-conjugate; the definite integral $\int_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace} \Func{{{\rho}}'}\Func{{{\rho}}''} \ud \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace= \Trace{{{\rho}}' {{\rho}}''} $ exists.
This is a restriction of the usual Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence.
\item\label{D5} Covariance:
Mathematically, any Wigner function generated by ``rotated'' operators ${\Delta}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace^{\prime})$ (by some unitary transformation $V$) must be equivalent to ``rotated'' Wigner functions generated from the original operator (${\Delta}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace^{\prime}) \equiv V \ensuremath{\OperBare\left(\Param\right)}\xspace V^{\dagger}$) - \textit{i.\ e.\ }if ${{\rho}}$ is invariant under global unitary operations then so is $\Func{{{\rho}}}$.
\end{enumerate}
If we define $U(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)$ as an element of a Special Unitary (SU) group that acts as a displacement or rotation and $\Pi$ as an appropriately normalised identity plus a traceless diagonal matrix (i.e.\ an element of the Cartan sub-algebra of the appropriate group) then, from~\cite{1601.07772},~\Eq{rDO0} is sufficient to generate Wigner functions for any finite-dimensional, continuous-variable, quantum system.
We note that beyond satisfying the Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence, we have yet to fully determine the level to which this definition is constrained.
Because $\Pi$ performs the same role as parity does in the standard Wigner function, we refer to it as an \emph{extended parity}.
\section{The Scheme}
In this work we present a procedure for the measurement and reconstruction of the quantum state for a series of qubits from two different Wigner functions that both satisfy the above restricted Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence.
We start by considering a Wigner function where the extended parity operator is defined with respect to the underlying group structure of the total system.
We then proceed to investigate another Wigner function, whose kernel comprises a tensor product of one-qubit kernels, which is arguably a more natural way of looking at composite quantum systems.
In both cases we apply our procedure to IBM's \emph{Quantum Experience} five-qubit quantum processor to demonstrate that we can measure and reconstruct the Wigner functions of two different Bell states and the five-qubit Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state.
While Wigner functions can be considered to be expectation values of displaced extended parity operators, this view does not necessarily lead to the best way to practically determine the Wigner function.
As previously discussed, displacing the extended parity operator and taking its expectation value should be the same as displacing/rotating the state, \textit{i.\ e.\ }creating a new ``state''
\bel{rDO}
\tilde{{\rho}}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)=U^\dag(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) {{\rho}} U(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace),
\ee
and calculating the expectation value of the unshifted extended parity operator.
\bel{rDO2}
\EX{ \Pi }_{\tilde{{\rho}}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)}=\Trace{\tilde{{\rho}}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) \Pi}.
\ee
Mathematically this is equivalent to our original expression for the Wigner function (\Eq{rDO0}) as trace is invariant under cyclic permutations of its arguments.
Furthermore, it is possible, and in some cases (such as with the IBM \emph{Quantum Experience}) easier, to make $\tilde{{\rho}}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)$ by performing local rotations on each qubit rather than displacing $\Pi$.
In the ideal case, the extended parity $\Pi$ shown in~\Eq{rDO2} will be directly measurable, allowing for reconstruction of the quantum state via its Wigner function without any intermediate steps being needed.
Even if it is not possible to measure the extended parity directly, such as with the IBM \emph{Quantum Experience}, there is a simple alternative.
Note that $\Pi$, as introduced in~\cite{1601.07772}, is always a diagonal operator in the computational basis.
The Wigner function is then easy to calculate according to
\bel{sum}
W(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)=\sum_n{\tilde{{\rho}}_{nn}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)}\Pi_{nn}.
\ee
To determine the Wigner function we are only required to measure the probability of the rotated system occupying each state of the computational basis.
For a set of qubits the rotation of the system can be intuitively defined in terms of rotation operators acting on each of the system's constituent parts.
Explicitly, we can define a total rotation operator for $N$ qubits as
\be
{\mathbb{U}}_N=\bigotimes_i^N {U}_i(\theta_i,\varphi_i,\Phi_i)
\ee
where $ {U}_i(\theta_i,\varphi_i,\Phi_i)=e^{\ui {\sigma}_{z_{i}} \varphi_i}e^{\ui {\sigma}_{y_{{i}}} \theta_i}e^{\ui{\sigma}_{z_{i}} \Phi_i}$ is the \SU{2} rotation operator for each qubit in terms of the Euler angles $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace_i=(\theta_i,\varphi_i,\Phi_i)$.
In the following sections we discuss the Wigner functions defined through two different possible choices of $\Pi$.
\section{A Spin Wigner function with \SU{\cdot} Extended Parity}
In this section we define and explore a Wigner function for $N$ qubits where the extended parity operator reflects the underlying group structure of the total system.
Here, extended parity is motivated by the idea of doing what amounts to a global $\pi$ rotation on the hypersphere of the underlying \SU{2^{[N]}} coherent state representation.
This is achieved by defining our extended parity operator $\Pi_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}$ as a $2^N \times 2^N$ diagonal matrix whose first element\footnote{This particular representation of extended parity is a rotation of the extended parity operator given in~\cite{1601.07772} that we have taken in order to keep within the conventions of the experimental physics and quantum information communities. As with the extended parity operator given in~\cite{1601.07772}, ours is still a linear function of the identity plus the Cartan sub-algebra of the selfsame SU group.} is $2^{-N}\left[1+(2^N-1)\sqrt{2^N+1}\right]$ and whose remaining diagonal elements are $2^{-N}\left[1-\sqrt{2^N+1}\right]$. For example,
\bel{pione}
\Pi_{\SU{2^{[1]}}}=\Half\begin{pmatrix}
1+\sqrt{3} & 0 \\
0&1-\sqrt{3} \\
\end{pmatrix}
=
\Half[{\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}}+\sqrt{3}\sigma_z]
\ee
for one qubit and
\ba
\label{parity}
\Pi_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}&=&\frac{1}{4}
\begin{pmatrix}
1+3\sqrt{5} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0&1-\sqrt{5} & 0 & 0 \\
0&0&1-\sqrt{5} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &1-\sqrt{5}\\
\end{pmatrix} \\
&=&
\frac{1}{4}[{\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} \otimes {\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} + \sqrt{5} \, {\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} \otimes \sigma_z + \sqrt{5} \, \sigma_z \otimes {\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} + \sqrt{5} \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z] \nonumber
\ea
for two qubits in the computational basis.
Combining this definition of extended parity with the composite rotation operator, $\mathbb{U}_N$ we obtain the kernel
\be
\ensuremath{{\Delta}}\xspace_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}(\{\theta_i,\varphi_i\}) =
\mathbb{U}_{N}
\hat{\Pi}_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}
\mathbb{U}_N^\dag
\ee
that satisfies the restricted Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence given in the introduction.
We note that the $\Phi_i$'s make no contribution as $\Pi_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}$ commutes with $\sigma_{z_i}$.
This kernel defines our $\SU{2^{[N]}}$, extended parity-based, Wigner function according to
\bel{Wparity}
W_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}(\{\theta_i,\varphi_i\})= \Trace{\rho \, \mathbb{U}_N
\hat{\Pi}_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}
\mathbb{U}_N^\dag}.
\ee
Let us now consider the specific case of the Wigner function $W_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}$ for two qubits.
Each qubit brings with it two degrees of freedom, expressed in terms of Euler angles $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace=(\theta_1,\varphi_1,\theta_2,\varphi_2)$, thus the associated Wigner function takes the form of a four-dimensional pseudo-probability distribution $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\theta_1,\varphi_1,\theta_2,\varphi_2)$.
Four-dimensional functions are not easy to visualise, but we can take slices of the function in order to gain an appreciation of it as a whole.
In~\Fig{fig:example}(a-d) we show some example Wigner function slices for two Bell states.
Specifically~\Fig{fig:example}(a,b) shows the equal angle (``$=\sphericalangle$'') slice $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}^{=\sphericalangle}(\theta,\varphi)=W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\theta,\varphi,\theta,\varphi)$ while~\Fig{fig:example}(c,d) shows the slice $W^{\varphi_i=0}_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\theta_1,\theta_2)=W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\theta_1,0,\theta_2,0)$. Note that~\Fig{fig:example}(e,f) will be discussed in section~\ref{TPsec}.
\begin{figure*}[!tb]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0]
\pgftext[bottom,left]{%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim=40 50 100 20,clip=true]{figure02}%
}%
\def 2.2 {2.2}
\def 1 {1}
\node[anchor=west] at (1.2,12.2-2.2) {{\bf (a)}};
\node[anchor=west] at (1.2,5-1) {{\bf (b)}};
\node[anchor=west] at (9.3,12.2-2.2) {{\bf (c)}};
\node[anchor=west] at (9.3,5-1) {{\bf (d)}};
\node[anchor=west] at (13.5,12.2-2.2) {{\bf (e)}};
\node[anchor=west] at (13.5,5-1) {{\bf (f)}};
\def 6 {6}
\node at (0.9,6){ \includegraphics[height=5cm]{colourbar}%
};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8,6-2.5) {$-0.5$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8,6+0.8) {$0.5$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8,6+2.5) {$1$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8,6-0.85) {$0$};
\def 1.6 {1.6}
\node[anchor=west] at (3,8.2-1.6) {$x$};
\node[anchor=west] at (3,0.6) {$x$};
\node[anchor=west] at (5.4,8.5-1.6) {$y$};
\node[anchor=west] at (5.4,0.8) {$y$};
\node[anchor=west] at (1.4,10.2-1.6) {$z$};
\node[anchor=west] at (1.4,2.6) {$z$};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (0.4,9.2) {$\ket{\Phi_-}$};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (0.4,3) {$\ket{\Psi_+}$};
\def 5.7 {5.7}
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (2,5.7) {\begin{tabular}{c}
{\large $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}^{=\sphericalangle}(\theta, \varphi)$}\vspace*{4pt}\\
$\theta_1=\theta_2=\theta, \varphi_1 =\varphi_2=\varphi$
\end{tabular}
};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (9.94,5.7-0.1) {\begin{tabular}{c}
{\large $W^{\varphi_i=0}_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\theta_1, \theta_2)$} \vspace*{4pt}\\
$\varphi_1 =\varphi_2=0$
\end{tabular}
};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (14.06,5.7-0.1) {\begin{tabular}{c}
{\large $W^{\varphi_i=0}_{\bigotimes^2\SU{2}}(\theta_1, \theta_2)$}\vspace*{4pt} \\
$\varphi_1 =\varphi_2=0$
\end{tabular}};
\node[anchor=west] at (11.4,1.6-1) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (9.3,3.6-1) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (11.4,8.9-2.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (9.3,10.8-2.2) {$\theta_2$};
\def 0.1 {4.3}
\node[anchor=west] at (11.4+0.1,1.6-1) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (9.3+0.1,3.6-1) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (11.4+0.1,8.9-2.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (9.3+0.1,10.8-2.2) {$\theta_2$};
\fill[white] (8, 0) rectangle (8.1,13.65);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ \label{fig:example} \textbf{(a-d)} Slices from the four-dimensional Wigner function $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\theta_1, \varphi_1, \theta_2, \varphi_2)$ of two qubits for two different, maximally entangled, Bell states $\ket{\Phi_-}=(\ket{0}_1\ket{0}_2-\ket{1}_1\ket{1}_2)/\sqrt{2}$ and $\ket{\Psi_+}=(\ket{0}_1\ket{1}_2+\ket{1}_1\ket{0}_2)/\sqrt{2}$.
The three-dimensional plots \textbf{(a,b)} show $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}^{=\sphericalangle}(\theta, \varphi)$, the slice where $\theta=\theta_1=\theta_2$ and $\varphi=\varphi_1=\varphi_2$.
The two-dimensional plots \textbf{(c,d)} of $\theta_1$ versus $\theta_2$ show $W^{\varphi_i=0}_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\theta_1, \theta_2)$, the slice where $\varphi_1=\varphi_2=0$.
We recommend that the reader see the supplementary material which expands on these figures and shows animations of the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm~\cite{DeutschJoza} and the creation of all four Bell states (in the animations, for example, it becomes clear that the Wigner functions for the Bell states [or for that matter, any maximally entangled two qubit state] are simply rotations of the same function in four-dimensional space).
Later in this work we will present experimental reconstructions of the $\theta_1$ versus $\theta_2$ plots.
In understanding the form of these plots we note that the $\ket{\Psi_+}$ state is one with total spin-angular momentum $\hbar$ but zero total $z$ spin-angular momentum.
We thus expect to see the observed ring-like symmetry in $W_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}^{=\sphericalangle}(\theta, \varphi)$ for $\ket{\Psi_+}$ (the symmetry of $\ket{\Phi_-}$ follows from $\ket{\Psi_+}$ as they are rotations of each other in four-dimensional space).
This state is also an angular-momentum analogue of a photon number (Fock) state which shares a similar symmetry in its Wigner function~\cite{PhysRevA.70.053821,PhysRevLett.87.050402,PhysRevLett.89.200402}.
In \textbf{(e,f)} we show $W^{\varphi_i=0}_{\bigotimes^2\SU{2}}(\theta_1, \theta_2)$ created using the alternative extended parity operator $\Pi_{\bigotimes^2\SU{2}}$ as discussed in section~\ref{TPsec}.
The availability of more than one extended parity operator, which produces Wigner functions with qualitatively very similar features, opens up possible alternative paths for direct phase space reconstruction (note we have also included an animation of $W_{\bigotimes^2\SU{2}}$ for the creation of the Bell states in the supplementary material).}
\end{figure*}
In order to demonstrate that this function is indeed easy to construct we have taken advantage of IBM's \emph{Quantum Experience} project.
The project makes available through the Internet a five-qubit processor, initially based on a simple ``star'' topology\footnote{Before the early 2017 update by IBM}: a central qubit is coupled to four other qubits.
The machine has already been used to produce interesting results~\cite{1605.05709,1605.04220}.
Here we use it to measure and reconstruct the Wigner functions for the two Bell states $\ket{\Phi_+}$ and $\ket{\Psi_-}$ as presented in~\Fig{fig:example}.
In this work, we are limited by the operations that IBM has made available to the user, operations that naturally focus on quantum computing applications.
Nevertheless, following~\Eq{rDO}, we are able to produce $\tilde{{\rho}}(\theta_1,\varphi_1,\theta_2,\varphi_2)$ using rotations generated by combinations of gate operations and readout state populations of $\tilde{{\rho}}_{nn}(\theta_1,\varphi_1,\theta_2,\varphi_2)$ via the standard output of the IBM processor.
We then use~\Eq{sum} and~\Eq{parity} to reconstruct the Wigner function,~\Eq{Wparity}.
In~\Fig{fig:IBM2qubit} we plot the Wigner function $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}^{\varphi_i=0}(\theta_{1},\theta_{2})$ slices comparing the ideal theoretical values of~\Fig{fig:example}(c,d), values generated by IBM's built in simulator (that models environmental effects), and real experimental data.
The calibration data pertaining to the experiments is provided in Table~\ref{table}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0]
\node[inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure03a}};
\node[inner sep=0pt] at (0,-3.2)
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim=0 150 0 60,clip=true]{figure03b}};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-2.9,2.6) {\sf Theory};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-0.66,2.6) {\sf Simulated};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (1.6,2.6) {\sf Experimental};
\def \Xs {3.3};
\def \Ys {-4.7};
\node at (0.9+\Xs,4+\Ys){ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{colourbar}%
};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,2.5+\Ys) {\footnotesize$-0.5$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,4.5+\Ys) {\footnotesize$0.5$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,5.45+\Ys) {\footnotesize$1$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,3.5+\Ys) {\footnotesize$0$};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-4.3,1.8) {$\ket{\Phi_-}$};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-4.3,-0.5) {$\ket{\Psi_+}$};
\node[anchor=center] at (-3.0,-4.2) {$\underbrace{\hspace{45pt}}_{\text{\footnotesize \sf Gates for \ket{\Phi_-}}}$};
\node[anchor=center] at (1.4,-4.2) {$\underbrace{\hspace{120pt}}_{\text{\footnotesize \sf Gates for performing $\theta$ rotations}}$};
\node[anchor=center] at (4.05,-4.2) {$\underbrace{\hspace{10pt}}_{\text{\footnotesize \sf Readout}}$};
\def 0.1 {0.1}
\node[anchor=west] at (0,0.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-2.5,0.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (2.5,0.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (0,-2.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-2.5,-2.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (2.5,-2.2) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-3.6-0.1,-1.1) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-1.15-0.1,-1.1) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (1.3-0.1,-1.1) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-3.6-0.1,1.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-1.15-0.1,1.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (1.3-0.1,1.3) {$\theta_2$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{fig:IBM2qubit} Plots of the spin Wigner function for the two Bell states $\ket{\Phi_+}$ and $\ket{\Psi_-}$.
We plot $\theta_1$ versus $\theta_2$ for the $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}^{\varphi_i=0}$ slice of the Wigner function for two qubits; making use of the periodicity of the function at the edges of each plot for computational efficiency.
We have included for comparison ideal theoretical values, numerical results using IBM's built in simulator, and real experimental data from IBM's quantum processor.
The quantum circuit presented above is a screenshot taken directly from IBM's \emph{Quantum Experience} web interface.
It provides an example of the measurement protocol we used to obtain the diagonal elements of the rotated density matrix $\tilde{{\rho}}_{nn}(\theta_1,\varphi_1,\theta_2,\varphi_2)$.
The theoretical, simulated, and experimental data are all in very good agreement with each other.
Slight differences exist due to imperfect implementation of needed rotations due to different gate operations having different levels of noise (decoherence).
It should be straightforward to replace the ``Gates for performing $\theta$ rotations'' with generalized rotation operators on each qubit.
Furthermore, if measurement of the extended parity operator ($\Pi$) were available, direct observation of the quantum state would be reduced to a two-stage process of rotate and measure.
We believe such a protocol, because it would need fewer gate operations, would result in better agreement between theory and experiment than that seen in this figure. Note that in order to have good colour graduation in the transition from positive to negative values there is some color clipping for the very strong blue points.}
\end{figure}
In principle, to fully reconstruct the state requires us to measure the same number of points as needed to reconstruct the density matrix.
In~\Fig{fig:IBM2qubit} we have actually measured more, and different, points than would be needed to fully reconstruct the state.
This was done to demonstrate the ability to generate the Wigner function using a raster scan approach as this makes clear the straightforward nature of our measurement method.
Due to finite computational resources, and the need to do rotations as outlined above, we are limited in our resolution.
Nevertheless, we find good agreement between theory, simulation, and experimental data, demonstrating that our tomographic process is clearly able to distinguish between the two Bell states.
\newcolumntype{d}[1]{D{.}{.}{#1} }
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|l | d{-1} d{-1} | d{-1}d{-1}d{-1}d{-1}d{-1}|}
\cline{2-8}
\multicolumn{1}{ c|}{}& \multicolumn{2}{ c|}{Bell} & \multicolumn{5}{ c|}{GHZ}\\ \hline
qubit & \mathrm{1} & \mathrm{2} & \mathrm{0} & \mathrm{1} & \mathrm{2} & \mathrm{3} & \mathrm{3}\\ \hline \hline
$T_1 (\mathrm{\mu s})$ & 85.8 & 75.1 & 58.9 & 87.1 & 74.7 & 74.8 & 65.5\\
$T_2 (\mathrm{\mu s})$ & 109.6 & 58.8 & 74.8 & 142.2 & 59.2 & 53.2 & 48.4\\
$\epsilon_g (\times 10^{-2})$ & 0.15 & 0.2 & 0.29 & 0.2 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.89\\
$\epsilon_r (\times 10^{-2})$ & 4.6 & 4.3 & 4.6 & 4.2 & 3.6 & 3.6 & 5.7\\
$\epsilon_g^{i2} (\times 10^{-2})$ & 3.19 & & 5.21 & 3.31 & & 3.18 & 6.55 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Calibration data for the experimental results contained within this paper.
Data for the Bell state and GHZ Wigner functions were taken on 16\Th and 17\Th June 2016 when the fridge temperature was 18.25\,mK and 17.916\,mK respectively.
$T_1$ and $T_2$ are the usual relaxation times, $\epsilon_g$ is the gate error, $\epsilon_r$ is the readout error and $\epsilon_g^{i2}$ is the C-NOT gate error between the qubit listed and qubit 2 (which is the target qubit for the C-NOT operation).
\label{table}}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0]
\node[inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure04a}};
\node[inner sep=0pt] at (0,-5.2)
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure04b}}
\def \Xs {3};
\def \Ys {-1.8};
\fill[white,draw=black] (\Xs+0.3, \Ys+2.3) rectangle (\Xs+1.1,\Ys+5.7);
\node at (0.9+\Xs,4+\Ys){ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{colourbarFigure4}%
};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xs,4+0.8+\Ys) {\footnotesize$2$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xs,4-0.3+\Ys) {\footnotesize$1$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xs,4-1.35+\Ys) {\footnotesize$0$};
\def 0.15 {0.15}
\def 1.35 {1.35}
\def -0.2 {-0.2}
\draw[ultra thick,color = white] (2.2,-3) -- (1.35,-3)-- (1.35,-0.2);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (1.35,-0.2) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (2.2,-3) -- (1.35,-3)-- (1.35,-0.2);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (1.35,-0.2)circle (1pt);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white] (-2,-3) -- (0.15,-3)-- (0.15,-2);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (0.15,-2) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (-2,-3) -- (0.15,-3)-- (0.15,-2);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (0.15,-2)circle (1pt);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,] (-2,3) -- (0.15,3)-- (0.15,1.3);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (0.15,1.3) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (-2,3) -- (0.15,3)-- (0.15,1.3);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (0.15,1.3) circle (1pt);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,] (-3.6,-2) -- (-3.6,0.6)-- (-1.76,0.6);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (-1.76,0.6) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (-3.6,-2) -- (-3.6,0.6)-- (-1.76,0.6);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (-1.76,0.6) circle (1pt);
\def \Lx {2.3};
\def \Ly {0.5};
\def \Tx {0.0};
\def \Ty {0.24};
\def \Bx {0.3};
\def \Be {0.5};
\def \By {0.17};
\definecolor{colourtwoSim}{rgb}{0.7893 0.90638 1
\definecolor{colourtwoExp}{rgb}{0.80102 0.91159 1
\def \PAx {1.8};
\def \PAy {-3};
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colourtwoSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colourtwoExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\definecolor{colourfourSim}{rgb}{0 0.15106 0.86336}
\definecolor{colourfourExp}{rgb}{ 0 0.24714 0.93542}
\def \PAx {-3};
\def \PAy {-3};
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colourfourSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colourfourExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\definecolor{colouroneSim}{rgb}{0 0.1787 0.88409}
\definecolor{colouroneExp}{rgb}{0 0.29489 0.97124}
\def \PAx {-3.2};
\def \PAy {3};
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colouroneSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colouroneExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\def \PAx {-4.2};
\def \PAy {-1.6};
\definecolor{colourthreeSim}{rgb}{1 0.069291 0.086275
\definecolor{colourthreeExp}{rgb}{1 0.86772 0.8902
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colourthreeSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colourthreeExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\def \UB {-6.7};
\node[anchor=center] at (-2.25,\UB) {$\underbrace{\hspace{90pt}}_{\text{\footnotesize \sf Gates for \ket{\mathrm{GHZ}}}}$};
\node[anchor=center] at (1.6,\UB) {$\underbrace{\hspace{85pt}}_{\text{\ \footnotesize \sf Gates performing rotations}}$};
\node[anchor=center] at (3.95,\UB) {$\underbrace{\hspace{10pt}}_{\text{\ \footnotesize \sf Output}}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{fig:spin_cat} Here we show the five-qubit GHZ spin Schr\"odinger cat state Wigner function $W_{\SU{2^5}}$ for the $\theta_1=\theta_2=\theta_3=\theta_4=\theta_5$ and $\varphi_1=\varphi_2=\varphi_3=\varphi_4=\varphi_5$ slice.
This can be considered a qubit-system analogue of~\Fig{fig:classic} and which was presented in~\cite{Deleglise:2008gt} to reconstruct non-classical cavity field states.
We note that in~\cite{Deleglise:2008gt} the interference terms that were observed correspond to quantum coherence in macroscopically distinct superpositions of states.
In this figure, the interference terms should be interpreted as a direct visualisation of the entanglement in the system.
Here we show the ideal function, and as insets, show both simulated and experimental results from IBM's \emph{Quantum Experience} project.
In this figure we also show an example circuit used to generate simulated and experimental data.
As with the circuits used to create the Bell states presented in~\Fig{fig:IBM2qubit}, these gate operations ideally would be replaced by optimized, single-rotation, operations that have very recently been made available by IBM.
We note that the two, non-polar, points can be obtained in a variety of ways.
Specifically they could be found by using just $\theta$ rotations, or through a combination of $\theta$ and $\varphi$ rotations.
We have verified that the results that we obtained from the IBM \emph{Quantum Experience} project are independent of the combination of rotations used.
}
\end{figure}
Bell states are interesting both as an example of maximally entangled states and for their usefulness in quantum information processing.
Fortunately, for systems comprising more spins, we can extend this class of states to those that have a direct analogy with optical Schr\"odinger cat states as considered in~\cite{Deleglise:2008gt} and others.
Such states are termed ``spin-cat states'' of which the GHZ state~\cite{GHZ} is an excellent example.
In previous theoretical work, spin Wigner-like functions have been proposed as a mechanism for visualizing such cat states~\cite{PhysRevA.49.4101,PhysRevA.85.022113,PhysRevA.87.052323}.
In analogy with measuring Wigner functions of non-classical cavity field states~\cite{Deleglise:2008gt}, using our method we now construct the $W_{\SU{2^{[5]}}}$ Wigner function for a spin-cat of the form $\ket{\mathrm{GHZ}_5}=(\ket{0}_1\ket{0}_2 \ket{0}_3\ket{0}_4\ket{0}_5+\ket{1}_1\ket{1}_2 \ket{1}_3\ket{1}_4\ket{1}_5)/\sqrt{2}$.
In~\Fig{fig:spin_cat} we show the $\theta_1=\theta_2=\theta_3=\theta_4=\theta_5$ and $\varphi_1=\varphi_2=\varphi_3=\varphi_4=\varphi_5$ slice of the $W_{\SU{2^{[5]}}}$ Wigner function for $\ket{\mathrm{GHZ}_5}$ which is the higher dimensional analogue of~\Fig{fig:example}(a,b).
We show both theoretical predictions and, due to limited computational resource, as insets, simulation and experimental data obtained from the IBM machine.
Once more the calibration data pertaining to the experiments is provided in Table~\ref{table}.
We note that the $\theta_1=\theta_2=\theta_3=\theta_4=\theta_5$ and $\varphi_1=\varphi_2=\varphi_3=\varphi_4=\varphi_5$ slice does not contain all the information needed to reconstruct the state; for full reconstruction we would need to measure and visualise all $\{\theta_i, \theta_j\} \, i \neq j$ sets of angles for various values of $\varphi_i$.
For the top and bottom point the theoretical value is $2.7$ while the simulated values are $1.64$ and $1.70$, and experimental values $1.16$ and $1.22$, respectively.
Here simulation and experiment are in good agreement.
The difference from the theoretical values for all four points indicates that there is some decoherence and/or gate and measurement errors in the system, mostly accounted for in IBM's simulation, meaning that the observed state is not in an ideal GHZ state.
\section{A Wigner function for tensor products of spins \label{TPsec}}
The Stratonovich-Weyl conditions do not uniquely specify the extended parity operator $\Pi$ and hence the Wigner function is also not uniquely defined.
Because of this, it is natural to ask what difference choosing alternative Wigner functions will make.
As our current focus is on experimental reconstruction of the quantum state in phase space, we believe that it is instructive to explore at least one alternative whose direct measurement may be more readily available to those working in quantum information.
In the previous case, the definition of extended parity was motivated by the idea of a global $\pi$ rotation on the hypersphere of the underlying \SU{2^{[N]}} coherent state representation.
In this case the notion of extended parity is motivated on an individual qubit level; a global $\pi$ rotation on each qubit's Bloch sphere.
This leads to a extended parity operator that is nothing more than the tensor product of the parities of individual qubits:
\be
\Pi_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}=\bigotimes_{i=1}^N \Pi_{\SU{2^{[1]}}}^{(i)}=\bigotimes_{i=1}^N\Half({\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}}+\sqrt{3}\sigma_{z_i}),
\ee
which for one qubit is equal to~\Eq{pione} but for two qubits takes the explicit form
\ba
\Pi_{\bigotimes ^2 \SU{2}} &=&\frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
2+\sqrt{3} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0&-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0&0&-1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &2-\sqrt{3}\\
\end{pmatrix} \\
&=& \frac{1}{4}[{\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} \otimes {\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} + \sqrt{3} \, {\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} \otimes \sigma_z + \sqrt{3} \, \sigma_z \otimes {\mathchoice {\rm {1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm{1\mskip-4.5mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-3.8mu l}} {\rm {1\mskip-4.3mu l}}} + 3 \, \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z] \nonumber
\ea
in the computational basis.
When compared with~\Eq{parity} we see that this version of extended parity no longer treats one-qubit and two-qubit contributions on an equal footing.
The definition of the Wigner function continues in the same way as before and, in terms of the rotated density matrix $\tilde{\rho}=\mathbb{U}_N^\dag \rho \mathbb{U}_N$ takes the form
\ba
W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)&=&\Trace{\tilde{{\rho}}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace) \Pi_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}}
\nonumber \\ \label{wprime}
&=&\sum_n{\tilde{{\rho}}_{nn}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)}\left(\Pi_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}\right)_{nn}.
\ea
Returning to~\Fig{fig:example}(e,f) we show example slices of $W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}^{\theta_i=0}(\theta_1,\theta_2)=W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}(\theta_1,\varphi_1=0,\theta_2,\varphi_2=0)$ that demonstrates this alternative Wigner function is qualitatively very similar to the equivalent slices of $W_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}(\Omega)$ shown in~\Fig{fig:example}(c,d).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0]
\def -7.3 {-7.3}
\node[inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure05a}};
\node[inner sep=0pt] at (0, -7.3)
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure05b}}
\def \Xs {3};
\def \Ys {-1.8};
\fill[white,draw=black] (\Xs+0.3, \Ys+2.3) rectangle (\Xs+1.1,\Ys+5.7);
\node at (0.9+\Xs,4+\Ys){ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{colourbarFigure5}%
};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xs,4+0.1+\Ys) {\footnotesize$1$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xs,4+1.2+\Ys) {\footnotesize$2$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xs,4-1+\Ys) {\footnotesize$0$};
\def 0.15 {0.15}
\def 1.35 {1.35}
\def -0.2 {-0.2}
\draw[ultra thick,color = white] (2.2,-3) -- (1.35,-3)-- (1.35,-0.2);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (1.35,-0.2) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (2.2,-3) -- (1.35,-3)-- (1.35,-0.2);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (1.35,-0.2)circle (1pt);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white] (-2,-3) -- (0.15,-3)-- (0.15,-2);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (0.15,-2) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (-2,-3) -- (0.15,-3)-- (0.15,-2);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (0.15,-2)circle (1pt);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,] (-2,3) -- (0.15,3)-- (0.15,1.3);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (0.15,1.3) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (-2,3) -- (0.15,3)-- (0.15,1.3);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (0.15,1.3) circle (1pt);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,] (-3.6,-2) -- (-3.6,0.6)-- (-1.76,0.6);
\draw[ultra thick,color = white,fill= white] (-1.76,0.6) circle (1.2pt);
\draw[thick,color = black] (-3.6,-2) -- (-3.6,0.6)-- (-1.76,0.6);
\draw[thick,color = black,fill=black] (-1.76,0.6) circle (1pt);
\def \Lx {2.3};
\def \Ly {0.5};
\def \Tx {0.0};
\def \Ty {0.24};
\def \Bx {0.3};
\def \Be {0.5};
\def \By {0.17};
\definecolor{colourtwoSim}{rgb}{0.20303 0.60391 1
\definecolor{colourtwoExp}{rgb}{0.30137 0.6899 1
\def \PAx {1.8};
\def \PAy {-3};
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colourtwoSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colourtwoExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\definecolor{colourfourSim}{rgb}{0 0 0.5}
\definecolor{colourfourExp}{rgb}{ 0 0 0.5}
\def \PAx {-3};
\def \PAy {-3};
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colourfourSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colourfourExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\definecolor{colouroneSim}{rgb}{0 0 0.5}
\definecolor{colouroneExp}{rgb}{0 0 0.53959}
\def \PAx {-3.2};
\def \PAy {3};
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colouroneSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colouroneExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\def \PAx {-4.2};
\def \PAy {-1.6};
\definecolor{colourthreeSim}{rgb}{0.8 0 0
\definecolor{colourthreeExp}{rgb}{1 0.30551 0.38039
\filldraw[fill=white, draw=black] (\PAx, {\PAy-\Ly}) rectangle ({\PAx+\Lx},{\PAy+\Ly});
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy+\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Simulation};
\node[align=left,anchor=west] at ({\PAx+\Tx}, {\PAy-\Ty}) {\footnotesize \sf Experiment};
\filldraw[fill= colourthreeSim, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy+\Ty-\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy+\Ty+\Bx-\By});
\filldraw[fill= colourthreeExp, draw=black] ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be}, {\PAy-\Ty+\By}) rectangle ({(\PAx+\Lx)-\Be+\Bx},{\PAy-\Ty-\Bx+\By});
\def \UB {-6.7};
\def 0.1 {0.1}
\node[anchor=west] at (0,0.2+-7.3) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-2.5,0.2+-7.3) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (2.5,0.2+-7.3) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (0,-2.2+-7.3) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-2.5,-2.2+-7.3) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (2.5,-2.2+-7.3) {$\theta_1$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-3.6-0.1,-1.1+-7.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-1.15-0.1,-1.1+-7.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (1.3-0.1,-1.1+-7.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-3.6-0.1,1.3+-7.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (-1.15-0.1,1.3+-7.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west] at (1.3-0.1,1.3+-7.3) {$\theta_2$};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-2.9,2.6+-7.3) {\sf Theory};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-0.66,2.6+-7.3) {\sf Simulated};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (1.6,2.6+-7.3) {\sf Experimental};
\def \Xs {3.3};
\def \Ys {-4.7};
\node at (0.9+\Xs,4+\Ys+-7.3){ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{colourbar}%
};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,2.5+\Ys+-7.3) {\footnotesize$-0.5$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,4.5+\Ys+-7.3) {\footnotesize$0.5$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,5.45+\Ys+-7.3) {\footnotesize$1$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.85+\Xs,3.5+\Ys+-7.3) {\footnotesize$0$};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-4.3,1.8+-7.3) {$\ket{\Phi_-}$};
\node[anchor=west,rectangle,draw, fill=white] at (-4.3,-0.5+-7.3) {$\ket{\Psi_+}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{fig:prime}
Here we reproduce Figs.~3 and~4 using the same data but now employing the Wigner function defined using the alternative extended parity operators as given in~\Eq{wprime}.
In the top figure, for comparison with Fig.~4, we show the five-qubit GHZ spin Schr\"odinger cat state Wigner function $W_{\bigotimes^5 \SU{2}}$ for the $\theta_1=\theta_2=\theta_3=\theta_4=\theta_5$ and $\varphi_1=\varphi_2=\varphi_3=\varphi_4=\varphi_5$ slice.
Again we show the ideal function, and as insets, show both simulated and experimental results from IBM's \emph{Quantum Experience} project.
On the bottom figure, for comparison with Fig.~3, we provide plots of $W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}}$ for the two Bell states $\ket{\Phi_+}$ and $\ket{\Psi_-}$.
We plot $\theta_1$ versus $\theta_2$ for the $\varphi_1=\varphi_2=0$ slice of the Wigner function for two qubits.
Once more, we have included for comparison ideal theoretical values, numerical results using IBM's built in simulator, and real experimental data from IBM's quantum processor.
Again we see good agreement between theory, simulation and experiment and note that using a different extended parity operator provides an alternative path to direct measurement of phase space.}
\end{figure}
In~\Fig{fig:prime} (top) we show results for comparison with~\Fig{fig:spin_cat} and (bottom) (and, by analogy, with non-classical cavity field states~\cite{Deleglise:2008gt}) with~\Fig{fig:IBM2qubit} which demonstrates that $W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}$ is a Wigner function with qualitatively very similar features to $W_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}$ that will be compared in the next section.
For the top and bottom point the theoretical value is $2.375$.
The simulated values are $1.13$ and $1.11$, and the experimental values are $0.8876$ and $0.9006$, respectively.
\section{Efficient state estimation, characterisation, and entanglement validation}
As they are informationally complete, our Wigner functions for spin can be considered mathematically equivalent to the density matrix/state space formulation. They also exhibit unique, and intuitively natural, characteristic features. If, for example, we look at~\Fig{fig:prime} for the GHZ state (which is a superposition of spin coherent states) it is clear that there are regions of strong oscillations in the equal angle slice; these are reminiscent of the interference terms between two harmonic oscillator coherent states shown in~\Fig{fig:classic}. It is natural to ask if measurement of such characteristic features can be used to verify non-classical properties of the state such as quantum coherence or entanglement. In other words, can we extract information in a similar way as for Wigner functions of continuous systems where negativity is a signature of non-classical correlations? In finite dimensional systems things are a little more complicated as negativity of the Wigner function has some subtle complexities which we will expand on later in this manuscript and in full detail in a later work.
Moreover, the exact form of a state's spin Wigner function is fixed by the chosen extended parity operator that is used.
As such, it may be that different extended parity operations may be more or less useful in revealing particular characteristic features of the quantum state. In order to focus the discussion in this section we fix our choice of parity and Wigner function to $\Pi_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}$ and $W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}$.
We discuss with reference to this specific Wigner function possibilities for efficient state characterisation/categorisation (e.g. by identifying features peculiar to GHZ states).
We show that if one has sufficient prior information about the expected state of the system (such as, that it comprises a superposition of antipodal spin coherent states) it may be possible to validate entanglement with only a couple of measurements.
To begin we consider the $N$-qubit state
\be
\label{rhoGHZ}
\rho(\gamma) = \gamma \rho_\text{GHZ} + ( 1 - \gamma ) \rho_{m}
\ee
where $\gamma\in[0,1]$. Here $\rho(\gamma)$ interpolates between the density operators $\rho_\mathrm{GHZ}$ for the GHZ state (the coherent superposition of \ket{11111} and \ket{00000} with $\gamma=1$) and $\rho_{m}$ for the statistical mixture of \ket{11111} and \ket{00000} (with $\gamma=0$).
The Wigner function of this state is
\ba
\label{analGHZ}
W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}^{(\gamma)}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)&&=\frac{1}{2^{N+1}}\prod_{i=1}^{N}(1+\sqrt{3}\cos 2\theta_i) \\
&&+ \frac{1}{2^{N+1}}\prod_{i=1}^{N}(1-\sqrt{3}\cos 2\theta_i) \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{\gamma}{2^{N}}\prod_{i=1}^{N}(\sqrt{3}\sin 2\theta_i)\cos\left(2\sum_i^N{\varphi_i }\right). \nonumber
\ea
When $\gamma = 1$ we can see that the $N$-qubit GHZ state is made up of three terms: the first two correspond to the first and last diagonal elements of the density matrix in~\Eq{rhoGHZ} and the third (interference) term to the maximally off-diagonal elements.
\Fig{fig:mixedVentangled} compares the equal-angle Wigner functions $(\theta=\theta_{1}=\cdots=\theta_{N}, \varphi=\varphi_{1}=\cdots=\varphi_{N})$ of (a) the GHZ state $\gamma=1$ and (b) the separable mixed state $\gamma=0$.
As can be seen, the maxima at the top and bottom of the sphere are the same in both states, although the equatorial oscillations are absent in the separable state.
From this simple example, it is clear that the oscillations around the equator, where all $\theta_i = \pi/4$, arise entirely from the $\cos\left(2\sum_{i}^{N}\varphi_i\right)$ term.
These oscillations, which are of maximum possible frequency for a Wigner function with this number of qubits, are characteristic of GHZ type superposition (compare the iconic Wigner function~\Fig{fig:classic}) and are analogous to the super-resolution oscillations observed in $N00N$ states \cite{Boto}. We note that any antipodal superposition of spin coherent states will be look like a rotated version of ~\Fig{fig:mixedVentangled}(a) with interference terms along the geodesic bisecting them. It is natural to ask if such oscillations can be used to certify GHZ-type entanglement. We note that negativity in the Wigner function alone is insufficient to be a signal of entanglement. To illustrate this we show in~\Fig{fig:mixedVentangled}(c) the equal angle slice Wigner function for the state \ket{10000} and note that despite being separable it has significant negativity in this equal-angle slice. Indeed the equal-angle slice of $W_{\bigotimes^5 \SU{2}}$ function for the statistical mixture of $\ket{10000}$, $\ket{01000}$, etc is identical to \Fig{fig:mixedVentangled}(c). In order to establish if there is a potential to use the characteristic features of the GHZ Wigner function equal-angle slice for certification we can ask what is the nearest separable state in terms of its phase space characteristics. We believe the closest in form is the `clock' state which we define by
\bel{clockstate}\ket{\psi_\text{clock}}=\frac{1}{2^{N/2}}\bigotimes_{k=1}^{N}\left[\ket0+\exp\left({2\ui \pi k\over N}\right)\ket1 \right],\ee
whose Wigner function is
\be
\label{clock}
W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}^\text{clock}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace)
=\frac{1}{2^N}\prod_{k=1}^N 1+\sqrt{3}\sin 2\theta_k \cos\left(
2\varphi_k+\frac{2\pi k}{N}\right)\ee
We show the equal angle slice of this function in \Fig{fig:mixedVentangled}(d). We note that there is a similar oscillatory character to that seen in the GHZ state but that it is exponentially smaller in amplitude. For this reason we show this function again in \Fig{fig:mixedVentangled}(e) but on a different scale. It is straightforward to show\footnote{The maximum-frequency equatorial oscillations of the Wigner function are determined by the top-right and bottom-left elements of the density matrix. The maximum amplitude of these for any product state $\bigotimes_{k=1}^N (a_k\ket0 + b_k\ket1)$ occurs when $|a_k|=|b_k|=1/\sqrt2$ and has magnitude $2^{-N}$, compared with $2^{-1}$ for the GHZ state.} therefore that oscillations of this wavelength that exceed those of the clock state Wigner oscillations is a signature of a GHZ type of entanglement - something that in principle can be established with only two measurements.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\node[anchor=south] at (0,0) {
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim={100 50 30 30},clip = true]{figure06}
};
\node[anchor=south] at (-5.9,0.3) {
\includegraphics[width=0.185\linewidth,trim={110 30 90 20},clip = true]{figure06e}
};
\node at (-7.85,2.1){ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{figure06eColourbar.png}%
};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (-7.9,0.8) {\footnotesize$-0.025$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (-7.9,2.1) {\footnotesize$0$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (-7.9,3.4) {\footnotesize$0.025$};
\draw[line width=1mm, color=white] (-9,4.4) -- (-3.9, 4.4) -- (-3.9, 0.1);
\def \Xxs {7.5};
\def \Yys {0.5};
\node at (0.9+\Xxs,4+\Yys){ \includegraphics[height=3cm]{colourbarFigure6.png}%
};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xxs,4-1.3+\Yys) {\footnotesize$-1$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xxs,4-0.5+\Yys) {\footnotesize$0$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xxs,4+0.25+\Yys) {\footnotesize$1$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (0.8+\Xxs,4+1.05+\Yys) {\footnotesize$2$};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (-6.9,8.1) {(a)};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (-2.9,8.1) {(b)};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (1.1,8.1) {(c)};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at ( 5.1,8.1) {(d)};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (-6.9,3.7) {(e)};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (-2.9,3.7) {(f)};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (1.1,3.7) {(g)};
\node[align=right,anchor=east] at (5.1,3.7) {(h)};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{\label{fig:mixedVentangled} Here we show the equal angle slice $W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}$ Wigner function for various 5-qubit states. (a) shows the same GHZ state as seen in \Fig{fig:prime} with (b) showing the mixed state counterpart of this GHZ state given by $\left((\ket{0}\bra{0})^{\otimes N} + (\ket{1}\bra{1})^{\otimes N} \right)/{2}$ Only the pure state displays the interference pattern given by the off diagonal terms in the density matrix when the state is entangled. In (c) we see the state $\ket{10000}$. In figures (d-e) we see the clock state, (d) is shown with the same colour map as the other plots, whereas (e) shows the state with a modified colour map to show the structure of the slice that is not evident with the colour maps used throughout the rest of this figure. (f-g) Defining $\ket{\rightarrow}=(\ket{0}+\ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$ we show the entangled superposition of spin coherent states $\ket{0}^{\otimes N} + \ket{\rightarrow}^{\otimes N}$ and its mixed state counterpart, the equally weighted statistical mixture of $(\ket{0}\bra{0})^{\otimes N}$ and $(\ket{\rightarrow}\bra{\rightarrow})^{\otimes N}$. Again note that only the pure state has negative interference terms in this slice with two of particularly large amplitude. Finally (h) shows the equal angle slice Wigner function for the five-qubit $W$-state showing that other entangled states have patterns that could also act as state identification signatures.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[trim={4.0cm 13.1cm 3.4cm 4.8cm},clip,width=\linewidth]{figure07}
\caption{\label{fig:equatorial}
Points around the equator of the 5 qubit GHZ state Wigner function from~\Fig{fig:prime} with $\theta_{1}=\theta_{2}=\cdots=\theta_{N}=\frac\pi4, \varphi_{1}=\varphi_{2}=\cdots=\varphi_{N}=\varphi$ where the blue curve is the theoretically calculated values for an ideal GHZ state found from our model.
The green dots are the measured experimental results and the green curve is a least-square best-fit sinusoid to the experimental results.
In red we see the oscillations given around the equator for the separable `clock' state of~\Eq{clockstate}; the amplitude is significantly lower than for the ``GHZ measured'' state demonstrating the latter (whose oscillations are not as strong as the theoretical maximum) is indeed entangled. Here $\tilde{\varphi}= 2\varphi$ to correspond to how IBM define the rotations on their machine.
}
\end{figure}
Due to an update on the IBM computer during the closing stages of our work, we were able to observe these oscillations directly as seen in~\Fig{fig:equatorial}.
This was due to the implementation of three new gates that can perform arbitrary rotations on individual qubits: $u_1(\lambda)$, $u_2(\tilde{\varphi},\lambda)$, and $u_3(\tilde{\theta},\tilde{\varphi},\lambda)$, with $u_3(\tilde{\theta},\tilde{\varphi},\lambda) = e^{-\ui \tilde{\varphi} \sigma_z/2}e^{-\ui \tilde{\theta} \sigma_y/2}e^{-\ui\lambda \sigma_z/2}$.
These three gates give us the freedom to specify any rotation or any point in phase space in \SU{2}, allowing us to sweep around the equator, experimentally verifying the presence of the interference-based oscillation for a 5-qubit GHZ state.
In~\Fig{fig:equatorial} these measurement results are compared to ideal theoretical values.
The experimentally measured amplitudes are somewhat reduced, as well as having an offset phase.
This indicates that the computer is not producing a perfect GHZ state but that the state is verified to be both entangled and in reasonably consistent agreement with a perfect GHZ state.
However, since there is a linear mapping between the density matrix and the Wigner function, a similar Wigner function implies the state is at least similar, making feature-based characterisation robust against small errors in state preparation and limited decoherence, likely candidates for the difference between the theoretical and experimental curves.
The advantage of our approach is in the potential to reduce the number of measurements required to develop confidence certifying more general states.
For example, begin by defining $\ket{\rightarrow}=(\ket{0}+\ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$.
We then generate the normalised equal superposition of $\ket{0}^{\otimes N}$ and $\ket{\rightarrow}^{\otimes N}$.
In~\Fig{fig:mixedVentangled} we show $W_{\bigotimes ^N \SU{2}}$ for this state (f) and the corresponding equally weighted mixture (g) of $\ket{0}^{\otimes N}$ and $\ket{\rightarrow}^{\otimes N}$.
Both density matrices have no non-zero elements in the computational basis (making conventional tomography challenging), but the superposition can be certified to be within an acceptable confidence interval through a few measurements of the characteristic features of its corresponding Wigner function.
As with our analysis of the GHZ state the presence of this structure may be used to give confidence in the existence of entanglement in the system and categorisation as a superposition of spin coherent states. As another example, we show in~\Fig{fig:mixedVentangled}(h) the equal angle Wigner function for the $W$-state of five qubits.
Again we see that $W$-states have a distinctive shape (as $W$-states can be thought of as ``eigenstates of a total `$z$' angular momentum operator'' this form is intuitively sensible).
Once more, it would not take more than a few measurements to gain significant confidence that a system was or was not in a $W$ state.
In terms of the more general problem of rapid quantum state estimation spin-Wigner functions may be of particular use when some properties of the state are known in advance.
We have already noted that only a few measurements are needed to verify certain characteristic features of the Wigner function are present.
As it is possible to build these Wigner functions from expansions using bases other than the computational basis such as from stabiliser states, full quantum-state reconstruction can be viewed as establishing the coefficients of such expansions.
Understanding the structure of these expansions together with foreknowledge of the set of potential states a system may achieve can lead to efficient state estimation protocols.
This is because one can select measurements that rapidly exclude very many of the components of the expansion and confirm the presence of the dominant terms.
In this way phase space methods provide an alternative path to efficient state estimation from those known in other areas of quantum state tomography~\cite{Plenio2010,1612.08000,1367-2630-15-12-125004,PhysRevLett.111.020401,PhysRevLett.106.020401}.
A detailed study of efficient quantum state reconstruction in phase space will be the subject of a future work.
\section{On the differences between Wigner functions}
Each of the two cases we have considered here have their own strengths which will be expanded on in a later publication.
However, we are including a brief discussion to highlight that there is some freedom in choosing extended parity operators in tensor product spaces.
This should be of utility as it increases the number of available options in designing experiments for the direct measurement of a Wigner function.
The full-group Wigner function $W_{\SU{2^{[N]}}}$ and the tensor-product Wigner function $W_{\bigotimes^N \SU{2}}$ are related to the density matrix by different, but still invertible, linear maps, and therefore both contain full information about the quantum state.
The tensor-product form has the additional property of respecting the marginals in each subspace.
We can see this is indeed the case by noting that the two qubit kernel separates
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}} = \Delta_{\SU{2}}(\Omega_{A})\otimes \Delta_{\SU{2}}(\Omega_{B})
\end{equation}
leading to the result
\ba
\int W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}}(\Omega_{A},\Omega_{B}) \ud\Omega_{B} &=& \Trace{\rho_{A} \Delta_{\SU{2}}(\Omega_{A})} \nonumber \\
&=& W_{\SU{2}}(\Omega_{A})
\ea
where $\rho_{A}$ is the reduced density matrix of subsystem $A$. Note that extension to arbitrary number of qubits is a trivial extension of this argument.
As an example, consider the Bell state $|\Psi_{+}\rangle$ shown in \Fig{fig:example}(b).
Here our two Wigner function cases have the same structure, with the tensor-product form having a larger amplitude of modulation:
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}} & = & \frac14 (1+\sqrt 5 (x_{A}x_{B}+y_{A}y_{B}-z_{A}z_{B})) \\
W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}} & = & \frac14 \left(1+3(x_{A}x_{B}+y_{A}y_{B}-z_{A}z_{B})\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $(x_{i},y_{i},z_{i})$ is the unit vector in the direction $\Omega_{i}$.
However, for the product state $(\ket{0}_1\ket{0}_2$) we see a distinction in angular dependence:
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}} & = & \frac14 \left(1+\sqrt 5 (z_{A}+z_{B}) + \sqrt 5 z_{A}z_{B}\right) \\
W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}} & = & \frac14 \left(1+\sqrt 3 (z_{A}+z_{B}) +3z_{A}z_{B}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the one-qubit and two-qubit angular terms carry coefficients of different magnitude in the tensor-product Wigner function.
The above distinctions have led us to speculate that the two different forms of the Wigner function that we consider in this paper may be useful as a mechanism to differentiate (in representation) logical and physical qubit systems.
That is, when there is a natural separation into physical qubits, into subsystems, or into a system and an environment, we choose the tensor product formulation.
If, on the other hand, the system under consideration comprises a many-level quantum system constrained to act as logical qubits, it is less natural to impose a tensor product structure to the phase space representation than use the full-group form, which may be more natural.
Furthermore, in systems that comprise a mixture of logical and physical qubits a tensor product of the different kernels could be used to maintain this distinction.
We also note that in the case of $W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}}$ the Weyl transform ${{\rho}} = \int_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace} \Func{{{\rho}}} \ensuremath{\OperBare\left(\Param\right)}\xspace \ud \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\xspace$ reconstructs the original density matrix but in the case of $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}$ a further linear transform is needed.
If reconstruction of the density matrix from the Wigner function is desired, $W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}}$ would be the more appropriate choice.
While much further work needs to be done, it may well be that drawing such distinctions may help us understand separability from a phase space perspective, thus enabling derivation of new useful entanglement measures.
\section{Concluding remarks}
We have demonstrated a simple method for quantum state reconstruction that extends those previously known for quantum optical systems~\cite{PhysRevLett.78.2547,PhysRevA.60.674,PhysRevLett.89.200402,PhysRevLett.87.050402,PhysRevA.70.053821,Deleglise:2008gt} to other classes of systems.
Using IBM's \emph{Quantum Experience} five-qubit quantum processor, we have shown reconstruction of two Bell states and the five-qubit GHZ spin Schr\"odinger cat state via spin Wigner function measurements.
We note that our procedure could be made much more efficient by direct implementation of rotation operations and measurement of any suitable extended parity operator (or, if appropriate, direct measurement of the rotated extended parity).
By doing so, the potential advantage of our procedure over other tomographic methods would be made much clearer in that fewer measurements would be needed to check certain properties of the quantum state.
In such an instance, in verifying the fidelity of a high-quality GHZ state, only a small set of measurements that quantifies the strength of the interference terms is needed, providing an improvement over traditional quantum state tomography.
Furthermore, this work demonstrates how phase space methods can be of utility in understanding processes such as decoherence and be useful in the ``debugging'' of quantum information processors.
In particular we have proposed a method for verifying a system is entangled that uses only a few measurements and which in some circumstances where suitable constraints of the range of possible states are known may potentially be reduced to only two.
The utility of this work extends beyond metrology as the inclusion of tomography in device engineering will no doubt be of use in the development of quantum analogues for ``Design for Test'', debug, fault identification and system certification.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Jay Gambetta, Lev Bishop, Ray Bishop, and Simon Devitt for interesting and informative discussions.
We are deeply grateful to IBM's Quantum Computing research team and the IBM \emph{Quantum Experience} project which made it possible for us to easily obtain experimental results (\url{http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum/}).
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of IBM or any of its employees.
\end{acknowledgments}
\textbf{Supplementary material: } We provide three supporting animations, showing the evolution of $\mathrm{W}(\Omega_A,\Omega_B)=W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}(\Omega_A,\Omega_B)$ (animations 1 and 2) or $\mathrm{W}(\Omega_A,\Omega_B)=W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}}(\Omega_A,\Omega_B)$ (animation 3), where $\Omega_i=(\theta_i,\varphi_i)$.
The Bloch spheres in the top left show four two-dimensional slices $\mathrm{W}(\Omega,R(\Omega))$, where $R$ represents the identity or a $\pi$ rotation about each of the three coordinate axes.
The plots in the top right show the Wigner function as a function of $\theta_A$ and $\theta_B$ for fixed values of $\varphi_A$ and $\varphi_B$.
The bottom right panel shows the Wigner functions for the individual qubits calculated from their reduced density matrices. The bottom left panel shows the progress of the simulation through the algorithm and the entanglement entropy.
In \texttt{animation\_01} we show the $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}$-Wigner function dynamics for the Deutsch algorithm for two qubits where the $U_f$ gate is a C-NOT gate.
Note that there is no entanglement and the maximum value of the Wigner function for the individual qubits corresponds to the equivalent point on the Bloch-sphere.
In \texttt{animation\_02} we show the $W_{\SU{2^{[2]}}}$-Wigner function dynamics for the creation of the four Bell states. Here we see that the Wigner functions for these states are rotations of each other in four dimensional space (indeed this is true for any maximally entangled state of two qubits).
In \texttt{animation\_03} we show a $W_{\bigotimes^2 \SU{2}}$-Wigner function version of \texttt{animation\_02} for comparative purposes.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
A magnetic flux enclosed in electron trajectories induces electron wave
function interference; this is the well-known magnetic Aharonov-Bohm (AB)
effect~\cite{ES,AB}. The AB effect describes a quantum phenomenon in which a
charged particle is affected by the vector potential of an electromagnetic
field. The AB effect has inspired breakthroughs in modern physics. Photons
are known to be neutral particles that do not directly interact with
magnetic fields. However, the magnetic AB effect for photons has been
proposed and realized by magnetic-optical effects~\cite{MOeffect}, dynamical
modulation~\cite{DynamicModulation}, and photon-phonon interaction~\cit
{PhotPhot}. This is attributed to an effective magnetic field originating
from the fictitious gauge field felt by photons, where photons behave as
electrons in a magnetic field. The concept of effective magnetic field for
photons provides new opportunities in optics; it stimulates interest in the
exploration of fundamental physics and in the creation of applications~\cit
{MOeffect,DynamicModulation,PhotPhot,Hafezi2011,Hafezi2013,Chong}. In
particular, parity-time ($\mathcal{PT}$) symmetric optical systems proposed
with effective magnetic flux allow nonreciprocal light transport~\cit
{Longhi2015OL,LXQ}.
The $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry has attracted tremendous interest over the last
decade. A $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric system may possess an entirely real
spectrum even though it is non-Hermitian~\cit
{Bender98,Znojil99,Dorey01,Ali02}. The $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric system is
invariant under the combined parity ($\mathcal{P}$) and time-reversal (
\mathcal{T}$) operators, and its potential fulfills $V^{\ast }\left(
x\right) =V\left( -x\right) $. In 2007, a coupled optical waveguide system
with an engineered refractive index and gain/loss profile was proposed to
realize a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric structure~\cite{Musslimani OL}. The
proposal was based on a classical analogy, namely, that Maxwell's equations,
describing light propagation under paraxial approximation, are formally
equal to a Schr\"{o}dinger equation~\cite{QuanOptAnology}. Thereafter, a
number of intriguing phenomena can be predicted and experimentally verified,
either in a passive or in an active $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric optical
structure, including parity-time ($\mathcal{PT}$) symmetry breaking~\cit
{AGuo}, power oscillation~\cite{CERuter}, coherent perfect absorbers~\cit
{CPA,HChen}, spectral singularities~\cite{AliPRL2009}, unidirectional
invisibility~\cite{Lin}, and nonreciprocal wave propagation~\cite{Feng}.
Recently, an active $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric optical system has been
realized using two coupled microcavities~\cite{PengNP}, and optical gain
played a key role. Optical isolators~\cite{PengNP,PengNC,Chang} and
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric lasers~\cite{Jing,PengScience,FengZhang,Hodaei} were
demonstrated; the gain induced a large optical nonlinearity. Both the
coupled optical waveguides and microcavities were described by a
tight-binding model. The tight-binding model demonstrated analytical and
numerical tractability for study of the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry~\cit
{Longhi1,Longhi2,Znojil1,Znojil2,Jin,Bendix}. The $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric
phase diagram, as well as the wave packet dynamics in $\mathcal{PT}
-symmetric systems with open boundary conditions, have been investigated
\cite{Joglekar1,Joglekar2,Joglekar3,Joglekar4}. Although the properties of a
lattice with open boundary conditions and the properties of a lattice with
periodical boundary conditions are similar as large systems approach a size
limit, the differences are notable when the system size is small~\cit
{Joglekar2012}. Currently, most experimentally accessible $\mathcal{PT}
-symmetric systems are small in size~\cite{CERuter,PengNP,Chang}; hence,
studying $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric systems under periodical boundary
conditions is worthwhile, and some pioneering works have already focused on
this~\cite{Joglekar2012,JinHu,Joglekar2013,Longhi2013}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[ bb=60 440 520 720, width=7.5 cm, clip]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Schematic illustration of a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric lattice model using coupled resonators threaded by a magnetic flux $\Phi$. (b) Effective magnetic flux $\Phi$ is introduced between resonator $1$ and $2N$ through an anti-resonant
auxiliary resonator (grey). The fact that the forward- (green arrow) and backward-going (red arrow) path
lengths difference $\Delta x$, induces a nonreciprocal hopping phase $e^{\pm i 2\pi \Delta x/\lambda}$.
} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we study the influence of magnetic flux on the $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry in coupled resonators in ring configuration (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a). The
system is modeled by a magnetic tight-binding lattice, with a Peierls phase
factor in the hopping between adjacent sites. The one dimensional ring
system has a single pair of balanced gain and loss located at opposite
positions; when threaded by magnetic flux, the ring system remains $\mathcal
PT}$-symmetric. We reveal that the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry is sensitive to
the enclosed magnetic flux, especially when the gain/loss or system size is
large. We find a threshold for the gain/loss, above which, any nontrivial
magnetic flux breaks the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry. We also enumerate the
eigenvalues that have broken $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry. The threshold
gain/loss, as well as the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry breaking levels, are
tunable by the magnetic flux. We present a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase
diagram in the gain/loss and magnetic flux parameter spaces. The maximally
tolerable magnetic flux for the exact $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase is
found for a $2N $-site ring system. Our findings offer insights regarding
magnetic flux in $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric systems and might provide useful
applications of $\mathcal{PT} $ symmetry in quantum metrology.
This paper is organized as follows. We formulate a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric
Hamiltonian threaded by a magnetic flux in Sec.~\ref{II}. We show the energy
spectrum and phase diagram of a four-site ring system in Sec.~\ref{III}. We
elucidate in detail that the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry is significantly
affected by the enclosed magnetic flux through studying a $2N$-site ring
system in Sec.~\ref{IV}. Our conclusions are drawn in Sec.~\ref{V}.
\section{Model and formalism}
\label{II}
We consider a discrete $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric ring system threaded by a
magnetic flux. The system is schematically illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}a
using coupled resonators, which constitute a $2N$-site lattice system
described by a tight-binding model. The enclosed magnetic flux in the ring
system is denoted as $\Phi $. The magnetic flux acts globally: circling
photons or charged particles accumulate a phase factor $e^{\pm i\Phi }$ in
each round because of the AB effect. The plus/minus sign represents a
clockwise/counterclockwise direction of motion. The magnetic flux affects
the system periodically; the period is $2\pi $, which corresponds to one
quantum of the effective magnetic flux. A balanced pair of gain and loss is
symmetrically located at opposite positions on sites $1$ and $N+1$,
respectively. The Hamiltonian for this $2N$-site ring system is given by:
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathrm{flux}}=-\sum_{j=1}^{2N}(e^{i\phi }a_{j}^{\dagger }a_{j+1}+\mathrm
h.c.})+i\gamma (a_{1}^{\dagger }a_{1}-a_{N+1}^{\dagger }a_{N+1}),
\end{equation
where $a_{j}^{\dagger }$ ($a_{j}$) is the creation (annihilation) operator
for site $j$, the periodic boundary condition requires $a_{2N+j}^{\dagger
}=a_{j}^{\dagger }$. The hopping strength between adjacent sites is set to
unity without loss of generality. The balanced gain and loss are conjugate
imaginary potentials on sites $1$ and $N+1$, the rate is $\gamma $ ($\gamma
>0$). The enclosed magnetic field effectively induces an additional phase
factor $e^{\pm i\phi }$ in the hoppings (Fig.~\ref{fig1}b), where $\phi
=\Phi /\left( 2N\right) $ is an averaged additional phase between adjacent
sites.
The parity operator $\mathcal{P}$ is defined as $\mathcal{P}j\mathcal{P
^{-1}\rightarrow N+2-j$, the time-reversal operator $\mathcal{T}$ is defined
as $\mathcal{T}i\mathcal{T}^{-1}\rightarrow -i$. We note that in the
presence of a nontrivial phase factor ($e^{i\Phi }\neq 1$), the system
Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{flux}}$ remains invariant under the combined
\mathcal{PT}$ operator, i.e., $(\mathcal{PT})H_{\mathrm{flux}}(\mathcal{PT
)^{-1}=H_{\mathrm{flux}}$. The ring system is $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric with
respect to its central axis (dashed blue line shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}a).
When $H_{\mathrm{flux}}$ is in its exact $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase, its
spectrum is entirely real and all eigenstates are $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric.
When $H_{\mathrm{flux}}$ is in its broken $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase,
complex conjugate pairs emerge and corresponding eigenstates are no longer
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric. In the following, we discuss how the exact
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase is affected by the parameters of the ring
system, in particular, the enclosed magnetic flux and gain/loss.
\section{Energy spectrum and phase diagram of a four-site ring system}
\label{III} We first consider the simplest case: A four-site $\mathcal{PT}
-symmetric ring system with $N=2$. The Hamiltonian for a four-site ring
system is written in the form:
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathrm{flux}}^{\mathrm{[4]}}=-\sum_{i=1}^{4}(e^{i\phi }a_{i}^{\dagger
}a_{i+1}+\mathrm{h.c.})+i\gamma (a_{1}^{\dagger }a_{1}-a_{3}^{\dagger
}a_{3}),
\end{equation
where the periodical boundary condition requires $a_{j+4}^{\dagger
}=a_{j}^{\dagger }$. The phase factor $e^{\pm i\phi }$ in front of the
hoppings between adjacent sites indicates that the enclosed magnetic flux in
the ring system is equal to $\Phi =4\phi $. We can diagonalize the $4\times
4 $ matrix to acquire the spectrum of the ring system. The eigenvalue $E$
satisfies $E^{2}\left( 4-E^{2}-\gamma ^{2}\right) =4\sin ^{2}(\Phi /2)$.
Solving the equation, we obtain four eigenvalues
\begin{equation}
E=\pm \sqrt{2}\sqrt{\left( 1-\frac{\gamma ^{2}}{4}\right) \pm \sqrt{\left( 1
\frac{\gamma ^{2}}{4}\right) ^{2}-\sin ^{2}\left( \frac{\Phi }{2}\right) }}.
\end{equation}
For nontrivial magnetic flux $\Phi \neq 2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$) changes,
the system spectrum changes as the magnetic flux $\Phi $. At $\gamma =0$,
the energy levels shift and form two pairs of doubly degenerate states with
energy $E=\pm \sqrt{2}$ when $\Phi =2m\pi +\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$), where
the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry of the eigenstates is extremely sensitive to the
balanced gain and loss, i.e., any nonzero gain/loss ($\gamma \neq 0$) breaks
the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[bb=0 0 270 260, width=7.0 cm, clip]{region.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Phase diagram of a four-site ring system in the parameter spaces $\gamma$
and $\Phi$. Eigenvalues in region I: Real; region II: Complex conjugate pairs; and region III: Pure imaginary conjugate pairs.
Region I is the exact $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase. Region II and III compose the broken $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase.
The boundaries (blue curves) indicate the exceptional points where two eigenstates coalescence occurs. The red dots represent the coalescence of three eigenstates, and the green circle represents a Hermitian system without coalescence of eigenstates.}
\label{region}
\end{figure}
In the general case, a magnetic flux $\Phi $ breaks the $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry of the eigenstates in the situation that $\cos \Phi <1-2(1-\gamma
^{2}/4)^{2} $. The $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase diagram of a four-site
ring system is shown in Fig.~\ref{region}. Region I represents the exact
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase, regions II and III compose the broken
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase.
The magnetic flux $\Phi $ plays different roles as the system gain/loss
\gamma $ varies in regions of different parameters. For gain/loss $\gamma =0
, the dispersion relation is $E=-2\cos (k+\Phi /4)$ with eigenvector $k=0 $,
$\pi /2$, $\pi $, $3\pi /2$. In this case, the magnetic flux $\Phi $ shifts
the energy spectrum with eigenstates unchanged.
Region I: As $\gamma $ increases, the ring system is in its exact $\mathcal
PT}$-symmetric phase when $\cos \Phi \geqslant 1-2(1-\gamma ^{2}/4)^{2}$ in
0<\gamma <2$. Region II: The $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry is broken when $\cos
\Phi <1-2(1-\gamma ^{2}/4)^{2}$, eigenvalues that are complex conjugate
pairs appear and the magnetic flux $\Phi $ changes both the energy (real
part of eigenvalues) and the amplification/decay (imaginary part of
eigenvalues) of the eigenstates. In this case, the region with eigenvalues
that are complex conjugate pairs expands in $0<\gamma <2$ but shrinks in
\gamma >2$ as $\gamma $ increases. Region III: The magnetic flux $\Phi $
changes only the amplification/decay of the eigenstates when $\cos \Phi
\geqslant 1-2(1-\gamma ^{2}/4)^{2}$ in $\gamma \geqslant 2$. This is because
the eigenvalues are purely imaginary conjugate pairs in this situation.
In the trivial magnetic flux $\Phi =2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$) case, one
complex conjugate pair becomes a two-fold degenerate state with an
eigenvalue of zero in $\gamma >2$; three energy levels coalesce at $\gamma
=2 $ (red dots) with an eigenvalue of zero, and the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric
ring system becomes a nondiagonalizable Hamiltonian including a $3\times 3$
Jordan block. Figure~\ref{region} shows the situation in which nontrivial
magnetic flux satisfies $\cos \Phi =1-2(1-\gamma ^{2}/4)^{2}$ (excluding the green circle and red dots, e.g., $\gamma =2\sqrt{2}$, $\Phi =\pi $); this is shown in Fig.~\ref{region} by the blue curves that serve as the boundaries of
different phases. In this case, two energy levels coalesce, and the
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric ring system is a nondiagonalizable Hamiltonian
composed of two $2\times 2$ Jordan blocks.
\section{The effects of magnetic flux in the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric $2N
-site ring system}
\label{IV} The magnetic flux is gauge-invariant and acts globally in the
ring system. Taking the local transformation $a_{j}^{\dagger }\rightarrow
e^{i\phi j}a_{j}^{\dagger }$, the magnetic flux is unchanged and the
Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{flux}}$ changes into $H_{\mathrm{sc}}$ with a
nonreciprocal coupling between sites $1$ and $2N$. The Hamiltonian $H_
\mathrm{sc}}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\mathrm{sc}} &=&-\sum_{i=1}^{2N-1}(a_{i}^{\dagger }a_{i+1}+\mathrm{h.c.
)-e^{-i\Phi }a_{1}^{\dagger }a_{2N}-e^{i\Phi }a_{2N}^{\dagger }a_{1} \notag
\\
&&+i\gamma (a_{1}^{\dagger }a_{1}-a_{N+1}^{\dagger }a_{N+1}), \label{Hsc}
\end{eqnarray
which can be realized in coupled optical resonators by introducing synthetic
magnetic flux, and a balanced gain and loss in the resonators. The synthetic
magnetic flux is introduced through an optical path imbalance method in the
coupling process~\cite{Hafezi2014}. Consider a system with $2N$ coupled
resonators in a ring configuration. The coupling between resonator $1$ and
2N$ is an effective coupling induced by an other auxiliary resonator (Fig.
\ref{fig1}b). The nonreciprocal phase factor $e^{\pm i\Phi }$ in the hopping
between resonator $1$ and $2N$ is caused by the optical path length
difference $\Delta x$, which is the difference in between the forward-going
and backward-going optical paths of the auxiliary resonator in the coupling
process. The effective magnetic flux introduced is equal to $\Phi =2\pi
\Delta x/\lambda $ where $\lambda $ is the optical wavelength~\cit
{Hafezi2014}. Therefore, $\Phi $ is proportional to the path length
difference $\Delta x$, and is tunable through changing the position of
auxiliary resonator.
The eigenvalues of the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric ring system $H_{\mathrm{sc}}$
is calculated as follows. We denote the wave function for eigenvalue $E_{k}$
as $f_{k}(j)$. The wave function $f_{k}(j)$ is assumed as a superposition of
forward- and backward-going waves
\begin{equation}
f_{k}(j)=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
A_{k}e^{ikj}+B_{k}e^{-ikj},\left( 1\leqslant j\leqslant N+1\right) \\
C_{k}e^{ikj}+D_{k}e^{-ikj},\left( N+1\leqslant j\leqslant 2N\right
\end{array
\right. . \label{WA}
\end{equation}
The Schr\"{o}dinger equation for site $j$ in the ring system (excluding site
$1$, $N+1$, and $2N $) is given as:
\begin{equation}
f_{k}(j-1)+f_{k}(j+1)+E_{k}f_{k}(j)=0, \label{SchEQ}
\end{equation
substituting the wave functions Eq.~(\ref{WA}) into Eq.~(\ref{SchEQ}), we
obtain the eigenvalue $E_{k}=-2\cos k$.
The Schr\"{o}dinger equations for sites $1$, $N+1$, and $2N$ are:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{k}\left( 2\right) +e^{-i\Phi }f_{k}\left( 2N\right) -\left( i\gamma
-E_{k}\right) f_{k}\left( 1\right) &=&0, \label{SchrodingerEq} \\
e^{i\Phi }f_{k}\left( 1\right) +f_{k}\left( 2N-1\right) +E_{k}f_{k}\left(
2N\right) &=&0, \\
f_{k}\left( N+2\right) +f_{k}\left( N\right) +\left( i\gamma +E_{k}\right)
f_{k}\left( N+1\right) &=&0.
\end{eqnarray
From the continuity of wave function on site $N+1$, the wave function
f_{k}(N+1)$ should satisfy
\begin{equation}
A_{k}e^{i\left( N+1\right) k}+B_{k}e^{-i\left( N+1\right) k}=C_{k}e^{i\left(
N+1\right) k}+D_{k}e^{-i\left( N+1\right) k}, \label{Continuity}
\end{equation
After simplification of the Schr\"{o}dinger equations and the continuity
equation shown in Eqs.~(\ref{SchrodingerEq}-\ref{Continuity}), we derive a
critical equation for eigenvector $k$ as an implicit function of the
gain/loss $\gamma $ and the enclosed magnetic flux $\Phi $. The critical
equation for eigenvector $k$ has the form:
\begin{equation}
\left( 1-\frac{\gamma ^{2}}{4\sin ^{2}k}\right) \sin ^{2}\left( Nk\right)
-\sin ^{2}\left( \frac{\Phi }{2}\right) =0. \label{critical_Eq}
\end{equation}
In the situation of a trivial magnetic flux $\Phi =2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}
), the gain/loss affects only one pair of energy levels; it leaves the
others unchanged. The spectrum of a $2N$-site ring system includes $N-1$
pairs of two-fold degenerate energy levels, i.e., $-2\cos (n\pi /N)$ with
n\in \lbrack 1,N-1]$ (indicated by blue lines in Fig.~\ref{fig_illus}); and
one pair of gain/loss dependent energy levels, i.e., $\pm \sqrt{4-\gamma ^{2}}$ (indicated by dashed red lines in Fig.~\ref{fig_illus}). When the gain/loss $\gamma >2$, the ring system is in its broken $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase,
and the system spectrum has one conjugate pair.
In order to analyze the influence of magnetic flux on the system spectrum,
we denote the left side of the critical equation Eq. (\ref{critical_Eq}) as
\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,\Phi ,k\right) $, which is a function of
parameters $\gamma $, $\Phi $ for eigenvector $k\neq 0$ (note that $k=0$ is
not the eigenvector when $\gamma \neq 0$),
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,\Phi ,k\right) =\left( 1-\frac{\gamma ^{2}}{4\sin
^{2}k}\right) \sin ^{2}\left( Nk\right) -\sin ^{2}\left( \frac{\Phi }{2
\right) .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[ bb=0 0 580 250, width=8.8 cm, clip]{bands_illus.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Energy levels for a ring system under trivial magnetic
flux $\Phi=2m\pi$ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$) with (a) $N=5$, $\gamma=0.5$; and (b)
$N=20$, $\gamma=\sqrt{3}$. The spectrum includes $N-1$ pairs of two-fold
degenerate energy levels $-2\cos (n\pi /N)$ where $n\in \lbrack 1,N-1]$ (solid blue lines), and also two $\gamma$ dependent energy levels $\pm \sqrt{4-\gamma ^{2}}$
(dashed red lines).} \label{fig_illus}
\end{figure}
The real eigenvector $k$ with $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,\Phi ,k\right) =0$
corresponds to the real eigenvalue $E_{k}$ of the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric
2N$-site ring system. For a situation with gain/loss $\gamma >2$, we have
\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,\Phi ,k\right) <0$ for any nontrivial magnetic
flux $\Phi \neq 2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$); this indicates that the
spectrum of the ring system is entirely constituted by conjugate pairs
without any real eigenenergy. For magnetic flux $\Phi =2m\pi +\pi $ ($m\in
\mathbb{Z}$), we have $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,\Phi ,k\right) =-\cos
^{2}\left( Nk\right) -\gamma ^{2}\sin ^{2}\left( Nk\right) /(4\sin ^{2}k)<0
, the real eigenvector $k$ is absent, i.e., the system spectrum is entirely
constituted by conjugate pairs at $\gamma \neq 0$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[ bb=55 200 460 608, width=7.0 cm, clip]{F.eps}
\caption{(Color online) $\mathcal{F}\left( \protect\gamma ,0,k\right) $ for a ring system with $N=5$ at various gain/loss: $\protect\gamma =0$ (solid blue), $0.1$ (dashed red), $0.5$ (dotted green), $\protect\sqrt{3}$ (solid magenta) , $2$ (dash-dotted black), $2.5$ (dotted yellow). The black circles show $k_{+}=\arccos (\protect\sqrt{1-\protect\gamma ^{2}/4})$ for $\protect\gamma =0.1$, $0.5$, $\protect\sqrt{3}$, $2$. In the
region $\protect\gamma >2$ (e.g. $\protect\gamma =2.5$), no real $k_+$ exists, any $\Phi \neq 2m\pi$ ($m\in\mathbb{Z}$) brings all $2N$ eigenvalues into conjugate pairs. The horizontal black lines are guides to the eye, which indicate $\sin ^{2}{(\Phi/2)}$ for a trivial magnetic flux and the maximal magnetic flux that allows exact $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry at $\gamma=0.5$.}
\label{F}
\end{figure}
The $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric $2N$-site ring system has at most one conjugate
pair in its spectrum when magnetic flux is $\Phi =2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}
), but has at most $N$ conjugate pairs when magnetic flux is $\Phi =2m\pi
+\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$). This implies the system spectrum is sensitive to
magnetic flux, and the number of conjugate pairs appreciably varies with the
magnetic flux. In the following, we systemically investigate how $\mathcal{P
}$ symmetry of the eigenstates is affected by the magnetic flux and
gain/loss. We first consider a trivial case of effective magnetic flux with
\Phi =2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$): the function $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma
,\Phi ,k\right) $ reduces to $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,\Phi ,k\right)
=[1-\gamma ^{2}/(4\sin ^{2}k)]\sin ^{2}\left( Nk\right) $. $\mathcal{F
\left( \gamma ,\Phi ,k\right) =0$ is the critical equation for the
eigenvector $k$. We find the eigenvalues are $-2\cos (n\pi /N)$ with $n\in
\lbrack 1,N-1]$ and $\pm \sqrt{4-\gamma ^{2}}$. The gain/loss $\gamma $ only
changes two energy levels, $\epsilon _{\pm }=\mp \sqrt{4-\gamma ^{2}}$, the
eigenvector for $\epsilon _{+}$ is
\begin{equation}
k_{+}=\arccos \sqrt{1-\gamma ^{2}/4}.
\end{equation
Hence, when $k_{+}<\pi /N$, the system spectrum may be entirely real even if
$\Phi \neq 2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$). This indicates a threshold gain/loss
value, $\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}=2\sin \left( \pi /N\right) $. When the
gain/loss is below the threshold ($\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}$), the ring
system can be in an exact $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase. As magnetic flux
increases from $0$ to $\pi $, the energy levels with broken $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry simultaneously emerge from $1$ to $N$ pairs. If $\gamma >\gamma _
\mathrm{c}}$, the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry is extremely sensitive to the
magnetic flux; any nontrivial magnetic flux $\Phi \neq 2m\pi $ ($m\in
\mathbb{Z}$) breaks the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry and causes conjugate pairs
to emerge simultaneously. Above the threshold gain/loss ($\gamma >\gamma _
\mathrm{c}}$), the ring system remains in an exact $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric
phase only when the magnetic flux is $\Phi =2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$).
Moreover, the minimal number of complex eigenvalue pairs in the presence of
nontrivial magnetic flux is
\begin{equation}
D=2[k_{+}N/\pi ],
\end{equation
where $[x]$ stands for the integer part of $x$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[ bb=0 0 360 533, width=8.7 cm, clip]{bands.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Energy band of a ring system with $N=5$ at various gain/loss values. (a, b) $\protect\gamma=0.5$, (c, d) $\protect\gamma=1.5$, (e, f) $\protect\gamma=2.5$. The real part (in blue) and imaginary part (in red) are in the left and right panels, respectively.} \label{bands}
\end{figure}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_illus}a, when $\gamma =0.5<\gamma _{\mathrm{c
}=2\sin (\pi /5)$, the ring system keeps in the exact $\mathcal{PT}
-symmetric phase in the presence of nontrivial magnetic flux. In Fig.~\re
{fig_illus}b, $\gamma =\sqrt{3}>\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}=2\sin (\pi /20)$,
k_{+}=\pi /3$; the minimal number of energy levels with broken $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry is $D=12$ for nontrivial magnetic flux; the nontrivial magnetic
flux breaks the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry of the energy levels with $|E_{k}|
\sqrt{4-\gamma ^{2}}$.
We plot function $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,0,k\right) $ for a ring system
with $N=5 $ in Fig.~\ref{F}. We can see how the eigenvector is changed into
a complex number by the variations of gain/loss $\gamma $ and magnetic flux
\Phi $. In Fig.~\ref{F}, $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,0,k\right) $ for ring
system at $\gamma =0$, $0.1$, $0.5$, $\sqrt{3}$, $2$, $2.5$ are plotted. The black circles stand for the eigenvector $k_{+}=\arccos (\sqrt{1-\gamma ^{2}/
})$ for $\gamma =0.1$, $0.5$, $\sqrt{3}$, $2$. Note that all $2N$
eigenvalues become conjugate pairs for nontrivial magnetic flux when $\gamma
\geqslant 2$, and for nonzero gain/loss when $\Phi =2m\pi +\pi $ ($m\in
\mathbb{Z}$).
Figure~\ref{bands} shows the energy bands found by numerical diagonalization
of $H_{\mathrm{sc}}$ in Eq. (\ref{Hsc}) with $N=5$; the corresponding
eigenvector $k$ is in accord with the eigenvector from the critical equation
Eq.~(\ref{critical_Eq}). For trivial magnetic flux, the $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetric ring system has only one complex pair when the gain/loss $\gamma
>2 $. For nontrivial flux, the energy level degeneracy (Fig.~\ref{fig_illus
) disappears. This is because the nonreciprocal hopping between the coupled
resonators breaks the time-reversal symmetry in the tunneling. The number of
conjugate pairs changes from $1$ ($D$) to $N$ as magnetic flux $\Phi $
increases from $0$ to $\pi $ for gain/loss below (above) the threshold.
Figure~\ref{bands} shows the magnetic flux acting globally, and the spectrum
structure substantially varies with the magnetic flux at different values of
gain/loss.
Now, we focus on the influence of magnetic flux on the $\mathcal{PT}
-symmetric phase diagram. In order to get the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase
diagram, we define $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}$ as the maximal magnetic flux that
keeps a ring system in its exact $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase. The maximal
magnetic flux $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}} $ depends on the non-Hermitian gain/loss
\gamma $ and indicates the boundary of the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase
diagram in the $\Phi$, $\gamma $ parameter spaces. For a gain/loss above the
threshold, $\gamma >\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}=2\sin \left( \pi /5\right) \approx
1.1756$, any nontrivial magnetic flux $\Phi \neq 2m\pi $ ($m\in \mathbb{Z}$)
breaks the $\mathcal{PT} $ symmetry. In this situation, $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}$
is zero. The $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry is extremely sensitive to magnetic flux
for large values of $\gamma $ or $N$ (the gain/loss threshold $\gamma _
\mathrm{c}}$ depends on $N$).
For a gain/loss below the threshold, $\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}=2\sin
(\pi /5)\approx 1.1756$, e.g. $\gamma =0.5$ (Fig.~\ref{F}, indicated by
dotted green line), the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry is robust to the magnetic
flux $\Phi $ when $\sin ^{2}({\Phi /2)}$ is in the region between the two
horizontal black lines shown in Fig.~\ref{F}. In this situation, the
magnetic flux does not break $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry, and the system
spectrum is entirely real. If $\gamma $ or $\Phi $ increases from $0$, the
system goes through a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric breaking phase transmission
when $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,0,k\right) <\sin ^{2}\left( \Phi /2\right) $
for $k\in \lbrack 0,\pi /N]$. Then the entirely real spectrum disappears and
conjugate pairs emerge. For each $\gamma $, the ring system is in its exact
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase when the magnetic flux is below the maximal
value $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[ bb=30 170 500 610, width=4.25 cm, clip]{gamma.eps}
\includegraphics[ bb=0 0 470 440, width=4.25 cm, clip]{Phic.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Numerically determined $k_{\mathrm{c}}$ where $\mathcal{F}(\gamma,0,k)$ is at its
maximum in region $[\pi/2N, \pi/N]$. (b) The numerically determined maximum
magnetic flux $\Phi_{\mathrm{c}}$ as a function of gain/loss $\gamma$. The lower left (upper right) region is the exact (broken) $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase. The ring system is with $N=5$.}
\label{phase_diagram}
\end{figure}
To gain insight regarding $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry under magnetic flux, we
set the function $\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,0,k\right) $ to reach its
maximum at $k_{\mathrm{c}}$ in the region $k\in \lbrack 0,\pi /N]$, where
k_{\mathrm{c}}$ can be calculated from \textrm{d}$\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma
,0,k\right) /\mathrm{d}k=0$. We plot $k_{\mathrm{c}}$ and $\Phi _{\mathrm{c
} $ in Fig.~\ref{phase_diagram}; the blue lines are obtained by numerically
solving the equation \textrm{d}$\mathcal{F}\left( \gamma ,0,k\right)
\mathrm{d}k=0$. The red circles are obtained by numerically diagonalizing
the ring system Hamiltonian; the results from these two methods are
in accord with each other. In Fig.~\ref{phase_diagram}a, we plot $Nk_
\mathrm{c}}$ as a function of $\gamma $ for the ring system with $N=5$. As
\gamma $ increases from $0 $ to $\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}$, $k_{\mathrm{c}}$
increases from $\pi /(2N)$ to $\pi /N $, the maximal value of $\mathcal{F
\left( \gamma ,0,k_{\mathrm{c}}\right) $ decreases from $1$ to $0$, and the
maximum magnetic flux $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}$ decreases from $\pi $ to $0$
(Fig.~\ref{phase_diagram}b). Figure~\ref{phase_diagram}b shows the $\mathcal
PT}$-symmetry phase diagram of the ring system. We can see the sharp changes
at $Nk_{\mathrm{c}}=\pi $ in Fig.~\ref{phase_diagram}a, and $\Phi _{\mathrm{
}}=0$ at $\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}\approx 1.1756$ in Fig.~\ref{phase_diagram}b.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[ bb=25 20 450 420, width=7.0 cm, clip]{SixToTenDashed.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Maximum
magnetic flux $\Phi_{\mathrm{c}}$ as a function of gain/loss $\gamma$ for a ring system with $N=5$ to $10$.
The color lines (markers) are numerically obtained theoretical analysis (exact diagonalization) of the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm{sc}}$. The dashed black lines indicate $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}/\pi \approx 1-(2N/\pi
^{2})\gamma $.} \label{Phi_c}
\end{figure}
The maximal magnetic flux ${\Phi }_{\mathrm{c}}$ keeps the ring system in
the exact $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase; it satisfies $\mathcal{F}\left(
\gamma ,\Phi _{\mathrm{c}},k_{\mathrm{c}}\right) =0$. We numerically
calculate the maximum magnetic flux $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}$, which increases as
the gain/loss $\gamma $ decreases. The maximal magnetic flux $\Phi _{\mathrm
c}}$ as a function of $\gamma $ is shown in Fig.~\ref{Phi_c}; the colored
lines and markers are numerical results from the theoretical analysis and
exact diagonalization of $H_{\mathrm{sc}}$, respectively. For weak $\gamma $
($\gamma \lesssim \pi /N$), we approximately have $k_{\mathrm{c}}\approx \pi
/(2N)$. Correspondingly, the maximal magnetic flux is approximately linearly
dependent on the gain/loss $\gamma $ as $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}/\pi \approx
1-(2N/\pi ^{2})\gamma $ (indicated by dashed black lines in Fig.~\ref{Phi_c}). The
maximum magnetic flux $\Phi _{\mathrm{c}}$ decreases as ring system size $N$
increases.
The $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase transition is closely related to the
magnetic flux in the coupled resonators enclosed magnetic flux. Through
tuning the coupling position of the auxiliary resonator between resonator $1$
and $2N$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}b), the path lengths of forward- and backward-going
directions change, which linearly affects the magnetic flux. The $\mathcal{P
}$ symmetry breaking point varies with the magnetic flux; the gain/loss
threshold for $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaking can be greatly reduced by
increasing the enclosed magnetic flux from zero to half a quantum. The
\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaking energy levels change from one pair to $N$
pairs when the enclosed magnetic flux is so tuned. The $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry breaking can be observed at low balanced gain and loss values in
coupled resonators with enclosed magnetic flux.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{V} We investigate $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric non-Hermitian coupled
resonators in ring configuration threaded by an effective magnetic flux. The
ring system is described by a $2N$-site tight-binding model; the ring system
has a balanced pair of gain and loss located at two opposite sites. We
demonstrate that the system's $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry is extremely sensitive
to the enclosed magnetic flux when the gain/loss is above a threshold
\gamma _{\mathrm{c}}=2\sin (\pi /N)$. We find the minimal number of
conjugate pairs emerging in the system spectrum when the $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry is breaking in the presence of nontrivial magnetic flux. The system
eigenvalues all become conjugate pairs at a magnetic flux $\Phi =2m\pi +\pi $
($m\in \mathbb{Z} $) for any nonzero gain/loss $\gamma $; or at gain/loss
twice larger than the hopping strength ($\gamma >2$) for any nontrivial
magnetic flux $\Phi $. We show the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase diagram in
the parameter spaces of $\gamma $ and $\Phi $. The results indicate the
maximal magnetic flux approximately linearly depends on $\gamma $ as $\Phi _
\mathrm{c}}/\pi \approx 1-(2N/\pi ^{2})\gamma $ in the weak $\gamma $ region
($\gamma \lesssim \pi/N$). The maximal magnetic flux decreases as the
gain/loss or system size increases. Our findings indicate the $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry is very sensitive to the nonlocal vector potential in this
\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric non-Hermitian system. These results could be useful
in quantum metrology in the future.
\acknowledgments We acknowledge the support of National Natural Science
Foundation of China (CNSF Grant No. 11374163), National Basic Research
Program of China (973 Program Grant No. 2012CB921900), and the Baiqing plan
foundation of Nankai University (Grant No. ZB15006104).
|
\section{Introduction}
Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technologies are now widely used in wireless communications systems standards. The objective of using these technologies is to increase data throughput, increase performance, and make different trade-offs between these two desired features. The main problem limiting the practical implementation of MIMO technologies is related to the decoding complexity, which increases with the number of antennas \cite{fun_05,wc_05,mul_09}. In a number of cases, cost and energy consumption considerations lead to the implementation of a smaller number of radio-frequency (RF) chains in the transmitter than the number of transmit antennas. This is often the case in mobile and fixed user equipment, because the number of antennas is typically dictated by the performance requirements for the downlink signal, and cost and energy consumption limitations may not allow the implementation of as many RF chains. Spatial modulation (SM) is a MIMO technique, which was precisely introduced for those cases.
The first papers on SM considered MIMO systems with a single transmit RF chain \cite{spa_08v,spa_11,sin_11,spa_01}. These SM schemes convey information bits by allocating them to the active antenna index, while transmitting a group of other bits through the symbols transmitted from the selected active antenna. Further work on SM generalized this technique by relaxing the single transmit RF-chain constraint and allowing more than one antenna to transmit simultaneously, see e.g., \cite{gen_10g,gen_10,gen_12}. A comprehensive survey on Generalized SM appears in \cite{spa_14}. A simple variant of SM is the so-called Space-Shift Keying (SSK) \cite{spa_09}, where only the index of the active antenna transmits information. In other words, the active antenna in SSK does not transmit any data symbols, but instead an unmodulated signal. This concept too was naturally extended to multiple active antennas \cite{gen_08}, and the resulting scheme was coined Generalized SSK. The literature on SM, SSK, and their generalized versions is now quite abundant; we mention here \cite{coh_10,stb_11,gen_11,spa_14c}, which address space-time code design, and \cite{per_13,gen_13s}, which address the decoding aspects.
But even in its multi-stream version, the spectral efficiency of SM remains modest compared to spatial multiplexing (SMX) \cite{fun_05}, which is widely used in conventional MIMO systems. In order to improve spectral efficiency, the present authors recently introduced a new SM concept in \cite{esm_15} using multiple signal constellations. This technique, referred to as Enhanced SM (ESM), conveys information bits using one or two active transmit antennas and two or more reduced-size secondary modulations in addition to the primary modulation. The primary modulation in that scheme was restricted to the periods of one active antenna, and the secondary modulations were used with two active transmit antennas. A significant performance gain was achieved compared to conventional SM when the two techniques are operated at the same spectral efficiency. In the comparisons, conventional SM employed one active transmit (TX) antenna only, because the ESM design of \cite{esm_15} was made with reference to single-stream SM.
In this paper, we introduce three new ESM designs taking as reference Multi-stream SM (MSM) \cite{per_13}. The description is made for MIMO systems with four transmit antennas two of which are active, but generalization to higher numbers of antennas is also briefly presented. As in \cite{esm_15}, the basic principle is to use additional modulations with the primary modulation in order to increase the number of antenna and modulation combinations. The first two ESM schemes use a secondary constellation that is derived through a single-step geometric interpolation between the primary constellation points. When the indexes of two active TX antennas are selected, the first scheme transmits a symbol from the primary constellation on one antenna and a symbol from the secondary constellation on the other. The second type of ESM does not use the primary signal constellation in full. Instead, it uses subsets in such a way as to further reduce the average transmit energy. The third ESM scheme introduces a second step of geometric interpolation, which leads to the derivation of two additional constellations. The signal space is constructed over blocks of two consecutive channel uses in order to preserve the minimum Euclidean distance despite the reduced distance between the different constellations used. The mathematical analysis and the simulation results indicate that the proposed schemes provide a significant performance gain with respect to MSM. Parts of this work were presented in \cite{esm_15p}.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section II, we give a brief description of the system model and formulate the ESM design problem. In Section III, we present a brief review of MSM and describe the proposed ESM designs for MIMO systems with four transmit antennas (4-TX) and M-QAM as primary modulation. In Section IV, we extend our designs to MIMO systems with a higher number of antennas. Error rate performance and receiver complexity are investigated in Section V. Finally, the simulation results are reported in Section VI, and our conclusions are given in Section VII.
\section{System Model and Problem Formulation}
For a MIMO system operating on Rayleigh fading channels, the received signal can be expressed as:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{H} \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{n}, \label{eq.system_model}
\end{align}
where $N_R$ denotes the number of receive antennas, $N_T$ is the number of transmit antennas, $\mathbf{H}$ is the $N_R \times N_T$ channel matrix, $\mathbf{x}$ is the $N_T \times 1$ transmitted symbol vector, and $\mathbf{n}$ designates the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). Assume that the entries of the channel matrix $\textbf{H}$ are independent and identically distributed (i. i. d.) complex circularly symmetric Gaussian variables of the form $\mathcal{N}_{c}(0,1)$ and the entries of AWGN, $\mathbf{n}$, are i. i. d. Gaussian noise of the form $\mathcal{N}_{c}(0,N_0)$. The transmit energy is $\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{x}^H\mathbf{x}] = E_s$, and the average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is defined as $\mbox{SNR} = E_s/N_0$. Note that the main difference between SM and conventional MIMO is that in the former not all transmit antennas are activated simultaneously, which means that there are some zero elements in the transmit symbol vector $\mathbf{x}$. When only two transmit antennas are active, a convenient representation of the transmitted codeword $\mathbf{x}$ is as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{x} = \begin{bmatrix} 0,\cdots,0,x_m,0,\cdots,0,x_n, 0,\cdots,0 \end{bmatrix}^T, \label{eq.sm_x}
\end{align}
for $m\neq n$. Here vector $\textbf{x}$ is of dimension $N_T$, $m$ and $n$ with $m=1,\cdots, N_T$, and $n=1,\cdots,N_T$ are the indexes of the two active TX antennas, and $x_m$ and $x_n$ denote the symbols transmitted from these two antennas. This representation is easily generalized to cases with a higher number of active antennas by introducing in (\ref{eq.sm_x}) as many non-zero components as the number of active antennas $N_A$. The new ESM designs will be introduced in the next section for $N_T=4$ and $N_A=2$. Generalization of this ESM concept to higher number of transmit and active antennas will be described in Section IV.
As in \cite{esm_15}, we use here the concept of multiple constellations in order to increase the number of codewords beyond that given by the indexes of the active transmit antennas and the primary constellation alone. The basic principle of our design is to preserve in the signal space the minimum Euclidean distance $\delta_0$ of the primary constellation. The additional constellations too have a minimum Euclidean distance of $\delta_0$, but the minimum distance between points selected from different constellations is smaller than this value. Note that the additional constellations are derived using optimum geometric interpolation in the primary constellation plane, which consists of placing the points of these constellations at the centers of the squares formed by neighbor points of M-QAM used as primary constellation. This choice guarantees a minimum distance of ${\delta_0}/{\sqrt{2}}$ between the points of the primary constellation and those of the secondary constellation derived after the first interpolation step. Similarly, it guarantees a minimum distance of ${\delta_0}/{2}$ between the points of the primary and secondary constellations and those of the third and the fourth constellations derived after the second interpolation step. Using these multiple constellations, a minimum Euclidean distance of $\delta_0$ is preserved in the signal space by imposing that codewords differ in two or more components depending on the constellations from which the non-zero components take their values.
\section{Enhanced SM (ESM)}
Before introducing our proposed ESM designs, we first briefly describe the baseline Multi-stream SM (MSM) scheme \cite{per_13}, which will be used as basis for comparisons.
\subsection{Baseline: MSM}
MSM with four TX antennas ($N_T = 4$) out of which two are active ($N_A = 2$) and transmitting M-QAM symbols can be described using the following signal space representation:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{x} \in
\left \{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} P_{M} \\ P_{M}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\P_{M}\\P_{M} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} P_{M}\\0\\P_{M}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\P_{M}\\0\\P_{M} \end{bmatrix} \end{smallmatrix}\right \}, \label{eq.msm}
\end{align}
where the entry $P_{M}$ denotes the M-QAM constellation, and the zero entries correspond to the silent transmit antennas. This MSM scheme achieves a throughput of $2 + 2\log_2 M$ bits per channel use (bpcu). Indeed, $2$ information bits are assigned to select one of the four active antenna combinations which appear in (\ref{eq.msm}), and $2\log_2 M$ bits select two symbols from the $P_M$ signal constellation to be transmitted from the two active antennas. The throughput is $10$ bpcu with 16QAM and $14$ bpcu with 64QAM. The total energy per transmitted codeword is $E_s = 20$ for 16QAM and $E_s = 84$ for 64QAM, which is twice the average symbol energy.
We now describe our first ESM design, which we refer to as ESM-Type1 in the sequel.
\subsection{ESM-Type1}
For the same spectral efficiency as the MSM scheme described above, the transmitted codeword $\mathbf{x}$ in this design are given by:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{x} \in \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} P_{M} \\ S_{{M}/{2}}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} P_{M} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\S_{{M}/{2}} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\P_{M} \\S_{{M}/{2}}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\0\\P_{M}\\S_{{M}/{2}} \end{bmatrix}
\\
\\
\begin{bmatrix} S_{{M}/{2}} \\ P_{M}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{{M}/{2}} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\P_{M} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\S_{{M}/{2}} \\P_{M}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\0\\S_{{M}/{2}}\\P_{M} \end{bmatrix}
\end{smallmatrix} \right\}, \label{eq.esmtype1}
\end{align}
Here, we have $8$ antenna and constellation combinations in the signal space: As in MSM, there are four active antenna combinations, but while one of the active antennas transmits a symbol from the primary M-QAM constellation $P_M$, the other antenna transmits a symbol from a secondary constellation of half size, referred to as $S_{{M}/{2}}$. The two signal constellations are shown in Fig. \ref{F.es16} for $M = 16$ and in Fig. \ref{F.esm-type1-64qam} for $M = 64$. The secondary signal constellation $S_{{M}/{2}}$ has the following mathematical representation for $M = 16$ and $M = 64$:
\begin{align}
S_8 =\{ \pm 2\pm 2i, \pm 2, \pm 2i \}, \notag
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
S_{32} = \left\{
\begin{matrix}
S_8, \pm 4,\pm 4i,\pm 6,\pm 6i \\
\pm 4 \pm 2i,\pm4\pm4i,\pm 2 \pm 4i\\
2+6i, 6-2i,-6+2i,-2-6i
\end{matrix}
\right\}. \notag
\end{align}
Similarly to the baseline MSM of the previous subsection, this ESM design achieves a throughput of $2 + 2 \log_2 M$ bpcu despite the fact that one of the antennas transmits symbols from a half-size signal constellation. Indeed, the two symbols transmitted in parallel from the two active TX antennas convey $2\log_2 M -1$ bits only, but the number of antenna/constellation combinations (pairs of $m$, $n$ indexes along with the assigned signal constellations) is $8$ in this case, and therefore $3$ bits must be assigned to select one of these combinations.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2in]{fig1.eps}
\caption{The constellations used in ESM-Type1 with $M = 16$. The blue crosses represent 16QAM, and the red circles represent constellation $S_8$.}
\label{F.es16}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2in]{fig4.eps}
\caption{The constellations used in ESM-Type1 with $M = 64$. The blue crosses represent 64QAM, and the red circles represent $S_{32}$.}
\label{F.esm-type1-64qam}
\end{figure}
Let us now examine the average energy per transmitted codeword. To evaluate the average codeword energy, we first need to evaluate the average energy of the secondary constellation used. A simple inspection of Figs. \ref{F.es16} and \ref{F.esm-type1-64qam} indicates that the average energy per symbol is $E_{S_8}=6$ for the $S_8$ constellation and $E_{S_{32}}=22$ for the $S_{32}$ constellation. Since the average energy per $16$QAM symbol is $E_{16QAM} = 10$ and the average energy per 64QAM symbol is $E_{64QAM}=42$, the average energy per transmitted codeword in this scheme is $16$ for $M = 16$ and $64$ for $M = 64$. We summarize these properties as follows:
\begin{align}
E_{ESM-Type1-16QAM} = 16, \notag
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
E_{ESM-Type1-64QAM} = 64. \notag
\end{align}
This means that in terms of total transmit energy, ESM-Type1 with 16QAM (resp. 64QAM) as primary modulation saves 20\% (resp. 24\%) compared to baseline MSM. In the dB scale, this corresponds to a gain of 1 dB (resp. 1.2 dB).
\subsection{ESM-Type2}
By using an $M$-point primary constellation and a half-size secondary constellation (with ${M}/{2}$ points), we managed to reduce the total transmit energy to some extent using ESM-Type1. We will now describe a second ESM design, which brings additional gain. In this design, which we refer to as ESM-Type2, we do not use the original primary constellation $P_M$ in full, but instead a subset $P_{{M}/{2}}$, which consists of the ${M}/{2}$ points of smallest energy. For $M = 64$, $P_{{M}/{2}}$ is the conventional 32QAM signal constellation, and for $M = 16$, it is a (non-conventional) 8QAM signal constellation given by:
\begin{align}
P_8 = \{ \pm 1\pm i,3+i, 1-3i,-3-i,-1+3i \}. \notag
\end{align}
In ESM-Type2, the design procedure is as follows: The transmitted codewords $\mathbf{x}$ belong to a signal space $L$, which is the union of four subspaces $L_1$, $L_2$, $L_3$, $L_4$:
\begin{align}
\textbf{x} \in \{ L_1, L_2, L_3, L_4 \}. \label{ESM_ty2}
\end{align}
The first three subspaces are defined as:
\begin{align}
& L_1 = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} P_{M/2} \\ S_{M/2}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{M/2} \\ P_{M/2} \\ 0 \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\0 \\P_{M/2}\\S_{M/2} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\0\\S_{M/2}\\P_{M/2} \end{bmatrix} \end{smallmatrix} \right\}, \label{ty2_L1} \\
& L_2 = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} P_{M/2} \\0\\ S_{M/2} \\ 0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{M/2} \\ 0 \\ P_{M/2} \\ 0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\P_{M/2} \\ 0 \\S_{M/2} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ S_{M/2} \\0 \\P_{M/2} \end{bmatrix} \end{smallmatrix} \right\}, \label{ty2_L2}\\
& L_3 = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} P_{M/2} \\ 0\\0\\ S_{M/2} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{M/2} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ P_{M/2} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\P_{M/2}\\S_{M/2} \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ S_{M/2}\\P_{M/2} \\0 \end{bmatrix} \end{smallmatrix} \right\}. \label{ty2_L3}
\end{align}
Different subspaces use different active antenna combinations, but in all of these three subspaces one active antenna transmits symbols from the $P_{M/2}$ signal constellation, while the other active antenna transmits symbols from the $S_{M/2}$ constellation. Note that $2\log_2M - 2$ information bits are conveyed by the transmitted symbols, and 2 information bits are used to select one antenna combination in each subspace. Also, 2 prefix bits select a particular $L_j$ subspace, and hence the total number of bits per channel use is $2+2\log_2 M$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2in]{fig2.eps}
\caption{The constellations used in ESM-Type2 with $M = 16$. The blue crosses represent $P_8$, the red circles represent $S_8$, and the black stars represent $Q_4$.}
\label{F.esm-type2}
\end{figure}
The fourth signal subspace $L_4$ is more involved. For $M = 16$, it is given by
\begin{align}
L_4 = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} Q_{4} \\ S_{8}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{8} \\ Q_{4} \\ 0 \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\0 \\Q_{4}\\S_8 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\0\\S_{8}\\Q_{4} \end{bmatrix}
\\
\\
\begin{bmatrix} Q_{4} \\ 0\\ S_{8}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{8} \\ 0\\ Q_{4} \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\Q_{4}\\0\\S_8 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\S_{8}\\0\\Q_{4} \end{bmatrix}
\end{smallmatrix} \right\}. \label{eq_esm_ty2_L4}
\end{align}
In this subspace, one of the active antennas transmits a symbol from the $S_8$ constellation, while the other antenna transmits a symbol from a $Q_4$ signal constellation, defined as follows:
\begin{align}
Q_4 = \begin{Bmatrix} 1+3i,3-i, -1-3i, -3+i
\end{Bmatrix}. \notag
\end{align}
This constellation is shown in Fig. \ref{F.esm-type2} together with $P_8$ and $S_8$. The symbols in signal subspace $L_4$ carry $5$ information bits only, but this subspace includes $8$ active antenna and modulation combinations, and therefore $3$ bits are needed to select one of them. Together with the prefix bits assigned to the $L_4$ subspace itself, $10$ bits are transmitted per each channel use.
For $M = 64$, direct extension of the $L_4$ subspace as given by (\ref{eq_esm_ty2_L4}) is not optimal in terms of transmit energy. Direct extension means that the $S_8$ and the $Q_4$ constellations in (\ref{eq_esm_ty2_L4}) are replaced by $S_{32}$ and $Q_{16}$, where $Q_{16}$ consists of a $16$-point extension of $S_{32}$. Instead, we found that the following choice of subspace $L_4$ minimizes the average transmit energy:
\begin{align}
L_4 = \begin{Bmatrix} L_5, L_6 \end{Bmatrix}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
L_5 = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} Q_{8} \\ P_{32}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} P_{32} \\ Q_{8} \\ 0 \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\0 \\Q_{8}\\P_{32} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\0\\P_{32}\\Q_{8} \end{bmatrix}
\\
\\
\begin{bmatrix} Q_{8} \\ 0\\ P_{32}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} P_{32} \\ 0\\ Q_{8} \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\Q_{8}\\0\\P_{32} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\P_{32}\\0\\Q_{8} \end{bmatrix}
\end{smallmatrix} \right\} \label{eq_t2_L5}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
L_6 = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} R_{8} \\ S_{32}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{32} \\ R_{8} \\ 0 \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\0 \\R_{8}\\S_{32} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\0\\S_{32}\\R_{8} \end{bmatrix}
\\
\\
\begin{bmatrix} R_{8} \\ 0\\ S_{32}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} S_{32} \\ 0\\ R_{8} \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\R_{8}\\0\\S_{32} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\S_{32}\\0\\R_{8} \end{bmatrix}
\end{smallmatrix} \right\}. \label{eq_t2_L6}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2in]{T2_64QAM.eps}
\caption{The constellations used in ESM-Type2 with $M = 64$. The blue crosses represent 32QAM, the red circles represent $S_{32}$, the black stars represent $R_8$, and the black squares represent $Q_8$.}
\label{F.esm-ty2-64qam}
\end{figure}
The $Q_8$ and $R_8$ constellations are shown in Fig. \ref{F.esm-ty2-64qam} together with $P_{32}$ and $S_{32}$. Mathematically, they can be represented as:
\begin{align}
Q_8 & = \left\{
\begin{matrix}
4+6i,-4-6i,6-4i,-6+4i\\
6-4i,-6+4i
6+2i,-6-2i
\end{matrix}
\right
\} \notag
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
R_8 & = \left\{
\begin{matrix}
5+5i,5-5i,
-5+5i,-5-5i \\
1+7i,7-1i,
-1-7i,-7+1i
\end{matrix}
\right
\}. \notag
\end{align}
For $M = 16$, the average energy of the transmitted codewords is $12$ in subspaces $L_1$, $L_2$, and $L_3$, because both of the two constellations used in these subspaces have an average energy of $6$. In contrast, the average codeword energy is $16$ in $L_4$, since constellation $Q_4$ has an average energy of $10$. Therefore, the average energy per codeword is given by:
\begin{equation}
E_{ESM-Type2-16QAM} = \frac{3}{4} \times 12 + \frac{1}{4} \times 16 = 13. \notag
\end{equation}
This scheme provides an energy saving of approximately 35\% (13 instead of 20) compared to baseline MSM, which corresponds to a 1.9 dB gain in the decibel scale.
For $M = 64$, symbol selection in signal subspaces $L_1$, $L_2$, and $L_3$ requires $10$ bits. Together with the $2$ prefix bits of the $L_i$ subspaces and the $2$ bits needed for selection of an antenna and constellation combination in the selected subspace, the total number of bits is $14$. In subspace $L_4$, symbol selection requires only $8$ bits, but one additional bit is needed to select $L_5$ or $L_6$, and $3$ bits are needed to select one antenna and modulation combination in the selected $L_i$ subspace. Here too, together with the $2$ prefix bits of the $L_4$ subspace, the number of bits is $14$, and clearly the proposed design achieves $14$ bpcu.
To compute the total energy per transmitted codeword, we first evaluate the average energy of the constellations used in this design: A simple inspection of Figs. \ref{F.esm-type2} and \ref{F.esm-ty2-64qam} shows that the average energy is $E_{P_{32}}=20$ for $P_{32}$, $E_{S_{32}}=22$ for $S_{32}$, $ E_{Q_8}=46$ for $Q_8$, and $E_{R_8}=50$ for $R_8$. Since the symbols take their values from the set ${P_{32},S_{32}}$ in 3 out of the 4 subspaces, from ${P_{32},Q_{8}}$ in one subspace, and from ${S_{32},R_8}$ in the remaining subspace, the average energy per codeword is given by:
\begin{equation}
E_{ESM-Type2-64QAM} = \frac{3}{4}\times 42 + \frac{1}{8}\times 66 + \frac{1}{8} \times 72 = 48.75. \notag
\end{equation}
Compared to the baseline MSM scheme, this ESM design achieves a transmit energy saving of approximately 42\%. This represents an SNR gain of 2.4 dB.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2in]{Ty3_TF.eps}
\caption{The constellations used in ESM-Type3 with $M = 16$. The blue points represent $T_R$, the blue crosses represent $T'_4$, the blue stars represent $T'_2$, the red circles represent $F_R$, the red squares represent $F'_4$, and the red triangles denote $F'_2$.}
\label{F.ESM-type3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ESM-Type3}
The reduced-size secondary signal constellation used in our first two designs (ESM-Type1) and ESM-Type2) was derived through a single-step geometric interpolation in the primary constellation plane. Our third design goes one step further and uses two additional signal constellations $T_{M/2}$ and $F_{M/2}$, which are derived through a second interpolation step.
In partitioned form, these constellations are defined as
\begin{equation}
T_{M/2} = T'_{M/4} \cup T''_{M/8}\cup T_R \notag
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
F_{M/2} = F'_{M/4} \cup F''_{M/8}\cup F_R, \notag
\end{equation}
where $ T'_{M/4}$ denotes the $M/4$ points of $T_{M/2}$ of smallest energy excluding the innermost points, which form $T_c = \{i,-i\}$, $T''_{M/8}$ is the $M/8$ point extension of $T'_{M/4}$ of minimum energy, and $T_R$ denotes the rest of the points in $T_{M/2}$. For the $F_{M/2}$ constellation, we use the same definition and similar notations, because as it will be clear later this constellation is obtained by a simple $\pi/2$ rotation of constellation $T_{M/2}$. The innermost points of $F_{M/2}$ are given by $T_c=\{1,-1\}$.
For $M=16$, Fig. \ref{F.ESM-type3} shows the 6 component constellations which form $T_{M/2}$ and $F_{M/2}$. They have the following mathematical representation:
\begin{align*}
T'_4 = \{ \pm 2 \pm i\}, T''_2 = \{\pm 3i\}, T_R = \{ \pm i\}, \, \\
F'_4 = \{ \pm 1 \pm 2i\}, F''_2 = \{\pm 3\}, F_R = \{ \pm 1\}.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in,height=2in]{T3_64QAM.eps}
\caption{The constellations of ESM-Type3 with $M = 64$: The blue points represent $T_R$, the blue crosses represent $T'_{16}$, the blue stars represent $T''_8$, the red circles represent $F_R$, the red squares represent $F'_{16}$, and the red triangles denote $F''_8$.}
\label{F.esm-ty3-64qam}
\end{figure}
For $M=64$, the $6$ component constellations of $T_{32}$ and $F_{32}$ are shown in Fig. \ref{F.esm-ty3-64qam}. Their mathematical representation is:
\begin{align*}
T'_{16} & = \{ \pm 2, \pm 2 \pm i, \pm 3i, \pm 4 \pm i, \pm 5i \}, \\
T''_8 & = \{ \pm 2 \pm 5i, \pm 4 \pm 3i\}, \\
T_R & = \{ \pm i, \pm 6 \pm i, 4+5i, -4-5i \},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
F'_{16} & = \{ \pm 1 \pm 2i, \pm 3 \pm 2i, \pm 1 \pm 4i, \pm 3, \pm 5 \}, \\
F''_{8} &= \{ \pm 3 \pm 4i , \pm 5 \pm 2i\}, \\
F_R &= \{ \pm 1, \pm 1 \pm 6i, -5+4i, 5-4i\}.
\end{align*}
Note that all constellations used in the ESM-Type3 design, i.e. ($P_{M/2},S_{M/2},T_{M/2},F_{M/2}$), have the minimum Euclidean distance of $\delta_0$. Next, the minimum distance between the $P_{M/2}$ and $S_{M/2}$ constellations (resp. the $T_{M/2}$) and $F_{M/2}$ constellations) is $\delta_0/\sqrt{2}$. Finally, the minimum distance between a point taken from $P_{M/2} \cup S_{M/2}$ and a point taken from $T_{M/2}\cup F_{M/2}$ is $\delta_0/2$. Since the number of active antennas is limited to $2$, a particular care must be exercised to preserve a minimum distance of $\delta_0$ in the signal space.
More specifically, the use of different constellations cannot be made independently from a channel use to the next. Instead, the antenna/constellation combinations must be jointly defined over a block of two consecutive channel uses. The minimum distance can be preserved in the following two cases: In the first case, the $P_{M/2}$ and $S_{M/2}$ constellations (resp. the $T_{M/2}$ and $F_{M/2}$ constellations) are employed during both channel uses. In the second case, the $P_{M/2}$ and $S_{M/2}$ constellations are used during the first channel use, and the $T_{M/2}$ and $F_{M/2}$ constellations are used during the second channel use, or vice versa. In this paper, we take the second approach, because the number of bits transmitted per block is not constant in the first.
For presenting our ESM-Type3 scheme, we first extend the system model by stacking two consecutive received signal vectors. Assuming slow-fading channels essentially constant over two consecutive channel uses, the transmitted and received signals are related by the following equation:
\begin{align}
\textbf{Y} = \textbf{H}\textbf{X}+\textbf{N},
\end{align}
where $\textbf{Y}=[\textbf{y}_1, \textbf{y}_2]$ denotes the $N_R \times 2$ received signal matrix, $\textbf{X}=[\textbf{x}_1,\textbf{x}_2]$ is the $N_T \times 2$ transmitted signal matrix, $\textbf{N}$ is the $N_R \times 2$ AWGN matrix, and the subscript $k\in \{1,2\}$ denotes the time index of the symbol vector. The transmitted codeword (symbol matrix) $\textbf{X}$ belongs to the following signal space:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{X}\in \{ \mathbb{S}_{1}, \mathbb{S}_{2}\}, \label{eq.esmty3}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
& \mathbb{S}_{1} = \{ \textbf{x}_1 \in \mathbb{S}_{PS}, \textbf{x}_2 \in \mathbb{S}_{TF} \} \\
& \mathbb{S}_{2} = \{ \textbf{x}_1 \in \mathbb{S}_{TF}, \textbf{x}_2 \in \mathbb{S}_{PS} \}.
\end{align}
In this representation, $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$ denotes the set of symbol vectors
based on the primary and the secondary constellations, and $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$
denotes the set of symbol vectors based on the third and the fourth constellations. The transmitted $N_T \times 2$ codeword takes its values from the set $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$ during the first channel use in the
block and from the set $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ during the second channel use, or vice versa. The number of bits per codeword is $4 + 4\log_2 M$ , which is twice the number of codewords per channel use. From those, 1 bit selects subset $\mathbb{S}_1$ or subset $\mathbb{S}_2$. Next, $2+2\log_2 M$ bits select a vector from $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$ and $1+2\log_2 M$ bits select a vector from $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$, and these two vectors are transmitted in the order determined by the first bit.
The details of the proposed design process can be described as follows: First, the set of symbol vectors $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$ is actually the signal space of ESM-Type2 described in the previous subsection. A signal vector from this set is of the form:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{S}_{PS}: \, \textbf{x} \in \{ L_1,L_2,L_3,L_4 \},
\end{equation}
where the subsets $L_1-L_4$ are given by eqns. (\ref{ty2_L1}) $-$ (\ref{eq_esm_ty2_L4}). As shown in the previous subsection, this scheme transmits $2+2\log_2 M$ bits per channel use, and the average total energy per transmitted symbol vector is $E_s = 13$ for $M=16$ and $E_s = 48.75$ for $M = 64$.
Next, the set of symbol vectors $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ is based on the third and the fourth constellations $T_{M/2}$ and $F_{M/2}$, but symbol vectors in $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ transmit one bit less than the $2+2\log_2 M$ bpcu transmitted in the case of $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$. The set $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ is constructed by the union of four subsets $L'_1$, $L'_2$, $L'_3$, $L'_4$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{S}_{TF}: \, \textbf{x} \in \{ L'_1,L'_2,L'_3,L'_4 \}.
\end{equation}
The first subset is defined as:
\begin{align}
L'_1 & = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} T_{M/2} \\ F_{M/2}\\0\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} F_{M/2} \\ T_{M/2} \\ 0 \\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\0 \\T_{M/2}\\F_{M/2} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\0\\F_{M/2}\\T_{M/2} \end{bmatrix} \end{smallmatrix} \right\}.
\end{align}
The $L'_1$ subset can transmit $2+2\log_2 (M/2)$ bits: $2$ bits select one of the four combinations of active TX antennas and associated constellations, $\log_2 (M/2)$ bits select a symbol from the $T_{M/2}$ constellation, and $\log_2 (M/2)$ bits select a symbol from the $F_{M/2}$ constellation.
The other three subsets $L'_2-L'_4$ are defined as follows:
\begin{align}
L'_2 & = \left\{ \begin{smallmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} T'_{M/4} \\ 0 \\ F'_{M/4}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} F'_{M/4} \\ 0 \\ T'_{M/4}\\0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\T'_{M/4} \\ 0 \\ F'_{M/4} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0\\F'_{M/4} \\ 0 \\ T'_{M/4} \end{bmatrix}
\\
\\
\begin{bmatrix} T'_{M/4} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ F'_{M/4} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} F'_{M/4} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ T'_{M/4} \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ T'_{M/4} \\ F'_{M/4} \\ 0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ F'_{M/4} \\ T'_{M/4} \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}
\end{smallmatrix} \right\} \\
L'_3 &= \{ L'_2 | T'_{M/4} \rightarrow T''_{M/8}\} \\
L'_4 &= \{ L'_2 | F'_{M/4} \rightarrow F''_{M/8}\}.
\end{align}
This representation indicates that the combinations of active antennas in subset $L'_3$ are the same as those in $L'_2$, but here constellation $T'_{M/4}$ is replaced by constellation $T''_{M/8}$. Similarly, subset $L'_4$ is obtained from $L'_2$ by substituting constellation $F''_{M/8}$ for $F'_{M/4}$.
The signal subset $L'_2$ transmits $3+2\log_2 (M/4)$ bits per symbol vector: 3 bits are needed to select one of the 8 combinations, $\log_2 (M/4)$ bits to select a symbol from $T'_{M/4}$, and $\log_2 (M/4)$ bits to select a symbol from $F'_{M/4}$. Next, since the $L'_3$ subset is derived from $L'_2$ by substituting $T''_{M/8}$ for $T'_{M/4}$, it transmits $3+\log_2 (M/4)+\log_2 (M/8)$ bits per symbol vector. Again, 3 bits select one of the 8 combinations, and then $\log_2 (M/8)$ bits select a symbol from $T''_{M/8}$, and $\log_2 (M/4)$ bits select a symbol from $F'_{M/4}$. Similarly, $L'_4$ subset transmits $3+\log_2 (M/4)+ \log_2 (M/8)$ bits per symbol vector. Here, 3 bits select one of the 8 combinations, $\log_2 (M/8)$ bits select a symbol from $F''_{M/8}$, and $\log_2 (M/4)$ bits select a symbol from $T'_{M/4}$.
The discussion above indicates that the number of bits transmitted per symbol vector is not uniform across the $L'_1-L'_4$ subsets. The implication of this is that the prefix of these subsets in $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ must have a variable number of bits. Specifically, subset $L'_1$ must have a 1-bit prefix, subset $L'_2$ a 2-bit prefix, and subsets $L'_3$ and $L'_4$ must have a 3-bit prefix. With these variable-length prefixes, it can be seen that all symbol vectors in $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ carry $1+2\log_2 M$ bits.
At this point, it is important to clarify the difference between the construction of the $L'_1$ subset and that of the $L'_2- L'_4$ subsets included in $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$. Notice that the innermost points of the $T_{M/2}$ and $F_{M/2}$ constellations, namely $T_c$ and $F_c$, are only used in the first subset $L'_1$. These points cannot be used in $L'_2$, because otherwise the minimum Euclidean distance in the signal space would be $\delta_0/\sqrt{2}$, which is 3 dB smaller than the minimum Euclidean distance in $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$. This is the case, for instance, between the symbol vectors $[1,i,0,0] \in L'_1$ and $[1,0,i,0] \in L'_2$. Similarly, the innermost points are not allowed in subsets $L'_3$ and $L'_4$. As a result, the signal vectors in $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ carry only $1+2\log_2 M$ bits, while the signal vectors in $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$ carry $2+2\log_2 M$ bits.
For $M=16$, the average energy per transmitted symbol vector from $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ is $E_s=11$. Since the signal vector sets in $\mathbb{S}_{PS}$ and $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ are used with the same probability, the average energy of the transmitted codewords in ESM-Type3 is:
\begin{equation}
E_{ESM-Type3-16QAM} = \frac{1}{2}\times (13+11) = 12. \notag
\end{equation}
This represents a 2.2 dB SNR gain over MSM and a 0.4 dB gain over the ESM-Type2.
For $M=64$, the average energy per transmitted symbol vector from $\mathbb{S}_{TF}$ is $E_s= 37$, and the average energy of the transmitted ESM-Type3 codewords is:
\begin{equation}
E_{ESM-Type3-64QAM} = \frac{1}{2}\times (48.75+37) = 42.875. \notag
\end{equation}
This represents a 2.9 dB SNR gain over baseline MSM.
\section{Extensions to Higher Number of Antennas}
In this section, we investigate the extension to higher numbers of antennas of the new ESM designs presented in the previous section. Before doing this, we describe the MSM concept used for benchmarking these designs. In MSM with $N_T$ transmit antennas out of which $N_A$ antennas are active using $M$-QAM modulation, the maximum number of active antenna combinations is $C_{N_T}^{N_A}=\frac{N_T!}{N_A!\times (N_T-N_A)!}$. Usually, the number of combinations is restricted to be an integer power of 2 in order to have an integer number of address bits to select the active antennas. This number is given by:
\begin{equation}
n = \lfloor \log_2 (C^{N_A}_{N_T})\rfloor,
\end{equation}
where $\lfloor x \rfloor$ stands for the integer part of $x$. In this scheme, the transmitted average energy is $10 \times N_A$ for $M=16$ (16QAM modulation) and $42\times N_A$ for $M=64$ (64QAM modulation). As for the throughput, it is given by $n + N_A\log_2 M$.
\subsection{ESM-Type1}
The basic principle of ESM-Type1 is to use a secondary constellation of half size (with $M/2$ points) in addition to the primary constellation with $M$ points in order to reduce the average transmit energy. The primary constellation is the $M$-QAM constellation (denoted $P_M$) used by the reference MSM scheme, and the secondary constellation is the $S_{M/2}$ constellation. Selection of the active antennas requires the same number of address bits as in MSM. But on top of this, ESM-Type1 requires additional address bits to select the antennas which transmit symbols from the $S_{M/2}$ constellation.
Assuming that the number of active antennas $N_A$ is an even number, half of the active antennas transmit symbols from the $P_M$ constellation, and the other half of the antennas transmit symbols from the $S_{M/2}$ constellation. Compared to MSM, the number of bits in the transmitted symbols is reduced by $N_A/2$. This reduction is compensated by the bits assigned to the selection of the active antennas which transmit symbols from the $S_{M/2}$ constellation. For a given set of active antennas, the number of bits assigned to this selection is
\begin{equation}
m = \left \lfloor \log_2 \left( C^{N_A/2}_{N_A} \right) \right \rfloor.
\end{equation}
For example, with $N_A=4$, we have $m=2$, and precisely, this is the number of bits that we need to compensate for the fact that the $4$ symbols in ESM-Type1 transmit $2$ bits less than in MSM. Consequently, in this scheme too the throughput is given by $ n + N_A\log_2 M$.
The average transmit energy is clearly $10 \frac{N_A}{2}+6\frac{N_A}{2} =16\frac{N_A}{2}$ for $M = 16$, and $42\frac{N_A}{2}+22\frac{N_A}{2} =64\frac{N_A}{2}$ for $M = 64$. For all $N_A$ values, the gain with respect to MSM is 1 dB and 1.2 dB with $M=16$ and $M=64$, respectively.
\subsection{ESM-Type2}
The idea here is not to use the original primary constellation $P_M$ in full, but instead a subset $P_{M/2}$, which consists of the $M/2$ points of $P_M$ of smallest energy. With $N_A$ active antennas, the number of bits carried by the transmitted symbols is reduced by $N_A$ with respect to MSM which uses the original $P_M$ constellation. Since both of the constellations used in this design have the same size and essentially the same average energy, we do not need to restrict here that half of the symbols must take their values from $P_{M/2}$ and the other half from the $S_{M/2}$ constellation. All we need instead is to have an even number of symbols taking their values from $S_{M/2}$, as this condition is sufficient to ensure that the minimum Euclidean distance in the signal space will not be reduced. The group of bits assigned to the selection of the constellation must form a parity-check code and hence it contains $N_A-1$ information bits. This compensates for the loss of $N_A$ bits due to the half-size constellations, except for $1$ bit. Compensation of this bit can only be made by increasing the number of active antenna combinations and adding some other combinations which make use of additional modulations, as illustrated by the signal space in section III.C.
We now illustrate the signal space construction for $N_T=8$ and three different values of $N_A$, namely $N_A=2$, $N_A=4$, and $N_A=6$. For both $N_A=2$ and $N_A=6$, the maximum number of active antenna combinations is $C_8^2=28$. From those, MSM uses $16$, which require $4$ address bits. In contrast, ESM-Type2 uses all of these combinations, and in addition to them, it uses additional antenna/modulation combinations which involve other constellations, similar to the subspace given by (\ref{eq_esm_ty2_L4}) for $M = 16$ and to the subspaces given by (\ref{eq_t2_L5}) and (\ref{eq_t2_L6}) for $M = 64$. It can be easily verified that the average energy per codeword is given by $(28\times 12 + 4 \times 16)/32 = 12.5$ for $M = 16$, and $(28\times 42 + 2\times 66 + 2\times 72)/32=45.375$ for $M = 64$. Note that the energy saving with respect to MSM here is higher than that reported in Section III.C. More specifically, the energy saving is 2.04 dB for $M = 16$ and 2.7 dB for $M = 64$.
For $N_T=8$ and $N_A=4$, the situation is not as favorable: Indeed, the number of active antenna combination is $C_8^4=70$, and MSM can use $64$ of them. Instead of trying to find suitable antenna and modulation combinations to increase the signal space and recover the missing bit, we found that in this case a simple alternative consists of using constellation $S_{M/2}$ on two antennas, constellation $P_{M/2}$ on one antenna, and the full constellation $P_M$ on the remaining active antenna. The energy saving with respect to MSM in this case is 1.55 dB for $M=16$ and 2.0 dB for $M=64$, which is a worst-case situation corresponding to one of the active antennas transmitting symbols from the full primary constellation. In summary, the gain achieved with respect to MSM is a function of the $N_T$ and $N_A$ parameters, and it will exceed 2 dB in most cases.
\subsection{ESM-Type3}
We will not attempt here to fully describe ESM-Type3 for an arbitrary number of transmit antennas $N_T$ and an arbitrary number of active antennas $N_A$, because the signal space will depend on both of these parameters. Instead, we will give the basic design rule and indicate the achievable performance.
Recall that this ESM design makes use of 4 different constellations, namely $P_{M/2}$, $S_{M/2}$, $T_{M/2}$, and $F_{M/2}$, the first being a subset of the primary constellation, the second being a secondary constellation derived through a first interpolation step, and finally the third and the fourth being derived through a second interpolation step. Also recall that all of these modulations have a minimum Euclidean distance of $\delta_0$, the minimum distance between $P_{M/2}$ and $S_{M/2}$ (resp. between $T_{M/2}$ and $F_{M/2}$ is $\delta_0/\sqrt{2}$, and the minimum distance between $P_{M/2} \cup S_{M/2}$ and $T_{M/2} \cup F_{M/2}$ is $\delta_0/2$.
Let us define 2 bit sequences $\{\alpha_i\}$ and $\{ \beta_i \}$, $i=1,2,\cdots,N_A$ where $\alpha_i$ determines whether the $i$th component of the codeword belongs to $P_{M/2} \cup S_{M/2}$ or to $T_{M/2}\cup F_{M/2}$, and $\beta_i$ determines whether this component belongs to $P_{M/2}\cup T_{M/2}$ or to $S_{M/2}\cup F_{M/2}$. In order to preserve a minimum distance of $\delta_0$ in the signal space, the $\{\alpha_i\}$ sequence must form a binary code of Hamming distance 4, and the $\{\beta_i\}$ sequence must form a binary code of Hamming distance 2. With $N_A = 2$, a Hamming distance of 4 cannot be achieved if the codewords are defined over a single channel use, and for this reason two consecutive symbol vectors were stacked and the codewords were defined over two consecutive channel uses in Section III.C. This constraint remains with higher $N_T$ values as long as $N_A=2$. But for $N_A$ values of 4 or higher, no stacking is required, because a Hamming distance of 4 can be achieved between $\{\alpha_i \}$, $i=1,2,\cdots,N_A$ sequences defined over a single channel use. The design rule in ESM-Type3 is to define the signal space in such a way that these two Hamming distance requirements are met. Then, the SNR gain over MSM is obtained simply by comparing the average transmit energies.
\section{Performance and Complexity Analysis}
\subsection{The Minimum Euclidean Distance}
Assuming the channel state information (CSI) is perfectly known at the receive side, the maximum-likelihood (ML) decoder estimates the transmitted codeword according to:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\hat X} = \arg \min_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{X}} \Vert \mathbf{Y}-\mathbf{H}\mathbf{X}\Vert^2,
\end{align}
where the minimization is performed over all possible codewords from the signal space $\mathbb{X}$.
In ML detection using exhaustive search, the receiver computes the Euclidean distance between the received noisy signal and the set of all possible codewords transmitted over the channel matrix. At high SNR, the receiver performance is dominated by the minimum squared Euclidean distance over the signal space \cite{stbc_05}:
\begin{align}
L^2_{min} = \min \Vert \textbf{X}-\textbf{X}' \Vert^2.
\end{align}
The ESM schemes introduced in this paper were designed in such a way as to preserve the minimum squared Euclidean distance $\delta_0$ of the primary modulation, i.e., $L_{min}^2 = \delta_0^2$ in all of them. The same minimum distance being also valid for single-stream SM, MSM, the ESM schemes introduced in \cite{esm_15}, and in SMX, comparison of the respective asymptotic performances of the different schemes is reduced to comparing their average transmit energy $E_s$. The average transmit energy for all of these MIMO schemes is summarized in Table \ref{t.eg} for 10 bpcu and for 14 bpcu transmissions.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Average transmit energy for 10 bpcu and 14 bpcu}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& SM \cite{spa_08v} & SMX-2TX & ESM \cite{esm_15} & MSM \cite{per_13}\\
\hline \hline
10bpcu & 170 & 40 & 28.5 & 20 \\
\hline
14bpcu & 2730 & 164 & 202 & 84\\
\hline
\hline
& \textbf{ESM-Type1} & \textbf{ESM-Type2} & \textbf{ESM-Type3} & SMX-4TX\\
\hline
10bpcu & 16 & 13 & 12 & 16 \\
\hline
14bpcu & 64 & 48.75 & 42.875 & 32\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{t.eg}
\end{table}
The gains achieved by the new ESM designs over MSM have already been indicated in Section III. The main purpose of this table is to give an indication as to how these schemes compare to spatial multiplexing with 4 transmit antennas (SMX-4TX), spatial multiplexing with 2 transmit antennas (SMX-2TX), single-stream SM of \cite{spa_08v}, and also to the original ESM schemes of \cite{esm_15}. First, note that SMX-4TX must use two different modulations at these two spectral efficiencies. For 10 bpcu transmission, we assume that 2 antennas transmit QPSK symbols (of average energy 2) and the other 2 antennas transmit symbols from the $P_8$ constellation used by ESM-Type2 (see Subsection III.C). The average transmit energy of SMX-4TX is $2\times(2+6)=16$ in this case. For 14 bpcu transmission, 2 antennas transmit 16QAM symbols and the other 2 antennas transmit symbols from the $P_8$ constellation. The average transmit energy is $2\times(10+6)=32$. Clearly, this transmission scheme has better performance than our new ESM schemes at 14 bpcu, but it involves 4 RF chains
Next, SMX-2TX uses 32QAM for 10 bpcu and 128QAM for 14 bpcu transmission. The average transmit energy is 40 and 164, respectively. The gains achieved by our new ESM designs over this scheme are substantial: around $4.0 - 4.1$ dB with ESM-Type1, $4.9 - 5.3$ dB with ESM-Type2, and $5.2 - 5.8$ dB with ESM-Type3.
Single-stream SM must employ 256QAM modulation to achieve 10 bpcu and 4096QAM to achieve 14 bpcu. It is needless to say that the gap is tremendous here. Finally, our original ESM scheme of \cite{esm_15} achieves 10 bpcu using 64QAM as primary modulation and 14 bpcu using 1024QAM as primary modulation. In the first case, it uses two secondary modulations of 8 points, and in the second case, it uses secondary modulations of 32 points each, following the design rules described in that paper. The average transmit energy values given in Table \ref{t.eg} indicate that in the case of 10 bpcu transmission ESM-Type3 gains $10 \log_{10}(28.5/12)=3.8$ dB over our original ESM scheme. In the case of 14 bpcu, the gain is as high as 6.7 dB. These results are not surprising, because the ESM scheme of \cite{esm_15} was designed to improve over single-stream SM, while the new ESM schemes introduced in this paper were specifically designed to improve over MSM.
\subsection{The Union Bound Analysis}
For each channel use, the signal codeword $\mathbf{X}$ is in a vector form $\mathbf{x}$ and its performance can be evaluated by using the union bound analysis shown in \cite{esm_15}. We define the pairwise error probability (PEP) as the probability that the ML decoder decodes a symbol vector $\mathbf{x}′$ instead of the transmitted symbol vector $\mathbf{x}$. The average PEP (APEP) can be computed by using the union bound as follows:
\begin{align}
APEP\leq \frac{1}{\vert \mathbb{X} \vert} \sum_{\textbf{x}\in \mathbb{X}} \sum_{\textbf{x}'\in \mathbb{X}} PEP(\textbf{x}\rightarrow \textbf{x}'). \label{eq_apep}
\end{align}
For Rayleigh fading channels, the PEP is given by
\begin{align}
& PEP(\textbf{x}\rightarrow \textbf{x}')\notag \\ & = \mathbb{E}_{\textbf{H}}\left [ \mathcal{Q}\left( \sqrt{\frac{E_s \Vert \textbf{H}\textbf{x}-\textbf{H}\textbf{x}' \Vert^2}{2N_0}} \right) \right] \notag\\
& = \left( \frac{1-\mu}{2}\right)^{N_R} \sum^{N_R-1}_{k=0}C ^k_{N_R-1+k}\left(\frac{1+\mu}{2}\right)^k,
\end{align}
where the Gaussian Q-function is denoted by $\mathcal{Q}(\cdot)$, $\mu = \sqrt{\tau/(4N_0/E_s + \tau)}$, and $\tau = \Vert \textbf{x} - \textbf{x}' \Vert^2$ denotes the squares Euclidean distance between two symbol vectors.
The APEP shown in (\ref{eq_apep}) can be used for an analytic evaluation of the proposed ESM schemes. Given the codeword length with $N_c$ channel uses, the codeword error rate (CER) can be upper bounded by:
\begin{equation}
CER \leq N_c \times APEP. \label{eq_cer}
\end{equation}
For ESM-Type1 and ESM-type2, error events are independent from a channel use to the next, because each symbol vector is generated independently. Therefore, the CER is bounded by the product of the APEP per channel use and the codeword length $N_c$. For ESM-Type3, a codeword is composed of two symbol vectors transmitted over two channel uses. These two symbol vectors have the same error rate, due to the symmetry imposed on the signal design. As a result, the CER of ESM-Type3 can also be bounded using equation (\ref{eq_cer}).
\subsection{Receiver Complexity}
We define the receiver complexity as the number of floating point operations (flops) required per ML decoder decision, where each addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and square-root operation counts as one flop \cite{flop_13}. Using this definition, we found that the first two of the proposed ESM schemes have essentially the same receiver complexity as MSM, while the third has a 50\% higher complexity.
Using the system model given by eqn. (\ref{eq.system_model}), the ML decoder needs to compute $2^b$ decision metrics $w_k = \Vert \textbf{y} - \textbf{H}\textbf{x}_k \Vert^2$, $k=1,\cdots,2^b$, where $b$ is the total number of transmitted bits per channel use. This holds for MSM as well as for ESM-Type1 and ESM-Type2. For different operations, the number of flops is given by:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Computing $\textbf{H}\textbf{x}_k$ requires $N_R(2N_A-1)$ flops,
\item
Computing $\textbf{y}-\textbf{Hx}_k$ requires $N_R$ flops,
\item
Computing $\Vert \textbf{y} - \textbf{Hx}_k \Vert^2$ requires $2N_R-1$ flops.
\end{itemize}
That is, computation of the decision metrics by the ML decoder requires in total $2^b (2N_R (N_A+1)-1)$ flops.
A close look at ESM-Type3 reveals that the decoder complexity is more involved than in the first two ESM schemes, because the ML decoder must jointly decide two consecutive symbols. The ML decoder must search in this space using two consecutive received signal samples $\textbf{y}_1$ and $\textbf{y}_2$ and computing metrics of the form $w_k = \Vert \textbf{y}_1 - \textbf{H}\textbf{x}_i \Vert^2 + \Vert \textbf{y}_2 - \textbf{H}\textbf{x}_j \Vert^2$, where $\textbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{S}_{PS}$, $\textbf{x}_j \in \mathbb{S}_{TF}$, or $\textbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{S}_{TF}$, $\textbf{x}_j \in \mathbb{S}_{PS}$. The number of flops per decoder decision is $2(2^b + 2^{b-1})(2N_R(N_A+1)-1)$. But since only one decision is made every two channel uses, the number of flops per channel use is $(2^b + 2^{b-1})(2N_R(N_A+1)-1)$. This is 50\% higher than in MSM, ESM-Type1, and ESM-Type2.
\subsection{Sphere Decoding for ESM}
Implementation of the ML decoder using exhaustive search involves a very high complexity and becomes prohibitive at very high spectral efficiencies, and this holds for any MIMO scheme. In practice, the ML decoder can be implemented efficiently using the sphere decoding (SD) technique. This technique reduces the complexity of the ML decoder by shrinking the search space to an acceptable level and counting those combinations that lie within a sphere centered on the received signal. The general SD scheme for SM was described in \cite{gen_13s}, where it was shown that this decoding technique significantly reduces the computational complexity with no performance loss. In the simulations section which follows, we use a multi-stream complex-valued SD for ESM, which is a modification of the single-stream and real-valued SD \cite{gen_13s} that takes the signal space of ESM into account and uses an infinite search radius to guarantee the ML performance.
\section{Simulation Results}
Monte Carlo simulations were carried out using uncorrelated Rayleigh fading MIMO channels and assuming perfect CSI at the receiver. In the simulations, symbol codewords $\textbf{X}$ were randomly generated transmitted over the channel, the SD was performed using the received noisy signal samples, and error events $\textbf{X} \neq \textbf{X}'$ were counted. The obtained codeword error rate (CER) was used to compare baseline MSM and the presented ESM schemes.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in,height=2.5in]{sver10.eps}
\caption{The CER performance of MSM and of the proposed ESM schemes: 4 TX antennas and 8 RX antennas with 10 \textit{bpcu}.}
\label{F.pep_10b}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{F.pep_10b} gives the Monte-Carlo simulation results of the system performance for 10-bpcu transmission. The number of receive antennas used in these simulations is 8. These results show that at $CER = 10^{-3}$ the presented ESM schemes achieve SNR gains over MSM of around 0.6 dB, 1.3 dB, and 1.8 dB, respectively. In this figure, we also give the analytic bound of the ESM schemes obtained given by (\ref{eq_cer}) to show its tightness in the high SNR region.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in,height=2.5in]{sver_14bpcu.eps}
\caption{The CER performance of MSM and of the proposed ESM schemes: 4 TX antennas and 16 RX antennas with 14 \textit{bpcu}.}
\label{F.pep_11b}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{F.pep_11b}, we report the CER performance of MSM and the proposed ESM schemes providing 14 bpcu using 16 receive antennas. Here, we can see that at the $CER = 10^{-3}$, the ESM schemes achieve gains of around 0.9 dB, 1.9 dB, and 2.2 dB, respectively, over MSM. Note that the gains are higher than those achieved in the 10 bpcu case. This is due to the fact that the average energy of the secondary constellations used in our signal design becomes lower (relatively to the primary constellation) when higher spectral efficiencies are considered. Also note that the gains observed in these simulations are lower than those predicted by the average transmit powers, but this is not surprising, because the latter are asymptotic results that are valid at high SNR values.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in,height=2.5in]{Impact_Rx.eps}
\caption{Performance gain vs. the number of RX antennas for ESM-Type1 and ESM-Type2 with 10 \textit{bpcu}.}
\label{F.ant_imp}
\end{figure}
A final investigation in this work concerned the evaluation of the number of RX antennas required to approach the gains predicted by the average transmit energies. The results corresponding to ESM-Type1 and ESM-Type2 with 10 bpcu are reported in Fig. \ref{F.ant_imp}. The specific numbers of RX antennas used in this investigation were 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64. The results show that a large number of RX antennas are needed in order to closely approach the asymptotic performance gain, but 80\% of this gain in ESM-Type1 and 90\% in ESM-Type2 can be achieved with 16 RX antennas.
This can be interpreted by using the union bound equation shown in (\ref{eq_apep}). As the number of receiving antennas grows large with a high SNR value, the union bound on the error probability depends only on the average transmit energy and the minimum Euclidean distance between all pairs of codewords, i.e., $PEP_w = \mathcal{Q}\left(\frac{E_s \cdot \delta_0}{\sqrt{2N_0 }}\right)$ when $N_R \rightarrow \infty$ and $N_T$ is finite \cite{large_no_02}. Since the the minimum distance $\delta_0$ is the same for all schemes in this paper, this result shows that the theoretical gain can be achieved with a large number of RX antennas and a high SNR value.
\section{Conclusion}
Taking multi-stream SM as reference, we introduced in this paper three new ESM designs which lead to increasing SNR gains. The new schemes were described for MIMO systems with 4 transmit antennas two of which remain systematically active, but their extension to higher number of antennas was also presented. The proposed designs extend our previous work reported in \cite{esm_15}, and are based on the concept of multiple constellations. The basic principle is to increase the signal space using additional signal constellations to the primary constellation used by MSM. The first and the second ESM schemes make use of a secondary constellation, which is obtained through a single step of geometric interpolation in the primary constellation plane. The third ESM scheme goes one step further and uses two additional constellations derived through a second interpolation step. In all of them, the signal space is designed in such a way as to preserve the minimum Euclidean distance of the primary constellation while reducing the average total transmit energy. This makes performance comparisons with MSM and other MIMO schemes such as spatial multiplexing straightforward. Focusing on spectral efficiencies of 10 bpcu and 14 bpcu and using Monte Carlo simulations on Rayleigh fading channels as well as analytic performance bounds, it was found that the proposed schemes achieve significant performance gains compared to MSM with two active TX antennas.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The present work was carried out within the framework of Celtic-Plus SHARING project.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction }
The lumps solutions of Kadomtsev-Petviashvili(KP)-(I)equation correspond to the rationally decaying solutions (like O ($\frac{1}{x^2+y^2}$)), and they were first found in \cite{mn} and constructed by direct algebraic methods \cite{ab3, ab4, kn}. It is known that the Schrodinger equation can be used to linearize the KP-(I) equation via the inverse scattering transformation ( see (\ref{li}) below). The lumps solutions of reflectionless potentials have discrete spectrum for the Schrodinger equation, and the associated wave functions are meromorphic functions with respect to the spectrum; moreover, in general, the associated wave functions can be solved by the Fredholm-like integral equation \cite {ab4}. Also, the lumps solutions of DS equation were investigated in \cite{ms}. On the other hand, the asymptotic analysis of these lumps solutions are also noteworthy. These lumps can be thought as a collection of of individual humps that generically evolve with non-uniform dynamics, and their asymptotic behaviors, that is, $\vert t \vert \to \infty$, can be described by the locations and poles structure of the associated meromorphic wave functions in a complicated way \cite{ab3, ab4}. It is not clear how to describe the locations of the peaks of these lumps solutions as $\vert t \vert \to \infty$ for KP-(I) equation. \\
\indent The basic shallow water waves equation of 2+1 integrable model is the KP equation describing small amplitude with slow variations in the direction transverse to the wave propagation\cite{ch, ko, ko1, ko6} :
\begin{equation} u_t+u_{xxx}+6uu_x \pm \partial_x^{-1}3u_{yy}=0, \label{kp} \end{equation}
where $u$ is the height of water wave and $x,y$ are the space coordinates, t being the time. Here the subscripts denote partial derivatives and
\[ \partial^{-1}_xu (x,y,t)= \int_{-\infty}^{x} u(x', y, t) dx' .\]
The "+" is the KP-(II) equation and the "-" is the KP-(I) equation. It depends on the surface tension of water waves.
The integrability structure of the KP equation can be found in \cite{hi} and its physical origin, the inverse scattering transformation can be found in \cite{ab}.
To construct the lumps solutions of KP-(I) equation , one introduces the Grammian solution structure \cite{ab3, hi}. The KP-(I) equation can be written as the compatibility of the linear equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& i \psi_y +\psi_{xx}+u\psi =0 \nonumber \\
&& \psi_t+4 \psi_{xxx}+6u\psi_x+ w\psi=0, \quad w_x=u. \label{li}
\end{eqnarray}
The adjoint of (\ref{li}) is
\begin{eqnarray}
&& -i \psi^*_y +\psi^*_{xx}+u\psi^* =0 \nonumber \\
&& \psi^*_t+4 \psi^*_{xxx}+6(u\psi^*)_x- w\psi^*=0, \quad w_x=u. \label{lic} \end{eqnarray}
Let $ \{\psi_j, \psi^*_j \} , j=1,2,3, \cdots, m $, be distinct solutions of (\ref{li}) and (\ref{lic}) respectively, corresponding to a given solution $u(x,y,t)$ of KP-(I) equation. Then a new solution $\hat u $ is given by \cite{ab3}
\begin{equation} \hat u=u +2 \partial_x^2 \ln (det M(x,y,t)), \label{ru} \end{equation}
where $det M (x,y,t)$ is the Grammian determinant of the $m \times m$ matrix with elements
\begin{equation} M_{lj}=\int_{-\infty}^x \psi_l (x', y,t) \psi_j^* (x', y, t) dx', l, j=1,2,3, \cdots, m. \label{it} \end{equation}
\indent The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we obtain
the lumps solutions solutions using the Grammian determinant structure
and the elementary Schur functions. Section 3 is used to analyze the asymptotic behaviors of lumps solutions. It is shown that the locations of peaks will depend on the real roots of Wronskian of the orthogonal polynomials for some special cases. The section 4 is devoted to the concluding remarks.
\section{Grammian Determinant Solutions}
In this section,we construct the multi-lumps solutions (\ref{ru}) of the KP-(I) equation.\\
\indent Without loss of generality, we choose the seed solution $u=w=0$ for the asymptotic analysis. Inspired by the work in \cite{oy2, oy3}, then one considers the rogue waves solutions in KP-(I)equation. Let
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_l &= & A_l e^{\xi_l}, \quad \xi_l= p_l x+i p_l^2 y -4 p_l^3 t, \quad p_1, p_2, \cdots, p_m \in \textsl{C} \nonumber \\
\psi_j^* &= & B_j e^{\eta_j}, \quad \eta_j= q_j x - iq_j y -4 q_j^3 t, \quad q_1, q_2, \cdots, q_m \in \textsl{C} \label{ro}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_l$ and $B_j$ are differential operators defined by
\begin{equation} A_l= \sum_{k=0}^{n_l} c_{lk} (p_l\partial_{p_l})^{n_l-k}, \quad B_j= \sum_{s=0}^{n_j} d_{js} (q_j\partial_{q_j})^{n_j-s}, \label{de} \end{equation}
where the coefficients $ c_{lk} $ and $d_{js}$ are complex numbers. One supposes that
\[ A_l e^{ \xi_l}= \textit{P}_l e^{ \xi_l}, \quad B_j e^{ \eta}_j= \textit{Q}_j e^{ \eta_j},\]
where $\textit{P}_l(x,y,t)$ and $\textit{Q}_j(x,y,t)$ are functions of $x,y,t$. Then, using integration by parts, we can get
\begin{equation} M_{lj}=e^{\xi_l+\eta_j } \sum_{\nu=0}^{n_l+n_j} \frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{ (p_l+q_j)^{\nu+1}} \partial_x^{\nu} (\textit{P}_l \textit{Q}_j ). \label{in} \end{equation}
One can take the following constraints to get real solutions of $u$
\begin{equation} q_j=\bar{p}_j, \quad d_{lj}= \bar{c}_{lj} \label{ra} \end{equation}
such that the matrix $M$ is Hermitian $M_{lj}= \bar{M}_{jl}$ and $ \textit{Q}_j= \bar{\textit{P}_j}$. \\
To find the functions $\textit{P}_l$, we define $S_r(x,y,t,p)$ as follows: ($r \geq 0$ )
\begin{equation} (p \partial_p)^r e^{\xi (p)} = S_r(x,y,t,p)e^{\xi (p)}, \quad \xi (p)=x p+i p^2 y -4 p^3 t. \label{sr} \end{equation}
Then one has
\begin{eqnarray*} (p \partial_p)^{r+1} e^{\xi (p)} &=& (p \partial_p) [(p \partial_p)^r e^{\xi (p)}]=(p \partial_p)[S_r(x,y,t,p)e^{\xi (p)}] \\
&=& p(\partial_p (S_r)+ f(x,y,t,p) S_r) e^{\xi (p)} = S_{r+1} e^{\xi (p)},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{equation} \frac{ \partial \xi (p)}{\partial p}=f(x,y,t,p)= x +2ipy-12p^2 t.\label{fu} \end{equation}
Hence we get
\begin{equation} S_{r+1}= p\partial_p (S_r)+ pfS_r.\label{gen} \end{equation}
For example,
\begin{eqnarray*} S_0 &=& 1, \\
S_1 &=& pf, \\
S_2 &=& pf+p^2f_p+p^2f^2 \\
S_3 &=& pf+3p^2 f^2+p^3 f^3+3p^2 f_p+ 3fp^3 f_p+p^3 f_{pp}, \\
S_4 &=& pf+ 6\,{p}^{3}f_{pp} +{p}^{4}f_{ppp}+18\,{p}^{3}f_p f +3\,{p}^{4}f_p^{2}+4\,{p}^{4}f f_{pp}+7\,{p}^{2}f_p +7\,{p}^{2}f^{2}+6\,{p}^{3}f^{3} \\
&+& 6\,{p}^{4}f^{2}f_p +{p}^{4} f^{4}
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, we have
\[ \textit{P}_l= \sum_{k=0}^{n_l} c_{lk} S_{n_l-k}. \]
\indent On the other hand, we can express $S_r$ as elementary Schur functions in the following way. The elementary Schur functions $H_r$ are defined by
\[ e^{\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} x_k \lambda^k } = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} H_r (\vec{x}) \lambda^r , \]
where $\vec{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3, \cdots)$.
In general, we have
\begin{equation} H_r (\vec{x})= \sum_{n_1+2n_2+3n_3+\cdots+rn_r=r} \frac{x_1^{n_1} x_2^{n_2}x_3^{n_3} \cdots x_r^{n_r}}{n_1 ! n_2 ! \cdots n_r !}. \label{sc} \end{equation}
For example,
\begin{eqnarray*} && H_0=1, \quad H_1=x_1, \quad H_2=\frac{1}{2} x_1^2+x_2, \quad H_3=\frac{1}{6} x_1^3+x_1x_2+ x_3, \nonumber \\
&& H_4=x_4+ x_1 x_3+\frac{1}{2}x_2^{2}+\frac{1}{2} x_2 x_1^{2}+\frac{1}{24}x_1^{4} \nonumber \\
&& H_5= x_5+x_1x_4+x_3x_2+\frac{1}{2}x_3x_1^2+\frac{1}{2}x_2^2x_1+\frac{1}{6}x_2x_1^3+\frac{1}{120}x_1^5, \cdots. \end{eqnarray*}
We remark that $ H_r $ has the basic property
\begin{equation} \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_s}=H_{r-s}. \label{ba} \end{equation}
Using the functional identity,
\[ e^{\lambda p\partial_p } F(p)= F(e^{\lambda} p), \]
one has, defining that $\xi=xp+ip^2y-4p^3t=px_1+p^2 x_2+p^3x_3=\sum_{\mu=1}^3 p^{\mu}x_{\mu}$ ,
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{-\xi } e^{\lambda p\partial_p } e^{\xi } &=& \exp(\sum_{\mu=1}^3 (e^{\mu \lambda}-1)p^{\mu}x_{\mu})=\exp(\sum_{r=1}\frac{\lambda^{r}}{r!} \sum_{\mu=1}^3 \mu^{r}p^{\mu} x_{\mu}) \label{sh} \\
&=& \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \lambda^r H_r (\vec{\chi}_r(p)), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \vec{\chi}_r(p)=(\chi_1(p), \chi_2 (p), \chi_3(p), \cdots, \chi_r(p) )= (x_1, x_2, x_3, \cdots, x_r) $, i.e.,
\begin{equation} x_n= \chi_n(p)= \frac{\sum_{\mu=1}^3 \mu^n p^{\mu} x_{\mu} }{n!}=\frac{ xp +i p^2 2^{n} y -4p^3 3^n t }{n!}, \quad n=1, 2, 3, \cdots, r .\label{va} \end{equation}
Comparing the coefficient of $\lambda^r$ of (\ref{sh}), one gets
\[ e^{-\xi } \frac{(p\partial_p)^r}{r!} e^{\xi } = H_r(\vec{\chi}_r(p)).\]
Hence
\begin{equation} S_r= r! H_r(\vec{\chi}_r(p)).\label{eq} \end{equation}
For the case $m=1$ in (\ref{ru}), we obtain $u=2 \partial_{xx}^2 \ln F_n,$ where
\begin{equation} F_n=M_{11}= \sum_{\nu=0}^{n} \frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{ (p_1+\bar{p}_1)^{\nu+1}} \partial_x^{\nu} (\vert \textit{P}_1 \vert^2 ), \label{pos} \end{equation}
and
\[ \textit{P}_1= c_{10} S_n+ c_{11} S_{n-1}+c_{12} S_{n-2}+ \cdots+ c_{1n} S_0.\]
\indent Under the condition (\ref{ra}), the matrix (\ref{it}) is Hermitian and positive. It can be seen as follows. For any non-zero column vector $\textbf{v}=(v_1, v_2, \cdots, v_m)^T$ and $\bar{\textbf{v}}$ being its complex transpose, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \bar{\textbf{v}} M \textbf{v}&=& \sum_{l, j=1}^m \bar{v}_l M_{lj}v_j = \sum_{l, j=1}^m \bar{v}_l v_j A_l B_j \int_{-\infty}^x e^{\xi_l +\eta_j} dx \nonumber \\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^x (\sum_{l, j=1}^m \bar{v}_l v_j A_l B_j e^{\xi_l +\eta_j}) dx =\int_{-\infty}^x \vert \sum_{l=1}^m \bar{v}_l A_l e^{\xi_l} \vert^2 dx. \label{her}
\end{eqnarray}
\indent From (\ref{it}) it follows that
\begin{equation} M_{lj}= A_l B_j \frac{1}{p_i+q_j} e^{\xi_l +\eta_j}. \label{ter} \end{equation}
By using the operator relation
\[ (p_l\partial_{p_l}) e^{\xi_l} =e^{\xi_l}(p_l\partial_{p_l} + \hat{\xi}_l), \quad (q_j\partial_{q_j}) e^{\eta_j} =e^{\eta_j }(q_j\partial_{q_j} + \hat{\eta}_j), \]
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{\xi_l} &=& p_l \partial_{p_l} \xi_l =xp_l+2ip_l^2y-12p_l^3t, \\
\hat{\eta}_j &=& q_j \partial_{q_j} \eta_j =xq_j-2iq_j^2y-12q_j^3t,
\end{eqnarray*}
we also have
\begin{equation} M_{lj}= e^{\xi_l+\eta_j }\sum_{k=0}^{n_l} c_{lk}(p_l\partial_{p_l} + \hat{\xi_l})^{n_l-k } \sum_{s=0}^{n_j} d_{js}(q_j\partial_{q_j} + \hat{\eta}_j)^{n_j-s} \frac{1}{p_l+q_j}.\label{im} \end{equation}
\section{Asymptotic Analysis}
In this section, we can investigate the asymptotic behaviors of the multi-lumps solutions defined by (\ref{it}) , (\ref{in}) and (\ref{ra}) or (\ref{im}). From this asymptotic analysis, one can get the orthogonal polynomials, of which the real roots are used to determine the locations of peaks as $\vert t \vert \to \infty$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $ c_{10}=c_{20}=\cdots =c_{n0}=1$ by (\ref{ru}). Let's define
\[ \hat {A}_j= \sum_{k=0}^{n_j} c_{jk}(p_j\partial_{p_j} + \hat{\xi_j})^{n_j-k }, \]
and it's not difficult to see that
\begin{equation} [\hat {A_l}, \hat {A_j}]=0, \quad [\hat {A_l}, \bar{\hat {A}_j}]=0, \quad [ \bar{\hat {A_l}}, \bar{\hat {A_j}}]=0, \quad l \neq j. \label{co} \end{equation}
Notice that the differential operators in (\ref{de}) also have the properties (\ref{co}). By (\ref{co}) and the reality condition (\ref{re}), one has the expression
\begin{eqnarray} \tau(x,y,t) &:=& e^{-(\sum_{j=1}^{m} p_j+ \bar{p}_j)} det M(x,y,t) \nonumber \\
&=& e^{-(\sum_{j=1}^{m} p_j+ \bar{p}_j)} A_1 A_2 \cdots A_m \bar{A_1}\bar{A_2} \cdots \bar{A_m} \nonumber \\
&& \frac{\prod_{1 \leq l < j \leq m} (p_l-p_j)( \bar{p}_l-\bar{p}_j)}{\prod_{l,j=1}^{m} (p_l+\bar{p}_j)} e^{\sum_{j=1}^{m} p_j+ \bar{p}_j} \label{cb} \\
&=&\hat {A_1} \hat {A_2} \cdots \hat {A_m} \bar{\hat {A_1}}\bar{\hat {A_2}} \cdots \bar{\hat {A_m}} \frac{\prod_{1 \leq l < j \leq m} (p_l-p_j)( \bar{p}_l-\bar{p}_j)}{\prod_{l,j=1}^{m} (p_l+\bar{p}_j)}, \label{ca} \end{eqnarray}
where one uses the Cauchy determinant formula
\[ det (\frac{1}{ x_i +y_j})_{1 \leq i, j \leq m}=\frac{\prod_{1 \leq i < j \leq m} (x_i-x_j)( y_i-y_j)}{\prod_{i,j=1}^{m} (x_i+y_j)}. \]
For example, when $n=3$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*} && \tau(x,y,t)= det \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \hat {A_1} \bar{\hat {A_1}} \frac{1}{ p_1 +\bar{p}_1} & \hat {A_1} \bar{\hat {A_2}} \frac{1}{ p_1 +\bar{p}_2} & \hat {A_1} \bar{\hat {A_3}} \frac{1}{ p_1 +\bar{p}_3} \\
\hat {A_2} \bar{\hat {A_1}} \frac{1}{ p_2 +\bar{p}_1} & \hat {A_2} \bar{\hat {A_2}} \frac{1}{ p_2 +\bar{p}_2} & \hat {A_2} \bar{\hat {A_3}} \frac{1}{ p_2 +\bar{p}_3} \\
\hat {A_3} \bar{\hat {A_1}} \frac{1}{ p_3 +\bar{p}_1} & \hat {A_3} \bar{\hat {A_2}} \frac{1}{ p_3 +\bar{p}_2} & \hat {A_3} \bar{\hat {A_3}} \frac{1}{ p_3 +\bar{p}_3} \end{array} \right) \\
&=& \hat {A_1} \hat {A_2} \hat {A_3} \bar{\hat {A_1}}\bar{\hat {A_2}}\bar{\hat {A_3}} det
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{ p_1 +\bar{p}_1} & \frac{1}{ p_1 +\bar{p}_2} & \frac{1}{ p_1 +\bar{p}_3} \\
\frac{1}{ p_2 +\bar{p}_1} & \frac{1}{ p_2 +\bar{p}_2} & \frac{1}{ p_2 +\bar{p}_3} \\
\frac{1}{ p_3 +\bar{p}_1} & \frac{1}{ p_3 +\bar{p}_2} & \frac{1}{ p_3 +\bar{p}_3} \end{array} \right) \\
&=& \hat {A_1} \hat {A_2} \hat {A_3} \bar{\hat {A_1}}\bar{\hat {A_2}}\bar{\hat {A_3}} \frac{(p_1-p_2)(p_1-p_3)(p_2-p_3)(\bar{p}_1-\bar{p}_2)(\bar{p}_1-\bar{p}_3)(\bar{p}_2-\bar{p}_3)}{\prod_{l,j=1}^{3} (p_l+\bar{p}_j)}. \end{eqnarray*}
From (\ref{ru}), (\ref{in}) and (\ref{eq}), we see that the solution $u(x,y,t)=2 \partial_x^2 \ln \tau (x,y,t) $ can also be expressed in terms of the elementary Schur functions (\ref{sc}). As $\sqrt{x^2+y^2} \to \infty $, the leading order behavior of $ \tau(x,y,t) $ consists of terms arising from where all the highest-order differential operators, $(p_1 \partial{p_1})^{n_1} , (p_2\partial{p_2})^{n_2}, \cdots, (p_m\partial{p_m})^{n_m}$ and their complex conjugates, act on the factor $ \prod_{1 \leq l < j \leq m} (p_l-p_j)( \bar{p}_l-\bar{p}_j) e^{\sum_{j=1}^{m} p_j+ \bar{p}_j} $ only. It is similar to the case in \cite{ab3}. This yields
\[ \tau \approx W \bar{W}, \]
where
\begin{eqnarray} W &=& e^{-\sum_{j=1}^{m} p_j} (p_1 \partial{p_1})^{n_1}(p_2\partial{p_2})^{n_2}\cdots(p_m\partial{p_m})^{n_m} \prod_{1 \leq l < j \leq m} (p_l-p_j) e^{\sum_{j=1}^{m} p_j} \nonumber \\
&=& Wr(S_{n_1}(p_1),S_{n_2}(p_2), S_{n_3}(p_3), \cdots, S_{n_m}(p_m)) = det \partial_x^{m-1}(S_{n_j}(p_j)) \label{wo} \end{eqnarray}
is the Wronskian of the elementary Schur polynomials of degrees $n_1, n_2, n_3, \cdots, n_m$. Here we have used (\ref{sr}) and the Vandermonde determinant formula. Furthermore, using (\ref{ba}), (\ref{va}) and (\ref{eq}), we can get
\begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\partial S_{n_j}}{\partial x} &=& (n_j) ! (\frac{\partial H_{n_j}}{\partial x_1}\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial x}+ \frac{\partial H_{n_j}}{\partial x_2}\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial x}+ \cdots + \frac{\partial H_{n_j}}{\partial x_{n_j}}\frac{\partial x_{n_j}}{\partial x}) \\
&=& (n_j)! p (H_{n_j-1}+ \frac{1}{2!}H_{n_j-2} + \frac{1}{3!}H_{n_j-3}+ \cdots + \frac{1}{(n_j)!}H_0).\end{eqnarray*}
Finally, one yields, up to an overall constant factor $ p^{\frac{m(m-1)}{2}}(n_1)!(n_2)! \cdots (n_m)! $,
\begin{equation} \tau \approx W \bar{W} \approx \Omega \bar{\Omega}, \quad as \quad \sqrt{x^2+y^2} \to \infty \label{as} \end{equation}
where \begin{eqnarray*}
\Omega(x,y,t) = det
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} H_{n_1}(p_1) & H_{n_2}(p_2) & H_{n_3}(p_3) &\cdots & H_{n_m}(p_m)\\
H_{n_1-1}(p_1) &H_{n_2-1}(p_2) & H_{n_3-1}(p_3) & \cdots &H_{n_m-1}(p_m) \\
H_{n_1-2}(p_1)& H_{n_2-2}(p_2) & H_{n_3-2}(p_3)&\cdots & H_{n_m-2}(p_m) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
H_{n_1-(m-1)}(p_1) & H_{n_2-(m-1)} (p_2)& H_{n_3-(m-1)}(p_3)& \cdots & H_{n_m-(m-1)} (p_m)\end{array} \right).\end{eqnarray*}
We see that $ \tau (x,y,t)= O (\vert f \vert^{2\rho})$, $\rho=\sum_{j=1}^{m}n_j- \frac{m(m-1)}{2}$. \\
\indent Next, we assume $p_1=p_2=\cdots= p_m=a+bi$. In the limit $t \to \pm \infty$, $u (x,y,t) $ generically has $\rho$ distinct peaks whose locations are asymptotically given by \cite{ab3}
\begin{eqnarray}
x^{(j)}(t) &=& 12 (a^2+b^2)t + c_j \vert t \vert^q+o(\vert t \vert^q) \nonumber \\
y^{(j)}(t) &=& 12 a t + w_j \vert t \vert^q+o(\vert t \vert^q), \quad j=1,2,3, \cdots, \rho, \quad 1/3 \leq q \leq 1/2, \label{asy} \end{eqnarray}
where $q$ depends on $m$ and $n_1, n_2, n_3, \cdots, n_m$. We remark here why $ 1/3 \leq q \leq 1/2 $ is not explained in \cite{ab3}. The real constants $c_j$ and $w_j$ can be found as follows. We plug the forms (\ref{asy}) into (\ref{as}) and then we have
\begin{equation} \Omega(x,y,t)=(M(c, w; a,b)+ R(c,w; a,b) i ) \vert t \vert^{\rho q}+o(\vert t \vert^{\rho q}), \label{rea}\end{equation}
where $ M(c,w)$ and $ R(c,w) $ are real polynomials of $c$ and $w$. Letting $ M(c,w; a,b)= R(c,w; a,b)=0$, we can get exactly $\rho$ (topological charge) real roots $(c_j, w_j)$, counting multiplicity, that is,
\begin{equation} M(c_j, w_j; a,b)= R(c_j, w_j; a,b)=0. \label{com} \end{equation}
Also, from (\ref{fu}) and (\ref{asy}), one has
\begin{equation} f=(c-2bw+2i aw ) \vert t \vert^q + o(\vert t \vert^q), \quad f_p= -24at+2i w \vert t \vert^q, \quad f_{pp}=-24t, \quad f_{ppp}=\cdots=0 \label{de2}. \end{equation}
To find $q$, we define the weights for $S_n$ in (\ref{sc}) by
\begin{equation} weight (f) =1, \quad weight (f_p) =2, \quad weight (f_{pp}) =3, \quad weight ( f_{ppp})=4, \cdots. \label{deg} \end{equation}
In the expansion (\ref{as}), to obtain the highest powers in $\vert t \vert $ by (\ref{eq}) and (\ref{de2}), we consider only the terms $ f^{\alpha} f_p^{\beta} f_{pp}^{\gamma} $ ( $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \geq 0 $) of the highest weight $\rho$. Then we have
\[ \alpha + 2 \beta+ 3 \gamma= \rho, \quad \alpha q+ \beta+ \gamma=\rho q. \]
The right-hand equation means we assume these terms have the highest power in $\vert t \vert $. So
\begin{equation} q=\frac{\beta+ \gamma}{ \rho-\alpha}= \frac{\beta+ \gamma}{2 \beta+ 3 \gamma }. \label{qd} \end{equation}
It is not difficult to see that $ 1/3 \leq q \leq 1/2 $. Also, let's find the condition that the highest power in $\vert t \vert $ is the same. Suppose
$ f^{\alpha^{'} } f_p^{\beta^{'} }f_{pp}^{\gamma^{'}} $ is another term having the highest power in $\vert t \vert $, i.e., from (\ref{qd}),
\[ \frac{\beta+ \gamma}{2 \beta+ 3 \gamma }=\frac{\beta^{'}+ \gamma^{'}}{2 \beta^{' } + 3 \gamma^{'}}. \]
Then a simple calculation gets
\begin{equation} \beta \gamma^{'}= \gamma \beta^{'}, \quad or \quad \frac{\beta}{\beta^{'}}=\frac{ \gamma}{ \gamma^{'}}. \label{con} \end{equation}
The equation (\ref{con}) will imply the condition of those terms having the highest power in $\vert t \vert $. \\
\indent Now, we observe that each elementary Schur polynomial $H_r$ in (\ref{sc}) has the highest degree $r$ in $x_1= xp+2ip^2y-12p^3t$. One utilizes the Maple software to do the following computations. For simplicity, we set $a=1, b=0$, i.e, $p=1$. By (\ref{va}) and (\ref{asy}) one has
\begin{eqnarray} x_1 &=& x+2iy-12t=(c+2iw ) \vert t \vert^q + o(\vert t \vert^q), \nonumber \\
x_2 &= & \frac{x}{2}+2yi-18t= -12t + (\frac{c}{2}+2iw ) \vert t \vert^q + o(\vert t \vert^q). \label{pol} \end{eqnarray}
\subsection{ $m=1, n_1=n=\rho $}
Among the terms of highest weight in $S_n$, from (\ref{de2}) the terms $f^n$ and $ f^{n-2} f_p $ of weight n has the highest powers in $t$, that is, $\alpha=n-2, \beta=1, \gamma=0$ in (\ref{qd}). Then $nq=(n-2)q+1.$ Hence $q=1/2$. For example, in $S_4$, the terms $f_{ppp}, f_p^2, ff_{pp}, f^2 f_p, f^4$ have the highest weight 4. We see that $f^4$ and $f^2 f_p$ has the highest powers $t^{4q}$ and $t^{2q+1}$ from (\ref{de2}). Then we get $q=1/2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item For $ t \to -\infty$, we consider $c=0$ in (\ref{pol}), and as $t \to -\infty$ , one gets $ \sqrt{x^2+y^2} \to \infty $ and consequently, the asymptotic expansion (\ref{as}) is used. Plugging (\ref{pol}) into $H_r$, we assume
\begin{equation} H_r(t)= \frac{\Gamma_r (w)}{ r !} (2i)^r (-t)^{r/2}+ O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{r-1}{2}}), \label{ga} \end{equation}
where $ \Gamma_r(w)$ is a polynomial in $w$. To find the polynomials $\Gamma_r(w)$, we see that from (\ref{ga})
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial t} &=& \frac{\Gamma_r (w)}{ r !} (2i)^r \frac{r}{2} (-t)^{(r-2)/2}(-1)+ O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{r-3}{2}}) \nonumber \\
&=& (\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_1}\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial t}+ \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_2}\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial t}+ \cdots + \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_r}\frac{\partial x_r}{\partial t}) \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{ \Gamma_{r-1}(w)}{(r-1)!}(2i)^{r-1 }2i w (-t)^{(r-1)/2} \frac{1}{2\sqrt{-t}}+ (-12 ) \frac{\Gamma_{r-2}(w)}{(r-2)!}(2i)^{r-2}(-t)^{(r-2)/2} \nonumber \\
& + & O(\vert t \vert^{\frac{r-3}{2}}).\label{ca2} \end{eqnarray}
Then one has the recursive relation after a simple calculation,
\begin{equation} w \Gamma_r (w)= \Gamma _{r+1}(w)+6 r\Gamma _{r-1}(w), \quad \Gamma_0=1, \quad \Gamma_1=w. \label{rec} \end{equation}
Also, it follows
\begin{equation} \frac{d \Gamma_r(w)}{d w}= r \Gamma_{r-1}(w) \label{re} \end{equation}
from
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial w } &=& (\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_1}\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial w}+ \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_2}\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial w}+ \cdots + \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_r}\frac{\partial x_r}{\partial w}) \nonumber \\
&=& (2i)^{r-1} (-t)^{(r-1)/2} \frac{\Gamma_{r-1}(w)}{(r-1)!} 2i \sqrt{-t} + O (\vert t \vert^{\frac{r-2}{2}}) .\label{ca}\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{rec}) and (\ref{re}), it can be seen that $\Gamma_r (w)$ satisfies the linear second-order differential equation ( $ r \geq 0 $)
\begin{equation} \frac{d^2 \Gamma_r(w)}{d w^2} -\frac{w}{6}\frac{d \Gamma_r(w)}{d w}+ \frac{r}{6} \Gamma_r (w)=0. \label{he} \end{equation}
The orthogonal polynomial solutions (\ref{rec}) of (\ref{he}) have r real roots for $\Gamma_r(w)$, as is proved in page 22 \cite{is} using the Christoffel-Darboux identity. We list a few polynomials for reference. For example,
\begin{eqnarray*} {\Gamma}_0(w) &=&1, \quad {\Gamma}_1(w)=w, \quad {\Gamma}_2(w)=(w^2-6), \\
{\Gamma}_3(w)&=& w^3-18w, \quad {\Gamma}_4(w)=w^4-36 w^2+108, \quad {\Gamma}_5(w)=w^5-60 w^3+540w, \\
{\Gamma}_6(w) &=& w^6-90 w^4+1620w^2-3240, \quad {\Gamma}_7(w)=w^7-126 w^5+3780w^3-22680w, \\
{\Gamma}_8(w)& =&w^8-168 w^6+7560w^4-90720w^2+136080. \end{eqnarray*}
We remark that the terms in $\Gamma_r(w)$ come from the condition (\ref{con}).
\item For $ t \to \infty$, the calculation is similar. But we consider $w=0$ in (\ref{pol}). Plugging (\ref{pol}) into $H_r$, we assume
\begin{equation} H_r(t)= \frac{G_r (c)}{ r !} (t)^{r/2}+ O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{(r-1)}{2}}), \label{ga2} \end{equation}
where $ G_r(c)$ is a polynomial in $c$. To find the polynomials $G_r(c)$, in a similar way as (\ref{ca2}) and (\ref{ca}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} c G_r (c) &=& G_{r+1}(c)+24 r G_{r-1}(c), \quad G_0=1, \quad G_1=c, \label{rec3} \\
\frac{d G_r(c)}{d c} &= & r G_{r-1}(c). \label{rec2} \end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{rec3}) and (\ref{rec2}), it can be also seen that $G_r (c)$ satisfies the linear second-order differential equation ( $ r \geq 0 $)
\begin{equation} \frac{d^2 G_r(c)}{d c^2} -\frac{c}{24}\frac{d G_r(c)}{d c}+ \frac{r}{24} G_r (c)=0. \label{he2} \end{equation}
Also, the orthogonal polynomial solutions (\ref{rec3}) of (\ref{he2}) have r real roots for $G_r(c)$. We list a few polynomials for reference.
For example,
\begin{eqnarray*} G_0(c) &=&1, \quad G_1(c)=c, \quad G_2(c)=(c^2-24), \\
G_3(c)&=& c^3-72c, \quad G_4(c)=c^4-144 c^2+1728, \quad G_5(c)=c^5-240 c^3+8640c, \\
G_6(c) &=& c^6-360 c^4+25920c^2-207360, \quad G_7(c)=c^7-504c^5+60480c^3-1451520c, \\
G_8(c)& =& c^8-672 c^6+120960c^4-5806080c^2+34836480. \end{eqnarray*}
\end{itemize}
\indent Therefore, from (\ref{asy})one knows that all the peaks are on one vertical line when time approaches - $\infty$, and then they will be on a horizontal line when time approaches $\infty$. Consequently, there is a rotation $\frac{\pi}{2}$ after interaction of lumps.
\subsection{ $m=2, n_1=1, n_2=n, \rho=n $}
In this case, by (\ref{as}), we have
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{(1,n)}(x,y,t) = det
\left(\begin{array}{cc} H_{1}(1) & H_{n}(1) \\
1 &H_{n-1}(1) \end{array} \right)= H_{1}(1)H_{n-1}(1)- H_{n}(1) \label{tw} \end{equation}
To find $q$, we consider it in the following way. One focus on the terms $ f^n $ and $f^{n-2} f_p$ in $S_n$, that is, $x_1^n$ and $x_1^{n-2} x_2$ in $H_n$. By (\ref{sc}), the coefficient of $x_1^{n-2} x_2$ in $H_n$ is $\frac{1}{(n-2)!}$; consequently, the coefficient of this term in (\ref{tw}) is $ \frac{1}{(n-3)!}-\frac{1}{(n-2)!}$. Hence when $n=3$, we get $q=1/3$; in other cases, we get $nq=(n-2)q+1$, i.e, $q=1/2$. \\
\indent When $n=3$ and $ t \to -\infty$, one has in (\ref{rea})
\[ M(c,w)= 1/3\,{c}^{3}-4\,c{w}^{2}-16, \quad R(c,w)=2 {c}^{2}w-8/3\,{w}^{3};\]
and $ t \to \infty$, one has
\[M(c,w)= 1/3\,{c}^{3}-4\,c{w}^{2}+16, \quad R(c,w)=2 {c}^{2}w-8/3\,{w}^{3}.\]
A little algebra shows both of them have three real roots. So there are three peaks when $\vert t \vert \to \infty $. Also, after interaction, the peak in the $x$-axis, that is $w=0$, will slow down. \\
\indent On the other hand, from (\ref{pol}), the real roots in (\ref{com}) for $q=1/2$ come from either $c=0$ or $w=0$ as $ t \to \pm \infty $(see below). Therefore, there are two more cases to be discussed.
\begin{itemize}
\item As $t \to -\infty$, we consider $w=0$ in (\ref{pol}). Then $x_1=c \sqrt{-t}$ and $x_2=-12t+\frac{c}{2} \sqrt{-t}$. Plugging (\ref{pol}) into $H_r$, we assume
\begin{equation} H_r(t)= \frac{\hat \Gamma_r (c)}{ r !} (-t)^{r/2}+ O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{r-1}{2}}), \label{cga} \end{equation}
where $\hat \Gamma_r(w)$ is also a polynomial in $c$. To find the polynomials $\hat \Gamma_r(c)$, we see that from (\ref{cga})
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial t} &=& \frac{\hat \Gamma_r (c)}{ r !} \frac{r}{2} (-t)^{(r-2)/2}(-1)+ O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{r-3}{2}}) \nonumber \\
&=& (\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_1}\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial t}+ \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_2}\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial t}+ \cdots + \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_r}\frac{\partial x_r}{\partial t}) \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{ \hat \Gamma_{r-1}(c)}{(r-1)!} (-t)^{(r-1)/2} \frac{c}{2\sqrt{-t}}+ (-12 ) \frac{ \hat \Gamma_{r-2}(c)}{(r-2)!}(-t)^{(r-2)/2} \nonumber \\
& + & O (\vert t \vert^{\frac{r-3}{2}}).\label{cca} \end{eqnarray}
Then one has the recursive relation after a simple calculation,
\begin{equation} c \hat \Gamma_r (c)= \hat \Gamma _{r+1}(c)-24 r\hat \Gamma _{r-1}(c), \quad \Gamma_0=1, \quad \Gamma_1=c. \label{rec} \end{equation}
When compared with the recursive relation (\ref{rec3}), the equation (\ref{rec}) has a minus sign before 24.
Also, it follows
\begin{equation} \frac{d \hat \Gamma_r(c)}{d c}= r \hat \Gamma_{r-1}(c) \label{cre} \end{equation}
from
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial c } &=& (\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_1}\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial w}+ \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_2}\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial w}+ \cdots + \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial x_r}\frac{\partial x_r}{\partial w}) \nonumber \\
&=& (-t)^{(r-1)/2} \frac{\hat \Gamma_{r-1}(c)}{(r-1)!} \sqrt{-t} + O (\vert t \vert^{\frac{r-1}{2}}) .\label{cca2}\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{rec}) and (\ref{cre}), it can be seen that $\hat \Gamma_r (c)$ satisfies the linear second-order differential equation ( $ r \geq 0 $)
\begin{equation} \frac{d^2 \hat \Gamma_r(c)}{d c^2} +\frac{c}{24}\frac{d \hat \Gamma_r(c)}{d c}- \frac{r}{24} \hat \Gamma_r (c)=0. \label{che} \end{equation}
The orthogonal polynomial solutions (\ref{rec}) of (\ref{he}) have no real root for even degree and zero is the only real root for odd degree. We list a few polynomials for reference. For example,
\begin{eqnarray*} \hat \Gamma_0(c) &=&1, \quad \hat \Gamma_1(c)=c, \quad \hat \Gamma_2(c)=(c^2+24), \\
\hat \Gamma_3(c)&=& c^3+72c, \quad \hat \Gamma_4(c)=c^4+144 c^2+1728, \quad \hat \Gamma_5(c)=c^5+240 c^3+8640c, \\
\hat \Gamma_6(c) &=& c^6+360 c^4+25920c^2+207360, \quad \hat \Gamma_7(c)=c^7+504c^5+60480c^3+1451520c, \\
\hat \Gamma_8(c)& =& c^8+672 c^6+120960c^4+5806080c^2+34836480. \end{eqnarray*}
\item For $ t \to \infty$, we consider $c=0$ in (\ref{pol}). Then $x_1=2w i \sqrt{t}$ and $x_2=-12t+ 2wi \sqrt{t}$. Plugging (\ref{pol}) into $H_r$, we assume
\begin{equation} H_r(t)= \frac{\hat G_r (w)}{ r !} (2i)^{r} (t)^{r/2}+ O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{(r-1)}{2}}), \label{ga4} \end{equation}
where $ \hat G_r(w)$ is a polynomial in $w$. To find the polynomials $\hat G_r(w)$, in a similar way as (\ref{cca}) and (\ref{cca2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} w \hat G_r (w) &=& \hat G_{r+1}(w)-6 r \hat G_{r-1}(w), \quad \hat G_0=1, \quad \hat G_1=w, \label{rec4} \\
\frac{d \hat G_r(w)}{d w} &= & r \hat G_{r-1}(w). \label{rec5} \end{eqnarray}
When compared with the recursive relation (\ref{rec}), the equation (\ref{rec4}) has a minus sign before 6. By (\ref{rec4}) and (\ref{rec5}), it can be also seen that $\hat G_r (w)$ satisfies the linear second-order differential equation ( $ r \geq 0 $)
\begin{equation} \frac{d^2 \hat G_r(c)}{d c^2} + \frac{c}{6}\frac{d \hat G_r(c)}{d c}- \frac{r}{6} \hat G_r (c)=0. \label{he3} \end{equation}
The orthogonal polynomial solutions (\ref{rec4}) of (\ref{he3}) also have no real root for even degree and zero is the only real root for odd degree. We list a few polynomials for reference. For example,
\begin{eqnarray*} {\hat G}_0(w) &=&1, \quad {\hat G}_1(w)=w, \quad {\hat G}_2(w)=(w^2+6), \\
{\hat G}_3(w)&=& w^3+18w, \quad {\hat G}_4(w)=w^4+36 w^2+108, \quad {\hat G}_5(w)=w^5+60 w^3+540w, \\
{\hat G}_6(w) &=& w^6+90 w^4+1620w^2+3240, \quad {\hat G}_7(w)=w^7+126 w^5+3780w^3+22680w, \\
{\hat G}_8(w)& =&w^8+168 w^6+7560w^4+90720w^2+136080. \end{eqnarray*}
\end{itemize}
Also, the number of real roots of the Wronskian of the orthogonal polynomials has been investigated \cite{gg, kz}. Let the multi-index $(n_1, n_2, n_3, \cdots, n_m )$ be related to the partition $\zeta= (\zeta_1, \zeta_2, \cdots \zeta_m)$ by
\[ n_j= \zeta_j+ j-1, \quad j=1,2,3, \cdots, m, \quad d_{\zeta}=p-q, \] where $p, q$ are the numbers of odd and even elements in $n_j$, respectively. One defines the length of the partition $\zeta$ is $\vert \zeta \vert =\sum_{j=1}^m \zeta_j= \zeta_1+\zeta_2+\cdots+ \zeta_m.$ For a symmetric case, the Wronskian $\phi_{\zeta}$ has the well-defined parity
\begin{equation} \phi_{\zeta}(-x)=(-1)^{\vert \zeta \vert} \phi_{\zeta}(x), \label{ron} \end{equation}
where $x=c$ or $x=w$. For the symmetric property (\ref{ron}), we have the \\
{\bf Theorem} \cite{gg}: \\
(1) The number of simple real roots of the Wronskian is $\sum_{j=1}^m (-1)^{m-j}\zeta_j- \frac{\vert d_{\zeta} + (m-2 [m/2]) \vert }{2} $.\nonumber \\
(2) The multiplicity of 0 is $ \frac{d_{\zeta} (d_{\zeta}+1)}{2}. $ \\
For $m=1$ and $n_1=n$, one has the cases $\Gamma_{r} (w)$ and $G_{r}(c)$. It is not difficult to see that (\ref{tw}) also satisfies the symmetric property (\ref{ron}) as $ t \to \pm \infty$ for $\Gamma_{r} (w)$ and $G_{r}(c)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $n=2k+1 (k \geq 2):$ We have $ d_{\zeta}=2 $ and $ (\zeta_1, \zeta_2)=(1,2k)$. From the {\bf Theorem}, one knows that there are $2k-1-1=2k-2$ simple real roots, and $(0,0)$ is the triple roots. So we obtain $2k-2+3=2k+1$ real roots as $ t \to -\infty$ for $\Gamma_{r} (w)$ and $ t \to \infty$ for $G_{r}(c)$. For example, taking $n=5$, we have as $ t \to \infty$
\[\Omega_{(1,5)}(c,t) = det
\left(\begin{array}{cc} ct+o(t) & \frac{G_5(c)}{5!} t^{5/2}+ o(t^{5/2}) \\
1 & \frac{G_4(c)}{4!} t^{2} +o(t^2) \end{array} \right)=( \frac{1}{30}c^5-4c^3) t^{5/2} + o(t^{5/2}). \]
The equation $ \frac{1}{30}c^5-4c^3=0$ has five real root, and $c=0$ is a triple root.
\item $n=2k (k \geq 1):$ We have $ d_{\zeta}=0 $ and $ (\zeta_1, \zeta_2)=(1,2k-1)$. From the {\bf Theorem}, one knows that there are $2k-1-1-0=2k-2$ simple real roots, and $(0,0)$ is not a root. In fact, another two real roots can be obtained from $\hat \Gamma_{r} (c)$ and $ \hat G_{r}(w)$ as $ t \to \pm \infty$. It can be seen as follows. For example, one considers $t \to \infty $. Using (\ref{tw}), (\ref{rec5}) and (\ref{ga4}), we know that
\begin{eqnarray*} \Omega_{(1,2k)}(x,y,t) &=& 2wit^{1/2} \frac{\hat G_{2k-1}(w)}{ (2k-1) !} (2i)^{2k-1} t^{(2k-1)/2}-\frac{\hat G_{2k}(w)}{ (2k) !} (2i)^{2k} t^{k} + O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{(2k-1)}{2}}) \\
&=& t^k (2i)^{2k}\frac{1}{(2k)!} ( 2kw \hat G_{2k-1}(w)-\hat G_{2k}(w)) + O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{(2k-1)}{2}}) \\
&=& t^k (2i)^{2k}\frac{1}{(2k)!} ( w \frac{d\hat G_{2k}(w)}{dw}-\hat G_{2k}(w))+ O (\vert t \vert ^{\frac{(2k-1)}{2}})
\end{eqnarray*}
From (\ref{rec4}), it is known that
\[\hat G_{2k}(w)=\alpha_{2k}w^{2k}+\alpha_{2(k-1)}w^{2(k-1)}+ \alpha_{2(k-2)}w^{2(k-2)}+ \cdots+ \alpha_2 w^2+ \alpha_0, \]
where $\alpha_{2k}, \alpha_{2(k-1)}, \cdots, \alpha_2, \alpha_0$ are positive integers. Therefore,
\begin{equation} w \frac{d\hat G_{2k}(w)}{dw}-\hat G_{2k}(w) =L(w)-\alpha_0, \label{dea} \end{equation}
where
\[ L(w)= (2k-1)\alpha_{2k}w^{2k}+(2k-3)\alpha_{2(k-1)}w^{2(k-1)}+(2k-5) \alpha_{2(k-2)}w^{2(k-2)} +\alpha_2 w^2. \]
Since $(2k-1)\alpha_{2k}, (2k-3)\alpha_{2(k-1)}, (2k-5) \alpha_{2(k-2)}, \cdots, \alpha_2$ are positive integers, we obtain $ L(w) \geq 0 $, and the only minima is at $w=0$. By $\alpha_0 > 0$, it is known that the equation (\ref{dea}) only has two real roots. As $ t \to -\infty$, one can consider similarly for $ \hat \Gamma_r(c)$.
\end{itemize}
One remarks here that if $ n_1 \neq 1 $, then some real roots of (\ref{com}) come from neither $c=0$ nor $w=0$. For example, we take $n_1=2, n_2=4$ as an example. Then $\Omega_{(2,4)}(x,y,t)=H_2H_3-H_1H_4$ and $q=1/2$. When one considers $t \to \infty$ and uses (\ref{pol}), one has
\begin{eqnarray*} M(c,w) &=& 1/24\,{c}^{5}-2\,{c}^{3}-5/3\,{c}^{3}{w}^{2}+72\,c+10/3\,c{w}^{4}+24\,
c{w}^{2}=0, \\
R(c,w) &=& {\frac {5}{12}}\,{c}^{4}w-10/3\,{w}^{3}{c}^{2}-12\,{
c}^{2}w+144\,w+16\,{w}^{3}+4/3\,{w}^{5}=0.\end{eqnarray*}
They have $\rho=2+4-1=5$ real roots, and some real roots $ (c,w) \neq (0,0)$. For $t \to -\infty$, it can be considered similarly, and also some real roots $ (c,w) \neq (0,0)$. \\
\section{Concluding Remarks}
We study the asymptotic behaviors of lump solutions of KP-(I) equation using the Grammian determinant structure. In particular, for $m=1$ and $p=1$, it is found that the positions $\zeta$ of peaks can be described by the real roots of orthogonal polynomials; moreover, the peaks are on one vertical line when time approaches - $\infty$, and then they will be on a horizontal line when time approaches $\infty$, i.e., there is a rotation $\pi/2$ after interaction. Also, for $m=2$ and $p=1$, in some special case, as $\vert t \vert \to \infty $, the locations of peaks will depend on the real roots of Wronskian of the orthogonal polynomials. The asymptotic structures are different, depending on the partition structure (even or odd); however, there is also a rotation $\pi/2$ after interaction. \\
\indent In \cite{ab3}, the lump solutions (rationally decaying potentials) of KP-(I) equation are constructed in a similar way. These solutions are classified by the pole structure of the corresponding
meromorphic eigenfunctions and a set of integers of quantity called the charge. When comparing with their lump solutions, one has different function (\ref{fu}) and different recursive relation (\ref{gen}). Especially, the relation (\ref{eq}) is important to get the orthogonal polynomials for the asymptotic analysis. There is no such relation in \cite{ab3}. To the best of my knowledge, this kind of orthogonal polynomials have never been used in the asymptotic analysis for any rationally decaying solutions in KP-(I) equation. \\
\indent In \cite{du1, du2, pi, pk}, the multi-rogue wave solutions of KP-(I) equation are constructed from the NLS hierarchy via different approach. It is the so-called NLS-KP correspondence. The authors choose appropriate parameters such that at some intermediate time all the peaks will collide together to form the only extreme rogue wave, i.e., $P_m$ breather of the KP-(I) equation. On the other hand, by a similar consideration in \cite{oy2}, we also could choose $p_{\alpha}=q_{\alpha}=1, \alpha=1, 2, 3, \dots, m$ and $(n_1, n_2, n_3, \cdots, n_m )=(1, 3, 5, 7, \cdots, 2m-1)$ for some particular parameters $c_{lk}$ to obtain the $P_m$ breather of the KP-(I) equation. As mentioned above, the asymptotic structures will be related to the partition structures. In \cite{pi2}, there are concentric rings with in the center Peregrine breathers for the NLS equation using different partitions and parameters. From this point of view, our asymptotic structures only depend on the partitions $\zeta$, that is, the exponent $q$ in (\ref{qd}) and the real roots of the polynomials $ M(c,w)$ and $ R(c,w) $ in (\ref{rea}). It could be interesting to investigate such structures in KP-(I) equation when compared with the NLS equation. The research in this direction will be published elsewhere.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The author thanks for the valuable suggestions from Prof.V. B. Matveev, Prof. Y. Ohta and Prof. J. Yang. This work is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant No. 104-2115-M-606-001.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Questions of integer linear programming (ILP) feasibility are usually answered by finding an integral assignment of variables $x$ satisfying $Ax \le b$.
By Lenstra's theorem~\cite{Len83}, this problem can be solved in $O^*(f(n)) := O(f(n)L^{O(1)})$ time and space, where $f$ is a function of the number $n$ of variables only, and $L$ is the size of the ILP
(subsequent research has obtained an algorithm of the above running time with $f(n) = n^{O(n)}$ and using polynomial space~\cite{FrTa87,Ka87}).
In the language of parameterized complexity, this means that \textsc{ILP Feasibility} is fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) parameterized by the number of variables. Note that there are a number of parameterized problems for which the only (known) way to prove fixed-parameter tractability is to use Lenstra's theorem\footnote{Lenstra's theorem allows us to prove a mainly classification result, i.e. the FPT algorithm is unlikely to be efficient in practice, nevertheless Lenstra's theorem indicates that efficient FPT algorithms are a possibility, at least for subproblems of the problem under considerations.} \cite{CyFoKoLoMaPiPiSa15}. For more details on this topic, we refer the reader to \cite{CyFoKoLoMaPiPiSa15,DoFe13}.
The notion of \emph{resiliency} measures the extent to which a system can tolerate modifications to its configuration and still satisfy given criteria.
An organization might, for example, wish to know whether it will still be able to continue functioning, even if some of its staff become unavailable. In the language of decision problems, we would like to know whether an instance is still positive after \emph{any} (appropriately defined) modification.
Intuitively, the resiliency version of a problem is likely to be harder than the problem itself; a naive algorithm would consider every allowed modification of the input, and then see whether a solution exists.
In this paper we introduce a framework for dealing with resiliency problems, and study their computational complexity through the lens of fixed-parameter tractability. We define resiliency for Integer Linear Programs (ILP)
by considering a system $\cal R$ of linear inequalities whose variables are partitioned into vectors $x$ and $z$. We denote by ${\cal R}_z$ all inequalities in $\cal R$ containing only variables from $z$.
We say that $\cal R$ is $z$-resilient if for any integral assignment of variables $z$ satisfying all inequalities of ${\cal R}_z$, there is an integral assignment of variables $x$ such that all inequalities of $\cal R$ are satisfied.
We prove in Theorem \ref{thm:ILPres} that the obtained problem can be solved in FPT time for a suitable parameterization, using a result of Eisenbrand and Shmonin on \emph{Parametric Integer Linear Programming}~\cite{EisenbrandS08}. (Note that the result of Eisenbrand and Shmonin is an improvement of an earlier result of Kannan \cite{Kannan90}. Unfortunately, Kannan's theorem was based on an incorrect key lemma; the proof of the theorem of Eisenbrand and Shmonin does not have this problem as it uses a correct weak version of the key lemma proved by Eisenbrand and Shmonin, see, e.g., \cite{NguPak17}.)
To illustrate the fact that our approach might be useful in different situations, we apply our framework to several concrete problems.\footnote{Our approach was slightly extended in \cite{KnopKM:2017}, which allowed the authors of \cite{KnopKM:2017} to settle an old conjecture in social choice theory.} Central among them is the \textsc{Resiliency Disjoint Set Cover Problem}\xspace (\textsc{RDSCP}\xspace) defined in Section~\ref{sec:rcp}, which is a generalization of the \textsc{Disjoint Set Cover} problem, and has practical applications in the context of access control~\cite{CrGuWa16-sacmat,LiWaTr09}, where an equivalent formulation of the problem is called the \textsc{Resiliency Checking Problem}\xspace and given in Section~\ref{sec:rcp}. Informally, given a set $U$ of size $n$ and a family $\cal F$ of $m$ subsets of $U$, the \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace asks whether after removing from $\cal F$ any subfamily of size at most $s$ the following property is still satisfied: there are $d$ disjoint set covers of $U$, each of size at most $t$.
Thus, \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace has five natural parameters $n$, $m$, $s$, $d$ and $t$. Since the size of a non-trivial instance can be bounded by a function of $m$ only
and since in \textsc{Resiliency Checking Problem}\xspace $m$ is usually much larger than the other parameters~\cite{CrGuWa16-sacmat,LiWaTr09}, in
this paper will only focus on parameters $n$, $s$, $d$ and $t$.
Our main result, obtained using Theorem \ref{thm:ILPres}, is that \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace is FPT when parameterized by $n$.
This, together with some additional results, allow us to determine the complexity of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace (FPT, XP, W[2]-hard, para-NP-hard or para-coNP-hard) for all combinations\footnote{By definition, a problem with several parameters $p_1,\ldots, p_{\ell}$ is the problem with one parameter, the sum $p_1+\dots +p_{\ell}$.} of the four parameters.
We then introduce an extension of the {\sc Closest String} problem, a problem arising in computational biology.
Informally, {\sc Closest String} asks whether there exists a string that is ``sufficiently close'' to each member of a set of input strings.
We modify the problem so that the input strings may be unreliable -- due to transcription errors, for example -- and show that this resiliency version of {\sc Closest String} called {\sc Resiliency Closest String} is FPT when parameterized by the number of input strings.
Our resiliency result on {\sc Closest String} is a generalization of a result of Gramm {\em et al.} for {\sc Closest String} which was proved using Lenstra's theorem~\cite{GrNiRo03}\footnote{Although not being strictly the first problem proved to be FPT using Lenstra's theorem \cite{Seb93}, it is considered as the one which popularized this technique~\cite{CyFoKoLoMaPiPiSa15,DoFe13}.}.
We also introduce a resiliency version of the scheduling problem of makespan minimization on unrelated machines. We prove that this version is FPT when parameterized by the number of machines, the number of job types and the total expected downtime, generalizing a result of Mnich and Wiese~\cite{MnichW14} provided the jobs processing times are upper-bounded by a number given in unary.
Finally, we introduce a resilient swap bribery problem in the field of social choice and prove that it is FPT when parameterized by the number of candidates.
The remainder of the paper is structured in the following way.
Section~\ref{sec:ILPres} introduces ILP resiliency and proves that it is FPT under a certain parameterization. We then apply our framework to the previously mentioned problems. We establish the fixed-parameter tractability of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace parameterized by $n$ in Section~\ref{sec:rcp} and use it to provide a parameterized complexity classification of the problem. In Section \ref{sec:closeststring}, we introduce a resiliency version of {\sc Closest String} Problem and prove that it is FPT. We study resiliency versions of scheduling and social choice problems in Sections \ref{sec:scheduling} and \ref{sec:bribery}. We conclude the paper in Section~\ref{sec:dis}, where we discuss related literature.
\section{ILP resiliency}\label{sec:ILPres}
Recall that questions of ILP feasibility are typically answered by finding an integral assignment of variables $x$ satisfying $Ax \le b$.
Let us introduce resiliency for ILP as follows. We add another set of variables $z$, which can be seen as ``resiliency variables''. We then consider the following ILP\footnote{To save space, we will always implicitly assume that integrality constraints are part of every ILP of this paper.}
denoted by $\cal R$:
\begin{eqnarray}
Ax & \le & b \label{eqn:var-x}\\
Cx + Dz & \le & e \label{eqn:var-x-z}\\
Fz & \le & g \label{eqn:var-z}
\end{eqnarray}
The idea is that inequalities (\ref{eqn:var-x}) and (\ref{eqn:var-x-z}) represent the intrinsic structure of the problem, among which inequalities (\ref{eqn:var-x-z}) represent how the resiliency variables modify the instance. Inequalities (\ref{eqn:var-z}), finally, represent the structure of the resiliency part.
The goal of \textsc{ILP Resiliency} is to decide whether $\cal R$ is $z$-{\em resilient}, i.e. whether for \emph{any} integral assignment of variables $z$ satisfying inequalities (\ref{eqn:var-z}), there exists an integral assignment of variables $x$ satisfying (\ref{eqn:var-x}) and (\ref{eqn:var-x-z}).
In $\cal R$, we will assume that all entries of matrices in the left hand sides and vectors in the right hand sides are rational numbers. The dimensions of the vectors $x$ and $z$ will be denoted by $n$ and $p$, respectively, and the total number of rows in $A$ and $C$ will be denoted by $m$. Let $\kappa({\cal R}):=n+p+m$.
Our main result establishes that \textsc{ILP Resiliency} is FPT when parameterized by $\kappa({\cal R})$, provided that part of the input is given in unary.
Our method offers a generic framework to capture many situations. Firstly, it applies to ILP, a general and powerful model for representing many combinatorial problems. Secondly, the resiliency part of each problem can be represented as a whole ILP with its own variables and constraints, instead of, say, a simple additive term. Hence, we believe that our method can be applied to many other problems, as well as many different and intricate definitions of resiliency.
To prove our main result we will use the work of Eisenbrand and Shmonin \cite{EisenbrandS08}. A {\em polyhedron} $P$ is a set of vectors of the form $P=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^{\nu}:\ Ax\le b\}$ for some matrix $A\in \mathbb{R}^{\mu\times \nu}$ and some vector $b\in \mathbb{R}^{\mu}.$ The polyhedron is {\em rational} if $A\in \mathbb{Q}^{\mu\times \nu}$ and $b\in \mathbb{Q}^{\mu}.$
For a rational polyhedron $Q \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{m+p}$, define $ Q/\mathbb{Z}^p := \{h \in \mathbb{Q}^m :\ (h,\alpha) \in Q \textrm{ for some } \alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^p\}$.
The \textsc{Parametric Integer Linear Programming} (\textsc{PILP}) problem takes as input a rational matrix $J \in \mathbb{Q}^{m \times n}$ and a rational polyhedron $Q \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{m+p}$, and asks whether the following expression is true:
\begin{equation*}
\forall h \in Q/\mathbb{Z}^p \quad \exists x \in \mathbb{Z}^n: \quad Jx \leq h \label{eqn:es_sentence}
\end{equation*}
Eisenbrand and Shmonin \cite[Theorem 4.2]{EisenbrandS08} proved that \textsc{PILP} is solvable in polynomial time if the number of variables $n+p$ is fixed. From this result, an interesting question is whether this running time is a uniform or non-uniform polynomial algorithm~\cite{DoFe13}, and in particular for which parameters one can obtain an FPT algorithm. By looking more closely at their algorithm, one can actually obtain the following result:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:es_pilp}
\textsc{PILP} can be solved in time $O^*(f(n, p)\varphi^{g_1(n, p)}m^{g_2(n, p)})$, where $\varphi\ge 2$ is an upper bound on the encoding length of entries of $J$ and $f$, $g_1$ and $g_2$ are some computable functions.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
\textbf{Complexity remark.} Let us first mention that \textsc{PILP} belongs to the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, and is $\Pi_2^P$-complete~\cite{EisenbrandS08}. Secondly, the polyhedron $Q$ in Theorem \ref{thm:es_pilp} can be viewed as being defined by a system $Rh + S \alpha \le t$, where $h \in \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^p$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:es_pilp}
If all entries of $J$ are given in unary, then \textsc{PILP} is FPT when parameterized by $(n, m, p)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that there is an upper bound $N\ge 2$ on the absolute values of entries of $J$ and $N$ is given in unary. Thus, the running time of the algorithm of Theorem \ref{thm:es_pilp} is $O^*(h(n,m, p)(\log N)^{F})$, where $F=f(n,m,p)$ and $h$ is some computable function.
It was shown in \cite{chitnisTA11} that $(\log N)^{F}\le (2F\log F)^F + N/2^F,$ which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
We now prove the main result of our framework, which will be applied in the next sections to concrete problems.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:ILPres}
\textsc{ILP Resiliency} is FPT when parameterized by $\kappa({\cal R})$ provided the entries of matrices $A$ and $C$ are given in unary.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will reduce \textsc{ILP Resiliency} to \textsc{Parametric Integer Linear Programming}.
Let us first define $J$ and $Q$.
Let $h=(h^1, h^2)$ with $h^1$ and $h^2$ being $m_1$ and $m_2$ dimensional vectors, respectively. Then the polyhedron $Q$ is defined as follows: $h^1 =b, h^2 = e - D\alpha , F\alpha \leq g.$
Furthermore, $J$ is defined as: $Ax \leq h^1,\ Cx\leq h^2.$
Recall that $h^1 = b$ and $h^2 = e-D\alpha$ and $\alpha$ satisfies $F\alpha \leq g$, so for all $h \in Q/\mathbb{Z}^p$ there exists an integral $x$ satisfying the above if and only if for all $z$ satisfying $Fz \leq g$, there is an integral $x$ satisfying (\ref{eqn:var-x}) and (\ref{eqn:var-x-z}). Moreover, the dimension of $x$ is $n$, the integer dimension of $Q$ is $p$ and the number of inequalities of $J$ is $m_1 + m_2 = m$, so applying Corollary~\ref{cor:es_pilp} indeed yields the required FPT algorithm.
\end{proof}
\section{Resiliency Disjoint Set Cover}\label{sec:rcp}
The \textsc{Set Cover} problem is one of the classical NP-hard problems \cite{GaJo79}. Its input comprises a finite set $U$ called the \textit{universe}, a family\footnote{We use the term {\em family} as a synonym of {\em multiset}, i.e. a family may have multiple copies of the same element. The operations of {\em union}, {\em intersection} and {\em deletion} on pairs ${\cal F}, {\cal F}'$ of families are defined in the natural way using $\max\{p,p'\}$, $\min\{p,p'\}$ and $\max\{0,p-p'\},$ where $p$ and $p'$ are the numbers of copies of the same element in ${\cal F}$ and ${\cal F}'$, respectively.} $\mathcal{F}$ of $m$ subsets of $U$, the \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace asks whether for every subfamily ${\cal S} \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ with $|{\cal S}| \le s$, one can find ${\cal T}_1, \dots, {\cal T}_d \subseteq \mathcal{F} \setminus {\cal S}$, such that for every $i, j\in [d]$: (i) ${\cal T}_i \cap {\cal T}_j = \emptyset$ whenever $i \neq j$ (ii) $|{\cal T}_i| \le t$, and (iii) $\bigcup_{X \in {\cal T}_i} X = U$. $\mathcal{F}$ of subsets of $U$, and an integer $t$. It asks whether there is a subfamily ${\cal T} \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ of cardinality at most $t$ such that $\cup_{X \in {\cal T}} X = U$ (such a subfamily is called a \textit{set cover}). We may assume that $t\le |U|$ since every set in a minimal set cover $C$ must have an element of $U$ not contained in any other set of $C$.
A natural generalization of \textsc{Set Cover} is the \textsc{Disjoint Set Cover} problem which takes an additional parameter $d$, and asks for the existence of $d$ disjoint set covers, each of cardinality at most $t$.\footnote{\textsc{Disjoint Set Cover} was previously introduced in the literature \cite{PananjadyBV15,PananjadyBV17} in a different way: find the maximum number of disjoint (arbitrary sized) set covers. However, unlike our formulation, the previously introduced one does not extend the {\sc Set Cover} problem, where the set cover is required to be of bounded size.}
In the resiliency version of \textsc{Disjoint Set Cover} studied in this paper, one is given an integer $s$, and asks whether after the removal of any subfamily ${\cal S} \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ with $|{\cal S}| \leq s$, one still can find $d$ disjoint set covers, each of size at most $t$ (and disjoint from $\cal S$). More formally, we have the following:
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}[c]{.9\textwidth}
\textsc{Resiliency Disjoint Set Cover Problem}\xspace (\textsc{RDSCP}\xspace)\\
\underline{Input:} A universe $U$, a multiset $\mathcal{F}$ of subsets of $U$, integers $s$, $d$ and $t$.\\
\underline{Question:} For every ${\cal S} \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ such that $|{\cal S}|\le s$, do there exist ${\cal T}_1, \dots, {\cal T}_d \subseteq \mathcal{F} \setminus {\cal S}$ such that for every $i,j \in [d]$, we have $|{\cal T}_i| \leq t$, $\cup_{X \in {\cal T}_i} X = U$, and ${\cal T}_i \cap {\cal T}_j = \emptyset$ for all $j \neq i$?
\end{minipage}}~\\
\end{center}
In this formulation and elsewhere, for an integer $p$, $[p]$ stands for the set $\{1,2,\dots ,p\}.$
The motivation for the study of \textsc{Resiliency Disjoint Set Cover} comes from a problem arising in access control.
\subsection{Application of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace}
Access control is an important topic in computer security, and deals with the idea of enforcing a policy that specifies which users are authorized to access a given set of resources.
Authorization policies are frequently augmented by additional policies, articulating concerns such as separation of duty and resiliency.
The \textsc{Resiliency Checking Problem}\xspace was introduced by Li {\em et al.}~\cite{LiWaTr09} and asks whether it is always possible to form teams of users, the members of each team collectively having access to all resources, even if some users are unavailable.
Given a set of users $V$ and set of resources $R$, an \emph{authorization policy} is a relation $\mathit{VR} \subseteq V \times R$; we say $v\in V$ is \emph{authorized} for resource $r$ if $(v,r) \in \mathit{VR}$.
Given an authorization policy $\mathit{VR} \subseteq V \times R$, an instance of the \textsc{Resiliency Checking Problem}\xspace is defined by a resiliency policy $\mathsf{res}(P, s, d, t)$, where $P \subseteq R$, $s \ge 0$, $d \ge 1$ and $t \ge 1$. We say that $\mathit{VR}$ \emph{satisfies} $\mathsf{res}(P, s, d, t)$ if and only if for every subset $S \subseteq V$ of at most $s$ users, there exist $d$ pairwise disjoint subsets of users $V_1, \dots, V_d$ such that for all $i \in [d]$:
\begin{align}
&V_i \cap S = \emptyset, \label{def:cond:intersect} \\
&|V_i| \le t \text{ and } \bigcup_{v \in V_i} \{r \in R \text{ s.t. } (v, r) \in \mathit{VR} \} \supseteq P. \label{def:cond:size}
\end{align}
In other words, $\mathit{VR}$ satisfies $\mathsf{res}(P,s,d,t)$ if we can find $d$ disjoint groups of users, even if up to $s$ users are unavailable, such that each group contains no more than $t$ users and the users in each group are collectively authorized for the resources in $P$.
Observe that there is an immediate reduction from \textsc{Resiliency Checking Problem}\xspace to \textsc{Resiliency Disjoint Set Cover}: the elements of the universe are the resources, and the sets are in one-to-one correspondence with the users, \emph{i.e.}\xspace a set contains all resources a given user has access to.
Observe that \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace has five natural parameters: $n=|U|$, $m=|\mathcal{F}|$, $s$, $d$, $t$. As explained earlier, we will only focus on parameters $n, s, d$ and $t$. This choice is also motivated by our application, since it is frequently assumed that the number of users of an organization is usually much larger than the set of resources \cite{LiWaTr09}.
\subsection{Parameterized Complexity Classification of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace}
As said before, \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace contains several natural parameters, namely $n$, $s$, $d$ and $t$. In the next two subsections we prove the results leading to the classification of parameterized complexity of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace shown in Fig. \ref{fig:lattices}. An arrow $A \longrightarrow B$ means that $A$ is a larger parameter than $B$, in the sense that the existence of an FPT algorithm parameterized by $B$ implies the existence of an FPT algorithm parameterized by $A$, and, conversely, any negative result parameterized by $A$ implies the same negative result parameterized by $B$.
The FPT results follow from Theorem \ref{thm:fpt-param-by-p-only} which is
proved in Section \ref{sec:fpt-part}. The remaining results are obtained in Section \ref{sec:other}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}%
[fpt/.style={rectangle,draw,minimum width=1cm},%
xp/.style={rectangle,draw,pattern=north west lines,pattern color=black!60,minimum width=1cm},%
paranphard/.style={rectangle,draw,fill=black!30,minimum width=1cm},%
unknown/.style={circle,draw}]
\node[fpt, minimum width=12pt,label=right:FPT] (legend-fpt) at (0,-6) {};
\node[xp, minimum width=12pt,label=right:{W[2]-hard but XP}] (legend-xp) at (2,-6) {};
\node[paranphard, minimum width=12pt,label=right:para-(co)NP-hard] (legend-para) at (6,-6) {};
\node[fpt] (psdt) at (3.75,1) {$n,s,d,t$};
\node[fpt] at (1,-1) (pst) {$n,s,t$};
\node[fpt] at (2.75,-1) (psd) {$n,s,d$};
\node[fpt] at (4.5,-1) (pdt) {$n,d,t$};
\node[xp] at (6.25,-1) (sdt) {$s,d,t$};
\node[fpt] (pt) at (0.5,-3) (pt) {$n,t$};
\node[fpt] at (1.8,-3) (ps) {$n,s$};
\node[fpt] at (3.1,-3) (pd) {$n,d$};
\node[paranphard] (sd) at (4.4,-3) {$s,d$};
\node[paranphard] (st) at (5.7,-3) {$s,t$};
\node[paranphard] (dt) at (7,-3) {$d,t$};
\node[fpt] (p) at (1.5,-5) (p) {$n$};
\node[paranphard] (s) at (3,-5) (s) {$s$};
\node[paranphard] (t) at (4.5,-5) (t) {$t$};
\node[paranphard] (d) at (6,-5) (d) {$d$};
\draw[->] (psdt) -- (psd);
\draw[->] (psdt) -- (pst);
\draw[->] (psdt) -- (pdt);
\draw[->] (psdt) -- (sdt);
\draw[->] (pdt) -- (pd);
\draw[->] (pdt) -- (pt);
\draw[->] (pdt) -- (dt);
\draw[->] (pst) -- (ps);
\draw[->] (pst) -- (pt);
\draw[->] (pst) -- (st);
\draw[->] (psd) -- (ps);
\draw[->] (psd) -- (pd);
\draw[->] (psd) -- (sd);
\draw[->] (sdt) -- (sd);
\draw[->] (sdt) -- (st);
\draw[->] (sdt) -- (dt);
\draw[->] (pd) -- (p);
\draw[->] (pd) -- (d);
\draw[->] (dt) -- (d);
\draw[->] (dt) -- (t);
\draw[->] (pt) -- (p);
\draw[->] (pt) -- (t);
\draw[->] (ps) -- (p);
\draw[->] (ps) -- (s);
\draw[->] (pd) -- (p);
\draw[->] (pd) -- (d);
\draw[->] (sd) -- (s);
\draw[->] (sd) -- (d);
\draw[->] (st) -- (s);
\draw[->] (st) -- (t);
\draw[->] (dt) -- (d);
\draw[->] (dt) -- (t);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Schema of the parameterized complexity of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace.}
\label{fig:lattices}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Fixed-Parameter Tractability of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace}\label{sec:fpt-part}
In this subsection we prove that \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace is FPT parameterized by $n$.
We first introduce some notation.
In the following, $U, \mathcal{F}, s, d, t$ will denote an input of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace, as defined previously.
For all $N \subseteq U$, let ${\cal F}_N = \{X \in {\cal F}: X = N\}$ (notice that we may have $\mathcal{F}_N = \emptyset$ for some $N \subseteq U$).
Roughly speaking, the idea is that in order to construct several disjoint set covers, it is sufficient to know how many sets were picked from $\mathcal{F}_N$, for every $N \subseteq U$ (observe that we may assume that a single set cover does not contain more than one set from each $\mathcal{F}_N$).
We first define the set of all possible set covers of the instance:
\[
\mathcal{C} = \left\{\{N_1, \dots, N_b\} : b \le t, N_i \subseteq U, i \in [b], \bigcup_{i=1}^b N_i = U\right\}.
\]
Then, for any $N \subseteq U$, we denote the set of set covers involving $N$ by $\mathcal{C}_N$, i.e.
\[ \mathcal{C}_N = \{c = \{N_1, \dots, N_{b_c}\} \in \mathcal{C} : N=N_i \text{ for some } i \in [b_c]\}.\]
Observe that since we assume $t \le n$, we have $|\mathcal{C}| = O(2^{n^2})$.
We define an ILP $\L$ over the set of variables $x = (x_c : c \in \mathcal{C})$ and $z = (z_N : N \subseteq U)$, with the following inequalities:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \sum_{c \in \mathcal{C}} x_c \ge d & \label{eqn:sumd} \\
& \sum_{N \subseteq U} z_N \le s & \label{eqn:bound-s}\\
& \sum_{c \in \mathcal{C}_N} x_c \le |\mathcal{F}_N|-z_N & \text{ for every } N \subseteq U \label{eqn:sizes} \\
& 0 \le z_N \le |\mathcal{F}_N| & \text{ for every } N \subseteq U \label{eqn:bounds-z} \\
& 0 \le x_c \le d & \text{ for every } c \in \mathcal{C} \label{eqn:bounds-x}
\end{eqnarray}
Observe that $\kappa(\L)$ is upper bounded by a function of $n$ only. The idea behind this model is to represent a family $\S$ of at most $s$ sets by variables $z$ (by deciding how many sets to take for each family $\mathcal{F}_N$, $N \subseteq U$), and to represent the disjoint set covers by variables $x$ (by deciding how many set covers will be equal to $c \in \mathcal{C}$). Then, inequalities (\ref{eqn:sizes}) will ensure that the set covers do not intersect with the chosen family $\S$.
However, while we would be able to solve $\L$ in FPT time parameterized by $n$ by using, \emph{e.g.}\xspace, Lenstra's ILP Theorem, the reader might realize that doing so would not solve \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace directly. Nevertheless, the following result establishes the crucial link between this system and our problem.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:equivsystem}
The \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace instance is positive if and only if $\L$ is $z$-resilient.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us denote by $\L_z$ the ILP consisting only of inequalities involving variables $z$, \emph{i.e.}\xspace inequalities (\ref{eqn:bound-s}) and (\ref{eqn:bounds-z}).
Suppose first that the instance is positive (\emph{i.e.}\xspace, there exists $d$ disjoint set covers, each of size at most $t$ and disjoint from $\S$, for any $\S \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ of size at most $s$), and let $\sigma_z$ be an integral assignment for $z$ such that $\sigma_z$ satisfies $\L_z$.
We now define a family $\S \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ by picking, in an arbitrary manner, $\sigma_z(z_N)$ sets in $\mathcal{F}_N$, for each $N \subseteq U$ (since $\sigma_z(z_N) \le \min \{s, |\mathcal{F}_N|\}$, such a set $\S$ must exist). Since $\S$ is a family of at most $s$ sets, there exist $d$ disjoint set covers $V=\{\mathcal{T}_1, \dots, \mathcal{T}_d\}$ such that $\left(\bigcup_{i \in [d]} \mathcal{T}_i \right) \cap \S = \emptyset$.
Then, for each $c \in \mathcal{C}$, let $\sigma_x(x_c)$ be the number of set covers of $U$ being equal to $c$.
Clearly we have $\sigma_x(x_c) \in \{0, \dots, d\}$ and $\sum_{c \in \mathcal{C}} \sigma_x(x_c) = d$, and thus inequalities (\ref{eqn:sumd}) and (\ref{eqn:bounds-x}) are satisfied.
Then, for all $N \subseteq U$, we may assume w.l.o.g. that $|\mathcal{T}_i \cap \mathcal{F}_N| \le 1$ for all $i \in \{1, \dots, d\}$. Hence $\sum_{c \in \mathcal{C}_N} \sigma_x(x_c)$ equals $|\left( \bigcup_{i \in [d]} \mathcal{T}_i \right) \cap \mathcal{F}_N|$, which is the number of sets of $\mathcal{F}_N$ involved in some set covers of $U$.
Since $\left( \bigcup_{i \in [d]} \mathcal{T}_i \right) \cap \S = \emptyset$, we have $\sum_{c \in \mathcal{C}_N} \sigma_x(x_c) \le |\mathcal{F}_N| - \sigma_z(z_N)$, and thus inequalities (\ref{eqn:sizes}) are also satisfied for every $N \subseteq U$. Consequently, $\sigma_x \cup \sigma_z$ satisfies $\L$.
Conversely, let $\S \subseteq \mathcal{F}$, $|\S| \le s$. For each $N \subseteq U$, define $\sigma_z(z_N) = |\S \cap \mathcal{F}_N|$, which is thus an integral assignment of variables $z$ satisfying $\L_Z$.
Hence, there exists a valid assignment $\sigma_x$ such that $\sigma_z \cup \sigma_x \models \L$. Then, for $c=\{N_1, \dots, N_b\} \in \mathcal{C}$, $b \le t$, consider a family of sets $\mathcal{T}$ consisting of a set chosen arbitrarily in $\S_{N_i}$ for each $i \in [b]$. By definition of $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{T}$ is a set cover of size at most $t$. Then, since for all $N \subseteq U$, we have, by inequalities (\ref{eqn:sizes}), that it is possible to construct $\sigma_x(x_c)$ pairwise disjoint such sets for each $c \in \mathcal{C}$, each having an empty intersection with $\S$. In other words, for every $\S \subseteq \mathcal{F}$, $|\S| \le s$, there exist $d$ disjoint set covers (thanks to inequality (\ref{eqn:sumd})), each of size at most $t$ and not intersecting $\S$. In other words, the instance is positive.
\end{proof}
Since, as we observed earlier, $\kappa(\L)$ is bounded by a function of $n$ only, combining Lemma \ref{lemma:equivsystem} with Theorem~\ref{thm:ILPres}, we obtain the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:fpt-param-by-p-only}
\textsc{RDSCP}\xspace is FPT parameterized by $n$.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Other Results of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace}\label{sec:other}
First observe that \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace with $s=0$ and $d=1$ is exactly the classical \textsc{Set Cover} problem, which is NP-hard and even W[2]-hard parameterized by the size of the set cover (\emph{i.e.}\xspace $t$ in our case). This explains the W[2]-hardness with parameters $(s, d, t)$ and para-NP-hardness with parameters $(s, d)$.
Then, let us start from the following simple result.
\begin{proposition}
\textsc{RDSCP}\xspace is in XP when parameterized by $(s, d, t)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
There are at most ${m \choose s}$ choices for $\S$ of size $s$ and for each such a choice there are at most $$d{m-s \choose t}$$ choices for $\mathcal{T}_1,\dots ,\mathcal{T}_d$, with $|\mathcal{T}_i| \leq t$ for all $i \in [d]$. For each such a choice we can decide whether $\mathcal{T}_1, \dots, \mathcal{T}_d$ are disjoint and whether each of them is a set cover in polynomial time. The result follows.
\end{proof}
Despite its simplicity, this result is actually somewhat tight as, as we will see, any smaller parameterization leads to a para-NP-hard or para-coNP-hard problem.
We now show that the problem is coNP-hard when $d=1$ and $ t=\tau$ for every fixed $\tau \ge 3$, implying para-coNP-hardness of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace parameterized by $(d, t)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:paranphard-hittingset}
If $d=1$ and $t=\tau$, \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace is coNP-hard for every fixed $\tau \ge 3$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We reduce from the \textsc{$\delta$-Hitting Set} problem, in which we are given a ground set $V=\{v_1, \dots, v_n\}$, a set $S = \{S_1, \dots, S_m\}$ with $S_j \subseteq V$ and $|S_j|=\delta$ for all $j \in [m]$ and an integer $k$, and where the goal is to decide whether there is a set $C \subseteq V$ of size at most $k$ and such that $C \cap S_j \neq \emptyset$ for all $j \in [m]$. This problem is known to be NP-hard for every $\delta \ge 2$ \cite{GaJo79}.
Hence, let $\mathcal{I} = (V, S, k)$ be an instance of \textsc{$\delta$-Hitting Set} defined as above. For every $j \in [m]$, fix an arbitrary ordering of $S_j$, which can thus be seen as a tuple $(v_{i_1}, \dots, v_{i_{\delta}})$, allowing us to define $S_j[x] = v_{i_x}$ for all $x \in [\delta]$.
We now define an instance $\mathcal{I}'$ of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace with universe $U$ and family $\mathcal{F}$ of sets. The universe consists of three parts: $U = U^V \cup U^S \cup \{u^*\}$, where $U^S = \bigcup_{j=1}^m P^j$ with $P^j = \{p_1^j, \dots, p_{\delta}^j\}$ for every $j \in [m]$, and $U^V$ contains one elements $u^V_Q$ for every subset $Q$ of $\delta-1$ elements among $[n]$. The family $\mathcal{F}$ of sets consists of two parts: $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F}^V \cup \mathcal{F}^S$, where $\mathcal{F}^V = \{s_1^V, \dots, s_n^V\}$ and $\mathcal{F}^S = \{s^S_1, \dots, s^S_m\}$. We now define the elements each set is made of. For every $i \in [n]$, the set $s^V_i$ consists of $\{p^j_x : j \in [m], x \in [\delta]$ such that $S_j[x] = v_i\}$ together with all elements $u^V_Q$ such that $i \notin Q$. For all $j \in [m]$, $s^S_j$ consists of $u^*$ together with $U^S \setminus P^j$. To conclude the construction of $\mathcal{I}'$, we let $t = \delta +1$, $d=1$, and $s=k$. Clearly this reduction can be done in polynomial time.
The remainder consists in proving that every set cover of $I'$ of size at most $t=\delta+1$ is of the form $\mathcal{T}_j=\{s^V_{i_1}, \dots, s^V_{i_{\delta}}, s^S_j\}$ such that $S_j = \{v_{i_1}, \dots, v_{i_{\delta}}\}$.
If this is true, then observe that since, for every $j \in [m]$, the set $s^S_j$ only belongs to the set cover $\mathcal{T}_j$, we will be able to suppose \emph{w.l.o.g.} that it does not belong to any set that would intersect every set cover. Thus the set of set covers of $I'$ will be in one-to-one correspondence with the sets in $I$, implying that the obtained instance contains a set of size $s=k$ intersecting all set covers if and only if there is a hitting set of size at most $k$.
Let $\mathcal{T} \subseteq \S$ of size at most $t$. By construction, we need at least $\delta$ sets from $\mathcal{F}^V$ to be able to include all elements from $U^V$ (indeed, every set $B$ of $\delta-1$ sets of $\mathcal{F}^V$ corresponds to a subset $Q_B$ of $[n]$, and thus $B$ is only able to cover $U^V \setminus \{u^V_{Q_B}\}$), and we also need at least one set from $\mathcal{F}^S$ to contain $u^*$. Hence, $|\mathcal{T} \cap \mathcal{F}^V| = \delta$ and $\mathcal{T} \cap \mathcal{F}^S = \{s^S_j\}$ for some $j \in [m]$. Now, notice that $s^S_j$ contains all elements in $U^S$ but $P^j$, which implies that $\mathcal{T} \cap \S^V$ must contain $P^j$. However, this can only happen if $\mathcal{T} \cap \S^V = \{s^V_{i_1}, \dots, s^V_{i_{\delta}}\}$, where $S_j = \{v_{i_1}, \dots, v_{i_{\delta}}\}$, concluding the proof.
\end{proof}
\newcommand{\textsc{$3$-Dimensional Matching}\xspace}{\textsc{$3$-Dimensional Matching}\xspace}
We also settle the case of \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace parameterized by $(s, t)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:paranphard-matching}
If $s=0$ and $t=4$, \textsc{RDSCP}\xspace is NP-hard.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We reduce from the \textsc{$3$-Dimensional Matching}\xspace problem, in which we are given three sets $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ of $n$ elements each, a set $M \subseteq X \times Y \times Z$ of hyperedges, and an integer $k$. The goal is to find $M' \subseteq M$ with $|M'| \ge k$ such that for all $e, e' \in M'$ with $e \neq e'$, $e=(x, y, z)$, $e'=(x', y', z')$, we have $x \neq x'$, $y \neq y'$ and $z \neq z'$ (in that case, we will say that these two hyperedges are \emph{disjoint}). Let $X = \{x_1, \dots, x_n\}$, $Y = \{y_1, \dots, y_n\}$ $Z = \{z_1, \dots, z_n\}$, and $M = \{e_1, \dots, e_m\}$.
We then define the following universe:
\[
U = \{u_1^X, \dots, u_m^X\} \cup \{u_1^Y, \dots, u_m^Y\} \cup \{u_1^Z, \dots, u_m^Z\} \cup \{u_X, u_Y, u_Z, u_*\}
\]
The family $\mathcal{F}$ of sets is comprised of $\mathcal{F}_X$, $\mathcal{F}_Y$, $\mathcal{F}_Z$ and $\mathcal{F}^*$, where, for all $\omega \in \{X, Y, Z, *\}$, let $\mathcal{F}_{\omega} = \{s^{\omega}_1, \dots, s^{\omega}_n\}$. For each hyperedge $e_j = \{x_{i_1}, y_{i_2}, z_{i_3}\}$, the set $s^X_{i_1}$ (resp. $s^Y_{i_2}$, $s^Z_{i_3}$) contains $u_j^X$ (resp. $u_j^Y$, $u_j^Z$) and $u_X$ (resp. $u_Y$, $u_Z$), and the set $s^*_j$ consists of all elements but $u_j^X$, $u_j^Y$, $u_j^Z$, $u_X$, $u_Y$ and $u_Z$.
To conclude the construction, which can be done in polynomial time, we set $d = k$ (and recall that $t=4$).
First, suppose that there exists a solution $M'$ for the \textsc{$3$-Dimensional Matching}\xspace problem. Without loss of generality, assume that $|M'| = k$, $M' = \{e_1, \dots, e_k\}$, and that $e_i = (x_i, y_i, z_i)$ for all $i \in [k]$ (recall that all members of $M'$ are pairwise disjoint). Then, observe that for all $i \in [k]$, the set $s_i^*$ consists of all elements but $u_i^X$, $u_i^Y$, $u_i^Z$, $u_X$, $u_Y$ and $u_Z$. However, $s^X_i$ consists of $u_i^X$ and $u_X$, set $s^Y_i$ consists of $u_i^Y$ and $u_Y$, and set $s^Z_i$ is composed of $u_i^Z$ and $u_Z$. Hence, $s^X_i \cup s^Y_i \cup s^Z_i \cup s^*_i = U$, and, since all members of $M'$ are pairwise disjoint, we thus constructed $d$ disjoint set covers of size at most $4$ each.
Conversely, suppose that there exist $\mathcal{T}_1, \dots, \mathcal{T}_d$, pairwise disjoint subfamilies of $\mathcal{F}$ such that for all $i \in [d]$, we have $|\mathcal{T}_i| = 4$ and $\cup_{X \in \mathcal{T}_i} X = U$. We first claim that for all $i \in [d]$, $\mathcal{T}_i$ intersects $\mathcal{F}_X$ (resp. $\mathcal{F}_Y$, $\mathcal{F}_Z$ and $\mathcal{F}_*$) on exactly one set.
Indeed, otherwise, since $|\mathcal{T}_i| = 4$ and since all sets in $\mathcal{F}_X$ (resp. $\mathcal{F}_Y$, $\mathcal{F}_Z$, $\mathcal{F}_*$) only contains $u_X$ (resp. $u_Y$, $u_Z$, $u_*$) among $\{u_X, u_Y, u_Z, u_*\}$, $\mathcal{T}_i$ would not be able to cover all $U$. Thus, we know that for all $i \in [d]$, we have $\mathcal{T}_i = \{s^X_{i_1}, s^Y_{i_2}, s^Z_{i_3}, s^*_{i_4}\}$, for some $(i_1, i_2, i_3, i_4) \in [n] \times [n] \times [n] \times [m]$. We claim that $(x_{i_1}, y_{i_2}, z_{i_3}) = e_{i_4}$. Indeed, observe that the set $s^*_{i_4}$ contains all elements but $u_{i_4}^X$, $u_{i_4}^Y$, $u_{i_4}^Z$, $u_X$, $u_Y$ and $u_Z$. By construction, the only way for $\mathcal{T}_i$ to cover $U$ is that set $s_{i_1}^X$ (resp. $s_{i_2}^Y$, $s_{i_3}^Z$) contains $u_{i_4}^X$ (resp. $u_{i_4}^Y$, $u_{i_4}^Z$) or, in other words, that $x_{i_1}$ (resp. $y_{i_2}$, $z_{i_3}$) belongs to hyperedge $e_{i_4}$. Thus, there exist $k$ pairwise disjoint hyperedges in $M$.
\end{proof}
\section{Closest String Problem}\label{sec:closeststring}
In the \textsc{Closest String} problem, we are given a collection of $k$ strings $s_1, \dots, s_k$ of length $L$ over a fixed alphabet $\Sigma$, and a non-negative integer $d$. The goal is to decide whether there exists a string $s$ (of length $L$) such that $d_H(s, s_i) \le d$ for all $i \in [k]$, where $d_H(s, s_i)$ denotes the Hamming distance between $s$ and $s_i$ (the number of positions in which $s$ and $s_i$ differ). If such a string exists, then it will be called a \emph{$d$-closest string}.
It is common to represent an instance of the problem as a matrix $C$ with $k$ rows and $L$ columns (\emph{i.e.}\xspace where each row is a string of the input); hence, in the following, the term \emph{column} will refer to a column of this matrix.
As Gramm \emph{et al.}\xspace \cite{GrNiRo03} observe, as the Hamming distance is measured column-wise, one can identify some columns sharing the same structure. Let $\Sigma = \{\varphi_1, \dots, \varphi_{|\Sigma|}\}$.
Gramm \emph{et al.}\xspace show~\cite{GrNiRo03} that after a simple preprocessing of the instance, we may assume that for every column $c$ of $C$, $\varphi_i$ is the $i^{th}$ character that appears the most often (in $c$), for $i \in \{1, \dots, |\Sigma|\}$ (ties broken \emph{w.r.t.}\xspace the considered ordering of $\Sigma$). Such a preprocessed column will be called \emph{normalized}, and by extension, a matrix consisting of normalized columns will be called \emph{normalized}.
One can observe that after this preprocessing, the number of different columns (called \emph{column type}) is bounded by a function of $k$ only, namely by the $k^{th}$ Bell number $\mathcal{B}_k = O(2^{k \log_2 k})$. The set of all column types is denoted by $T$.
Using this observation, Gramm \emph{et al.}\xspace~\cite{GrNiRo03} prove that \textsc{Closest String} is FPT parameterized by $k$, using an ILP with a number of variables depending on $k$ only, and then applying Lenstra's theorem.
The motivation for studying resiliency with respect to this problem is the introduction of experimental errors, which may change the input strings~\cite{Pe00}. While a solution of the \textsc{Closest String} problem tests whether the input strings are consistent, a resiliency version asks whether these strings will remain consistent after some small changes. In the \textsc{Resiliency Closest String} problem we allow at most $m$ changes to appear anywhere in the matrix $C$. To represent this, we simply use the Hamming distance between two matrices.
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}[c]{.9\textwidth}
\textsc{Resiliency Closest String (RCS)}\\
\underline{Input:} $C$, a $k \times L$ normalized matrix of elements of $\Sigma$, $d \in \mathbb{N}$,
$m \leq kL$.\\
\underline{Question:} For every $C'$, $k \times L$ normalized matrix of elements of $\Sigma$ such that the Hamming distance of $C$ and $C'$ is at most $m$, does $C'$ admit a $d$-closest string?
\end{minipage}}
\end{center}
Let $\#_t$ be the number of columns of type $t$ in $C$. For two types $t, t' \in T$ let $\delta(t,t')$ be their Hamming distance. Let $z_{t,t'}$, for all $t, t' \in T$, be a variable meaning ``how many columns of type $t$ in $C$ are changed to type $t'$ in $C'$'' (we allow $t=t'$). Thus we have the following constraints:
\begin{align}
\sum_{t' \in T} z_{t,t'} &= \#_t & \forall t \in T \label{eqn:global:eq1} \\
\sum_{t, t' \in T} \delta(t,t') z_{t,t'} &\leq m \label{eqn:global:eq2}
\end{align}
These constraints clearly capture all possible scenarios of how the input strings can be modified in at most $m$ places. Then let $\#'_t$ be a variable meaning ``how many columns of $C'$ are of type $t$'', and let $x_{t,\varphi}$ represent the number of columns of type $t$ in $C'$ whose corresponding character in the solution is set to $\varphi$. Finally let $\Delta(t, \varphi)$ be the number of characters of $t$ which are different from $\varphi$. As the remaining constraints correspond to our formulation of \textsc{ILP Resiliency}, we have:
\begin{align}
\sum_{t \in T} z_{t,t'} &= \#'_{t'} & \forall t' \in T \label{eqn:global:eq3}\\
\sum_{\varphi \in \Sigma} x_{t, \varphi} &= \#'_t & \forall t \in T \label{eqn:global:eq4}\\
\sum_{t \in T} \sum_{\varphi \in \Sigma } \Delta(t, \varphi) x_{t, \varphi} &\le d & \label{eqn:global:eq5}
\end{align}
This is the standard ILP for \textsc{Closest String}~\cite{GrNiRo03}, except that $\#'_t$ are now variables, and there exists a solution $x$ exactly when there is a string at distance at most $d$ from the modified strings given by the variables $\#'$.
Let $\L$ denote the ILP composed of constraints (\ref{eqn:global:eq1}), (\ref{eqn:global:eq2}), (\ref{eqn:global:eq3}), (\ref{eqn:global:eq4}) and (\ref{eqn:global:eq5}). Finally, let $\cal Z$ denote variables $z_{t, t'}$ and $\#'_t$ for every $t, t' \in T$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:grcs}
The \textsc{Resiliency Closest String} instance is satisfiable if and only if $\L$ is $\cal Z$-resilient.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Constraints involving variables $\cal Z$ are (\ref{eqn:global:eq1}), (\ref{eqn:global:eq2}) and (\ref{eqn:global:eq3}).
Suppose first that the instance is satisfiable, and let $\sigma_{\cal Z}$ be an integral assignment for $\cal Z$. We construct $C'$ from $C$ by turning, in an arbitrary way, $\sigma_{\cal Z}(z_{t, t'})$ columns of type $t$ to columns of type $t'$. By constraints (\ref{eqn:global:eq1}), $C'$ is well-defined, and by constraints (\ref{eqn:global:eq2}), the Hamming distance between $C$ and $C'$ is at most $m$. Then, by constraint (\ref{eqn:global:eq3}), matrix $C'$ contains $\sigma_{\cal Z}(\#'_t)$ columns of type $t$, for every $t \in T$. Since the instance is satisfiable, there exists a $d$-closest string $s$ of $C'$. For $t \in T$ and $\varphi \in \Sigma$, define $\sigma_x(x_{t, \varphi})$ as the number of columns of type $t$ in $C'$ whose corresponding character in $s$ is $\varphi$. Since, as we said previously, $C'$ has exactly $\sigma_{\cal Z}(\#'_t)$ columns of type $t$, constraint (\ref{eqn:global:eq4}) is satisfied for every $t \in T$. Then, since $s$ is a $d$-closest string for $C'$, constraint (\ref{eqn:global:eq5}) is also satisfied.
Conversely, suppose that $\L$ is $\cal Z$-resilient, and let us consider $C'$, a $k \times L$ normalized matrix of elements of $\Sigma$ such that the Hamming distance of $C$ and $C'$ is at most $m$. In polynomial time, we construct $\sigma_{\cal Z}(z_{t, t'})$ for every $t, t' \in T$ such that (\ref{eqn:global:eq1}) and (\ref{eqn:global:eq3}) are satisfied. By definition of $C'$, constraint (\ref{eqn:global:eq2}) is satisfied. Thus, there exists an integral assignment $\sigma_x$ satisfying (\ref{eqn:global:eq4}) and (\ref{eqn:global:eq5}). We now construct $s$ as a string having, for every column type $t \in T$ in $C'$, $\sigma_x(x_{t, \varphi})$ occurrence(s)(s) of character $\varphi$, for every $\varphi \in \Sigma$ (columns chosen arbitrarily among those of type $t$ in $C'$). Because of constraint (\ref{eqn:global:eq4}), and since $\#'_t$ is the number of columns of type $t$ in $C'$, $s$ is well-defined. Finally, observe that constraint (\ref{eqn:global:eq5}) ensures that $s$ is a $d$-closest string of $C'$, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
It remains to observe that for the above system of constraints $\cal L$, $\kappa({\cal L})$ is bounded by a function of $k$ (since $|T| = O(2^{k \log_2 k})$. We thus obtain the following result:
\begin{theorem}
\textsc{RCS} is $FPT$ parameterized by $k$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Resilient Scheduling}\label{sec:scheduling}
A fundamental scheduling problem is makespan minimization on unrelated machines, where we have $m$ machines and $n$ jobs, and each job has a vector of processing times with respect to machines $p_j = (p_j^1, \dots, p_j^m)$, $j\in [n]$. If the vectors $p_j$ and $p_{j'}$ are identical for two jobs $j, j'$, we say these jobs are of the same \textit{type}. Here we consider the case when $m$ and the number of types $\theta$ are parameters and the input is given as $\theta$ numbers $n_1, \dots, n_\theta$ of job multiplicities. A \textit{schedule} is an assignment of jobs to machines. For a particular schedule, let $n_t^i$ be the number of jobs of type $t$ assigned to machine $i$. Then, the \textit{completion time} of machine $i$ is $C^i = \sum_{t \in [\theta]} p_t^i n_t^i$ and the largest $C^i$ is the \textit{makespan} of the schedule, denoted $C_{max}$.
The parameterization by $\theta$ and $m$ might seem very restrictive, but note that when $m$ alone is a parameter, the problem is W[1]-hard even when the machines are identical (i.e., copies of the same machine) and the job lengths are given in unary~\cite{JansenKMS13}. Also, Asahiro et al.~\cite{AsahiroJMOZ07} show that it is strongly NP-hard already for \textit{restricted assignment} when there is a number $p_j$ for each job such that for each machine $i$, $p_j^i \in \{p_j, \infty\}$ and all $p_j \in \{1,2\}$ and for every job there are exactly two machines where it can run. Mnich and Wiese~\cite{MnichW14} proved that the problem is FPT with parameters $\theta$ and $m$.
A natural way to introduce resiliency is when we consider unexpected delays due to repairs, fixing software bugs, etc., but we have an upper bound $K$ on the total expected downtime. We assume that the execution of jobs can be resumed after the machine becomes available again, but cannot be moved to another machine, that is, we assume preemption but not migration. Under these assumptions it does not matter when specifically the downtime happens, only the total downtime of each machine. Given $m$ machines, $n$ jobs and $C_{max}, K \in \mathbb{N}$, we say that a scheduling instance has a \emph{$K$-tolerant makespan $C_{max}$} if, for every $d_1, \dots, d_m \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^m d_i \le K$, there exists a schedule where each machine $i \in [m]$ finishes by the time $C_{max}-d_i$.
We obtain the following problem:
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}[c]{.9\textwidth}
\textsc{Resiliency Makespan Minimization on Unrelated Machines}\\
\underline{Input:} $m$ machines, $\theta$ job types $p_1, \dots, p_\theta \in \mathbb{N}^m$, job multiplicities $n_1, \dots, n_\theta$, and $K, C_{max} \in \mathbb{N}$.\\
\underline{Question:} Does this instance have a $K$-tolerant makespan $C_{max}$ ?
\end{minipage}}
\end{center}
Let $x_t^i$ be a variable expressing how many jobs of type $t$ are scheduled to machine $i$. We have the following constraints, with the first constraint describing the feasible set of delays, and the subsequent constraints assuring that every job is scheduled on some machine and that every machine finishes by time $C_{max} - d_i$:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^m d_i &\leq K & \\
\sum_{i=1}^m x_i^t &= n_t & \forall t \in [\theta] \\
\sum_{t=1}^\theta x_t^i p_t^i &\leq C_{max} - d_i & \forall i \in [m]
\end{align*}
Theorem \ref{thm:ILPres} and the system of constraints above implies the following result related to the above-mentioned result of Mnich and Wiese~\cite{MnichW14}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sch}
\textsc{Resiliency Makespan Minimization on Unrelated Machines} is FPT when parameterized by $\theta$, $m$ and $K$ and with $\max_{t\in [\theta],i\in [m]} p_i^t \le N$ for some number $N$ given in unary.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We recall the following ILP, denoted by $\L$:
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^m d_i &\leq K & \label{eqn:sched:d} \\
\sum_{i=1}^m x_i^t &= n_t & \forall t \in [\theta] \label{eqn:sched:x}\\
\sum_{t=1}^\theta x_t^i p_t^i &\leq C_{max} - d_i & \forall i \in [m] \label{eqn:sched:makespan}
\end{align}
We prove that the instance is satisfiable (\emph{i.e.}\xspace has a $K$-tolerant makespan $C_{max}$) if and only if $\L$ is $d$-resilient.
Suppose first that the instance is satisfiable, and let $\sigma_d$ be an integral assignment of variables $d_i$ satisfying constraint (\ref{eqn:sched:d}), that is, we have a scenario of delays $\sigma_d(d_1), \dots, \sigma_d(d_m)$ with total delay at most $K$. Thus, there exists a schedule where each machine $i \in [m]$ finished by time $C_{max}$ with expected delay $\sigma_d(d_i)$. By defining, for every machine $i \in [m]$ and every type $t \in [\theta]$, $\sigma_x(x_i^t)$ to be the number of jobs of type $t$ assigned to machine $i$, we obtain an integral assignment for variables $x_i^t$ satisfying constraints (\ref{eqn:sched:x}) and (\ref{eqn:sched:makespan}). That is, $\L$ is $d$-resilient.
Conversely, suppose that $\L$ is $d$-resilient, and let us consider a scenario of delays $d_1, \dots, d_m$ with total delay at most $K$, or, equivalently, an integral assignment $\sigma_d$ of variables $d$ satisfying constraint (\ref{eqn:sched:d}). Since $\L$ is $d$-resilient, there exists an assignment $\sigma_x$ of variables $x_i^t$ satisfying (\ref{eqn:sched:x}) and (\ref{eqn:sched:makespan}). Using the same arguments as above, there exists a schedule where each machine $i \in [m]$ finishes by time $C_{max}-d_i$.
Finally, observe that $\kappa(\L)$ is bounded by a function of $\theta$, $m$ and $K$ only.
\end{proof}
\section{Resilient Swap Bribery}\label{sec:bribery}
The field of computational social choice is concerned with computational problems associated with voting in elections. \textsc{Swap Bribery}, where the goal is to find the cheapest way to bribe voters such that a preferred candidate wins, has received considerable attention. This problem models not only actual bribery, but also processes designed to influence voting (such as campaigning). It is natural to consider the case where an adversarial counterparty first performs their bribery, where we only have an estimate on their budget. The question becomes whether, for each such bribery, it is possible, within a given budget, to bribe the election such that our preferred candidate still wins.
The number of candidates is a well studied parameter~\cite{BredereckEtAl2015,DornSchlotter2012}. In this section we will show that the resilient version of \textsc{Swap Bribery} with unit costs (unit costs are a common setting, cf. Dorn and Schlotter~\cite{DornSchlotter2012}) is FPT using our framework. Let us now give formal definitions.
\noindent
\textbf{Elections.}
An election~$E = (C,V)$ consists of a set $C$ of $m$ candidates~$c_1,\ldots,c_m$ and a set~$V$ of voters (or votes).
Each voter $i$ is a linear order~$\ensuremath{\succ}_{i}$ over the set~$C$.
For distinct candidates~$a$ and $b$, we write $a\ensuremath{\succ}_i b$ if voter~$i$ prefers~$a$ over $b$.
We denote by $\textrm{rank}(c,i)$ the position of candidate~$c \in C$ in the order~$\ensuremath{\succ}_i$.
The preferred candidate is $c_1$.
\noindent
\textbf{Swaps.}
Let $(C,V)$ be an election and let $i \in V$ be a voter.
A \emph{swap} $\gamma = (a,b)_i$ in preference order~$\ensuremath{\succ}_i$ means to exchange the positions of $a$ and $b$ in $\ensuremath{\succ}_i$; denote the resulting order by $\ensuremath{\succ}_i^{\gamma}$; the \emph{cost} of $(a,b)_i$ is $\pi_i(a,b)$ (in the problem studied in this paper, we have $\pi_i(a, b) = 1$ for every voter $i$ and candidates $a, b$).
A swap~$\gamma=(a,b)_i$ is \emph{admissible in $\ensuremath{\succ}_i$} if $\rank(a,i) = \rank(b,i)-1$.
A set $\Gamma$ of swaps is \emph{admissible in $\ensuremath{\succ}_i$} if they can be applied sequentially in~$\ensuremath{\succ}_i$, one after the other, in some order, such that each one of them is admissible.
Note that the obtained vote, denoted by $\ensuremath{\succ}_i^{\Gamma}$, is independent from the order in which the swaps of $\Gamma$ are applied.
We also extend this notation for applying swaps in several votes and denote it $V^\Gamma$.
\noindent
\textbf{Voting rules.}
A voting rule~$\mathcal{R}$ is a function that maps an election to a subset of candidates, the set of winners. We will show our example for rules which are scoring protocols, but following the framework of so-called ``election systems described by linear inequalities''~\cite{DornSchlotter2012} it is easily seen that the result below holds for many other voting rules. With a scoring protocol $s=(s_1, \dots, s_m) \in \mathbb{N}^m$, a voter $i$ gives $s_1$ points to his most preferred candidate, $s_2$ points to his second most preferred candidate and so on. The candidate with most points wins.
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}[c]{.9\textwidth}
\textsc{Resiliency Unit Swap Bribery}\\
\underline{Input:} An election $E=(C,V)$ with each swap of unit cost and with a scoring protocol $s \in \mathbb{N}^m$, the adversary's budget $B_a$, our budget $B$.\\
\underline{Question:} For every adversarial bribery $\Gamma_a$ of cost at most $B_a$, is there a bribery $\Gamma$ of cost at most $B$ such that $E=(C,(V^{\Gamma_a})^\Gamma)$ is won by $c_1$?
\end{minipage}}
\end{center}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:bribe}
\textsc{Resiliency Unit Swap Bribery} with a scoring protocol is FPT when parameterized by the number of candidates $m$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A standard way of looking at an election when the number of candidates $m$ is a parameter is as given by \textit{multiplicities} of \textit{voter types}: there are at most $m!$ total orders on $C$, so we count them and output numbers $n_1, \dots, n_{m!}$. Observe that for two orders $\ensuremath{\succ},\ensuremath{\succ}'$, the admissible set of swaps $\Gamma$ such that $\ensuremath{\succ}' = \ensuremath{\succ}^{\Gamma}$ is uniquely given as the set of pairs $(c_i, c_j)$ for which either $c_i \ensuremath{\succ} c_j \wedge c_j \ensuremath{\succ}' c_i$ or $c_j \ensuremath{\succ} c_i \wedge c_i \ensuremath{\succ}' c_j$ (cf.~\cite[Proposition 3.2]{ElkindEtAl2009}). Thus it is possible to define the price $\pi(i,j)$, for $i,j \in [m!]$, of bribing a voter of type $i$ to become of type $j$ (since every swap is of unit cost, it does not depend on the users). Moreover, we can extend our notation $\rank(a,i)$ to denote the position of $a$ in the order of type $i$.
Similarly to our \textsc{Global Resiliency Closest String} approach, let $z_{ij}$, for all $i, j \in [m!]$, be a variable representing the number of voters of type $i$ bribed to become of type $j$, and let $y_i$, $i \in [m!]$, represent the election $E=(C,V^{\Gamma_a})$ after the first bribery. These constraints describe all possible adversarial briberies:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{m!} z_{ij} &= n_i & \forall i \in [m!] \\
\sum_{i=1}^{m!} z_{ij} &= y_j & \forall j \in [m!] \\
\sum_{i=1}^{m!} \sum_{j=1}^n \pi(i,j) z_{ij} &\leq B_a &
\end{align*}
The rest of the ILP is standard; variables $x_{ij}$ will describe the second bribery in the same way as $z_{ij}$ and variables $w$ will describe the election after this bribery, on which we will impose a constraint which is satisfied when $c_1$ is a winner:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{m!} x_{ij} &= y_i & \forall i \in [m!] \\
\sum_{i=1}^{m!} x_{ij} &= w_j & \forall j \in [m!] \\
\sum_{i=1}^{m!} \sum_{j=1}^{m!} \pi(i,j) x_{ij} &\leq B & \\
\sum_{k=1}^m \sum_{i: \rank(c_1,i)=k} w_i s_k &> \sum_{k=1}^m \sum_{i: \rank(c_j,i)=k} w_i s_k & \forall j=2, \dots, m
\end{align*}
The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:grcs}.
\end{proof}
\section{Discussion and Open Problems}\label{sec:dis}
For some time, Lenstra's theorem was the only approach in parameterized algorithms and complexity based on integer programming. Recently other tools based on integer programming have been introduced: the use of Graver bases for the $n$-fold integer programming problem~\cite{HeOnRo13}, the use of ILP approaches in kernelization \cite{EtKrMnRo17}, or, conversely, kernelization results for testing ILP feasibility \cite{JaKr15}, and an integer quadratic programming analog of Lenstra's theorem \cite{Lok15}. Our approach is a new addition to this powerful arsenal.
However, there still remain powerful tools from the theory of integer programming which, surprisingly, have not found applications in the design of parameterized algorithms.
For one example take a result of Hemmecke, K{\"o}ppe and Weismantel~\cite{HemmeckeKW:14} about \emph{2-stage stochastic integer programming with $n$ scenarios}.
They describe an FPT algorithm (which builds on a deep structural insight) for solving integer programs with a certain block structure and bounded coefficients.
For another example see the recent work of Nguyen and Pak~\cite{NguyenP:2017} which generalizes the problem solved by Eisenbrand and Shmonin.
They study the complexity of deciding \emph{short Presburger sentences} of the form $\forall x_1 \in P_1 \exists x_2 \in P_2 \cdots \exists x_k \in P_k: A(x_1, \dots, x_k) \leq b,$ where $P_1, \dots, P_k$ are polyhedra, $A$ is an integer matrix, $b$ is an integer vector and $x_1, \dots, x_k$ are required to be integer vectors.
A close reading of their result reveals that if $A$ and $b$ are given in unary, their algorithm is FPT for parameters $k$, the sum of dimensions of $x_1, \dots, x_k$, and the number of rows of $A$.
Another important research direction is the optimality program in parameterized algorithms pioneered by Daniel Marx.
Many of the prototypical uses of Lenstra's algorithm lead to FPT algorithms which have a double-exponential (i.e., $2^{2^{k^{O(1)}}}$) dependency on the parameter, such as the algorithms for \textsc{Closest String}~\cite{GrNiRo03} or \textsc{Swap Bribery}~\cite{DornSchlotter2012}.
Very recently, Knop et al.~\cite{KnopKM:2017} showed that many of these ILP formulations have a particular format which is solvable exponentially faster than by Lenstra's algorithm, thus bringing down the dependency on the parameter down to single-exponential.
This leads us to wonder what is the true complexity of, e.g., \textsc{Resiliency Closest String}?
All we can say is that the complexity of our algorithm is at best double-exponential but probably worse (depending on the complexity of parametric ILP in fixed dimension). Is this the best possible, or does a single-exponential algorithm exist?
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Quantum physics provides quantum computing with immense advantage over classical computing.
Among its non-classical properties, non-locality is known to be a basis for quantum communication (see \cite{NC11}).
It is in fact a special case of a more general property called \emph{contextuality}, which recent studies \cite{rau13,HWVE14} suggest is an essential source of the computational power of quantum computers.
This motivates the search for structural, higher-level expressions of contextuality that are independent of the formalism of quantum mechanics.
One conception of contextuality that originated in \cite{IB98} exploits the structure of \emph{presheaf}:
As was shown in \cite{IB98}, a certain type of contextuality of a quantum system amounts to the absence of global sections from presheaves modelling the behaviors of the system.
The recent, ``sheaf-theoretic'' approach \cite{AB11} expands this insight by viewing contextuality in more general terms, as a matter of \emph{topology} in data of measurements and outcomes:
A wider range of contextuality is then characterized as the ``global inconsistency'' of the ``locally consistent''.
This has on the one hand
shown that contextual phenomena can be found in various other fields such as relational database theory (see \cite{abr13}),
and on the other hand
made it possible to apply various tools---%
sheaf theory, cohomology, linear algebra, for instance---%
to contextuality.
One idea that has emerged is to formulate contextuality argument in logical terms \cite{ABKLM15}:
One describes a presheaf model using logical formulas, and proves its contextuality by deriving contradiction from the formulas.
This method, however, only shows the global inconsistency of a given set of formulas;
we know them to be locally consistent only because they describe a locally consistent model that is given.
Nonetheless, when designing ways of exploiting contextuality, we may well first obtain a set of formulas or a specification, and then check if there is a model satisfying it.
This requires a logic in which consistency means local consistency.
The chief goal of this paper is to deliver such a new logic of local inference.
The two logics---%
one for global inconsistency and the other for local consistency---%
together lay a foundation for high-level logical methods of not only showing but also using contextuality as resource.
\autoref{sec:model} reviews the sheaf approach to contextuality, which takes presheaves valued in $\mathbf{Sets}$.
Then \autoref{sec:logic} defines what we call ``inchworm logic'', a novel logic of local inference for contextual models.
We formulate this on the basis of regular logic, since its vocabulary captures the essence of local inference.
Semantics is provided for this logic in \autoref{sec:general}, where we generalize $\mathbf{Sets}$-valued presheaf models to ones valued in any regular category $\mathbf{S}$.
This encompasses cases that prove useful and powerful in applications:
E.g., presheaves of abelian groups, $R$-modules, etc.\ serve the purpose of cohomology;
indeed, \v{C}ech cohomology is used to detect the contextuality of $\mathbf{Sets}$-valued presheaves \cite{ABKLM15}.
This paper gives a uniform way of using $\mathbf{S}$-valued presheaves directly as models of contextual logic.
\section{Contextual Models}\label{sec:model}
We first review the idea behind the formalism of \cite{ABKLM15}, stressing that it applies to more settings than just quantum ones.
The idea captures contextuality as a matter of topological nature, which we illustrate with a simplicial formulation equivalent to the presheaf formulation of \cite{ABKLM15}.
We also present a modification of the latter that can readily be generalized in \autoref{sec:general}.
\subsection{Topological Models for Contextuality}\label{sec:model.presheaf}
The formalism of \cite{AB11} concerns variables and values in general.
Their bare-bones structure consists of a set $X$ of variables and, for each $x \in X$, a set $A_x$ of possible values of $x$.
So we have an $X$-indexed family of sets $A_x$.
This can model various settings in which we make queries against a system and it answers, as observed in \cite{abr13,ABKLM15};
e.g.,
\begin{itemize}
\item
We measure properties $x \in X$ of a physical system and it gives back outcomes $a \in A_x$.
\item
A relational database has attributes $x \in X$, and $a \in A_x$ are possible data values for $x$.
\item
$x \in X$ are sentences of propositional logic and a set of models assign to them boolean values $a \in A_x = \2$.
Or $x \in X$ may simply be boolean variables.
\end{itemize}
We often make a query regarding several variables in combination;
a set $U \subseteq X$ of variables the query concerns forms a \emph{context} in which the system gives back a result.
Contexts play essential r\^oles in the following two kinds of constraints, (\hyperref[item:topology.total]{a}) on answers and (\hyperref[item:topology.base]{b}) on queries.
(a)
\phantomsection%
\label{item:topology.total}%
When we make a query in a context $U$, the system returns (one or a set of) tuples $s \in \prod_{x \in U} A_x$ of values.
It then has the subset $A_U \subseteq \prod_{x \in U} A_x$ of ``admissible'' tuples that can be part of query results, and it is often the information on $A_U$ that we want.
E.g.,
\begin{itemize}
\item
From a relational database we retrieve data with an attribute list $U$, and the database returns the relation $A_U$ on sets $A_x$ ($x \in U$) as a table.
\item
Given a set of models and a set $U$ of sentences, $A_U$ is the set of combinations of values that $U$ can take;
e.g., a pair $\varphi, \lnot \varphi \in U$ only take values $(1, 0)$ or $(0, 1)$.
\item
We may measure a physical system in various states and find that some set $U$ of quantities always satisfies a certain equation that characterizes $A_U$.
\end{itemize}
(A tuple $s \in \prod_{x \in U} A_x$ is a dependent function, so it is formally a set of the form $\{\, (x, s(x)) \mid x \in U$ and $s(x) \in A_x \,\}$;
but we may refer to it as ``$(s(x), s(y), \ldots\,)$ over $(x, y, \ldots\,)$''.)
(b)
\phantomsection%
\label{item:topology.base}%
We have the family $\mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal{P} X$ of contexts in which queries can be made and answered.
We may not be able to make a query in a context $V \subseteq X$ (i.e.\ $V \notin \mathcal{C}$) for reasons such as:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$V$ may have too many variables to deal with feasibly.
\item
A database schema may have no table encompassing all the attributes in $V$.
\item
Quantum mechanics may deem it impossible to measure all the properties in $V$ at once.
\end{itemize}
In these examples, if queries can be made in a context $U$, they can be in any $V \subseteq U$;
we also assume that queries can be made in $\{ x \}$ for any $x \in X$, but only in finite $U$.
So $\mathcal{C}$ is an (abstract) \emph{simplicial complex} on $X$, i.e.\ a $\subseteq$-downward closed subfamily of $\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{fin} X$ with $\bigcup_{U \in \mathcal{C}} U = X$.
Also, if a tuple $s$ of values is admissible, so is any $t \subseteq s$.
Hence, whenever $V \subseteq U \in \mathcal{C}$, the projection of tuples
\begin{gather*}
\rest{-}{V} : \prod_{x \in U} A_x \to \prod_{x \in V} A_x :: s \mapsto \rest{s}{V}
\end{gather*}
restricts to $A_{V \subseteq U} : A_U \to A_V$.
Thus $A : \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{Sets}$ forms a presheaf on the poset $\mathcal{C}$.
In fact, $A$ is a \emph{separated} presheaf.
Generally, for any subfamily $\mathcal{C}$ of $\mathcal{P} X$ closed under binary intersection, whenever $\bigcup_i U_i = U \in \mathcal{C}$ for $U_i \in \mathcal{C}$, a presheaf $P$ on $\mathcal{C}$ has the map
\begin{gather*}
\langle P_{U_i \subseteq U} \rangle_i : P_U \to \prod_i P_{U_i} :: s \mapsto (\rest{s}{U_i})_i
\end{gather*}
land in the set of \emph{matching families} for $(U_i)_i$,
\begin{gather*}
\Match{(U_i)_i}{P} = \{\, (t_i)_i \in \prod_i P_{U_i} \mid \rest{t_j}{U_j \cap U_k} = \rest{t_k}{U_j \cap U_k} \text{ for every pair } j, k \,\} .
\end{gather*}
Then $P$ is called separated if each of these $\langle P_{U_i \subseteq U} \rangle_i$ is injective, and a \emph{sheaf} if each of those $\langle P_{U_i \subseteq U} \rangle_i : P_U \to \Match{(U_i)_i}{P}$ is bijective (see \cite{MM92}).
Yet, on a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$, separated presheaves and sheaves have simpler descriptions:
\begin{fact}\label{thm:separated.presheaf}
A presheaf $P$ on a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$ is a sheaf iff $P_U = \prod_{x \in U} P_x$ for all $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
And $P$ is separated iff it is a subpresheaf of a sheaf, i.e.\ iff $P_U \subseteq \prod_{x \in U} P_x$ for all $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
\end{fact}
This shows that our $A$ above is a separated presheaf, but not generally a sheaf.
So let us write $\mathbf{sPsh}(\mathcal{C})$ for the full subcategory of $\mathbf{Sets}^{\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}}$ of separated presheaves.
Note that every sheaf $F$ has $F_\varnothing = 1$, a singleton.
A separated presheaf $P$ has $P_\varnothing = 1$, too, unless it is the empty presheaf $U \mapsto \varnothing$, i.e.\ the model is inconsistent in every context (hence modelling, e.g., a physical system that never produces outcomes in any context of measurements).
\subsection{Presheaves and Bundles}\label{sec:model.equivalence}
The constraints (\hyperref[item:topology.total]{a}) and (\hyperref[item:topology.base]{b}) above are, indeed, matters of topology;
this idea will be useful in \autoref{sec:model.contextuality}.
Given a separated presheaf $A$ as in \autoref{sec:model.presheaf}, its underlying family of $X$-indexed sets $(A_x)_{x \in X}$ is equivalent to a set over $X$, viz.\ $\pi : \sum_{x \in X} A_x \to X :: (x, a) \mapsto x$, by $\mathbf{Sets}^X \simeq \mathbf{Sets} / X$.
The base $X$ comes with a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$, but so does $\sum_{x \in X} A_x$, taking tuples $s \in A_U$ as simplices, i.e.\ $\mathcal{A} = \bigcup_{U \in \mathcal{C}} A_U$.
And $\pi$ is a \emph{simplicial map}, or a \emph{bundle} of simplicial complexes, since $s \in A_U \subseteq \mathcal{A}$ implies $\pi[s] = U \in \mathcal{C}$.
On the other hand, any given bundle $\pi : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{C}$ has a family of $A_U = \{\, s \in \mathcal{A} \mid \pi[s] = U \,\}$ and $A_{V \subseteq U} : s \mapsto \rest{s}{V}$.
A simplicial map $\pi : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{C}$ is called \emph{non-degenerate} if $\rest{\pi}{s}$ is injective for every $s \in \mathcal{A}$.
Our $\pi$ above is non-degenerate, because every $s \in A_U$ is a \emph{local section} of the bundle $\pi$, meaning $s : U \to \sum_{x \in X} A_x$ such that $\pi \mathbin{\circ} s = 1_U$.
Let us write $\mathbf{Simp}$ and $\mathbf{ndSimp}$ for the categories of simplicial maps and of non-degenerate ones, respectively.
It is easy to check
that
for every simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$, the slice category $\mathbf{ndSimp} / \mathcal{C}$ is a full subcategory of $\mathbf{Simp} / \mathcal{C}$;
i.e., it is the category of non-degenerate bundles and simplicial maps over $\mathcal{C}$.
Then, extending $\mathbf{Sets}^X \simeq \mathbf{Sets} / X$, the correspondence described above gives
\begin{fact}\label{thm:bundle.persheaf.basic}
$\mathbf{sPsh}(\mathcal{C}) \simeq \mathbf{ndSimp} / C$ for any simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{fact}
So here is a topological reading of (\hyperref[item:topology.total]{a}) and (\hyperref[item:topology.base]{b}).
Each $U \in \mathcal{C}$ is a local, small enough region of the space $X$ of variables.
The topology on the space $\mathcal{A}$ of values then distinguishes those tuples $s \in \prod_{x \in U} A_x$ in $A_U$ from the others and deems the former to be continuous sections.
We refer to objects of $\mathbf{sPsh}(\mathcal{C})$ and $\mathbf{ndSimp} / C$ interchangeably as \emph{topological models}.
\subsection{Contextuality in Physics, Databases, and More}\label{sec:model.contextuality}
Since queries can only be made locally, i.e.\ in contexts $U \in \mathcal{C}$, answers to queries can only be observed locally in those contexts.
One might think this is just a matter of convenience or efficiency, since we can simply make multiple queries in multiple contexts $U_i$ to cover $X = \bigcup_i U_i$ and to recover the global information.
In certain topologies $\mathcal{C}$, however, this may be prevented due to contextuality.
Given a non-degenerate bundle $\pi : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{C}$ over a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$ on $X$, consider a \emph{global section} of it, i.e.\ $g \in \prod_{x \in X} A_x$ such that $\rest{g}{U} \in A_U$ for all $U \in \mathcal{C}$;
it corresponds to a matching family $g \in \Match{\mathcal{C}}{P}$, since $U \mapsto \prod_{x \in U} A_x$ ($U \subseteq X$) is a sheaf.
It is an assignment of values to all the variables that satisfies every constraint on combinations of values.
E.g.,
in classical logic, the models are exactly the global sections;
so the consistency of a sentence $x$ means that $(x, 1)$ is part of a global section.
Then, in the physical setting, it may seem natural to similarly think of global sections $g$ as states of the system, assigning values to all the quantities---%
so, although we can only make a query locally in a context $U \in \mathcal{C}$, the system in a state $g$ actually has a value $g(x)$ assigned to every quantity $x$, and the answer we receive in the context $U$ is simply $\rest{g}{U}$.
This assumption, that any section we observe is part of a context-independent global section, holds not just in classical logic but also in classical physics---%
but breaks down in quantum physics, precisely when contextuality arises.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,thick,label distance=-0.25em,baseline=(O.base)]
\coordinate [overlay] (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate [overlay] (T) at (0,1.5);
\coordinate [overlay] (u) at (0,0.5);
\coordinate (v0) at ($ ({-cos(1*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(1*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v1) at ($ ({-cos(7*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(7*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v2) at ($ ({-cos(13*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(13*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v3) at ($ ({-cos(19*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(19*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v0-1) at ($ (v0) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v0-0) at ($ (v0-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v1-1) at ($ (v1) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v1-0) at ($ (v1-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v2-1) at ($ (v2) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v2-0) at ($ (v2-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v3-1) at ($ (v3) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v3-0) at ($ (v3-1) + (u) $);
\draw (v0) -- (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- (v0);
\draw [dotted] (v0-0) -- (v0);
\draw [dotted] (v1-0) -- (v1);
\draw [dotted] (v2-0) -- (v2);
\draw [dotted] (v3-0) -- (v3);
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v0') at (v0) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=east,inner sep=0em] at (v0'.west) {$a_1$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.625em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v2') at (v2) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=west,inner sep=0em] at (v2'.east) {$a_2$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]175:{$b_2$}}] at (v3) {$\bullet$};
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw (v0-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw [darkgreen] (v0-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw (v0-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw [darkgreen] (v2-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw (v2-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw (v2-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v1-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [red] (v0-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw (v0-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw (v0-1) -- (v1-0);
\draw [darkgreen] (v0-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v1-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [darkgreen] (v2-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw (v2-1) -- (v1-0);
\draw (v2-1) -- (v1-1);
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$1$}] at (v0-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$0$},darkgreen] at (v0-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em] at (v1-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]330:{$0$}},darkgreen] at (v1-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$1$},darkgreen] at (v2-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$0$}] at (v2-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]150:{$1$}},darkgreen] at (v3-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em] at (v3-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0em] at (-1.75,2.75) {\strut(c)};
\node (C) [inner sep=0.25em] at (-2.5,0) {$\mathcal{C}$};
\node (A) [inner sep=0.25em] at (-2.5,1.75) {$\mathcal{A}$};
\draw [->] (A) -- (C) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,left] {$\pi$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{12pt}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,thick,label distance=-0.25em,baseline=(O.base)]
\coordinate [overlay] (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate [overlay] (T) at (0,1.5);
\coordinate [overlay] (u) at (0,0.5);
\coordinate (v0) at ($ ({-cos(1*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(1*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v1) at ($ ({-cos(7*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(7*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v2) at ($ ({-cos(13*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(13*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v3) at ($ ({-cos(19*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(19*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v0-1) at ($ (v0) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v0-0) at ($ (v0-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v1-1) at ($ (v1) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v1-0) at ($ (v1-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v2-1) at ($ (v2) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v2-0) at ($ (v2-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v3-1) at ($ (v3) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v3-0) at ($ (v3-1) + (u) $);
\draw (v0) -- (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- (v0);
\draw [dotted] (v0-0) -- (v0);
\draw [dotted] (v1-0) -- (v1);
\draw [dotted] (v2-0) -- (v2);
\draw [dotted] (v3-0) -- (v3);
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v0') at (v0) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=east,inner sep=0em] at (v0'.west) {$a_1$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.625em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v2') at (v2) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=west,inner sep=0em] at (v2'.east) {$a_2$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]175:{$b_2$}}] at (v3) {$\bullet$};
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw [red] (v0-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw [red] (v0-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw [red] (v2-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw [red] (v2-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [red] (v0-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw [red] (v0-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [red] (v2-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw [red] (v2-1) -- (v1-1);
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$1$},red] at (v0-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$0$},red] at (v0-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,red] at (v1-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]330:{$0$}},red] at (v1-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$1$},red] at (v2-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$0$},red] at (v2-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]150:{$1$}},red] at (v3-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,red] at (v3-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0em] at (-1.75,2.75) {\strut(d)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{12pt}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,thick,label distance=-0.25em,baseline=(O.base)]
\coordinate [overlay] (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate [overlay] (T) at (0,1.5);
\coordinate [overlay] (u) at (0,0.5);
\coordinate (v0) at ($ ({-cos(1*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(1*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v1) at ($ ({-cos(7*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(7*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v2) at ($ ({-cos(13*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(13*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v3) at ($ ({-cos(19*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(19*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v0-1) at ($ (v0) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v0-0) at ($ (v0-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v1-1) at ($ (v1) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v1-0) at ($ (v1-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v2-1) at ($ (v2) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v2-0) at ($ (v2-1) + (u) $);
\coordinate (v3-1) at ($ (v3) + (T) $);
\coordinate (v3-0) at ($ (v3-1) + (u) $);
\draw (v0) -- (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- (v0);
\draw [dotted] (v0-0) -- (v0);
\draw [dotted] (v1-0) -- (v1);
\draw [dotted] (v2-0) -- (v2);
\draw [dotted] (v3-0) -- (v3);
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v0') at (v0) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=east,inner sep=0em] at (v0'.west) {$a_1$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.625em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v2') at (v2) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=west,inner sep=0em] at (v2'.east) {$a_2$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]175:{$b_2$}}] at (v3) {$\bullet$};
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw (v0-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw (v0-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw (v0-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw (v0-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw (v2-0) -- (v3-0);
\draw (v2-0) -- (v3-1);
\draw (v2-1) -- (v3-0);
\draw (v2-1) -- (v3-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v1-0);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v0-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [red] (v0-0) -- (v1-0);
\draw (v0-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw [red] (v0-1) -- (v1-0);
\draw (v0-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw [line width=3.2pt,white] (v2-1) -- (v1-1);
\draw (v2-0) -- (v1-1);
\draw (v2-1) -- (v1-1);
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$1$}] at (v0-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$0$}] at (v0-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,red] at (v1-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]330:{$0$}}] at (v1-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$1$}] at (v2-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$0$}] at (v2-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]150:{$1$}}] at (v3-0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em] at (v3-1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0em] at (-1.75,2.75) {\strut(e)};
\node (C) [inner sep=0.25em] at (2.625,0) {$\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}$};
\node (A) [inner sep=0.25em] at (2.625,1.75) {$\mathbf{Sets}$};
\draw [->] (C) -- (A) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,right] {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Bundles for (c) the Hardy model and (d) the PR-box}
\label{fig:Hardy.PR}%
\label{fig:no-signalling}%
\label{pic:Hardy}%
\label{pic:PR}%
\label{pic:signal}%
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig:Hardy.PR} shows ``Bell-type'' scenarios in which Alice and Bob measure properties of a system, perhaps a quantum one.
The base $\mathcal{C}$ expresses constraints of type (\hyperref[item:topology.base]{b}) above:
Alice can make at most one of two measurements $a_1$ and $a_2$ at a time, so she chooses one;
similarly Bob chooses from $b_1$ and $b_2$---%
so there are four possible combinations of measurements, indicated by the four edges of $\mathcal{C}$.
Alice and Bob repeat measurements in different contexts, and learn that each $x \in X = \{ a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2 \}$ has two possible outcomes $0$ and $1$, but that some combinations of outcomes are never obtained.
$\mathcal{A}$ expresses these constraints, of type (\hyperref[item:topology.total]{a}), with edges indicating possible combinations.
E.g., $\mathcal{A}$ of (\hyperref[pic:Hardy]{c}) deems every joint outcome of $(a_1, b_1)$ possible, with $A_{\{ a_1, b_1 \}} = \mathbf{2} \times \mathbf{2}$;
but $(0, 0)$ is not a possible joint outcome of $(a_2, b_2)$.
The models in \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR} all violate the classical assumption above, and are examples of
\begin{definition}\label{def:contextuality.sets}
A topological model is said to be \emph{logically contextual} if not all of its local sections extend to global ones, and \emph{strongly contextual} if it has no global section at all (see \cite{ABKLM15}).
\end{definition}
(\hyperref[pic:Hardy]{c}) of \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR} represents an example of logical contextuality due to \cite{har93} that is realizable in quantum physics.
It has several global sections, e.g.\ the one marked in green;
call it $g$.
So, when Alice and Bob measure $(a_1, b_1)$ and observe $(0, 0)$, the classical explanation is possible
that the system was in the state $g$ and had outcomes $g(x)$ assigned to all the measurements $x \in X$,
and
that Alice and Bob have simply retrieved that information on $U$.
On the other hand, the local section in red, $(1, 1)$ over $(a_1, b_1)$, does not extend to any global section.
This means that the classical explanation is simply impossible for this joint outcome.
Furthermore, the classical explanation is never possible in the strongly contextual (\hyperref[pic:PR]{d}).
This model, called the \emph{PR box} \cite{PR94}, is not quantum-realizable (though it plays an important r\^ole in the quantum information literature), but quantum physics exhibits many other instances of strong contextuality.
The upshot is that contextuality consists in \emph{global inconsistency coupled with local consistency}:
A section $s \in A_U$ is consistent locally, in the sense of satisfying the constraint on query results in the context $U$, but it may be inconsistent globally, in the sense of contradicting all the other constraints and thereby failing to extend to a global section.
The general definition of contextuality in terms of global sections can also be applied to relational databases:
Contextuality then corresponds exactly to the absence of a universal relation \cite{abr13}.
In fact, the natural join
\begin{gather*}
\mathop{\bowtie}_{U \in \mathcal{C}} A_U = \{\, g \in \prod_{x \in X} A_x \mid \rest{g}{U} \in A_U \text{ for all } U \in \mathcal{C} \,\}
\end{gather*}
of relations $A_U$ (which is the largest of universal relations if there are any) is, simply by definition, the set of global sections.
Hence, e.g.\ in \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR}, the sections in red are lost from $\mathop{\bowtie}_{U \in \mathcal{C}} A_U$.
\subsection{No-Signalling Principle}\label{sec:model.no-signalling}
Local consistency means, partly, that a local section may exist without extending to global.
Yet it involves more---%
viz.\ a constraint that is called the \emph{no-signalling} principle in the physical setting \cite{GRW80}.
For a topological model $A$, it amounts to the condition that every $A_{U \subseteq V} : A_V \to A_U :: s \mapsto \rest{s}{U}$ (i.e.\ the projection of admitted tuples, or the restriction of sections) is a surjection.
An example violating no-signalling is (\hyperref[pic:signal]{e}) of \autoref{fig:no-signalling}:
$A_{\{ b_1 \} \subseteq \{ a_2, b_1 \}} : A_{\{ a_2, b_1 \}} \to A_{\{ b_1 \}}$ is not surjective.
Suppose Alice and Bob make measurements, Bob chooses to measure $b_1$, and he observes $1$, which is not in the image of $A_{\{ b_1 \} \subseteq \{ a_2, b_1 \}}$.
This means that Bob has received the signal from Alice (no matter how far away she may be!)\ that she has chosen $a_1$ and not $a_2$.
To see why no-signalling should be part of local consistency, regard $\mathcal{A}$ in (\hyperref[pic:signal]{e}) as representing a relational database.
It has tables $A_{\{ a_1, b_1 \}}$ and $A_{\{ a_2, b_1 \}}$;
but, when queried about the attribute $b_1$, they yield different results of projection, differing in whether $1$ is in or not.
Thus, no-signalling means the consistency of projections (see \cite{abr13}).
Indeed, as we will see in \autoref{sec:general.interpretation}, no-signalling means a sort of coherence of $A$ as a semantic model of logic.
\begin{definition}\label{def:no-signalling.sets}
We say that
a separated presheaf $A : \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{Sets}$ is no-signalling if it satisfies \eqref{item:no-signalling.presheaf},
and that
a non-degenerate bundle $\pi : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{C}$ is no-signalling if it satisfies \eqref{item:no-signalling.bundle}:
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{\value{equation}}
\item\label{item:no-signalling.presheaf}
Every $A_{U \subseteq V} : A_V \to A_U$ is a surjection.
\item\label{item:no-signalling.bundle}
If $\pi[s] \subseteq U$ for $s \in \mathcal{A}$ and $U \in \mathcal{C}$, then there is some $t \in \mathcal{A}$ such that $s \subseteq t$ and $\pi[t] = U$.
\setcounter{equation}{\value{enumi}}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Clearly, \eqref{item:no-signalling.presheaf} and \eqref{item:no-signalling.bundle} coincide via $\mathbf{sPsh}(\mathcal{C}) \simeq \mathbf{ndSimp} / \mathcal{C}$ (\autoref{thm:bundle.persheaf.basic}).
Hence their full subcategories of no-signalling models are equivalent.
Note that \eqref{item:no-signalling.presheaf} or \eqref{item:no-signalling.bundle} implies $A_U \neq \varnothing$ for all $U \in \mathcal{C}$, if $A_\varnothing \neq \varnothing$.
So, while the empty model is no-signalling, all the other, nonempty no-signalling models (which are, essentially, the ``empirical models'' of \cite{ABKLM15}) are locally consistent.
\section{Contextual Logics}\label{sec:logic}
After reviewing a kind of contextuality argument for topological models, we explain why the logic of such argument is \emph{not} supposed to be sound with respect to those models, and why we need another logic, viz.\ the logic of topological models.
We then introduce our candidate for such a logic.
\subsection{Contextuality Argument:\ Logic of Global Inconsistency}\label{sec:logic.global}
Viewing $A_U$ as representing a constraint on assignments of values to variables $x \in U$, we can describe a topological model $A$ using formulas in contexts $U \in \mathcal{C}$ of variables.
E.g., the assignments of $(0, 0)$ and $(1, 1)$ to $(x, y)$ satisfy the equation $x \oplus y = 0$, where $\oplus$ is for XOR, i.e.\ addition modulo $2$;
the assignments $(0, 1)$ and $(1, 0)$ satisfy $x \oplus y = 1$.
Therefore the PR box, (\hyperref[pic:PR]{d}) of \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR}, satisfies the following set of equations:
\begin{gather}\label{eq:AvN.PR}
a_1 \oplus b_1 = 0 , \mspace{18mu}
a_1 \oplus b_2 = 0 , \mspace{18mu}
a_2 \oplus b_1 = 0 , \mspace{18mu}
a_2 \oplus b_2 = 1
\end{gather}
These are in fact inconsistent:
Their right-hand sides sum to $1$, but the left to $0$ regardless of the values of variables (since each variable occurs twice).
This is to say that no global assignment of values satisfies all the constraints of $A_U$, i.e., that $A$ is strongly contextual.
A family of arguments of this sort, using XOR (or parity) equations, has been given to show the strong contextuality of a range of quantum examples;
the first instance in literature was in \cite{mer90} for the GHZ state \cite{GHZ89}.
This sort of so-called ``all-vs-nothing argument'' was formalized and generalized in \cite{ABKLM15}.
On the other hand, one may also adopt more expressive languages, such as Boolean formulas, to express a wider range of constraints.
Formulas can also be used to show logical (and not strong) contextuality.
E.g., the Hardy model, (\hyperref[pic:Hardy]{c}) of \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR}, satisfies the antecedents of
\begin{gather}\label{eq:AvN.Hardy}
\lnot a_1 \vee \lnot b_2 , \mspace{18mu}
\lnot a_2 \vee \lnot b_1 , \mspace{18mu}
a_2 \vee b_2 \mspace{18mu}
\vdash \mspace{18mu}
\lnot a_1 \vee \lnot b_1
\end{gather}
but not the consequent, due to the contextual section $(1, 1)$ over $(a_1, b_1)$.
This shows that this local section can be part of no global assignment satisfying all the constraints.
Yet this kind of contextuality argument needs some reflection.
The inconsistency of a set $\Gamma$ of formulas, $\Gamma \vdash \bot$, does not mean that $\Gamma$ has no model;
in fact, the PR box, (\hyperref[pic:PR]{d}) of \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR}, satisfies all the equations in \eqref{eq:AvN.PR}.
In the same vein, the derivability $\Gamma \vdash \varphi$ does not mean that every model of $\Gamma$ satisfies $\varphi$;
the Hardy model (\hyperref[pic:Hardy]{c}) satisfies $\Gamma$ but not $\varphi$ of \eqref{eq:AvN.Hardy}.
So the logic of $\vdash$ here is \emph{not} sound with respect to contextual models---%
indeed, that is the whole point of the argument.
Invalidating $\vdash$ precisely means contextuality:
$\Gamma \vdash \bot$ really means that no global section satisfies $\Gamma$;
it is why any model of $\Gamma$ has no global section.
$\Gamma \vdash \varphi$ means that every global section satisfying $\Gamma$ satisfies $\varphi$;
it is why any model satisfying $\Gamma$ but not $\varphi$ must have local sections (viz.\ ones not satisfying $\varphi$) that fail to extend to global sections.
In this sense, the logic of $\vdash$ here is a ``global logic'' of global sections.
We should then note that this logic, by itself, says very little about local consistency.
To see this, consider:
\begin{gather}\label{eq:AvN.inconsistent}
a_1 \oplus b_1 = 0 , \mspace{18mu}
a_1 \oplus b_1 = 1
\end{gather}
This set of equations is, like \eqref{eq:AvN.PR}, inconsistent.
It is, however, inconsistent not just globally but also locally:
Not only does no global section satisfy both equations, no local section over the context $\{ a_1, b_1 \}$ does;
a model $A$ satisfies \eqref{eq:AvN.inconsistent} only if $A_{\{ a_1, b_1 \}} = \varnothing$
(the physical system can give no outcomes to the measurements $a_1$, $b_1$;
the sentences $a_1$, $b_1$ are not just inconsistent but can have no truth values).
Yet the global logic does not tell us why \eqref{eq:AvN.PR} is locally consistent whereas \eqref{eq:AvN.inconsistent} is not.
Thus the kind of argument above is really a ``global-inconsistency argument'':
It shows contextuality only because we already know the formulas to be locally consistent, having obtained them as descriptions of some model.
\subsection{``Inchworm Logic'' of Local Inference}\label{sec:logic.inchworm}
In contrast to \eqref{eq:AvN.PR}, $\Gamma \vdash \bot$ of \eqref{eq:AvN.inconsistent} means local inconsistency over $\{ a_1, b_1 \}$ since both equations in $\Gamma$ are in the context $\{ a_1, b_1 \}$.
Turning $\Gamma, \varphi \vdash \bot$ into the form of inference, if $\Gamma, \varphi$ are in a context $U$, then $\Gamma \vdash \lnot \varphi$ gives local entailment over $U$.
E.g., the antecedents of
\begin{gather*}
a_1 = 0 , \mspace{18mu}
b_1 = 0 \mspace{18mu}
\vdash \mspace{18mu}
a_1 \oplus b_1 = 0
\end{gather*}
rule out all the sections over $(a_1, b_1)$ except $(0, 0)$, which satisfies the consequent.
Indeed, local inference can be carried out across different contexts, validly in no-signalling models, subject to one constraint.
To see this, expand the base $\mathcal{C}$ in \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR} from (\hyperref[pic:Alice.Bob]{f}) of \autoref{fig:Charlie.inchworm} to (\hyperref[pic:Alice.Bob.Charlie]{g}), where the four triangles are in $\mathcal{C}$---%
so a new experimenter, Charlie, can make his measurement $c$ along with Alice and Bob.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,thick,label distance=-0.25em,baseline=(O.base)]
\coordinate [overlay] (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate (v0) at ($ ({-cos(1*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(1*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v1) at ($ ({-cos(7*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(7*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v2) at ($ ({-cos(13*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(13*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v3) at ($ ({-cos(19*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(19*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\draw (v0) -- (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- (v0);
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v0') at (v0) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=east,inner sep=0em] at (v0'.west) {$a_1$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.625em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em] (v2') at (v2) {$\bullet$};
\node [anchor=west,inner sep=0em] at (v2'.east) {$a_2$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]175:{$b_2$}}] at (v3) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0em] at (-1.5,1.5) {\strut(f)};
\node (C) [inner sep=0.25em] at (-2.5,0) {$\mathcal{C}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{12pt}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,thick,label distance=-0.25em,baseline=(O.base)]
\coordinate [overlay] (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate (v0) at ($ ({-cos(1*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(1*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v1) at ($ ({-cos(7*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(7*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v2) at ($ ({-cos(13*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(13*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v3) at ($ ({-cos(19*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(19*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v4) at (0,1.2);
\draw [opacity=0.5] (v2) -- (v3) -- (v0);
\draw [opacity=0.5] (v3) -- (v4);
\node [inner sep=0.1em,opacity=0.5] at (v3) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.5em,below,opacity=0.5] at (v3.south) {$b_2$};
\fill [darkgreen!50,opacity=0.5] (v0) -- (v4) -- (v3) -- (v0);
\fill [darkgreen!50,opacity=0.5] (v2) -- (v4) -- (v3) -- (v2);
\fill [darkgreen!50,opacity=0.5] (v0) -- (v4) -- (v1) -- (v0);
\draw (v1) -- (v0) -- (v4);
\fill [darkgreen!50,opacity=0.5] (v2) -- (v4) -- (v1) -- (v2);
\draw (v1) -- (v2) -- (v4);
\draw (v1) -- (v4);
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$a_1$}] at (v0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$a_2$}] at (v2) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=above:{$c$}] at (v4) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0em] at (-1.5,1.5) {\strut(g)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{12pt}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,thick,label distance=-0.25em,baseline=(O.base)]
\coordinate [overlay] (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate [overlay] (r) at (1,0);
\coordinate (v0) at ($ ({-cos(1*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(1*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v1) at ($ ({-cos(7*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(7*pi/12 r)*0.48}) $);
\coordinate (v1') at ($ (v1) + (r) $);
\coordinate (v1'') at ($ (v1') + (r) $);
\coordinate (v2) at ($ ({-cos(13*pi/12 r)*1.2},{-sin(13*pi/12 r)*0.48}) + (r) + (r) $);
\coordinate (v4) at (0,1.2);
\coordinate (v4') at ($ (v4) + (r) $);
\coordinate (v4'') at ($ (v4') + (r) $);
\fill [darkgreen!50,opacity=0.5] (v0) -- (v4) -- (v1) -- (v0);
\draw (v0) -- (v4) node [pos=0.66,inner sep=0.75em,left] {$U$};
\draw (v4) -- (v1) -- (v0);
\draw (v1') -- (v4');
\fill [darkgreen!50,opacity=0.5] (v2) -- (v4'') -- (v1'') -- (v2);
\draw (v2) -- (v4'') node [pos=0.66,inner sep=0.75em,right] {$V$};
\draw (v4'') -- (v1'') -- (v2);
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=left:{$a_1$}] at (v0) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1') {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label={[label distance=-0.5em]330:{$b_1$}}] at (v1'') {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=right:{$a_2$}] at (v2) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=above:{$c$}] at (v4) {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=above:{$c$}] at (v4') {$\bullet$};
\node [inner sep=0.1em,label=above:{$c$}] at (v4'') {$\bullet$};
\coordinate (C) at ($ (v1')!0.5!(v4') $);
\coordinate (A) at ($ (v1)!0.5!(v4)!0.35!(v0) $);
\coordinate (B) at ($ (C) + (-0.5,0) $);
\coordinate (D) at ($ (C) + (0.5,0) $);
\coordinate (E) at ($ (v1'')!0.5!(v4'')!0.35!(v2) $);
\draw [->,red] (A) .. controls ($ (A)!0.5!(B) + (0,0.25) $) .. (B);
\draw [->,rounded corners=2pt,red] ($ (C) + (-0.35,0) $) -- ($ (C) + (-0.075,0) $) .. controls ($ (C) + (-0.4,0.5) $) and ($ (C) + (0.4,0.5) $) .. ($ (C) + (0.075,0) $) -- ($ (C) + (0.35,0) $);
\draw [->,red] (D) .. controls ($ (D)!0.5!(E) + (0,0.25) $) .. (E);
\node [inner sep=0em] at (-1.5,1.5) {\strut(h)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Charlie and an inchworm}
\label{fig:Charlie.inchworm}
\label{pic:Alice.Bob}
\label{pic:Alice.Bob.Charlie}
\label{pic:Alice.Bob.Charlie.inchworm}
\end{figure}
Now rewrite the locally consistent \eqref{eq:AvN.PR} in the inference form \eqref{eq:AvN.PR.inference} (we replace $x \oplus y = 0$ with simpler $x = y$) and compare it to \eqref{eq:AvN.PR.Charlie}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:AvN.PR.inference}
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
a_1 & = b_1 , &
a_1 & = b_2 , &
a_2 & = b_1 &
& \vdash &
a_2 & = b_2
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
\\
\label{eq:AvN.PR.Charlie}
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
a_1 & = b_1 , &
a_1 & = c , &
a_2 & = b_1 &
& \vdash &
a_2 & = c
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
\end{align}
\eqref{eq:AvN.PR.Charlie} is valid in no-signalling models, whereas \eqref{eq:AvN.PR.inference} is not (the PR box is a countermodel, as it is a model for \eqref{eq:AvN.PR}).
The only difference is $c$ replacing $b_2$---%
this tiny difference, however, enables us to obtain \eqref{eq:AvN.PR.Charlie} in the following two steps:
\begin{gather}\label{eq:AvN.PR.Charlie.steps}
\AXC{$a_1 = b_1$}
\AXC{$a_1 = c$}
\RL{$U$}
\BIC{$b_1 = c$}
\AXC{$a_2 = b_1$}
\RL{$V$}
\BIC{$a_2 = c$}
\DP
\end{gather}
The first step is within the context $U = \{ a_1, b_1, c \}$, hence valid locally:
Every section over $U$ satisfying the antecedents satisfies the consequent.
Similarly, the second step is valid within $V = \{ a_2, b_1, c \}$.
The key aspect is that the formula in the middle, $b_1 = c$, can be in the context $U \cap V$ and so in $U$ or in $V$.
The upshot is that information gets passed on from a larger context $U$ to a smaller $U \cap V$ and then to another larger $V$---%
just like the locomotion of an inchworm, if (\hyperref[pic:Alice.Bob.Charlie.inchworm]{h}) of \autoref{fig:Charlie.inchworm} helps to visualize it.
Crucially, the no-signalling property is essential when the inchworm moves from a larger context to a smaller:
E.g., the first step of \eqref{eq:AvN.PR.Charlie.steps} concludes that every section over $\{ a_1, b_1, c \}$ satisfies $b_1 = c$;
but then, in the absence of no-signalling, there may be a section over $\{ b_1, c \}$ violating $b_1 = c$ without extending to $\{ a_1, b_1, c \}$.
We will discuss the semantic r\^ole of no-signalling further in \autoref{sec:general.interpretation}.
\subsection{Formalizing the Inchworm}\label{sec:logic.formalize}
We formalize and generalize the idea of ``inchworm inference''.
As in the example in \autoref{sec:logic.inchworm}, an inchworm logic is obtained by constraining a global logic.
We assume this logic to be (at least) regular, i.e.\ to have $\top$, $\wedge$, and $\exists$, for the reasons explained shortly.
\begin{definition}\label{def:inchworm.logic}
Let $\L$ be a language of regular logic (or richer) whose variables include $X$.
For each $x \in X$, write $T_x$ for the type of $x$, and then, for each $\bar{x} \subseteq X$, write $\Phi_{\bar{x}}$ for the set of formulas in the context $\bar{x} : T_{\bar{x}}$.
Given a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$ on $X$, the \emph{$\mathcal{C}$-contextual fragment} of $\L$ is $\Phi_\mathcal{C} = \bigcup_{U \in \mathcal{C}} \Phi_U$.
By a \emph{$\mathcal{C}$-contextual language} $\L_\mathcal{C}$, we simply mean a pair of such $\L$ and $\Phi_\mathcal{C}$.
Now let $\mathbb{T}$ be a regular theory in $\L$ given by an entailment relation $\vdash$ (which is \emph{not} required to be binary).
Then the inchworm fragment of $\vdash$ in $\L_\mathcal{C}$ is the entailment relation $\vdash_\mathcal{C}$ on $\Phi_\mathcal{C}$ defined inductively by the following.
We write $\Gamma_U = \Gamma \cap \Phi_U$.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{\value{equation}}
\item\label{item:inchworm.base}
$\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$ if there is $U \in \mathcal{C}$ such that $\varphi \in \Phi_U$ and $\Gamma_U \vdash \varphi$.
\item\label{item:inchworm.inductive}
If $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$ and $\Delta, \varphi \vdash_\mathcal{C} \psi$ then $\Gamma, \Delta \vdash_\mathcal{C} \psi$.
\setcounter{equation}{\value{enumi}}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\eqref{item:inchworm.base} expresses the idea that $\vdash$ within a single context is valid locally as well.
In \eqref{item:inchworm.inductive}, note that the first two instances of $\vdash_\mathcal{C}$ may be witnessed by different contexts.
Observe also that $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$ entails $\Gamma \vdash \varphi$;
thus $\vdash_\mathcal{C}$ is a fragment of $\vdash$.
\begin{example}\label{eg:AvN.syntax}
Let $\L$ have $T$ as a basic type;
$0$, $1$ be constants of type $T$;
and $\oplus$ be a function symbol of type $\oplus : T \times T \to T$.
Let $T_x = T$ for all $x \in X$.
So, e.g., $x : T, y : T \mid x \oplus y = 1$ makes sense, and is in $\Phi_{\{ x, y \}}$.
This gives equations of the kind relevant to the examples in \autoref{sec:logic.global}.
Note that $\Phi_\mathcal{C}$ is a union.
E.g., for (\hyperref[pic:Alice.Bob]{f}) of \autoref{fig:Charlie.inchworm}, $a_i = 0$ is in $\Phi_{\{ a_i \}} \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$ for both $i = 1, 2$, but $a_1 = 0 \wedge a_2 = 0$ is \emph{not} in $\Phi_\mathcal{C}$ since $\{ a_1, a_2 \} \notin \mathcal{C}$.
\end{example}
We assume $\L$ to have $\top$ and $\wedge$, so that pieces of information can be combined within the same context.
The inchworm moves from a smaller context $U$ to a larger $V$ via the order embedding $i : (\Phi_U, \vdash_U) \hookrightarrow (\Phi_V, \vdash_V)$, and from $V$ to $U$ via the left adjoint $\exists_{V \setminus U}$ of $i$.
\begin{gather*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,baseline=(C.base)]
\node (C) [anchor=east,inner sep=0.25em] at (0,0) {$\Phi_V$};
\node (D) [anchor=west,inner sep=0.25em] at (2,0) {$\Phi_U$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=5pt},->] (C) -- (D) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,above] {$\exists_{V \setminus U}$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=-5pt},right hook->] (D) -- (C) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,below] {$i$};
\path (C) -- (D) node [pos=0.5,rotate=-90] {$\dashv$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{gather*}
Then $\exists_{V \setminus U} \dashv i$ means that, for any $\varphi \in \Phi_V$, $\exists_{V \setminus U} \mathpunct{.} \varphi \in \Phi_U$
encapsulates all and only the information that $\varphi$ entails on $U$.
We also have $\exists_{V \setminus U} \mathbin{\circ} i \cong 1$, so a piece of information that can be both about $U$ and about $V$ undergoes no change when carried across $U$ and $V$.
\section{Contextual Semantics in Regular Categories}\label{sec:general}
Our definition of model using a sheaf generalizes by replacing $\mathbf{Sets}$ with any category $\mathbf{S}$ with finite limits, since the base $\mathcal{C}$ is a simplicial complex.
Yet, for the sake of no-signalling, we moreover need $\mathbf{S}$ to be regular.
References on regular categories and their categorical logic include \cite{oos95,but98,joh02}.
We then lay out how to model the inchworm logic in $\mathbf{S}$.
\subsection{Topological Models in Regular Categories}\label{sec:general.presheaf}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a simplicial complex on a set $X$, and $\mathbf{S}$ be a category with finite limits.
By a presheaf on $\mathcal{C}$ valued in $\mathbf{S}$, we mean any contravariant functor $P : \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{S}$.
Then the definitions of separated presheaf and sheaf generalize straightforwardly to
\begin{definition}\label{def:separated.presheaf.general}
We say that an $\mathbf{S}$-valued presheaf $P$ on $\mathcal{C}$ is separated if the arrow
\begin{gather*}
\langle P_{U_i \subseteq U} \rangle_i : P_U \to \prod_i P_{U_i}
\end{gather*}
is monic whenever $\bigcup_i U_i = U$, and a sheaf if, whenever $\bigcup_i U_i = U$, $\langle P_{U_i \subseteq U} \rangle_i$ is an equalizer as follows, where $p_j : \prod_i P_{U_i} \to P_{U_j}$ and $p_k : \prod_i P_{U_i} \to P_{U_k}$ are the projections.
\begin{gather*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,baseline=(A.base)]
\node (A) [anchor=east,inner sep=0.25em] at (0,0) {$P_U$};
\node (B) [anchor=west,inner sep=0.25em] at ($ (A.east) + (3,0) $) {$\prod_i P_{U_i}$};
\node (C) [anchor=west,inner sep=0.25em] at ($ (B.east) + (5,0) $) {$\prod_{j, k} P_{U_j \cap U_k}$};
\draw [>->] (A) -- (B) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,above] {$\langle P_{U_i \subseteq U} \rangle_i$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=3.2pt},->] (B) -- (C) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,above] {$\langle P_{U_j \cap U_k \subseteq U_j} \mathbin{\circ} p_j \rangle_{j, k}$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=-3.2pt},->] (B) -- (C) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,below] {$\langle P_{U_j \cap U_k \subseteq U_k} \mathbin{\circ} p_k \rangle_{j, k}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{gather*}
\end{definition}
Again, every sheaf $F$ has $F_\varnothing = 1$, the terminal object of $\mathbf{S}$, and every separated presheaf $P$ has $P_\varnothing \rightarrowtail 1$.
Also, for simpler descriptions, \autoref{thm:separated.presheaf} generalizes to
\begin{fact}\label{thm:separated.presheaf.general}
An $\mathbf{S}$-valued presheaf $P$ on a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$ is a sheaf iff $P_U = \prod_{x \in U} P_x$ for all $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
And $P$ is separated iff it is a subpresheaf of a sheaf, i.e.\ iff each $\langle P_{\{ x \} \subseteq U} \rangle_{x \in U} : P_U \to \prod_{x \in U} P_x$ is monic, i.e.\ iff each $P_U$ is a relation in $\mathbf{S}$ on $(P_x)_{x \in U}$.
\end{fact}
Next we define the no-signalling property for $\mathbf{S}$-valued separated presheaves.
In doing so, we need to choose from several generalizations of the notion of surjection in \eqref{item:no-signalling.presheaf} of \autoref{def:no-signalling.sets};
the one that serves our purpose is the one that provides semantics for $\exists : \Phi_V \rightleftarrows \Phi_U : i$ in the inchworm logic.
This is the principal reason we need $\mathbf{S}$ to be regular;
then, in $\mathbf{S}$, every arrow $f : C \to D$ gives rise to the adjoint pair
\begin{gather*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,baseline=(C.base)]
\node (C) [anchor=east,inner sep=0.25em] at (0,0) {$\mathrm{Sub}_\mathbf{S}(C)$};
\node (D) [anchor=west,inner sep=0.25em] at (2,0) {$\mathrm{Sub}_\mathbf{S}(D)$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=5pt},->] (C) -- (D) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,above] {$\exists_f$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=-5pt},->] (D) -- (C) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,below] {$f^{-1}$};
\path (C) -- (D) node [pos=0.5,rotate=-90] {$\dashv$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{gather*}
(e.g.\ \cite[Lemma 2.5]{but98}), and moreover $\exists_f \mathbin{\circ} f^{-1} = 1_{\mathrm{Sub}(D)}$ (and so $f^{-1}$ is an order embedding) if $f$ is a regular epi (essentially, \cite[Corollary D1.2.8]{joh02}).
Therefore the right generalization of \autoref{def:no-signalling.sets} is the following \autoref{def:no-signalling.general}, with an alternative description in \autoref{thm:no-signalling.subpresheaf}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:no-signalling.general}
A separated presheaf $A$ on a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$ valued in a regular category $\mathbf{S}$ is said to be no-signalling if every $A_{U \subseteq V} : A_V \to A_U$ is a regular epi.
\end{definition}
\begin{fact}\label{thm:no-signalling.subpresheaf}
Let $F$ be a sheaf on a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$.
Then a family $(i_U : A_U \rightarrowtail F_U)_{U \in \mathcal{C}}$ of subobjects forms a subpresheaf of $F$, and hence a separated presheaf, iff $A_V \leqslant {F_{U \subseteq V}}^{-1}(A_U)$, or equivalently $\exists_{F_{U \subseteq V}}(A_V) \leqslant A_U$, whenever $U \subseteq V \in \mathcal{C}$.
Moreover, a separated presheaf $i : A \rightarrowtail F$ is no-signalling iff $\exists_{F_{U \subseteq V}}(A_V) = A_U$ whenever $U \subseteq V \in \mathcal{C}$.
\end{fact}
\subsection{Global Inconsistency in Regular Categories}\label{sec:general.inconsistency}
\autoref{def:contextuality.sets} of contextuality for $\mathbf{Sets}$-valued presheaves can now extend to ones valued in any regular category $\mathbf{S}$.
Let $A$ be an $\mathbf{S}$-valued separated presheaf on a simplicial complex $\mathcal{C}$ on $X$.
It is a subpresheaf of a sheaf $F$ on $\mathcal{C}$.
In fact, let us assume, just in this subsection, that $X$ is finite (or that $\mathbf{S}$ is complete);
then, by \autoref{thm:separated.presheaf.general} (or a straightforward generalization), $F$ extends uniquely to a sheaf on $\mathcal{P} X$, viz.\ $F : U \mapsto \prod_{x \in U} F_x$.
Then the set of global sections of $A$---%
i.e.\ the natural join
\begin{gather*}
\mathop{\bowtie}_{U \in \mathcal{C}} A_U = \{\, g \in \prod_{x \in X} A_x \mid \rest{g}{U} \in A_U \text{ for all } U \in \mathcal{C} \,\}
\end{gather*}
of the relations $A_U \subseteq F_U$---%
generalizes to the $\mathbf{S}$-valued case:
\begin{fact}
Given any $\mathbf{S}$-valued separated presheaf $A$, let $F$ be a sheaf such that $i : A \rightarrowtail F$ and, using $A_U$ as predicates in the internal language of $\mathbf{S}$, define
\begin{gather*}
\mathop{\bowtie} A = \Scott{\, \bar{x} : F_X \mid \bigwedge_{U \in \mathcal{C}} A_U(F_{U \subseteq X} \bar{x}) \,} = \bigwedge_{U \in \mathcal{C}} {F_{U \subseteq X}}^{-1}(A_U) \rightarrowtail F_X .
\end{gather*}
Then $\mathop{\bowtie} A$ is the limit of $A$ as a diagram in $\mathbf{S}$.
\end{fact}
For each $U \in \mathcal{C}$, write $\rho_U : \mathop{\bowtie} A \to A_U$ for the restriction of $F_{U \subseteq X}$ to $\mathop{\bowtie}_A$;
it generalizes the restriction of global sections to local sections over $U$.
\autoref{def:contextuality.sets} then extends to
\begin{definition}\label{def:contextuality.general}
An $\mathbf{S}$-valued separated presheaf $A$ is said to be logically contextual if not every $\rho_U : \mathop{\bowtie} A \to A_U$ is a regular epi.
$A$ is moreover said to be strongly contextual if $\mathop{\bowtie} A$ is not well-supported, i.e.\ if the unique arrow ${!}_{\mathop{\bowtie} A} : \mathop{\bowtie} A \to 1$ is not a regular epi.
\end{definition}
Rewriting this in the internal language of $\mathbf{S}$, the strong contextuality of $A$ means that
$\mathbf{S}$ fails $\exists \bar{x} : F_X \mathpunct{.} \mathop{\bowtie} A(\bar{x})$, i.e., that no global section $\bar{x}$ satisfies all the constraints $A_U$.
The logical contextuality means that
\begin{gather*}
\bar{x} : F_V \mid A_V(\bar{x}) \vdash \exists \bar{y} : F_{X \setminus V} \mathpunct{.} \mathop{\bowtie} A(\langle \bar{x}, \bar{y} \rangle)
\end{gather*}
fails in $\mathbf{S}$ for some $V \in \mathcal{C}$,
i.e., that not every local section $\bar{x}$ over $V$ satisfying $A_V$ extends to a global section $\langle \bar{x}, \bar{y} \rangle$ satisfying all $A_U$.
(We should stress that the definition makes sense for any separated presheaves $A$ and not just no-signalling ones.)
\subsection{Contextual Interpretation}\label{sec:general.interpretation}
In \autoref{def:inchworm.logic} we defined a contextual language $\L_\mathcal{C}$ and logic $\vdash_\mathcal{C}$ simply as a global language $\L$ and logic $\vdash$ paired with their contextual fragments.
Our definition of an interpretation of them in regular categories goes in parallel.
\begin{definition}\label{def:inchworm.interpretation}
Given a contextual language $\L_\mathcal{C} = (\L, \Phi_\mathcal{C})$, an interpretation of it in a regular category $\mathbf{S}$ is simply an interpretation $\Scott{-}$ of $\L$ in $\mathbf{S}$.
The images of $T_x$ and $\Phi_U$ then play special r\^oles:
For each $\bar{x} \in \mathcal{C}$, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\Scott{T_{\bar{x}}} = \prod_{x \in \bar{x}} \Scott{T_x}$;
therefore $\Scott{T_{-}} : \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{S}$ forms a sheaf by \autoref{thm:separated.presheaf.general}.
\item
Moreover, $\Scott{\, \bar{x} : T_{\bar{x}} \mid \varphi \,} \rightarrowtail \Scott{T_{\bar{x}}}$ for each $\varphi \in \Phi_{\bar{x}}$.
\end{itemize}
So we may write $(\Scott{-}, F)$ for the interpretation $\Scott{-}$, where $F$ is the sheaf $F : \bar{x} \mapsto \Scott{T_{\bar{x}}}$.
We may also write $\Scott{\varphi}_{\bar{x}} \rightarrowtail F_{\bar{x}}$ for $\Scott{\, \bar{x} : T_{\bar{x}} \mid \varphi \,}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\label{eg:AvN.interpretation}
Expanding \autoref{eg:AvN.syntax}, take $\Scott{-}$ in $\mathbf{Sets}$ with $\Scott{T} = \mathbf{2}$ and the obvious $\Scott{0}$, $\Scott{1}$, and $\Scott{\oplus}$.
Then we have a sheaf $\Scott{T_{-}} : U \mapsto \mathbf{2}^U$ and, e.g.,
\begin{gather*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=25pt,y=25pt,baseline=(A.base)]
\node (A) [anchor=east,inner sep=0.25em] at (0,0) {$\Scott{\, x : T, y : T \mid x \oplus y = 0 \,}$};
\node (B) [anchor=west,inner sep=0.25em] at ($ (A.east) + (1.5,0) $) {$\Scott{T_{\{ x, y \}}} = \mathbf{2} \times \mathbf{2}$};
\node (D) [anchor=west,inner sep=0.25em] at ($ (B.east) + (3,0) $) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\node (C) [transform canvas={yshift=-3.2pt},inner sep=0.25em] at ($ (B.east) + (1.5,0) $) {$1$};
\draw [>->] (A) -- (B);
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=3.2pt},->] (B) -- (D) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,above] {$\Scott{\oplus}$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=-3.2pt},->] (B) -- (C) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,below] {${!}$};
\draw [transform canvas={yshift=-3.2pt},->] (C) -- (D) node [pos=0.5,inner sep=2pt,below] {$\Scott{0}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{gather*}
is an equalizer of $\Scott{\oplus}$ and $\Scott{0} \mathbin{\circ} {!}$.
\end{example}
An interpretation $\Scott{-}$ of $\L$ is said to model a sequent $\Gamma \vdash \varphi$ if some finite $\Delta \subseteq \Gamma$ has $\bigwedge_{\psi \in \Delta} \Scott{\psi}_U \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_U$.
This makes sense whether $U \in \mathcal{C}$ or not.
Nevertheless, if $U \notin \mathcal{C}$, then $\bigwedge_{\psi \in \Delta} \Scott{\psi}_U \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_U$ only means the global entailment and not the local one.
Take, e.g.,
\begin{example}\label{eg:AvN.model}
Expanding \autoref{eg:AvN.interpretation}, the presheaf model $A$ of the PR box, (\hyperref[pic:PR]{d}) of \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR}, is a subpresheaf of $\Scott{T_{-}}$ described by \eqref{eq:AvN.PR}:
E.g.\ $A_{\{ a_i, b_1 \}} = \Scott{\, a_1 \oplus b_1 = 0 \,}_{\{ a_1, b_1 \}} \rightarrowtail \mathbf{2} \times \mathbf{2}$.
Then the global inconsistency, and strong contextuality $\Gamma \vdash \bot$ in particular, of the equations $\Gamma$ in \eqref{eq:AvN.PR} means
$\mathop{\bowtie} A = \bigcap_{\varphi \in \Gamma} \Scott{\varphi}_X \subseteq \Scott{\bot}_X = \varnothing$.
Yet $\Gamma$ is locally consistent, modelled by the PR box.
\end{example}
This is why, to model the inchworm logic of local inference, we need a presheaf on different contexts $U \in \mathcal{C}$, as opposed to an intersection in a single context $V \notin \mathcal{C}$, to the left of $\leqslant$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:inchworm.pre-model}
Suppose $(\Scott{-}, F)$ is an interpretation of a contextual language $\L_\mathcal{C}$.
Then let us say that a subpresheaf $A \rightarrowtail F$ is a \emph{pre-model} in $(\Scott{-}, F)$ of a formula $\varphi \in \Phi_U$ in a context $U \in \mathcal{C}$, and write $A \vDash_U \varphi$, to mean that $A_U \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_U$.
\end{definition}
\begin{fact}\label{thm:subpresheaf.pre-model}
If $A \leqslant B$ for subpresheaves $A$ and $B$ of $F$, then $B \vDash_U \varphi$ implies $A \vDash_U \varphi$.
\end{fact}
Note, however, that this notion of pre-model is context-dependent and concerns formulas in contexts as opposed to formulas \textit{per se}.
When $U \subseteq V \in \mathcal{C}$ and $\varphi \in \Phi_U$, \autoref{thm:no-signalling.subpresheaf} yields
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{\value{equation}}
\item\label{item:pre-model.up}
$A \vDash_U \varphi$ entails $A \vDash_V \varphi$, because
\begin{gather*}
\def\leqslant{\leqslant}
\AX$\exists_{F_{U \subseteq V}}(A_V) \leqslant A_U \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_U$
\UI$A_V \leqslant {F_{U \subseteq V}}^{-1} \Scott{\varphi}_U = \Scott{\varphi}_V$
\DP
\end{gather*}
\item\label{item:pre-model.down}
Suppose $A$ is no-signalling.
Then $A \vDash_V \varphi$ entails $A \vDash_U \varphi$.
This is because
\begin{gather*}
\def\leqslant{\leqslant}
\AX$A_V \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_V = {F_{U \subseteq V}}^{-1} \Scott{\varphi}_U$
\UI$A_U = \exists_{F_{U \subseteq V}}(A_V) \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_U$
\DP
\end{gather*}
\setcounter{equation}{\value{enumi}}
\end{enumerate}
If $A$ is not no-signalling, \eqref{item:pre-model.down} may fail, and then inchworm inference fails.
E.g., in \eqref{eq:AvN.PR.Charlie.steps}, the first step purports to show that, if $A \vDash_U a_1 = b_1$ and $A \vDash_U a_1 = c$, then $A \vDash_U b_1 = c$ and so $A \vDash_{U \cap V} b_1 = c$;
but the ``and so'' step here requires \eqref{item:pre-model.down}.
In this sense, as mentioned in \autoref{sec:model.no-signalling}, no-signalling means the context-independent coherence of a presheaf as a model of formulas.
Therefore
\begin{definition}\label{def:inchworm.model}
A pre-model $A$ is called a (no-signalling) \emph{model} if it is no-signalling.
Then we say that $A$ is a model of a formula $\varphi \in \Phi_\mathcal{C}$, and write $A \vDash \varphi$, to mean that $A$ is a pre-model of $\varphi$ in any suitable context, i.e., that $A_U \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_U$ for every $U \in \mathcal{C}$ such that $\varphi \in \Phi_U$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:soundness.model}
Let $\Scott{-}$ be an interpretation of $\L_\mathcal{C}$ that models a theory $\vdash$ in $\L$.
Then the inchworm logic $\vdash_\mathcal{C}$ of $\vdash$ is sound with respect to the no-signalling models in $\Scott{-}$:
If $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$, then $A \vDash \varphi$ for every no-signalling model $A$ of $\Gamma$ in $\Scott{-}$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{The Inchworm and No-Signalling}\label{sec:theorem.no-signalling}
\autoref{sec:general.interpretation} primarily concerned how given presheaves modelled formulas.
We showed in particular that no-signalling validated inchworm inference.
Let us discuss, on the other hand, how the description by given formulas yields a model.
This shows the other direction of the connection between no-signalling and the inchworm, from the latter to the former.
We say a set $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$ of formulas of $\L_\mathcal{C}$ is \emph{$\mathcal{C}$-finite} if $\Gamma_U$ is finite for each $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
\begin{definition}
Let $(\Scott{-}, F)$ be an interpretation of $\L_\mathcal{C}$.
Given any $\mathcal{C}$-finite $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$, define $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$ as a family $(\MM[F]{\Gamma}_U = \bigwedge_{\varphi \in \Gamma_U} \Scott{\varphi}_U \rightarrowtail F_U)_{U \in \mathcal{C}}$ of subobjects of $F_U$.
\end{definition}
\begin{fact}\label{thm:description.pre-model}
$\MM[F]{\Gamma}$ is the largest subpresheaf $A$ of $F$ such that $A \vDash_U \Gamma_U$ for each $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
\end{fact}
$\MM[F]{\Gamma}$ generally fails to be no-signalling.
E.g., $A$ in (\hyperref[pic:signal]{e}) of \autoref{fig:no-signalling} is $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$ given by $\Gamma = \{ \varphi \}$ for $\varphi = (a_2 \wedge \lnot b_1) \vee (\lnot a_2 \wedge \lnot b_1)$;
since $\varphi$ cannot be in the context $\{ b_1 \}$, $\Gamma_{\{ b_1 \}} = \varnothing$ and $A_{\{ b_1 \}} = \mathbf{2}$.
Yet the description by $\Gamma$ sometimes manages to give a no-signalling $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$.
\begin{fact}\label{thm:description.model}
Let $(\Scott{-}, F)$ be an interpretation of $\L_\mathcal{C}$ that models a theory $\vdash$ in $\L$.
We say $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$ is \emph{inchworm-saturated} if $\Gamma_V \vdash \varphi$ implies $\Gamma_U \vdash \exists_{V \setminus U} \mathpunct{.} \varphi$ whenever $U \subseteq V \in \mathcal{C}$ and $\varphi \in \Phi_V$.
Now, if a $\mathcal{C}$-finite $\Gamma$ is inchworm-saturated, then $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$ is no-signalling.
\end{fact}
When $\Gamma$ is inchworm-saturated, it may not be deductively closed, but the inchworm cannot bring a new piece of information $\psi$ to a context $U$ from another $V$, since $\psi$ follows from the information $\Gamma_U$ that $U$ already has.
\autoref{thm:description.model} means that, if $\Gamma$ is inchworm-saturated and if each $\Gamma_U$ finite and consistent (and has $\MM[F]{\Gamma}_U$ nonempty or well-supported), then $\Gamma$ is locally consistent, modelled by a no-signalling model $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$.
E.g., \eqref{eq:AvN.PR} is inchworm-saturated, with each context consistent, so it gives the PR box, (\hyperref[pic:PR]{d}) of \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR}, as $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$.
On the other hand, even when a description $\Gamma$ is not inchworm-saturated and $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$ fails to be no-signalling, the inchworm can carve out the ``no-signalling interior'' of $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$, if $\Gamma$ can be saturated in finite (or $\mathcal{C}$-finite) steps.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:inchworm.saturation}
Let $(\Scott{-}, F)$ be an interpretation of $\L_\mathcal{C}$ that models a theory $\vdash$ in $\L$.
Given $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$, suppose there is a $\mathcal{C}$-finite and inchworm-saturated $\Delta \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$ such that $\Gamma \subseteq \Delta$ and $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$ for all $\varphi \in \Delta$.
Then $\MM[F]{\Delta}$ is the largest no-signalling subpresheaf of $\MM[F]{\Gamma}$.
\end{theorem}
Take again the example from right after \autoref{thm:description.pre-model}:
$\MM[F]{\Gamma}$ of $\Gamma = \{ \varphi \}$ for $\varphi = (a_2 \wedge \lnot b_1) \vee (\lnot a_2 \wedge \lnot b_1)$ is $A$ in (\hyperref[pic:signal]{e}) of \autoref{fig:no-signalling} and fails to be no-signalling.
Yet $\varphi \vdash \lnot b_1$, so $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \lnot b_1$, and $\Delta = \Gamma \cup \{ \lnot b_1 \}$ is inchworm-saturated, with $\lnot b_1 \in \Delta_{\{ b_1 \}}$.
Hence, by \autoref{thm:inchworm.saturation}, the inchworm carves out a no-signalling $\MM[F]{\Delta}$ by removing the red sections from (\hyperref[pic:signal]{e}).
Indeed, in many applications (e.g.\ all the examples in Sections \ref{sec:model} and \ref{sec:logic}), the theory $\vdash$ satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{\value{equation}}
\item\label{item:finite.theory}
Given any $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$ (that may not be $\mathcal{C}$-finite), for each $U \in \mathcal{C}$ there is a finite $\Delta_U \subseteq \Gamma_U$ such that $\Delta_U \vdash \varphi$ for all $\varphi \in \Gamma_U$.
\setcounter{equation}{\value{enumi}}
\end{enumerate}
This guarantees the supposition of \autoref{thm:inchworm.saturation}:
Given any $\mathcal{C}$-finite $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$, take its $\vdash_\mathcal{C}$-deductive closure $\Gamma^\ast = \{\, \varphi \mid \Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi \,\}$ as $\Gamma$ in \eqref{item:finite.theory} and obtain $\Delta_U$;
then $\Delta = \Gamma \cup \bigcup_{U \in \mathcal{C}} \Delta_U$ is such as in \autoref{thm:inchworm.saturation}.
Therefore \autoref{thm:inchworm.saturation} applies and leads to a family of completeness results organized by \autoref{thm:completeness.transfer.model}, which transfers a completeness theorem of a global theory to its inchworm fragment.
It yields, e.g., \autoref{thm:completeness.regular.model}, since any (global) regular theory has a ``conservative model'' in a ``classifying category'' (e.g.\ \cite[Proposition 6.4]{but98}).
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:completeness.transfer.model}
Suppose that a theory $\vdash$ in $\L$ satisfies \eqref{item:finite.theory}, and that $\Scott{-}$ is a conservative model of $\vdash$, meaning that, for any $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$, $\bigwedge_{\psi \in \Delta} \Scott{\psi}_U \leqslant \Scott{\varphi}_U$ for some $\Delta \subseteq \Gamma$ if but also only if $\Gamma \vdash \varphi$.
Then $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$ iff $A \vDash \varphi$ for every no-signalling model $A$ of $\Gamma$ in $\Scott{-}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:completeness.regular.model}
Let $\vdash$ be a regular theory satisfying \eqref{item:finite.theory}.
Then, for any $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$, $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$ iff $A \vDash \varphi$ for every no-signalling model $A$ of $\Gamma$ in every model $\Scott{-}$ of $\vdash$ in any regular category.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Completion for Completeness}
Generally, the property \eqref{item:finite.theory} may fail and the inchworm saturation may not be attained in finite steps.
\begin{example}\label{eg:spiral}
In \autoref{fig:Hardy.PR}, replace each $A_x = \mathbf{2}$ with $\mathbb{Z}$, and let $\Gamma$ be the set of formulas
\begin{gather*}
a_1 = b_2 , \mspace{18mu}
b_1 = a_1 , \mspace{18mu}
a_2 = b_1 , \mspace{18mu}
b_2 = a_2 + 1 , \mspace{18mu}
b_2 > 0
\end{gather*}
in the obvious $\L$ and $\vdash$.
Then $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} a_1 > 0, b_1 > 0, a_2 > 0, b_2 > 1, \ldots, x > n$ for every $x \in X$ and $n \in \mathbb{N}$, whereas $\Gamma \nvdash_\mathcal{C} \bot$ (although the empty presheaf is the only no-signalling model of $\Gamma$).
So there cannot be any such $\Delta$ as in \autoref{thm:inchworm.saturation}.
(Note that the topology of $\mathcal{C}$ is essential:
E.g., if we take $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{P} X$ instead, then $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \bot$ by $\Gamma \vdash \bot$.)
\end{example}
Thus, even if $\Gamma$ is finite, the set $\{\, \Scott{\varphi}_U \mid \varphi \in {\Gamma^\ast}_U \,\}$ may have no minimum (though it is lowerbounded by $\exists_{F_{U \subseteq X}}(\bigwedge_{\psi \in \Gamma} \Scott{\psi}_X)$ if $X$ is finite);
then, in a regular category in general, $\bigwedge_{\varphi \in {\Gamma^\ast}_U} \Scott{\varphi}_U$ may not exist.
So, instead of the semilattice $\mathrm{Sub}_\mathbf{S}(F_U)$ of subobjects, let us use a completion of it, viz.\ the semilattice $\mathrm{Filt}(\mathrm{Sub}_\mathbf{S}(F_U))$ of filters in $\mathrm{Sub}_\mathbf{S}(F_U)$,
and assign a filter of subobjects, instead of a subobject, to each $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:inchworm.filter.model}
Suppose $(\Scott{-}, F)$ is an interpretation of a contextual language $\L_\mathcal{C}$.
Then, by a \emph{filter model} in $(\Scott{-}, F)$, we mean a presheaf $G : \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{Sets}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item
$G_U \in \mathrm{Filt}(\mathrm{Sub}_\mathbf{S}(F_U))$ for every $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
\item
For $U \subseteq V \in \mathcal{C}$,
\begin{gather*}
G_U = \{\, S \rightarrowtail F_U \mid {F_{U \subseteq V}}^{-1}(S) \in G_V \,\} = \{\, \exists_{F_{U \subseteq V}}(S) \rightarrowtail F_U \mid S \in G_V \,\} ,
\end{gather*}
so $G_{U \subseteq V} : G_V \to G_U :: S \mapsto \exists_{F_{U \subseteq V}}(S)$ is a surjection.
\end{itemize}
We say $G$ models $\varphi$, and write $G \vDash \varphi$, to mean that $\Scott{\varphi}_U \in G_U$ whenever $\varphi \in \Phi_U$.
\end{definition}
Then we have the filter versions of \autoref{thm:soundness.model}, \autoref{thm:description.model}, and completeness results organized by \autoref{thm:completeness.transfer.model}.
Observe that every (no-signalling) model $A$ is a ``principal'' filter model, $U \mapsto \upset{A_U} = \{\, S \rightarrowtail F \mid A_U \leqslant S \,\}$;
so \autoref{thm:soundness.filter} is stronger than \autoref{thm:soundness.model}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:soundness.filter}
Let $\Scott{-}$ be a model of a theory $\vdash$ in $\L$.
Then the inchworm logic $\vdash_\mathcal{C}$ of $\vdash$ is sound with respect to the filter models in $\Scott{-}$:
If $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$, then $G \vDash \varphi$ for every filter model $G$ of $\Gamma$ in $\Scott{-}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{fact}\label{thm:description.filter}
Let $(\Scott{-}, F)$ be a model of a theory $\vdash$ in $\L$.
Given any $\Gamma \subseteq \Phi_\mathcal{C}$, the family $\FiltMM[F]{\Gamma} = (\{\, S \rightarrowtail F_U \mid \Scott{\varphi}_U \leqslant S$ for some $\varphi \in {\Gamma^\ast}_U \,\})_{U \in \mathcal{C}}$ is a filter model of $\Gamma$ in $(\Scott{-}, F)$.
Moreover, for any filter model $G$ of $\Gamma$ in $(\Scott{-}, F)$, $\FiltMM[F]{\Gamma}_U \subseteq G_U$ for each $U \in \mathcal{C}$.
\end{fact}
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:completeness.transfer.filter}
Suppose $\Scott{-}$ is a conservative model of a theory $\vdash$ in $\L$.
Then $\Gamma \vdash_\mathcal{C} \varphi$ iff $G \vDash \varphi$ for every filter model $G$ of $\Gamma$ in $\Scott{-}$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Conclusion}
We have formulated contextual models as presheaves valued in regular categories, as well as providing ``inchworm logic'' for local inference in those contextual models.
We have also proven ``completeness-transfer lemmas'' (Lemmas \ref{thm:completeness.transfer.model} and \ref{thm:completeness.transfer.filter}), so that completeness theorems in categorical logic transfer straightforwardly to inchworm logic.
Let us conclude the paper by discussing connections and applications between the framework of this paper and other approaches or other fields as future work.
First of all, categorical logic has a long tradition (since \cite{law70}) of viewing local truth as a modal operator.
Indeed, the logic of local information in this paper is closely related to the dynamic-logical characterization of contextuality in \cite{kis14}.
There is also a connection to model theory.
For instance, the similarity between inchworm inference and Craig interpolation should be obvious;
indeed, by defining $\Phi_U$ more generally as a ``language in the vocabulary $U$'', we can prove a stronger version of Robinson's joint consistency theorem (see \cite[Subsection 4.1.1]{GM05}) that is sensitive to the topology of $\mathcal{C}$.
As explained in \autoref{sec:model}, presheaf models, whether no-signalling or not, can model Boolean valuations.
This enables us to transfer and apply techniques from satisfiability problems to quantum contextuality as computational resource.
Another connection is to the structure of valuation algebra, which is used for local computation \cite{KPS12}.
In fact, our presheaf models can also be formulated in terms of valuation algebras, as a $\mathcal{C}$-indexed family of valuations satisfying certain conditions.
We can expect these connections to help extend local computation to situations in classical computing where contextual phenomena arise.
The generality of taking presheaves in regular categories is also expected to facilitate applications.
In cohomology, it is typical to use presheaves valued in regular categories, such as presheaves of abelian groups, $R$-modules, etc.
Therefore the framework of this paper applies to the logic of local inference within such presheaves.
One can also take regular categories of structures that are used for other purposes such as modelling processes in quantum physics.
In addition, the connection to logical paradoxes \cite{ABKLM15} is also relevant.
As shown in \cite{law69,AZ15}, regular categories provide background for self-referential and other fixpoint paradoxes;
so our formalism will unify the two perspectives on paradoxes.
|
\section{Introduction}
Modern machine learning applications require computational approaches that are at the same time statistically accurate
and numerically efficient \citep{bousquet2008tradeoffs}. This has motivated a recent interest in stochastic gradient methods (SGM), since on the one hand they enjoy good practical performances, especially in large scale scenarios, and on the other hand they are amenable to theoretical studies. In particular, unlike other learning approaches, such as empirical risk minimization or Tikhonov regularization, theoretical results on SGM naturally integrate statistical and computational aspects.
Most generalization studies on SGM consider the case where only one pass over the data is allowed and the step-size is appropriately chosen, see \citep{cesa-bianchi2004,nemirovski2009robust,ying2008online,tarres2014online,dieuleveut2014non,orab14} and references therein, possibly considering averaging \citep{poljak1987introduction}. In particular, recent works show how the step-size can be seen to play the role of a regularization parameter whose choice controls the bias and variance properties of the obtained solution \citep{ying2008online,tarres2014online,dieuleveut2014non,lin2016generalization}. These latter works show that balancing these contributions, it is possible to derive a step-size choice leading to optimal learning bounds. Such a choice typically depends on some unknown properties of the data generating distributions and it can be chosen by cross-validation in practice.
While processing each data point only once is natural in streaming/online scenarios, in practice SGM is often used to process large data-sets and multiple passes over the data are typically considered. In this case, the number of passes over the data, as well as the step-size, need then to be determined. While the role of multiple passes is well understood if the goal is empirical risk minimization \citep[see e.g.,][]{boyd2007stochastic}, its effect with respect to generalization is less clear. A few recent works have recently started to tackle this question. In particular, results in this direction have been derived in \citep{hardt2015train} and \citep{lin2016generalization}. The former work considers a general stochastic optimization setting and studies stability properties of SGM allowing to derive convergence results as well as finite sample bounds. The latter work, restricted to supervised learning, further develops these results to compare the respective roles of step-size and number of passes, and show how different parameter settings can lead to optimal error bounds. In particular, it shows that there are two extreme cases: while one between the step-size or the number of passes is fixed a priori, while the other one acts as a regularization parameter and needs to be chosen adaptively. The main shortcoming of these latter results is that they are for the worst case, in the sense that they do not consider the possible effect of benign assumptions on the problem \citep{zhang2005learning,caponnetto2007optimal} that can lead to faster rates for other learning approaches such as Tikhonov regularization.
Further, these results do not consider the possible effect on generalization of mini-batches, rather than a single point in each gradient step \citep{shalev2011pegasos,dekel2012optimal,sra2012optimization,ng2016machine}. This latter strategy is often considered especially for parallel implementation of SGM.
The study in this paper fills in these gaps in the case where the loss function is the least squares loss.
We consider a variant of SGM for least squares, where gradients are sampled uniformly at random and mini-batches are allowed. The number of passes, the step-size and the mini-batch size are then parameters to be determined. Our main results highlight the respective roles of these parameters and show how can they be chosen so that the corresponding solutions achieve optimal learning errors in a variety of settings. In particular, we show for the first time that multi-pass SGM with early stopping and a universal step-size choice can achieve optimal convergence rates, matching those of ridge regression \citep{smale2007learning,caponnetto2007optimal}. Further, our analysis shows how the mini-batch size and the step-size choice are tightly related. Indeed, larger mini-batch sizes allow considering larger step-sizes while keeping the optimal learning bounds. This result gives insights on how to exploit mini-batches for parallel computations while preserving optimal statistical accuracy. Finally, we note that a recent work \citep{rosasco2015learning} is related to the analysis in the paper. The generalization properties of a multi-pass incremental gradient are analyzed in \citep{rosasco2015learning}, for a cyclic, rather than a stochastic, choice of the gradients and with no mini-batches. The analysis in this latter case appears to be harder and results in \citep{rosasco2015learning} give good learning bounds only in restricted setting and considering iterates rather than the excess risk. Compared to \citep{rosasco2015learning} our results show how stochasticity can be exploited to get fast rates and analyze the role of mini-batches. The basic idea of our proof is to approximate the SGM learning sequence in terms of the batch gradient descent sequence, see Subsection \ref{subsec:proSke} for further details. This allows to study batch and stochastic gradient methods simultaneously, and may be also useful for analyzing other learning algorithms.
This paper is an extended version of a prior conference paper \citep{lin2016optimal}. In \citep{lin2016optimal}, we give convergence results with optimal rates for the attainable case (i.e., assuming the existence of at least one minimizer of the expected risk over the hypothesis space) in a fixed step-size setting. In this new version, we give convergence results with optimal rates, for both the attainable and non-attainable cases, and consider
more general step-size choices. The extension from the attainable case to the non-attainable case is non-trivial. As will be seen from the proof, in contrast to the attainable case, a different and refined estimation is needed for the non-attainable case.
Interestingly, as a byproduct of this paper, we also derived optimal rates for the batch gradient descent methods in the non-attainable case. To the best of our knowledge, such a result may be the first kind for batch gradient methods, without requiring any extra unlabeled data as that in \citep{caponnetto2010cross}. Finally, we also add novel convergence results for the iterates showing that they converge to the minimal norm solution of the expected risk with optimal rates.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:learning} introduces the learning setting and the SGM algorithm. Main results with discussions and proof sketches are presented in Section \ref{sec:main}.
Preliminary lemmas necessary for the proofs will be given in Section \ref{sec:estimates} while detailed proofs will be conducted in Sections \ref{sec:biasSam} to \ref{sec:hnorm}.
Finally, simple numerical simulations are given in Section \ref{sec:numerical} to complement our theoretical results.
\paragraph{Notation} For any $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$, $a \vee b$ denotes the maximum of $a$ and $b$.
$\mathbb{N}$ is the set of all positive integers. For any $T \in \mathbb{N},$ $[T]$ denotes the
set $\{1,\cdots,T\}.$
For any two positive sequences $\{a_t\}_{t\in [T]}$ and $\{b_t\}_{t\in [T]},$
the notation $a_{t} \lesssim b_{t}$ for all $t\in [T]$ means that there exists a positive constant
$C \geq 0$ such that $C$ is independent of $t$ and that $a_{t}\leq C b_{t}$ for all $t \in [T].$
\section{Learning with SGM}\label{sec:learning}
We begin by introducing the learning setting we consider, and then
describe the SGM learning algorithm.
Following \citep{rosasco2015learning}, the formulation
we consider is close to the setting of functional regression, and covers the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) setting as a special case, see Appendix \ref{app:learning}. In particular, it reduces to standard linear
regression for finite dimensions.
\subsection{Learning Problems}
Let $H$ be a separable Hilbert space, with inner product and induced norm denoted by
$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{H}$ and $\| \cdot \|_{H}$, respectively.
Let the input space $X \subseteq H$ and the output space $Y \subseteq \mathbb{R}$.
Let $\rho$ be an unknown probability measure on $Z=X\times Y,$ $\rho_X(\cdot)$ the induced marginal measure on $X$, and $\rho(\cdot | x)$ the conditional probability measure on $Y$ with respect to $x \in X$ and $\rho$.
Considering the square loss function, the problem under study is the minimization of the {\it risk},
\begin{equation}\label{expectedRisk}
\inf_{\omega \in H} \mathcal{E}(\omega), \quad \mathcal{E}(\omega) = \int_{X\times Y} ( \langle \omega, x \rangle_{H} - y)^2 d\rho(x,y),
\end{equation}
when the measure $\rho$ is known only through
a sample $\mathbf z=\{z_i=(x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ of size $m\in\mathbb{N}$, independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) according to $\rho$.
In the following, we measure the quality of an approximate solution $\hat{\omega} \in H$ (an estimator) considering {\it the excess risk}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{excessrisk}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{\omega}) - \inf_{\omega \in H} \mathcal{E}(\omega).
\end{equation}
Throughout this paper, we assume that there exists a constant $\kappa \in [1,\infty[$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{boundedKernel} \langle x,x' \rangle_{H} \leq \kappa^2, \quad \forall x,x'\in X.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Stochastic Gradient Method}
We study the following variant of SGM, possibly with mini-batches.
Unlike some of the variants studied in the literature, the algorithm we consider in this paper does not involve any explicit penalty term or any projection step, in which case one does not need to tune the penalty/projection parameter.
\begin{alg}\label{alg:1}
Let $b \in [m].$ Given any sample $\bf z$, the $b$-minibatch stochastic gradient method is defined by $\omega_1 =0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Alg}
\omega_{t+1}=\omega_t - \eta_t {1 \over b} \sum_{i= b(t-1)+1}^{bt} (\langle \omega_t, x_{j_i}\rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) x_{j_i} , \qquad t=1, \ldots, T, \end{equation}
where $\{\eta_{t}>0\}$ is a step-size sequence. Here, $j_1,j_2,\cdots,j_{bT}$ are i.i.d. random variables from the uniform distribution on $[m]$ \footnote{Note that, the random variables $j_1,\cdots, j_{bT}$ are conditionally independent given the sample $\bf z$.}.
\end{alg}
We add some comments on the above algorithm. First, different choices for the mini-batch size $b$ can lead to different algorithms. In particular, for $b=1$, the above algorithm corresponds to a simple SGM, while for $b=m,$ it is a stochastic version of the batch gradient descent. In this paper, we are particularly interested in the cases of $b=1$ and $b = \sqrt{m}.$
Second, other choices on the initial value, rather than $\omega_1 =0$, is possible. In fact, following from our proofs in this paper, the interested readers can see that the convergence results stated in the next subsections still hold for other choices of initial values.
Finally, the number of total iterations $T$ can be bigger than the number of sample points $m$. This indicates that we can use the sample more than once, or in another words, we can run the algorithm with multiple passes over the data. Here and in what follows, the number of `passes' over the data is referred to $\lceil {bt \over m} \rceil$ at $t$ iterations of the algorithm.
The aim of this paper is to derive excess risk bounds for Algorithm \ref{alg:1}.
Throughout this paper, we assume that $\{\eta_t\}_t$ is non-increasing, and $T \in \mathbb{N}$ with $T \geq 3$. We denote by ${\bf J}_t$ the set $\{j_l: l=b(t-1)+1,\cdots,bt\}$ and by ${\bf J}$ the set $\{j_l: l=1,\cdots,bT\}$.
\section{Main Results with Discussions }\label{sec:main}
In this section, we first state some basic assumptions. Then, we
present and discuss our main results.
\subsection{Assumptions}
The following assumption is related to a moment assumption on $|y|^2$. It is
weaker than the often considered bounded output assumption, such as the binary classification problems where $Y=\{-1,1\}.$
\begin{as}\label{as:noiseExp}
There exists constants $M \in ]0,\infty[$ and $v \in ]1,\infty[$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{noiseExp}
\int_{Y} y^{2l} d\rho(y|x) \leq l! M^l v, \quad \forall l \in \mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
$\rho_{ X}$-almost surely.
\end{as}
To present our next assumption, we introduce the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\rho} : L^2(H,\rho_X) \to L^2(H,\rho_X)$, defined by $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}(f) = \int_{X} \langle x, \cdot\rangle_{H} f(x) \rho_{X}(x).$ {
Here, $L^2(H,\rho_X)$ is the Hilbert space of square integral functions from $H$ to $\mathbb{R}$ with respect to $\rho_X$, with norm,
$$\|f\|_{\rho} = \left (\int_{X} |f(x)|^2 d \rho_X(x) \right)^{1/2}.$$}
Under Assumption \eref{boundedKernel}, $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ can be proved to be positive trace class operators \citep{cucker2007learning}, and hence $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{\zeta}$ with $\zeta\in \mathbb{R}$ can be defined by using the spectral theory.
It is well known \citep[see e.g.,][]{cucker2007learning} that the function minimizing $\int_{Z} (f(x) - y)^2 d\rho(z)$
over all measurable functions $f: H \to \mathbb{R}$ is the regression function, given by
\begin{equation}\label{regressionfunc}
f_{\rho}(x) = \int_Y y d \rho(y | x),\qquad x \in X.
\end{equation}
Define another Hilbert space $H_{\rho} = \{f: X \to \mathbb{R}| \exists \omega \in H \mbox{ with } f(x) = \langle \omega, x \rangle_{H}, \rho_X \mbox{-almost surely}\}.$
Under Assumption \eref{boundedKernel}, it is easy to see that $H_{\rho}$ is a subspace of $L^2(H,\rho_X).$
Let $f_{\mathcal{H}}$ be the projection of the regression function $f_{\rho}$ onto the closure of $H_{\rho}$ in $L^2(H,\rho_X).$
It is easy to see that the search for a solution of Problem \eref{expectedRisk} is equivalent to the search of a linear function in $H_{\rho}$ to approximate $f_{\mathcal{H}}$.
From this point of view, bounds on the excess risk of a learning algorithm on $H_{\rho}$ or $H$, naturally depend on the following assumption, which quantifies
how well, the target function $f_{\mathcal{H}}$ can be approximated by $H_{\rho}$.
\begin{as}\label{as:regularity}
There exist $\zeta> 0$ and $R>0$, such that $\|\mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{-\zeta} f_{\mathcal{H}} \|_{\rho} \leq R.$
\end{as}
The above assumption is fairly standard in non-parametric regression \citep{cucker2007learning,rosasco2015learning}.
The bigger $\zeta$ is, the more stringent the assumption is, since $$\mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{\zeta_1}(L^2(H,\rho_X)) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{\zeta_2}(L^2(H,\rho_X))\quad \mbox{when }\zeta_1 \geq \zeta_2.$$
In particular, for $\zeta =0,$ we are making no assumption, while for $\zeta = 1/2,$ we are requiring $f_{\mathcal{H}} \in H_{\rho}$, since \citep{rosasco2015learning}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isometry}
H_{\rho} = \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{1/2}(L^2(H,\rho_X)) .
\end{equation}
In the case of $\zeta \geq 1/2$,
$f_{\mathcal{H}} \in H_{\rho}$, which implies Problem \eref{expectedRisk} has at least one solution in the space $H$.
In this case, we denote $\omega^{\dag}$ as the solution with the minimal $H$-norm.
Finally, the last assumption relates to the capacity of the hypothesis space.
\begin{as}\label{as:eigenvalues}
For some $\gamma \in ]0,1]$ and $c_{\gamma}>0$, $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eigenvalue_decay}
\operatorname{tr}(\mathcal{L}_{\rho}(\mathcal{L}_{\rho}+\lambda I)^{-1})\leq c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}, \quad \mbox{for all } \lambda>0.
\end{equation}
\end{as}
The left hand-side of of \eref{eigenvalue_decay} is called as the effective
dimension \citep{caponnetto2007optimal}, or the degrees of freedom \citep{zhang2005learning}.
It can be related to covering/entropy number conditions, see \citep{steinwart2008support} for further details.
Assumption \ref{as:eigenvalues} is always true for $\gamma=1$ and $c_{\gamma} =\kappa^2$, since
$\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ is a trace class operator which implies the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$, denoted as $\sigma_i$, satisfy
$\operatorname{tr}(\mathcal{L}_{\rho}) = \sum_{i} \sigma_i \leq \kappa^2.$
This is referred to as the capacity independent setting.
Assumption \ref{as:eigenvalues} with $\gamma \in]0,1]$ allows to derive better error rates. It is satisfied, e.g.,
if the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ satisfy a polynomial decaying condition $\sigma_i \sim i^{-1/\gamma}$, or with $\gamma=0$ if $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ is finite rank.
\subsection{Optimal Rates for SGM and Batch GM: Simplified Versions}
We start with the following corollaries, which are the simplified versions of our main results stated in the next subsections.
\begin{corollary}[Optimal Rate for SGM] \label{cor:simplfied}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $|y| \leq M$ almost surely for some $M>0.$ Let $p_* = \lceil m^{1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil$ if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$, or $p_* = \lceil m^{1 -\epsilon} \rceil$ with $\epsilon \in ]0,1[$ otherwise.
Consider the SGM with \\
1) $b=1$, $\eta_t \simeq {1 \over m}$ for all $t \in [(p_*m)],$ and $\tilde{\omega}_{p_*} = \omega_{p_*m+1}.$ \\
{
If $\delta \in]0,1]$ and $m \geq m_{\delta}$, then
with probability\footnote{Here, `high probability' refers to the sample ${\bf z}$.}at least $1-\delta$, it holds}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:optBounds}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\tilde{\omega}_{p_*})] - \inf_{ H} \mathcal{E} \leq C
\begin{cases}
m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}}& \mbox{ when } 2\zeta+\gamma>1;\\
m^{-2\zeta(1-\epsilon)}& \mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the above also holds for the SGM with\footnote{Here, we assume that $\sqrt{m}$ is an integer.}\\
2) $b = \sqrt{m},$ $\eta_t \simeq {1 \over \sqrt{m} }$ for all $t \in [(p_*\sqrt{m})],$ and $\tilde{\omega}_{p_*} = \omega_{p_* \sqrt{m} + 1}.$\\
{In the above, $m_{\delta}$ and $C$ are positive constants depending on $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, \zeta, R,c_{\gamma},\gamma$, a polynomial of $\log m$ and $\log (1/\delta)$, and $m_{\delta}$ also on $\delta$ (and also on $\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}$ in the case that $\zeta <1/2$).}
\end{corollary}
We add some comments on the above result. First, the above result asserts that, at $p_*$ passes over the data, the SGM with two different fixed step-size and fixed mini-batch size choices, achieves optimal learning error bounds, matching (or improving) those of ridge regression \citep{smale2007learning,caponnetto2007optimal}.
Second, according to the above result, using mini-batch allows to use a larger step-size while achieving the same optimal error bounds.
Finally, the above result can be further simplified in some special cases. For example, if we consider the capacity independent case, i.e., $\gamma=1$, and assuming that $f_{\mathcal{H}} \in H_{\rho}$, which is equivalent to making Assumption \ref{as:regularity} with $\zeta = 1/2$ as mentioned before, the error bound is
$O(m^{-1/2})$, while the number of passes $p_* = \lceil\sqrt{m} \rceil.$
\begin{rem}
[Finite Dimensional Case] With a simple modification of our proofs, we can derive similar results for the finite dimensional case, i.e., $H = \mathbb{R}^d$, where in this case, $\gamma=0$.
In particular, letting $\zeta=1/2,$ under the same assumptions of Corollary \ref{cor:simplfied}, if one considers the SGM with $b=1$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1 \over m}$ for all $t \in [m^2],$ then with high probability,
$
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_{{m}^2+1})] - \inf_{ H} \mathcal{E} \lesssim {d / m},
$
provided that $m \gtrsim d \log d.$
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
{
From the proofs, one can easily see that if $f_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\mathcal{E}(\tilde{\omega}_{p_*}) - \inf_{H}\mathcal{E}$ are replaced respectively by $f_*\in L^2(H,\rho_X)$ and $\|\langle \cdot,\tilde{\omega}_{p_*} \rangle_{H} - f_*\|_{\rho}^2$, in both the assumptions and the error bounds, then all theorems and their corollaries of this paper are still true, as long as $f_*$ satisfies $\int_{X} (f_* - f_{\rho})(x)K_x d\rho_{X} = 0$. As a result, if we assume that
$f_{\rho}$ satisfies Assumption \ref{as:regularity} (with $f_{\mathcal{H}}$ replaced by $f_{\rho}$), as typically done in \citep{smale2007learning,caponnetto2007optimal,steinwart2009optimal,caponnetto2010cross} for the RKHS setting, we have that with high probability,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}\|\langle \cdot,\tilde{\omega}_{p_*} \rangle_{H} - f_{\rho}\|_{\rho}^2 \leq C\begin{cases}
m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}}& \mbox{ when } 2\zeta+\gamma>1;\\
m^{-2\zeta(1-\epsilon)}& \mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
In this case, the factor $\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}$ from the upper bounds for the case $\zeta < 1/2$ is exactly $\|f_{\rho}\|_{\infty}$ and can be controlled by the condition $|y| \leq M$ (and more generally, by Assumption \ref{as:noiseExp}). Since many common RKHSs are universally consistent \citep{steinwart2008support},
making Assumption \ref{as:regularity} on $f_{\rho}$ is natural and moreover, deriving error bounds with respect to $f_{\rho}$ seems to be more interesting in this case.
}
\end{rem}
As a byproduct of our proofs in this paper, we derive the following optimal results for batch gradient methods (GM), defined by $\nu_1 =0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Alg2B}
\nu_{t+1}=\nu_t - \eta_t {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m (\langle \nu_t, x_i\rangle_{H} - y_i) x_i , \qquad t=1, \ldots, T. \end{equation}
\begin{corollary}[Optimal Rate for Batch GM]\label{cor:simplfiedGM}
Under the assumptions and notations of Corollary \ref{cor:simplfied}, consider
batch GM \eref{Alg2B} with $\eta_t \simeq 1 $.
If $m$ is large enough, then with high probability, \eref{eq:optBounds} holds for
$\tilde{\omega}_{p_*} = \nu_{p_*+1}.$
\end{corollary}
In the above corollary, the convergence rates are optimal for $2\zeta+\gamma >1$. To the best of our knowledge, these results are the first ones with minimax rates \citep{caponnetto2007optimal,blanchard2016optimal}
for the batch GM in the non-attainable case. Particularly, they improve the results in the previous literature, see Subsection \ref{subsec:discussion} for more discussions.
Corollaries \ref{cor:simplfied} and \ref{cor:simplfiedGM} cover the main contributions of this paper. In the following subsections, we will present the main theorems of this paper, following with several corollaries and simple discussions, from which one can derive the simplified versions stated in this subsection.
In the next subsection, we present results for SGM in the attainable case while results in the non-attainable case will be given in Subsection \ref{subsec:main_non}, as the bounds for these two cases are different and particularly their proofs require different estimations. At last, results with more specific convergence rates for batch GM will be presented in Subsection \ref{subsec:main_bgm}.
\subsection{Main Results for SGM: Attainable Case}
In this subsection, we present convergence results in the attainable case, i.e., $\zeta \geq 1/2$, following with simple discussions.
One of our main theorems in the attainable case is stated next, and provides error bounds for the studied algorithm. For the sake of readability, we only present results in a fixed step-size setting in this section. Results in a general setting ($\eta_t = \eta_1 t^{-\theta}$ with $0\leq \theta<1$ can be found in Section \ref{sec:deriveing}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \geq 1/2$, $\delta \in]0,1[$, $\eta_t = \eta \kappa^{-2} $ for all $t \in [T],$ with $\eta \leq {1 \over 8(\log T + 1)}.$
If $m \geq m_{\delta}$,
then the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$: for all $t \in [T],$
\begin{equation}\label{mainTotalErr}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{ H}\mathcal{E} \leq q_1 (\eta t)^{-2\zeta} + q_2 m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} (1 + m^{-{1 \over 2\zeta + \gamma}} \eta t )^2 \log^2 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta} \\ + q_3 \eta b^{-1} ( 1 \vee m^{-{1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma }}\eta t ) \log T.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, $m_{\delta},q_1,q_2$ and $q_3$ are positive constants depending on $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, v, \zeta, R,c_{\gamma},\gamma$, and $m_{\delta}$ also on $\delta$ (which will be given explicitly in the proof).
\end{thm}
There are three terms in the upper bounds of \eref{mainTotalErr}. The first term depends on the regularity of the target function and it arises from bounding the bias, while the last two terms result from estimating the sample variance and the computational variance (due to the random choices of the points), respectively.
To derive optimal rates, it is necessary to balance these three terms. Solving this trade-off problem leads to different choices on $\eta$, $T$, and $b$, corresponding to different regularization strategies, as shown in subsequent corollaries.
The first corollary gives generalization error bounds for simple SGM, with a universal step-size depending on the number of sample points.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:MPSGMB}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \geq 1/2$ , $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b=1$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1\over m}$ for all $t \in [m^2]$.
If $m \geq m_{\delta},$ then with probability at least $1-\delta$, there holds
\begin{equation}\label{corTotalErr}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{ H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim \left\{ \Big({m \over t}\Big)^{2\zeta} + m^{-{2\zeta +2 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \Big({t\over m}\Big)^2\right\} \cdot \log^2 m \log^2{1\over \delta}, \quad \forall t\in [m^2],
\end{equation}
and in particular,
\begin{equation}\label{minimaxBound}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{T^*+1})] - \inf_{H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \log^2 m \log^2{1\over \delta},
\end{equation}
where $T^* = \lceil m^{2\zeta+ \gamma+ 1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil.$
Here, $m_\delta$ is exactly the same as in Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{rem}
Ignoring the logarithmic term and letting $t = pm$, Eq. \eref{corTotalErr} becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{pm+1})] - \inf_{ H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim p^{-2\zeta} + m^{-{2\zeta + 2 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} p^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
A smaller $p$ may lead to a larger bias, while a larger $p$ may lead to a larger sample error.
From this point of view, $p$
has a regularization effect.
\end{rem}
The second corollary provides error bounds for SGM with a fixed mini-batch size and a fixed step-size (which depend on the number of sample points).
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:MbSGMB}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \geq 1/2$, $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b=\lceil {\sqrt{m}} \rceil$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1\over \sqrt{m}}$ for all $t \in [m^2]$.
If $m \geq m_\delta,$ then with probability at least $ 1- \delta$, there holds
\begin{equation}\label{corTotalErrB}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim \left\{ \Big({\sqrt{m} \over t} \Big)^{2\zeta} + m^{-{2\zeta +2 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \Big({t \over \sqrt{m}} \Big)^2 \right\} \log^2 m \log^2{1\over \delta}, \quad \forall t\in [m^2],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and particularly,
\begin{equation}\label{minimaxBoundB}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{T^*+1})] - \inf_{H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \log^2 m \log^2{1\over \delta} ,
\end{equation}
where $T^* = \lceil m^{{1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma} + {1\over 2} }\rceil.$
\end{corollary}
The above two corollaries follow from Theorem \ref{thm:main} with the simple observation that the dominating terms in \eref{mainTotalErr} are the terms related to the bias and the sample variance, when a small step-size is chosen.
The only free parameter in \eref{corTotalErr} and \eref{corTotalErrB} is the number of iterations/passes. The ideal stopping rule is achieved by balancing the two terms related to the bias and the sample variance, showing the regularization effect of the number of passes. Since the ideal stopping rule depends on the unknown parameters $\zeta$ and $\gamma$, a hold-out cross-validation procedure is often used to tune the stopping rule in practice.
Using an argument similar to that in Chapter 6 from \citep{steinwart2008support}, it is possible to show that this procedure can achieve the same convergence rate.
We give some further remarks. First,
the upper bound in \eref{minimaxBound} is optimal up to a logarithmic factor, in the sense that it matches the minimax lower rate in \citep{caponnetto2007optimal,blanchard2016optimal}.
Second, according to Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMB} and \ref{cor:MbSGMB}, $ {b T^*\over m} \simeq m^{1 \over 2\zeta+ \gamma} $ passes over the data are needed to obtain optimal rates in both cases. Finally, in comparing the simple SGM and the mini-batch SGM, Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMB} and \ref{cor:MbSGMB} show that a larger step-size is allowed to use for the latter.
In the next result, both the step-size and the stopping rule are tuned to obtain optimal rates for simple SGM with multiple passes. In this case, the step-size and the number of iterations are the regularization parameters.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:MPSGMA}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \geq 1/2$, $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b=1$ and $\eta_t \simeq m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+ \gamma}}$ for all $t \in [m^2].$
If $m \geq m_{\delta},$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{2\zeta+1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil, $
then \eref{minimaxBound} holds with probability at least $1- \delta.$
\end{corollary}
The next corollary shows that for some suitable mini-batch sizes, optimal rates can be achieved with a constant step-size (which is nearly independent of the number of sample points) by early stopping.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:MbSGMA}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \geq1/2,$ $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b=\lceil m^{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1 \over \log m}$ for all $t \in [m]$.
If $m \geq m_{\delta},$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{ 1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil, $
then \eref{minimaxBound} holds with probability at least $1- \delta.$
\end{corollary}
According to Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMA} and \ref{cor:MbSGMA}, around $m^{1 -\gamma \over 2\zeta+\gamma}$ passes over the data are needed to achieve the best performance in the above two strategies.
In comparisons with Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMB} and \ref{cor:MbSGMB} where around $m^{ \zeta + 1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}$ passes are required, the latter seems to require fewer passes over the data.
However, in this case, one might have to run the algorithms multiple times to tune the step-size, or the mini-batch size.
\begin{rem}
1) If we make no assumption on the capacity, i.e., $\gamma=1$, Corollary \ref{cor:MPSGMA} recovers the result in \citep{ying2008online} for one pass SGM.\\
2) If we make no assumption on the capacity and assume that $f_{\mathcal{H}} \in H_{\rho}$, from Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMA} and \ref{cor:MbSGMA}, we see that the optimal convergence rate $O(m^{-1/2})$ can be achieved after one pass over the data in both of these two strategies. In this special case, Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMA} and \ref{cor:MbSGMA} recover the results for one pass SGM in, e.g., \citep{shamir2013stochastic,dekel2012optimal}.
\end{rem}
The next result gives generalization error bounds for `batch' SGM with a constant step-size (nearly independent of the number of sample points).
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:BSGM}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \geq 1/2,$ $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b=m$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1 \over \log m}$ for all $t \in [m].$
If $m \geq m_{\delta},$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{ 1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil, $
then \eref{minimaxBound} holds with probability at least $1- \delta.$
\end{corollary}
Theorem \ref{thm:main} and its corollaries give convergence results with respect to the target function values. In the next theorem and corollary,
we will present convergence results in $H$-norm.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:hnorm}
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:main}, the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta:$ for all $t\in [T]$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:genBHnorm}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}[\|\omega_{t} - \omega^{\dag}\|_{H}^2] \leq q_1 (\eta t)^{1 - 2\zeta} + q_2 m^{-{2\zeta-1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} (1 + m^{-{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}}\eta t )^2\log^2 T\log^2 {1 \over \delta} + q_3 \eta^2 t b^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Here, $q_1,q_2$ and $q_3$ are positive constants depending on $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, v, \zeta, R,c_{\gamma}$, and $\gamma$ (which can be given explicitly in the proof).
\end{thm}
The proof of the above theorem is similar as that for Theorem \ref{thm:main}, and will be given in Subsection \ref{sec:hnorm}.
Again, the upper bound in \eref{eq:genBHnorm} is composed of three terms related to bias, sample variance, and computational variance.
Balancing these three terms leads to different choices on $\eta$, $T$, and $b$, as shown in the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:hnorm}
With the same assumptions and notations from any one of Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMB} to \ref{cor:BSGM}, the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta:$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}[\|\omega_{T^*+1} - \omega^{\dag}\|_{H}^2] \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta-1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \log^2 m\log^2 {1 \over \delta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{corollary}
The convergence rate in the above corollary is optimal up to a logarithmic factor, as it matches the minimax rate shown in \citep{blanchard2016optimal}.
In the next subsection, we will present convergence results in the non-attainable case, i.e., $\zeta < 1/2$.
\subsection{Main Results for SGM: Non-attainable Case}\label{subsec:main_non}
Our main theorem in the non-attainable case is stated next, and provides error bounds for the studied algorithm.
Here, we present results with a fixed step-size, whereas general results with a decaying step-size will be given in Section \ref{sec:deriveing}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:generalRateNonFix}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \leq 1/2$, $\delta \in]0,1[$, $\eta_t = \eta \kappa^{-2}$ for all $t \in [T],$ with $0<\eta \leq {1 \over 8(\log T+1)} $.
Then the following holds for all $t \in [T]$ with probability at least $1-\delta$:
1) if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$ and $m\geq m_{\delta},$ then
\begin{equation}\label{totalErrGenNonFixA}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{ H} \mathcal{E}
\leq \left( q_1 (\eta t)^{-2\zeta}
+ q_2 m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \right) (1 \vee m^{-{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \eta t )^3 \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta} \\
+ q_3\eta b^{-1} ( 1 \vee m^{-{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}}\eta t ) \log T ;
\end{split}
\end{equation}
2) if $2\zeta+\gamma\leq 1$ and for some $\epsilon\in]0,1[$, $m\geq m_{\delta,\epsilon}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{H} \mathcal{E}
\leq \left( q_1(\eta t)^{-2\zeta}
+ q_2 m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} \right) (1 \vee \eta m^{\epsilon-1} t )^3 \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta} \\
+ q_3 \eta b^{-1} ( 1 \vee m^{\epsilon-1}\eta t ) \log T .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray*}
Here, $m_{\delta}$ (or $m_{\delta,\epsilon}$), $q_1,q_2$ and $q_3$ are positive constants depending only on $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, v, \zeta, R,c_{\gamma},\gamma$, $\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}$, and $m_{\delta}$ (or $m_{\delta,\epsilon}$) also on $\delta$ (and $\epsilon$).
\end{thm}
The upper bounds in \eref{mainTotalErr} (for the attainable case) and \eref{totalErrGenNonFixA} (for the non-attainable case) are similar, whereas the latter has an extra logarithmic factor. Consequently, in the subsequent corollaries, we derive $O(m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \log^4 m)$ for the non-attainable case. In comparison with that for the attainable case, the convergence rate for the non-attainable case has an extra $\log^2 m$ factor.
Similar to Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMB} and \ref{cor:MbSGMB}, and as direct consequences of the above theorem, we have the following generalization error bounds for the studied algorithm with different choices of parameters in the non-attainable case.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:MPSGMBNon}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \leq 1/2$ , $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b=1$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1\over m}$ for all $t \in [m^2]$. With probability at least $1-\delta$, the following holds:\\
1) if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$, $m \geq m_{\delta}$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{ 1+2\zeta+\gamma \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil$, then
\begin{equation}\label{minimaxBoundNonA}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{T^*+1})] - \inf_{H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \log^4 m \log^2{1\over \delta};
\end{equation}
2) if $2\zeta+\gamma \leq 1$, and for some $\epsilon \in ]0,1[$, $m \geq m_{\delta, \epsilon}$, and
$T^* = \lceil m^{2 - \epsilon}\rceil,$
then
\begin{equation}\label{minimaxBoundNonB}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{T^*+1})] - \inf_{H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta}(1-\epsilon)} \log^4 m \log^2{1\over \delta}.
\end{equation}
Here, $m_\delta$ and $m_{\delta,\epsilon}$ are given by Theorem \ref{thm:generalRateNonFix}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \leq 1/2$ , $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b \simeq \sqrt{m}$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1\over \sqrt{m}}$ for all $t \in [m^2]$. With probability at least $1-\delta$, there holds\\
1) if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$, $m \geq m_{\delta}$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma} + {1 \over 2}} \rceil$, then \eref{minimaxBoundNonA} holds;\\
2) if $2\zeta+\gamma \leq 1$, for some $\epsilon \in ]0,1[$, $m \geq m_{\delta, \epsilon}$, and
$T^* = \lceil m^{{3\over 2} - \epsilon}\rceil,$
then \eref{minimaxBoundNonB} holds.
\end{corollary}
The convergence rates in the above corollaries, i.e., $m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}}$ if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$ or $m^{-{2\zeta(1-\epsilon)}}$ otherwise, match those in \citep{dieuleveut2014non} for one pass SGM with averaging, up to a logarithmic factor. Also, in the capacity independent case, i.e., $\gamma=1$, the convergence rates in the above corollary read as $m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+1}}$ (since $2\zeta+\gamma$ is always bigger than $1$), which are exactly the same as those in \citep{ying2008online} for one pass SGM.
Similar results to Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMA}--\ref{cor:BSGM} can be also derived
for the non-attainable case by applying Theorem \ref{thm:generalRateNonFix}. Refer to Appendix \ref{app:further} for more details.
\subsection{Main Results for Batch GM}\label{subsec:main_bgm}
In this subsection, we present convergence results for batch GM.
As a byproduct of our proofs in this paper, we have the following convergence rates for batch GM.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:bgmopt}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, set $\eta_t \simeq 1 $, for all $t \in [m].$ Let $T^* = \lceil m^{1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma} \rceil$ if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$, or $T^* = \lceil m^{1 -\epsilon} \rceil$ with $\epsilon\in]0,1[$ otherwise. Then with probability at least $1-\delta$ ($0< \delta < 1$), the following holds for the learning sequence generated by \eref{Alg2B}: \\
1) if $\zeta>1/2$ and $m \geq m_{\delta}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}(\nu_{T_*+1}) - \inf_{H} \mathcal{E} \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \log^2 m \log^2 {1\over \delta};
\end{eqnarray*}
2) if $\zeta\leq 1/2,$ $2\zeta+\gamma >1$ and $m \geq m_{\delta}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}(\nu_{T_*+1}) - \inf_{H} \mathcal{E} \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \log^4 m \log^2 {1\over \delta};
\end{eqnarray*}
3) if $2\zeta+\gamma\leq 1$ and $m\geq m_{\delta, \epsilon}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}(\nu_{T_*+1})
- \inf_{H} \mathcal{E} \lesssim m^{-{2\zeta(1-\epsilon)}} \log^4 m \log^2 {1\over \delta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
{Here, $m_{\delta}$ (or $m_{\delta,\epsilon}$), and all the constants in the upper bounds are positive and depend only on $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, v, \zeta, R,c_{\gamma},\gamma$, $\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}$, and $m_{\delta}$ (or $m_{\delta,\epsilon}$) also on $\delta$ (and $\epsilon$)}.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Discussions}\label{subsec:discussion}
We must compare our results with previous works.
For non-parametric regression with the square loss, one pass SGM has been studied in, e.g., \citep{ying2008online,shamir2013stochastic,tarres2014online,dieuleveut2014non}. In particular, \citet{ying2008online} proved capacity independent rate of order $O(m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta + 1}} \log m)$ with a fixed step-size $\eta \simeq m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+1}}$,
and \cite{dieuleveut2014non} derived capacity dependent error bounds of order $O(m^{-{2\min(\zeta,1) \over 2\min(\zeta,1) + \gamma}})$ (when $2\zeta + \gamma >1$) for the average. Note also that a regularized version of SGM has been studied in \citep{tarres2014online}, where the derived convergence rate is of order $O(m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta + 1}})$ assuming that $\zeta \in [{1\over 2},1].$ In comparison with these existing convergence rates, our rates from \eref{minimaxBound} are comparable, either involving the capacity condition, or allowing a broader regularity parameter $\zeta$ (which thus improves the rates).
For finite dimensional cases, it has been shown in \citep{bach2013non} that one pass SGM with averaging with a constant step-size achieves the optimal
convergence rate of $O(d/m).$ In comparisons, our results for multi-pass SGM with a smaller step-size seems to be suboptimal in the computational complexity, as we need $m$ passes over the data to achieve the same rate. \textcolor{black}{The reason for this may arise from ``the computational error" that will be introduced later, or the fact that we do not consider an averaging step as done in \citep{bach2013non}.}
We hope that in the future by considering a larger step-size and averaging, one can reduce the computational complexity of multi-pass SGM while achieving the same rate.
More recently, \citet{rosasco2015learning} studied multiple passes SGM with a fixed ordering at each pass, also called incremental gradient method.
Making no assumption on the capacity, rates of order $O(m^{-{\zeta \over \zeta +1}})$ (in $L^2(H,\rho_X)$-norm) with a universal step-size $\eta \simeq {1 / m}$ are derived. In comparisons, Corollary \ref{cor:MPSGMB} achieves better rates, while considering the capacity assumption.
Note also that \citet{rosasco2015learning} proved sharp rate in $H$-norm for $\zeta \geq 1/2$ in the capacity independent case.
In comparisons, we derive optimal capacity-dependent rate, considering mini-batches.
The idea of using mini-batches (and parallel implements) to speed up SGM in a general stochastic optimization setting can be found, e.g., in \citep{shalev2011pegasos,dekel2012optimal,sra2012optimization,ng2016machine}.
Our theoretical findings, especially the interplay between the mini-batch size and the step-size, can give further insights on parallelization learning.
Besides, it has been shown in \citep{cotter2011better,dekel2012optimal} that for one pass mini-batch SGM with a fixed step-size $\eta \simeq b/\sqrt{m}$ and a smooth loss function, assuming the existence of at least one solution in the hypothesis space for the expected risk minimization, the convergence rate is of order $O(\sqrt{1/m} + b/m)$ by considering an averaging scheme. When adapting to the learning setting we consider, this reads as that if $f_{\mathcal{H}} \in H_{\rho}$, i.e., $\zeta =1/2,$
the convergence rate for the average is $O(\sqrt{1/m} + b/m)$. Note that, $f_{\mathcal{H}}$ does not necessarily belong to $H_{\rho}$ in general. Also, our derived convergence rate from Corollary \ref{cor:MbSGMB} is better, when the regularity parameter $\zeta$ is greater than $1/2,$ or $\gamma$ is smaller than $1$.
For batch GM in the attainable case, convergent results with optimal rates have been derived in, e.g, \citep{bauer2007regularization,caponnetto2010cross,blanchard2016optimal,dicker2016kernel}. In particular, \cite{bauer2007regularization} proved convergence rates $O(m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+1}})$ without considering Assumption \ref{as:eigenvalues}, and \cite{caponnetto2010cross} derived convergence rates $O(m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}}).$ For the non-attainable case, convergent results with suboptimal rates $O(m^{-2\zeta \over 2\zeta+2 })$ can be found in \citep{yao2007early}, and to the best of our knowledge, the only result with optimal rate $O(m^{-2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma })$
is the one derived by \cite{caponnetto2010cross}, but the result requires extra unlabeled data. In contrast, Theorem \ref{thm:bgmopt} of this paper does not require any extra unlabeled data, while achieving the same optimal rates (up to a logarithmic factor). To the best of our knowledge, Theorem \ref{thm:bgmopt} may be the first optimal result in the non-attainable case for batch GM.
We end this discussion with some further comments on batch GM and simple SGM. First, according to Corollaries \ref{cor:simplfied} and \ref{cor:simplfiedGM}, it seems that both simple SGM (with step-size $\eta_t \simeq m^{-1}$) and batch GM (with step-size $\eta_t \simeq 1$) have the same computational complexities (which are related to the number of passes) and the same orders of upper bounds. However, there is a subtle difference between these two algorithms. As we see from \eref{unbias_index} in the coming subsection, every $m$ iterations of simple SGM (with step-size $\eta_t \simeq m^{-1}$) corresponds to one iteration of batch GM (with step-size $\eta_t \simeq 1$). In this sense, SGM discretizes and refines the regularization path of batch GM, which thus may lead to smaller generalization errors. This phenomenon can be further understood by comparing our derived bounds, \eref{mainTotalErr} and \eref{eq:bgmBound}, for these two algorithms. Indeed, if one can ignore the computational error, one can easily show that the minimization (over $t$) of right hand-side of \eref{mainTotalErr} with $\eta \simeq m^{-1}$ is always smaller than that of \eref{eq:bgmBound} with $\eta \simeq 1$.
At last, by Corollary \ref{cor:MbSGMA}, using a larger step-size for SGM allows one to stop earlier (while sharing the same optimal rates), which thus reduces the computational complexity. This suggests that SGM may have some computational advantage over batch GM.
\subsection{Proof Sketch (Error Decomposition)}\label{subsec:proSke}
{The key to our proof is a novel error decomposition, which may be also used in analysing other learning algorithms. One may also use the approach in \citep{bousquet2008tradeoffs,lin2015iterative,lin2016generalization} which is based on the following error decomposition,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E}
\mathcal{E}(\omega_t)-\inf_{H}\mathcal{E} =
[{\mathbb E} (\mathcal{E}(\omega_t)- \mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{z}}(\omega_t)) +{\mathbb E}\mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{z}}(\tilde \omega) - \mathcal{E}(\tilde \omega)]
+{\mathbb E}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{z}}(\omega_t)-\mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{z}}(\tilde \omega))
+ \mathcal{E}(\tilde \omega) -\inf_{H} \mathcal{E},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tilde{\omega}\in H$ is some suitably intermediate element and
$\mathcal{E}_{\mathbf{z}}$ denotes the empirical risk over $\bf z$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:emprisk}
\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\cdot) = {1\over m} \sum_{i=1}^m \left(\langle \cdot, x_i \rangle - y_i \right)^2.
\end{equation}
However, one can only derive a sub-optimal convergence rate, since the proof procedure involves upper bounding the learning sequence to estimate the sample error (the first term of right-hand side). Also, in this case, the `regularity' of the regression function can not be fully utilized for estimating the bias (the last term). Thanks to the property of squares loss, we can exploit a different error decomposition leading to better results.}
To describe the decomposition,
we need to introduce two sequences. The \emph{population iteration} is defined by $\mu_1 =0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Alg3B}
\mu_{t+1}=\mu_{t} - \eta_t \int_{X}(\langle \mu_{t}, x \rangle_{H} - f_{\rho}(x)) x d\rho_{X}(x), \qquad t=1, \ldots, T. \end{equation}
The above iterated procedure is ideal and can not be implemented in practice, since the distribution $\rho_{X}$ is unknown in general.
Replacing $\rho_{X}$ by the empirical measure and $f_{\rho}(x_i)$ by $y_i$, we derive the \emph{sample iteration} (associated with the sample $\bf z$), i.e., \eref{Alg2B}.
Clearly, $\mu_{t}$ is deterministic and $\nu_{t}$ is a $H$-valued random variable depending on $\bf z.$
Given the sample $\bf z$, the sequence $\{\nu_{t}\}_{t}$ has a natural relationship with the learning sequence $\{\omega_t\}_{t}$, since
\begin{equation}\label{unbias_index}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\omega_t] = \nu_t.
\end{equation}
Indeed, taking the expectation with respect to ${\bf J}_t$ on both sides of \eref{Alg}, and noting that
$\omega_{t}$ depends only on ${\bf J}_1,\cdots,{\bf J}_{t-1}$ (given any $\bf z$), one has
$$
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}_t}[\omega_{t+1}] = \omega_t - \eta_t {1 \over m}\sum_{i=1}^m( \langle \omega_t, x_i \rangle_{H} - y_{i}) x_i, $$
and thus,
$$
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\omega_{t+1}] = \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\omega_t] - \eta_t {1 \over m}\sum_{i=1}^m(\langle \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\omega_t], x_i \rangle_{H} - y_{i}) x_i , \quad t=1, \ldots, T, $$
which satisfies the iterative relationship given in \eref{Alg2B}. By an induction argument, \eref{unbias_index} can then be proved.
Let $\mathcal{S}_{\rho}: H \to L^2(H,\rho_X)$ be the linear map defined by
$(\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega)(x) = \langle \omega,x \rangle_{H}, \forall \omega,x \in H.$
We have the following error decomposition.
\begin{pro}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{errorDecompos}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_t)] - \inf_{ H}\mathcal{E}\leq 2\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2 + 2 \|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t}\|_{\rho}^2 + \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t}\|_{\rho}^2].
\end{equation}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
For any $\omega \in H$, we have \citep{rosasco2015learning}
$$
\mathcal{E}(\omega) - \inf_{\omega \in H}\mathcal{E}(\omega) = \|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2.
$$
Thus, $
\mathcal{E}(\omega_t) - \inf_{ H}\mathcal{E} = \|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2,
$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2] = \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t + \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2] \\
&& = \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t\|_{\rho}^2 + \|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2] + 2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}\langle \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t, \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - f_{\mathcal{H}} \rangle_{\rho}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using \eref{unbias_index} in the above equality,
we get,
$$
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2]
= \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t\|_{\rho}^2 + \|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2].
$$
The proof is finished by considering,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2 = \|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} + \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2 \leq 2\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t}\|_{\rho}^2 + 2\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
There are three terms in the upper bound of the error decomposition \eref{errorDecompos}.
We refer to
the deterministic term $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2$ as the {\it bias}, the term $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t}\|_{\rho}^2$ depending on $\bf z$ as the \emph{sample variance}, and $\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t\|_{\rho}^2]$ as the \emph{computational variance}. {The bias term, which is deterministic, has been well studied in the literature, see e.g., \citep{yao2007early} and also \citep{rosasco2015learning}. The main novelties of this paper are the estimate of the sample and
computational variances and the difficult part is the estimate of the computational variances.
The proof of these results is quite lengthy and makes use of some ideas from \citep{yao2007early,smale2007learning,bauer2007regularization,ying2008online,tarres2014online,rudi2015less}.
These three error terms will be estimated in Sections \ref{sec:biasSam} and \ref{sec:comp}.
The bounds in Theorems \ref{thm:main} and \ref{thm:generalRateNonFix} thus follow plugging these estimations in the error decomposition, see Section \ref{sec:deriveing} for more details.}
The proof for Theorem \ref{thm:hnorm} is similar, see Section \ref{sec:hnorm} for the details.
\section{Preliminary Analysis}\label{sec:estimates}
In this section, we introduce some notation and preliminary lemmas that are necessary to our proofs.
\subsection{Notation}
We first introduce some notations.
For $t \in \mathbb{N},$
$\Pi_{t+1}^T(L) = \prod_{k=t+1}^T (I - \eta_k L)$ for $t \in [T-1]$ and $\Pi_{T+1}^T(L) = I,$ for any operator $L: \mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H},$
where $\mathcal{H}$ is a Hilbert space and $I$ denotes the identity operator on $\mathcal{H}$.
$\mathbb{E}[\xi]$ denotes the expectation of a random variable $\xi.$
For a given bounded operator $L: L^2(H,\rho_X) \to H, $ $\|L\|$ denotes the operator norm of $L$, i.e., $\|L\| = \sup_{f\in L^2(H,\rho_X), \|f\|_{\rho}=1} \|Lf\|_{H}$.
We will use the conventional notations on summation and production: $\prod_{i=t+1}^t = 1$ and $\sum_{i=t+1}^t = 0.$
We next introduce some auxiliary operators. Let $\mathcal{S}_{\rho}: H \to L^2(H,\rho_X)$ be the linear map $\omega \to \langle \omega, \cdot \rangle_{H}$, which is bounded by $\kappa$ under Assumption \eref{boundedKernel}. Furthermore, we consider the adjoint operator $\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*: L^2(H,\rho_X) \to H$, the covariance operator $\mathcal{T}_{\rho}: H \to H$ given by $\mathcal{T}_{\rho} = \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* \mathcal{S}_{\rho}$, and the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\rho} : L^2(H,\rho_X) \to L^2(H,\rho_X)$ given by $\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*.$ It can be easily proved that $ \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*g = \int_X x g(x) d\rho_X(x)$
and $\mathcal{T}_{\rho} = \int_X \langle \cdot , x \rangle_{H} x d \rho_X(x).$
The operators $\mathcal{T}_{\rho}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ can be proved to be positive trace class operators (and hence compact).
For any $\omega \in H$,
it is easy to prove the following isometry property \citep{steinwart2008support}
\begin{equation}\label{isometry}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega \|_{\rho} = \|\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_{\rho}} \omega\|_{H}.
\end{equation}
We define the sampling operator $\mathcal{S}_{\bf x}: H \to \mathbb{R}^m$ by $(\mathcal{S}_{\bf x} \omega)_i = \langle \omega, x_i \rangle_{H},$ $i \in [m]$, where the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathbb{R}^m}$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$ is the Euclidean norm times $1/\sqrt{m}$.
Its adjoint operator $\mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*: \mathbb{R}^m \to H,$ defined by $\langle \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y}, \omega \rangle_{H} = \langle {\bf y}, \mathcal{S}_{\bf x} \omega\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^m}$ for ${\bf y} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is thus given by $\mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y} = {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m y_i x_i.$ Moreover, we can define the empirical covariance operator $\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}: H \to H$ such that $\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} = \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^* \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}$. Obviously,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} = {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m \langle \cdot, x_i \rangle_{H} x_i.
\end{eqnarray*}
With these notations, \eref{Alg3B} and \eref{Alg2B} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{Alg3}
\mu_{t+1}=\mu_{t} - \eta_t (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho}) , \qquad t=1, \ldots, T, \end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Alg2}
\nu_{t+1}=\nu_t - \eta_t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \nu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^* {\bf y}), \qquad t=1, \ldots, T, \end{equation}
respectively.
Using the projection theorem, one can prove that
\begin{equation}\label{frFH}
\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho} = \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, since $f_{\mathcal{H}}$ is the projection of the regression function $f_{\rho}$ onto the closure of $H_{\rho}$ in $L^2(H,\rho_X),$ according to the projection theorem, one has
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle f_{\mathcal{H}} - f_{\rho}, \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega \rangle_{\rho} =0, \qquad \forall \omega \in H,
\end{eqnarray*}
which can be written as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\mathcal{H}} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho}, \omega \rangle_{H} =0, \qquad \forall \omega \in H,
\end{eqnarray*}
and thus leading to \eref{frFH}.
\subsection{Concentration Inequality}
We need the following concentration result for Hilbert space valued random variable
used in \citep{caponnetto2007optimal} and based on the results in \citep{pinelis1986remarks}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Bernstein}
Let $w_1,\cdots,w_m$ be i.i.d random variables in a Hilbert space with norm $\|\cdot\|$. Suppose that
there are two positive constants $B$ and $\sigma^2$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{bernsteinCondition}
\mathbb{E} [\|w_1 - \mathbb{E}[w_1]\|^l] \leq {1 \over 2} l! B^{l-2} \sigma^2, \quad \forall l \geq 2.
\end{equation}
Then for any $0< \delta <1$, the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$,
$$ \left\| {1 \over m} \sum_{k=1}^m w_m - \mathbb{E}[w_1] \right\| \leq 2\left( {B \over m} + {\sigma \over \sqrt{ m }} \right) \log {2 \over \delta} .$$
In particular, \eref{bernsteinCondition} holds if
\begin{equation}\label{bernsteinConditionB}
\|w_1\| \leq B/2 \ \mbox{ a.s.}, \quad \mbox{and } \quad \mathbb{E} [\|w_1\|^2] \leq \sigma^2.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Basic Estimates}
Finally, we introduce the following three basic estimates, whose proofs can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:prov_estimates}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:estimate1}
Let $\theta\in [0,1[$, and $t\in\mathbb{N}$. Then
$$ {t^{1-\theta} \over 2} \leq \sum_{k=1}^{t} k^{-\theta} \leq
{t^{1 - \theta} \over 1-\theta}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:estimate1a}
Let $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$ and $t \in \mathbb{N} $.
Then $$ \sum_{k=1}^{t} k^{-\theta} \leq t^{\max(1-\theta,0)} (1+\log t).
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:estimate2}
Let $q \in \mathbb{R}$ and $t\in\mathbb{N}$ with $t\geq 3$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over t-k} k^{-q}
\leq 2 t^{-\min(q,1)} (1+\log t).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
{
In the next sections, we begin proving the main results. The proofs are quite lengthy and they are divided into several steps. For the ease of readability, we list some of the notations and definitions in Appendix \ref{sec:notations}. We also remark that
we are particularly interested in developing error bounds in terms of the stepsize $\eta_t$ ($=\eta_1 t^{-\theta}$), the number of iterations $t$ or $T$, the `regularization' parameter $\lambda>0$, the sample size $m$, the minibatch size $b$, and the failing profitability $\delta$.
Other parameters such as $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, v, R,c_{\gamma}$ and $\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}$ can be always viewed as some constants, which are less important in our error bounds.
}
\section{Estimating Bias and Sample Variance}\label{sec:biasSam}
In this section, we estimate the bias and the sample variance.
\subsection{Bias}\label{sec:initial}
In this subsection, we develop upper bounds for the bias, i.e., $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2$. Towards this end, we introduce the following lemma, whose proof borrows idea from \citep{ying2008online,tarres2014online}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:initialerror}
Let $L$ be a compact, positive operator on a separable Hilbert space $H$. Assume that $\eta_1 \|L\| \leq 1$. Then for $t\in \mathbb{N}$ and any non-negative integer $k \leq t - 1,$
\begin{equation}\label{initialerror_interm}
\| \Pi_{k+1}^t(L) L^{\zeta}\| \leq \left( \zeta \over \mathrm{e} \sum_{j=k+1}^t \eta_j \right)^{\zeta}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{\sigma_i\}$ be the sequence of eigenvalues of $L.$
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| \Pi_{k+1}^t(L) L^{\zeta}\| = \sup_{i} \prod_{l=k+1}^t (1 - \eta_l \sigma_i)\sigma_i^{\zeta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the basic inequality
\begin{equation}\label{expx}
1 + x \leq \mathrm{e}^{x} \qquad \mbox{for all } x \geq -1,
\end{equation}
with $\eta_l\|L\| \leq 1$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| \Pi_{k+1}^t(L) L^{\zeta}\| &\leq& \sup_i \exp\left\{ - \sigma_i \sum_{l=k+1}^t \eta_l\right\} \sigma_i^{\zeta} \\
&\leq &\sup_{x \geq 0} \exp\left\{ - x \sum_{l=k+1}^t \eta_l\right\} x^{\zeta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The maximum of the function $g(x) = \mathrm{e}^{-cx}x^{\zeta}$( with $c>0$) over $ \mathbb{R}_+ $ is achieved at $x_{\max}= \zeta/c,$ and thus
\begin{equation}\label{exppoly}
\sup_{x \geq 0} \mathrm{e}^{-cx} x^{\zeta} = \left({\zeta \over \mathrm{e}c} \right)^{\zeta}.
\end{equation}
Using this inequality, one can get the desired result \eref{initialerror_interm}.
\end{proof}
With the above lemma and Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1}, we can derive the following result for the bias.
\begin{pro}\label{pro:initialErr}
Under Assumption \ref{as:regularity}, let $\eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq 1$. Then, for any $t\in \mathbb{N},$
\begin{equation}\label{initialErrA}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho} \leq R \left( \zeta \over 2 \sum_{j=1}^t \eta_j \right)^{\zeta}.
\end{equation}
In particular, if $\eta_t = \eta t^{-\theta}$ for all $t\in \mathbb{N}$, with $\eta \in ]0,\kappa^{-2}]$ and $\theta \in [0,1[,$ then
\begin{equation}\label{initialErrB}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho} \leq R \zeta^{\zeta} \eta^{-\zeta} t^{(\theta-1)\zeta} .
\end{equation}
\end{pro}
The above result is essentially proved in \citep{yao2007early}, see also \citep{rosasco2015learning} when step-size is fixed. For the sake of completeness, we provide a proof in Appendix \ref{sec:prov_estimates}.
The following lemma gives upper bounds for the sequence $\{ \mu_{t}\}_{t\in \mathbb{N}}$ in $H$-norm. It will be used for the estimation on the sample variance in the next section.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:htInfty}
Under Assumption \ref{as:regularity}, let $\eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq 1$. The following holds for all $t\in \mathbb{N}$:\\
1) If $\zeta \geq 1/2,$
\begin{equation}\label{htInfty}
\| \mu_{t+1} \|_{H} \leq R \kappa^{2\zeta -1}.
\end{equation}
2) If $\zeta \in ]0,1/2],$
\begin{equation}\label{htInftyNon}
\| \mu_{t+1} \|_{H} \leq R\left\{ \kappa^{2\zeta-1 }\vee \left(\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k\right)^{{1\over 2} - \zeta} \right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:prov_estimates}.
The proof for a fixed step-size (i.e., $\eta_t = \eta$ for all $t$) can be also found in \citep{rosasco2015learning}. For a general step-size, the proof is similar. Note also that our proof for the non-attainable case is simpler than that in \citep{rosasco2015learning}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Sample Variance}\label{subsec:sam}
In this subsection, we estimate the sample variance, i.e., $\mathbb{E}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t \|_{\rho}^2].$
Towards this end, we need some preliminary analysis. We first introduce the following key inequality, which also provides the basic idea on estimating $\mathbb{E}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t\|_{\rho}^2].$
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ideaSample}
For all $t \in [T],$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{ideaSample}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} \leq \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \left\| \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{Nt}
N_k = (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \mu_k - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho}) - (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \mu_k - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y}), \qquad \forall k\in[T].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\nu_{t+1}$ and $\mu_{t+1}$ are given by \eref{Alg2} and \eref{Alg3}, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu_{t+1} - \mu_{t+1} &=& \nu_t - \mu_{t} + \eta_t \left\{ (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho}) - (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \nu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y}) \right\} \\
&=&(I - \eta_t \mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) (\nu_t - \mu_{t}) + \eta_t \left\{ (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho}) - (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y})\right\},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is exactly
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu_{t+1} - \mu_{t+1}= (I - \eta_t \mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) (\nu_t - \mu_{t}) + \eta_t N_t.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying this relationship iteratively, with $\nu_1 = \mu_1 =0,$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interm2}
\nu_{t+1} - \mu_{t+1} = \Pi_{1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) (\nu_1 - \mu_1) + \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k
= \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k.
\end{equation}
By \eref{isometry}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} = \left\| \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H},
\end{eqnarray*}
which leads to the desired result \eref{ideaSample}.
\end{proof}
The above lemma shows that in order to upper bound $\mathbb{E}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t}\|_{\rho}^2],$ one may only need to bound $\left\| \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H}.$
A detailed look at this latter term indicates that one may analyze the terms $\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})$ and $N_k$ separately, since $\mathbb{E}_{\bf z}[N_k] = 0$ and the properties of the deterministic sequence $\{\mu _k\}_k$ have been derived in Section \ref{sec:initial}. Moreover, to exploit the capacity condition from Assumption \ref{as:eigenvalues}, we estimate $\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H}$ (with $\lambda>0$ properly chosen later), rather than
$\|N_k\|_{H}$, as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lambdaNk}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\{N_t\}_t$ be as in \eref{Nt}. Then for any fixed $\lambda>0,$ and $T\geq 2,$ \\
1) if $\zeta \geq 1/2,$ with probability at least $1-\delta_1,$
the following holds for all $k \in \mathbb{N}:$
\begin{equation}\label{lambdaNk}
\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H} \leq
4 (R \kappa^{2\zeta} + \sqrt{M} ) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) \log{4 \over \delta_1}.
\end{equation}
2) if $\zeta \in ]0,1/2[,$ with probability at least $1-\delta_1,$ the following holds for all $k\in [T]:$
\begin{multline}
\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H} \leq
2\left( 3\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty} + 2\sqrt{M}+ \kappa R\right) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) \log{3T \over \delta_1} \\
+ {2 \kappa^2 R \left(\sum_{i=1}^{k} \eta_i\right)^{{1\over 2} - \zeta } \over m\sqrt{\lambda}} \log {3T \over \delta_1} + {2{\kappa} R \over \sqrt{m\lambda}} \left( 1 \over \sum_{i=1}^{k} \eta_i \right)^{\zeta} \log{3T \over \delta_1}.
\label{lambdaNkNon}\end{multline}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will apply Bernstein inequality from Lemma \ref{lem:Bernstein} to prove the result.\\
{\bf Attainable Case: $\zeta \geq 1/2$.} See Appendix \ref{sec:prov_estimates} for the proof.\\
{\bf Non-attainable case: $0<\zeta <1/2$.} \\
Let $w_i = (f_{\mathcal{H}}(x_i)-y_i)(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1/2}x_i,$ for all $i\in[m].$ Noting that by \eref{frFH}, and taking the expectation with respect to the random variable $(x,y)$ (from the distribution $\rho$),
$$\mathbb{E}[\omega] = \mathbb{E}[(f_{\mathcal{H}}(x)-f_{\rho}(x))(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1/2}x] = 0.$$
Applying H\"{o}lder's inequality, for any $l\geq 2,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{E}[\|w - \mathbb{E}[w]\|_{H}^l] = \mathbb{E}[\|w\|_{H}^l]
\leq 2^{l-1} \mathbb{E}[(|f_{\mathcal{H}}(x)|^l + |y|^l)\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}x\|_{H}^l]\\
&& \leq 2^{l-1} \int_X(\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}^l + \int_Y|y|^l d\rho(y|x))\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}x\|_{H}^ld\rho_X(x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Using Cauchy-Schwarz's inequality and Assumption \ref{as:noiseExp} which implies,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ymoment}
\int_{Y} y^l d\rho(y|x) \leq \left(\int_{Y} |y|^{2l} d\rho(y|x)\right)^{1\over 2} \leq \sqrt{l! M^{l} v} \leq l! (\sqrt{M})^{l} \sqrt{ v},
\end{equation}
we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interm1}
\mathbb{E}[\|w - \mathbb{E}[w]\|_{H}^l] \leq 2^{l-1} (\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}^l + l!(\sqrt{M})^l \sqrt{v}) \int_{X} \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}x\|_{H}^l d\rho_X(x).
\end{equation}
By Assumption \eref{boundedKernel},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:int1}\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+ \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} x\|_{H} \leq {\|x\|_{H} \over \sqrt{\lambda}} \leq {\kappa \over \sqrt{\lambda}}.\end{equation}
Besides, using the fact that $\mathbb{E}[\|\xi\|_{H}^2] = \mathbb{E}[\operatorname{tr}(\xi \otimes \xi)] = \operatorname{tr}(\mathbb{E}[\xi \otimes \xi])$
and $\mathbb{E}[x \otimes x] = \mathcal{T}_{\rho},$ we know that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{X} \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} x\|_{H}^2 d\rho_{X}(x) = \operatorname{tr}((\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+ \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} \mathcal{T}_{\rho} (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+ \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}}) = \operatorname{tr}((\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+ \lambda I)^{-1} \mathcal{T}_{\rho}),
\end{eqnarray*}
and as a result of the above and Assumption \ref{as:eigenvalues},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{X} \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} x\|_{H}^2 d\rho_{X}(x) \leq c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It thus follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xmoment}
\int_{X} \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}x\|_{H}^l d\rho_X(x) \leq \left( {\kappa \over \sqrt{\lambda}}\right)^{l-2} \int_{X} \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}x\|_{H}^2 d\rho_X(x) \leq \left( {\kappa \over \sqrt{\lambda}}\right)^{l-2} c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}.
\end{equation}
Plugging the above inequality into \eref{eq:interm1},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\|w - \mathbb{E}[w]\|_{H}^l] &\leq& 2^{l-1} (\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}^l + l!(\sqrt{M})^l \sqrt{v}) \left({\kappa \over \sqrt{\lambda}}\right)^{l-2} c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}\\
&\leq& {1 \over 2} l! \left({2\kappa(\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}+\sqrt{M}) \over \sqrt{\lambda}}\right)^{l-2} 4c_{\gamma}\sqrt{v}(\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}+\sqrt{M})^2\lambda^{-\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, using Lemma \ref{lem:Bernstein}, we get that with probability at least $1-\delta,$
\begin{align}\label{eq:int3}
\left\| (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}}{1\over m} \sum_{i=1}^{m}\left(f_{\mathcal{H}}(x_i) - y_i\right)x_i \right\|_{H}
=& \left\| {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m (\mathbb{E}[w_i] - w_i) \right\|_{H}\nonumber \\
\leq& 4 (\sqrt{M} + \|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ \sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) \log{2 \over \delta}.
\end{align}
We next let $\xi_i = (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}(\langle \mu_k,x_i\rangle - f_{\mathcal{H}}(x_i))x_i,$ for all $i\in [m]$. We assume that $k \geq 2$. (The proof for the case $k=1$ is simpler as $\mu_1=0$.)
It is easy to see that the expectation of each $\xi_i$ with respect to the random variable $(x_i,y_i)$ is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\xi]=(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\mu_k - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*f_{\mathcal{H}}) = (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\mu_k - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*f_{\rho}),
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\xi\|_{H} \leq (\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_k\|_{\infty} + \|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}) \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}x\|_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By Assumption \eref{boundedKernel}, $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_k\|_{\infty} \leq \kappa \|\mu_k\|_{H}$.
It thus follows from the above and \eref{eq:int1} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\xi\|_{H} \leq (\kappa\|\mu_k\|_{H} + \|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}) {\kappa \over \sqrt{\lambda}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Besides,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}\|\xi\|_{H}^2 \leq {\kappa^2 \over \lambda} \mathbb{E}(\mu_k(x) - f_{\mathcal{H}}(x))^2 = {\kappa^2 \over \lambda} \|\mathcal{S}_{\rho}\mu_{k} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho}^2 \leq {\kappa^2R^2 \over \lambda} \left( \zeta \over 2 \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \eta_i \right)^{2\zeta} \leq {\kappa^2R^2 \over \lambda} \left( 1 \over \sum_{i=1}^{k} \eta_i \right)^{2\zeta},
\end{eqnarray*}
where for the last inequality, we used \eref{initialErrA}. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:Bernstein} and \eref{htInftyNon}, we get that with probability at least $1-\delta,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}[{1\over m}\sum_{i=1}^m(\mu_k(x_i) - f_{\mathcal{H}}(x_i))x_i - (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\mu_k - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*f_{\rho})]\right\|_{H} \\
&\leq& 2{\kappa} \left( {\kappa\|\mu_{k}\|_{H} + \|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty} \over m\sqrt{\lambda}} + {R \over \sqrt{m\lambda}} \left( 1 \over \sum_{i=1}^{k} \eta_i \right)^{\zeta} \right) \log{2 \over \delta}\\
&\leq& 2{\kappa} \left( {\kappa R + \|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty} \over m\sqrt{\lambda}}+ {\kappa R \left( \sum_{i=1}^{k} \eta_i\right)^{{1\over 2} - \zeta} \over m\sqrt{\lambda}} + {R \over \sqrt{m\lambda}} \left( 1 \over \sum_{i=1}^{k} \eta_i \right)^{\zeta} \right) \log{2 \over \delta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Introducing the above estimate and \eref{eq:int3} into the following inequality
\begin{multline*}
\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2} N_k\|_{H} \leq \left\| (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}}{1\over m} \sum_{i=1}^{m}\left(f_{\mathcal{H}}(x_i) - y_i\right)x_i \right\|_{H} \\
+ \left\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+\lambda)^{-1/2}[{1\over m}\sum_{i=1}^m(\mu_k(x_i) - f_{\mathcal{H}}(x_i))x_i - (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\mu_k - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*f_{\rho})]\right\|_{H},
\end{multline*}
and then substituting with \eref{htInftyNon}, by a simple calculation, one can prove the desired result by scaling $\delta.$
\end{proof}
The next lemma is from \cite{rudi2015less}, and is derived applying a recent Bernstein inequality from \citep{tropp2012user,minsker2011some} for a sum of random operators.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:differOperator}
Let $\delta_2 \in (0,1)$ and ${9\kappa^2 \over m} \log {m \over \delta_2} \leq \lambda \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|.$ Then
the following holds with probability at least $1 - \delta_2,$
\begin{equation}\label{differOperator}
\|(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2} \| \leq \|(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda I)^{1\over 2} \| \leq 2.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Now we are in a position to estimate the sample variance.
\begin{pro}\label{pro:sampleErrA}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq 1$ and $0<\lambda \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|$. Assume that \eref{differOperator} holds. Then for all $t\in [T]:$\\
1) if $\zeta \geq 1/2,$ and \eref{lambdaNk} hold, then for $t\in \mathbb{N},$
\begin{equation}\label{gSampleErr}
\begin{split}
&\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} \\
\leq& 4 (R \kappa^{2\zeta} + \sqrt{M} ) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) \left( \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { 2\eta_k \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + 4 \lambda \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \eta_k + \sqrt{2} \kappa^2 \eta_t\right) \log {4 \over \delta_1}.
\end{split}\end{equation}
2) if $\zeta < 1/2,$ and \eref{lambdaNkNon} hold for any $t\in [T]$, then for $t\in [T]:$
\begin{multline}\label{gSampleErrNon}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} \leq \left( \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { 2\eta_k \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + 4\lambda \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \eta_k + \sqrt{2} \kappa^2 \eta_t\right) \\
\times \left(2\left( 3\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty} + 3\sqrt{M}+ \kappa R \right) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) + {2\kappa^2 R \left(\sum_{i=1}^t \eta_i\right)^{{1\over 2} - \zeta } \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} \right) \log {3T \over \delta_1} \\
+ {2{\kappa} R \over \sqrt{m\lambda}} \log{3T \over \delta_1} \left(\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { 2 \eta_k \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k \eta_i \right)^{\zeta} \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + 4 \lambda \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {\eta_k \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k \eta_i \right)^{\zeta}} + {\sqrt{2} \kappa^2 \eta_t \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^t \eta_i \right)^{\zeta}}\right).
\end{multline}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
For notational simplicity, we let $\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda} = \mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda I$ and $\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda} = \mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I.$
Note that by Lemma \ref{lemma:ideaSample}, we have \eref{ideaSample}.
When $k\in [t-1]$, by rewriting $\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k$ as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2} \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{-{1\over 2} } \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{1\over 2} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{1\over 2} \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{- {1\over 2}} \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{1\over 2} \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_k,
\end{eqnarray*}
we can upper bound $\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\|_{H}$ as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2} \Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\|_{H} \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2} \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{-{1\over 2} } \| \|\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{1\over 2} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{1\over 2}\| \| \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{- {1\over 2}} \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{1\over 2}\| \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying \eref{differOperator}, the above can be relaxed as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2} \Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\|_{H} \leq 4 \|\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{1\over 2} \Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}^{1\over 2}\| \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is equivalent to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{1 \over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\|_{H} \leq 4 \|\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda} \Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, following from $\eta_k \kappa^2 \leq 1$ which implies $\eta_k \|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}\| \leq 1,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| &\leq& \|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| + \|\lambda \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|
\\ &\leq& \|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| + \lambda.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lemma:initialerror} with $\zeta=1$ to bound $\|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| \leq { 1 \over \mathrm{e} \sum_{j=k+1}^t \eta_j} + \lambda.
\end{eqnarray*}
When $k=t$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\|_{H} = \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2} N_t\|_{H} \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\| \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{1\over 2}\| \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_t\|_{H} \\
\leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|^{1 \over 2} ( \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\| + \lambda)^{1\over 2} \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_t\|_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\lambda \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\| \leq \operatorname{tr}(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}) \leq \kappa^2,$ we derive
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2} \Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_t\|_{H} \leq \sqrt{2} \kappa^2 \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_t\|_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
From the above analysis, we see that $\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \left\| \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H}$ can be upper bounded by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\leq \left( \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { \eta_k/2 \| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H} \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + \lambda \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \eta_k\| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_k\|_{H} + \sqrt{2} \kappa^2 \eta_t\| \mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}} N_t\|_{H} \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Plugging \eref{lambdaNk} (or \eref{lambdaNkNon}) into the above, and then combining with \eref{ideaSample}, we get the desired bound \eref{gSampleErr} (or \eref{gSampleErrNon}).
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Setting $\eta_t = \eta_1 t^{-\theta}$ in the above proposition, with the basic estimates from Section \ref{sec:estimates}, we get the following explicit bounds for the sample variance.
\begin{pro}
\label{pro:sampleErrB}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\eta_t = \eta_1 t^{-\theta}$ with $\eta_1 \in ]0,\kappa^{-2}]$ and $\theta \in [0,1[.$
Assume that \eref{differOperator} holds.
Then the following holds for all $t\in [T]$ and any $0<\lambda \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|$:\\
1) If $\zeta \geq 1/2,$ and \eref{lambdaNk} holds for all $t \in [T],$
\begin{equation}\label{gSampleErrB}
\begin{split}
&\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} \\
\leq& 4 (R \kappa^{2\zeta} + \sqrt{M} ) \left( {8\lambda\eta_1 t^{1-\theta}\over 1-\theta} + 4\log t + 4+ \sqrt{2}\eta_1 \kappa^2 \right) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) \log {4 \over \delta_1}.
\end{split}\end{equation}
2) If $\zeta < 1/2,$ and \eref{lambdaNkNon} holds for all $t \in [T],$
\begin{multline}\label{gSampleErrBNon}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} \leq \left( {8\lambda\eta_1 t^{1-\theta}\over 1-\theta} + 4\log t + 4+ \sqrt{2}\eta_1 \kappa^2 \right) \log {3T \over \delta_1}\\
\times \left(2\left( 3\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty} + 3\sqrt{M}+ \kappa R\right) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) + \left( {\kappa \over 1-\theta} \sqrt{ {\eta_1 t^{1-\theta} \over m}}
+ 1 \right){4{\kappa} R \over \sqrt{m\lambda}} {1\over (\eta_1t^{1-\theta})^{\zeta}} \right).
\end{multline}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{pro:sampleErrA}, we have \eref{gSampleErr} or \eref{gSampleErrNon}.
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { \eta_k \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} = \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { k^{-\theta} \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t i^{-\theta}} \leq \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { k^{-\theta} \over (t-k) t^{-\theta}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:estimate2}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { \eta_k \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} \leq 2+ 2\log t,
\end{eqnarray*}
and by Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1}\eta_k = \eta_1 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} k^{-\theta} \leq {2 \eta_1 t^{1-\theta} \over 1-\theta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Introducing the last two estimates into \eref{gSampleErr} and \eref{gSampleErrNon}, one can get \eref{gSampleErrB} and that
\begin{multline*}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} \leq \left( {8\lambda\eta_1 t^{1-\theta}\over 1-\theta} + 4 \log t + 4 + \sqrt{2}\eta_1 \kappa^2 \right) \\
\times \left(2\left( 3\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty} + 3\sqrt{M}+ \kappa R\right) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) + {4\kappa^2 R\left(\eta_1 t^{1-\theta}\right)^{{1\over 2} - \zeta} \over (1-\theta) m \sqrt{\lambda}} \right) \log {3T \over \delta_1} \\
+ {2{\kappa} R \over \sqrt{m\lambda}} \log{3T \over \delta_1} \left(\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { 2\eta_k \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k \eta_i \right)^{\zeta} \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + 4\lambda \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {\eta_k \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k \eta_i \right)^{\zeta}} + {\sqrt{2} \kappa^2 \eta_t \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^t \eta_i \right)^{\zeta}}\right).
\end{multline*}
To prove \eref{gSampleErrBNon}, it remains to estimate the last term of the above. Again, using Lemmas \ref{lem:estimate1}, \ref{lem:estimate1a} and \ref{lem:estimate2}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { \eta_k \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k \eta_i \right)^{\zeta} \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} = {1 \over \eta_1^{\zeta}}\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} { k^{-\theta} \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k i^{-\theta} \right)^{\zeta} \sum_{i=k+1}^t i^{-\theta}} \\
&\leq& {1 \over \eta_1^{\zeta}} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {k^{-\theta} \over (k^{1-\theta}/2)^\zeta (t-k) t^{-\theta}} = {2^{\zeta} \over \eta_1^{\zeta}}t^{\theta} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {k^{-(\theta + \zeta(1-\theta))} \over t-k }\\
&\leq& {2^{\zeta} \over \eta_1^{\zeta}} t^{\theta} 2 t^{-(\theta+\zeta(1-\theta))} (1 + \log t) \leq {4 (1 + \log t) \over (\eta_1t^{1-\theta})^{\zeta}},
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {\eta_k \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k \eta_i \right)^{\zeta}} = \eta_1^{1-\zeta} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {k^{-\theta} \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^k i^{-\theta} \right)^{\zeta}} \leq 2^{\zeta} \eta_1^{1-\zeta} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} k^{-(\theta+\zeta(1-\theta))} \leq {2(\eta_1t^{1-\theta})^{1-\zeta} \over (1-\theta)}, \quad \mbox{and}
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
{ \eta_t \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^t \eta_i \right)^{\zeta}} = { \eta_1 t^{-\theta} \over \left(\sum_{i=1}^t \eta_1 i^{-\theta} \right)^{\zeta}} \leq 2^{\zeta} {\eta_1 t^{-\theta} \over (\eta_1 t^{1-\theta})^{\zeta}} \leq {\sqrt{2}\eta_1 \over (\eta_1 t^{1-\theta})^{\zeta}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{multline*}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho} \leq \left( {8\lambda\eta_1 t^{1-\theta}\over 1-\theta} + 4 \log t + 4+ \sqrt{2}\eta_1 \kappa^2 \right) \\
\times \left(2\left( 3\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty} + 3\sqrt{M}+ \kappa R\right) \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) + {4\kappa^2R\left(\eta_1 t^{1-\theta}\right)^{{1\over 2} - \zeta} \over (1-\theta) m \sqrt{\lambda}} \right) \log {3T \over \delta_1} \\
+ {2{\kappa} R \over \sqrt{m\lambda}} \log{3T \over \delta_1} \left(8 + 8\log t + {8\lambda\eta_1t^{1-\theta} \over 1-\theta} + 2\kappa^2 \eta_1\right) {1\over (\eta_1t^{1-\theta})^{\zeta}}.
\end{multline*}
Rearranging terms, we can prove the second part.
\end{proof}
In conclusion, we get the following result for the sample variance.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:sampleErr}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\delta_1, \delta_2 \in]0,1[$ and ${9\kappa^2 \over m} \log {m \over \delta_2} \leq \lambda \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|.$ Let $\eta_t = \eta_1 t^{-\theta}$ for all $t \in [T],$ with $\eta_1 \in ]0,\kappa^{-2}]$ and $\theta \in [0,1[.$
Then with probability at least $1 - \delta_1 - \delta_2,$ the following holds for all $t\in [T]:$\\
1) if $\zeta \geq 1/2$, we have \eref{gSampleErrB}. \\
2) if $\zeta <1/2,$ we have \eref{gSampleErrBNon}.
\end{thm}
\section{Estimating Computational Variance}\label{sec:comp}
In this section, we estimate the computational variance, $\mathbb{E}[\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t\|_{\rho}^2]$.
For this, a series of lemmas is introduced.
\subsection{Cumulative Error}
We have the following lemma, which shows that the computational variance can be controlled by a sum of weighted empirical risks.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cul_err} We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cul_err}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2
\leq {\kappa^2 \over b} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_{k}^2 \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_k)].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\omega_{t+1}$ and $\nu_{t+1}$ are given by \eref{Alg} and \eref{Alg2}, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_{t+1} - \nu_{t+1} &=& (\omega_t - \nu_t) + \eta_t \left\{ (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \nu_t - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\mathbf y} ) - {1\over b} \sum_{i=b(t-1)+1}^{bt} (\langle \omega_t, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) x_{j_i}\right\} \\
&=& (I - \eta_t \mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) (\omega_t - \nu_t) + {\eta_t \over b} \sum_{i=b(t-1)+1}^{bt} \left\{ (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\mathbf y} ) - (\langle \omega_t, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) x_{j_i}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying this relationship iteratively,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_{t+1} - \nu_{t+1} = \Pi^t_1(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) (\omega_1 - \nu_1) + {1 \over b} \sum_{k=1}^t \sum_{i=b(k-1)+1}^{bk} \eta_k \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i},
\end{eqnarray*}
where we denote
\begin{equation}\label{Mk}
M_{k,i} = (\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \omega_k - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\mathbf y} ) - ( \langle \omega_{k}, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) x_{j_i}.
\end{equation}
Since $\omega_1 = \nu_1=0,$ then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_{t+1} - \nu_{t+1} = {1 \over b} \sum_{k=1}^t \sum_{i=b(k-1)+1}^{bk} \eta_k \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\nu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2 &=& {1 \over b^2} \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left\| \sum_{k=1}^t \sum_{i=b(k-1)+1}^{bk} \eta_k\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i} \right\|_{\rho}^2 \nonumber \\
&=& {1 \over b^2}\sum_{k=1}^t \sum_{i=b(k-1)+1}^{bk} \eta_{k}^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i} \right\|_{\rho}^2, \label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where for the last equality, we use the fact that if $k\neq k',$ or $k=k'$ but $i\neq i'$\footnote{This is possible only when $b \geq 2$.}, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \langle \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i}, \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k'+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k',i'} \rangle_{\rho} = 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Indeed, if $k\neq k',$ without loss of generality, we consider the case $k< k'.$ Recalling that $M_{k,i}$ is given by \eref{Mk} and that given any $\bf z$, $\omega_{k}$ is depending only on ${\bf J}_1,\cdots,{\bf J}_{k-1},$
we thus have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \langle \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i} , \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \Pi^t_{k'+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k',i'} \rangle_{\rho} \\
&&= \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}_1,\cdots,{\bf J}_{k'-1}} \langle \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i} , \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k'+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}_{k'}}[M_{k',i'}] \rangle_{\rho} = 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $k=k'$ but $i\neq i',$
without loss of generality, we assume $i<i'.$
By noting that $\omega_{k}$ is depending only on ${\bf J}_1,\cdots,{\bf J}_{k-1}$ and $M_{k,i}$ is depending only on $\omega_{k}$ and $z_{j_i}$ (given any sample ${\bf z}$),
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \langle \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i} , \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i'} \rangle_{\rho} \\
&&= \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}_1,\cdots,{\bf J}_{k-1}} \langle \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \mathbb{E}_{j_i}[ M_{k,i}] , \mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k'+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \mathbb{E}_{j_{i'}}[M_{k,i'}] \rangle_{\rho} = 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the isometry property \eref{isometry} to \eref{eq1},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}\left\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i} \right\|_{\rho}^2 = \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) M_{k,i} \right\|_{H}^2 \leq \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left\|M_{k,i} \right\|_{H}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and by applying the inequality $\mathbb{E}[\|\xi - \mathbb{E}[\xi]\|_{H}^2] \leq \mathbb{E}[\|\xi\|_{H}^2]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left\|M_{k,i} \right\|_{H}^2 \leq \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left \| (\langle \omega_k, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) x_{j_i}\right\|_{H}^2
\leq \kappa^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[(\langle \omega_k, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i})^2 ] = \kappa^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_k)],
\end{eqnarray*}
where for the last inequality we use \eref{boundedKernel}. Therefore, we can get the desired result.
\end{proof}
To estimate the computational variance from \eref{eq:cul_err}, we need to further develop upper bounds for the empirical risks and the weighted factors, which will be given in the following two subsections.
\subsection{Bounding the Empirical Risk}
This subsection is devoted to upper bounding $\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l)]$. The process relies on some tools from convex analysis and a decomposition related to the weighted averages and the last iterates from \citep{shamir2013stochastic,lin2015iterative}. We begin by introducing the following lemma, a fact based on the square loss' special properties.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:mfejer} Given any sample $\bf z,$ and $l\in \mathbb{N}$, let $\omega\in H$ be independent from ${\bf J}_l$, then
\begin{equation}\label{mfejer}
\eta_l \left( \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega) \right)
\leq \|\omega_{l}- \omega\|_{H}^2 - \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}_l}\|\omega_{l+1}- \omega\|_{H}^2 + \eta_l^2 \kappa^2 \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\omega_{t+1}$ is given be \eref{Alg}, subtracting both sides of \eref{Alg} by $\omega$, taking the square $H$-norm, and expanding the inner product,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\omega_{l+1} - \omega\|_{H}^2 = \|\omega_{l} - \omega\|_{H}^2 + {\eta_l^2 \over b^2} \left\| \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) x_{j_i} \right\|_{H}^2 \\
+ {2\eta_l \over b} \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i}\rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) \langle \omega - \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By Assumption \eref{boundedKernel}, $\|x_{j_i}\|_{H} \leq \kappa$, and thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\| \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) x_{j_i} \right\|_{H}^2
&\leq& \left(\sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} |\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}| \kappa\right)^2 \\
&\leq& \kappa^2 b \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i})^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
where for the last inequality, we used Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\omega_{l+1}- \omega\|_{H}^2
\leq \|\omega_{l} - \omega \|_{H}^2 + { \eta_l^2 \kappa^2 \over b} \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i}\rangle_{H} - y_{j_i})^2 \\
+ {2\eta_l \over b} \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i}) (\langle \omega, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H}- \langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the basic inequality $a(b-a) \leq (b^2 - a^2)/2,\forall a,b \in \mathbb{R},$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\omega_{l+1}- \omega\|_{H}^2
\leq \|\omega_{l}- \omega\|_{H}^2 + { \eta_l^2\kappa^2 \over b} \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i})^2 \\
+ {\eta_l \over b} \sum_{i=b(l-1)+1}^{bl} \left( (\langle \omega, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i})^2 - (\langle \omega_l, x_{j_i} \rangle_{H} - y_{j_i})^2 \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Noting that $\omega_{l}$ and $\omega$ are independent from ${\bf J}_l$, and taking the expectation on both sides with respect to ${\bf J}_l,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}_l}\|\omega_{l+1}- \omega\|_{H}^2
\leq \|\omega_{l}- \omega\|_{H}^2 + \eta_l^2 \kappa^2 \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l) + \eta_l \left( \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l) \right),
\end{eqnarray*}
which leads to the desired result by rearranging terms. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Using the above lemma and a decomposition related to the weighted averages and the last iterates from \citep{shamir2013stochastic,lin2015iterative}, we can prove the following relationship.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:empiricalRelat}
Let $\eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq 1/2$ for all $t \in \mathbb{N}.$ Then
\begin{equation}\label{empiricalRelat}
\eta_t \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)] \leq 4\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) {1 \over t} \sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l + 2\kappa^2 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $k=1, \cdots, t-1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& {1 \over k} \sum_{i=t-k+1}^{t} \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] - {1 \over k+1} \sum_{i=t-k}^t \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] \\
&=& {1 \over k(k+1)} \left\{ (k+1)\sum_{i=t-k+1}^{t} \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] - k \sum_{i=t-k}^t \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] \right\}\\
& =& {1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k+1}^{t} (\eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] - \eta_{t-k} \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k})]) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Summing over $k=1, \cdots, t-1$, and rearranging terms, we get \citep{lin2015iterative}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_t \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)] = {1 \over t} \sum_{i=1}^t \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] + \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k+1}^{t} (\eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] - \eta_{t-k} \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k})]) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\{\eta_t\}_t$ is decreasing and $\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k})]$ is non-negative, the above can be relaxed as
\begin{equation}\label{decomposition}
\eta_t \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)] \leq {1 \over t} \sum_{i=1}^t \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] + \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k+1}^{t} \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k})] .
\end{equation}
In the rest of the proof, we will upper bound the last two terms of the above.
To bound the first term of the right side of \eref{decomposition}, we apply Lemma \ref{lemma:mfejer} with $\omega=0$ to get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_l \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left( \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) \right)
\leq \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\|\omega_{l}\|_{H}^2 - \|\omega_{l+1}\|_{H}^2] + \eta_l^2 \kappa^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l)].
\end{eqnarray*}
Rearranging terms,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_l (1 - \eta_l \kappa^2) \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[ \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l)]
\leq \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\|\omega_{l}\|_{H}^2 - \|\omega_{l+1}\|_{H}^2] + \eta_l \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0).
\end{eqnarray*}
It thus follows from the above and $\eta_l \kappa^2 \leq 1/2$ that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_l \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l)]/2 \leq \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|\omega_{l}\|_{H}^2 - \|\omega_{l+1}\|_{H}^2] + \eta_l \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0).
\end{eqnarray*}
Summing up over $l=1,\cdots,t,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l)]/2 \leq \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\|w_1\|_{H}^2 - \|\omega_{t+1}\|_{H}^2] + \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) \sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l .
\end{eqnarray*}
Introducing with $\omega_1=0, \|\omega_{t+1}\|_{H}^2\geq 0$, and then multiplying both sides by $2/t,$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{averageBound}
{1 \over t} \sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_l)] \leq 2 \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) {1 \over t} \sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l .
\end{equation}
It remains to bound the last term of \eref{decomposition}. Let $k \in [t-1]$ and $i\in \{t-k,\cdots, t\}.$ Note that given the sample $\bf z,$ $\omega_i$ is depending only on ${\bf J}_1,\cdots, {\bf J}_{i-1}$ when $i>1$ and $\omega_1=0.$
Thus, we can apply Lemma \ref{lemma:mfejer} with $\omega=\omega_{t-k}$ to derive
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_i \left( \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k}) \right)
\leq \|\omega_{i}-\omega_{t-k}\|_{H}^2 - \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}_i}\|\omega_{i+1}-\omega_{t-k}\|_{H}^2 + \eta_i^2 \kappa^2 \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}\left[ \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k}) \right]
\leq \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\|\omega_{i}-\omega_{t-k}\|_{H}^2 -\|\omega_{i+1}-\omega_{t-k}\|_{H}^2] + \eta_i^2 \kappa^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)].
\end{eqnarray*}
Summing up over $i=t-k,\cdots, t,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=t-k}^t \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left [ \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k}) \right]
\leq \kappa^2 \sum_{i=t-k}^t \eta_i^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)].
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the left hand side is exactly $\sum_{i=t-k+1}^t \eta_i \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} \left[ \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i) - \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k}) \right]$.
We thus know that the last term of \eref{decomposition} can be upper bounded by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\kappa^2 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^t \eta_i^2\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] \\
&=& \kappa^2 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] + \kappa^2 \eta_t^2\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)] \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} = \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \left({1 \over k} - {1 \over k+1}\right) = 1 - {1\over t} \leq 1,
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\kappa^2 \eta_t \leq 1/2,$
we get that the last term of \eref{decomposition} can be bounded as
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k+1}^{t} \eta_i ( \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] - \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_{t-k})]) \\
&\leq &\kappa^2 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)] + \eta_t\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)]/2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Plugging the above and \eref{averageBound} into the decomposition \eref{decomposition}, and rearranging terms
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_t \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)]/2 \leq 2\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) {1 \over t} \sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l + \kappa^2 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)],
\end{eqnarray*}
which leads to the desired result by multiplying both sides by $2$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
We also need the following lemma, whose proof can be done using an induction argument.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:induction}
Let $\{u_t\}_{t=1}^T$, $\{A_t\}_{t=1}^T$ and $\{B_t\}_{t=1}^T$ be three sequences of non-negative numbers such that
$u_1 \leq A_1$ and
\begin{equation}\label{inductionAssu}
u_t \leq A_t + B_t \sup_{i \in [t-1]} u_i,\qquad \forall t\in\{2,3,\cdots, T\}.
\end{equation}
Let $\sup_{t \in [T]} B_t \leq B < 1.$
Then for all $t \in [T],$
\begin{equation}\label{inductionConse}
\sup_{k \in [t]} u_k \leq {1 \over 1 - B} \sup_{k \in [t]} A_k.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
When $t=1,$ \eref{inductionConse} holds trivially since $u_1 \leq A_1$ and $B< 1$. Now assume for some $t \in \mathbb{N}$ with $ 2\leq t \leq T,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{i \in [t-1]} u_i \leq {1 \over 1 - B} \sup_{i \in [t-1]} A_i.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, by \eref{inductionAssu}, the above hypothesis, and $B_t \leq B$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_t \leq A_t + B_t \sup_{i \in [t-1]} u_i \leq A_t + {B_t \over 1 - B} \sup_{i \in [t-1]} A_i \leq \sup_{i \in [t]} A_i \left(1 + {B_t \over 1 - B} \right) \leq \sup_{i \in [t]} A_i {1 \over 1 - B}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{k \in [t]} u_k \leq {1 \over 1 - B} \sup_{k \in [t]} A_k,
\end{eqnarray*}
thereby showing that indeed \eref{inductionConse} holds for $t$.
By mathematical induction, \eref{inductionConse} holds for every $t\in [T].$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Now we can bound $\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_k)]$ as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:empriskB}
Let $\eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq 1/2$ and for all $t \in [T]$ with $t \geq 2,$
\begin{equation}\label{empriskBCon}
{1 \over \eta_t} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} {\eta_i^2} \leq {1 \over 4\kappa^2}.
\end{equation}
Then for all $t \in[T],$
\begin{equation}\label{empiricalBConse}
\sup_{k\in [t]} \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_k)] \leq 8 \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) \sup_{k\in [t]} \left\{ {1 \over \eta_k k} \sum_{l=1}^k \eta_l\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lemma:empiricalRelat}, we have \eref{empiricalRelat}. Dividing both sides by $\eta_t$, we can relax the inequality as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)] \leq 4\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) {1 \over \eta_t t} \sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l + 2\kappa^2 {1 \over \eta_t} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2 \sup_{i \in [t-1]}\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_i)].
\end{eqnarray*}
In Lemma \ref{lemma:induction},
we let $u_t = \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_t)]$, $A_t = 4\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0){1 \over \eta_t t} \sum_{l=1}^t \eta_l$ and $$B_t = 2\kappa^2 {1 \over \eta_t} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2.$$
Condition \eref{empriskBCon} guarantees that $\sup_{t \in [T]} B_t \leq 1/2.$ Thus, \eref{inductionConse} holds, and the desired result follows by plugging with $B=1/2.$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Finally, we need the following lemma to bound $\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0)$, whose proof follows from applying the Bernstein inequality from Lemma \ref{lem:Bernstein}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sumY}
Under Assumption \ref{as:noiseExp}, with probability at least $1-\delta_3$ ($\delta_3 \in ]0,1[$), there holds
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) \leq Mv + 2Mv\left( {1 \over m} + {\sqrt{2} \over \sqrt{m} } \right) \log {2 \over \delta_3}.
\end{eqnarray*}
In particular, if $m \geq 32 \log^2 {2 \over \delta_3},$ then
\begin{equation}\label{sumY}
\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) \leq 2M v.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Following from \eref{noiseExp},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{Z} y^{2l} d\rho \leq {1 \over 2} l! M^{l-2} \cdot (2M^2 v), \qquad \forall l\in \mathbb{N},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{Z} y^{2} d\rho \leq M v.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{Z} |y^2 - \mathbb{E} y^2|^l d\rho &\leq& \int_{Z} \max(|y|^{2l}, (\mathbb{E} y^2)^l) d\rho \\
&\leq& \int_{Z} (|y|^{2l}+ (\mathbb{E} y^2)^l) d\rho \\
&\leq& {1 \over 2} l! M^{l-2} \cdot (2M^2 v) + (M v)^l \\
&\leq& {1 \over 2} l! (M v)^{l-2} (2M v)^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
where for the last inequality we used $v \geq 1.$
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:Bernstein}, with $\omega_i = y_i^2$ for all $i\in[m]$, $B= M v$ and $\sigma = 2Mv,$ we know that with probability at least $1-\delta_3,$ there holds
\begin{eqnarray*}
{1 \over n}\sum_{i=1}^n y_i^2 - \int_{Z}y^2 d\rho \leq 2Mv\left( {1 \over m} + {2 \over \sqrt{m} } \right) \log {2 \over \delta_3}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Bounding $\left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|$}
We bound the weighted factor $\left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|$ as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sqrtLKProd}
Assume \eref{differOperator} holds for some $\lambda>0$
and $\eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq 1$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|^2 \leq {1 \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + 4\lambda.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}}\| \|(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using \eref{differOperator}, we can relax the above as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| \leq 2 \|(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|,
\end{eqnarray*}
which leads to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|^2 \leq 4 \|(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|^2 &=& \|(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} + \lambda I)\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| \\
\\ &\leq& \|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\| + \lambda \\
&=& \|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}^{1\over 2} \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|^2 + \lambda,
\end{eqnarray*}
and with $\eta_t\kappa^2 \leq 1$, $\|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}\| \leq \operatorname{tr}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \leq \kappa^2,$
by Lemma \ref{lemma:initialerror},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}^{1\over 2} \Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\|^2 \leq {1 \over 2\mathrm{e} \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} \leq {1 \over 4 \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i},
\end{eqnarray*}
we thus derive the desired result. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Deriving Error Bounds}
With Lemmas \ref{lem:cul_err}--\ref{lem:sqrtLKProd}, we are ready to estimate the computational variance , $\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2,$ as follows.
\begin{pro}\label{pro:compErrA}
Under Assumption \ref{as:noiseExp},
assume \eref{differOperator} holds for some $\lambda>0$, $\eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq 1/2,$ \eref{empriskBCon} and \eref{sumY}.
Then, we have for all $t\in [T],$
\begin{equation}\label{compuErrA}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2
\leq {16 M v \kappa^2 \over b} \sup_{k\in [t]} \left\{ {1 \over \eta_k k} \sum_{l=1}^k \eta_l\right\} \left(\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {\eta_{k}^2 \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + 4\lambda \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \eta_{k}^2 + \eta_t^2 \kappa^2 \right).
\end{equation}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
According to Lemmas \ref{lem:cul_err} and \ref{lemma:empriskB}, we have \eref{eq:cul_err} and \eref{empiricalBConse}. It thus follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2
\leq {8 \mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(0) \kappa^2 \over b} \sup_{k\in [t]} \left\{ {1 \over \eta_k k} \sum_{l=1}^k \eta_l\right\} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_{k}^2 \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now the proof can be finished by applying Lemma \ref{lem:sqrtLKProd} which tells us that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_{k}^2 \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|^2 &=& \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \eta_{k}^2 \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1\over 2}\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|^2 + \eta_t^2 \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{1 \over 2}\right\|^2 \\
&\leq& \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {\eta_{k}^2 \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} + 4\lambda \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \eta_{k}^2 + \eta_t^2 \kappa^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and \eref{sumY} to the above inequality. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Setting $\eta_t = \eta_1 t^{-\theta}$ for some appropriate $\eta_1$ and $\theta$ in the above proposition, we get the following explicitly upper bounds for $\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t}\|_{\rho}^2.$
\begin{pro}\label{pro:compErrB}Under Assumption \ref{as:noiseExp},
assume \eref{differOperator} holds for some $\lambda>0$ and \eref{sumY}.
Let $\eta_t = \eta_1 t^{-\theta} $ for all $t \in [T],$ with $\theta \in [0,1[$ and
\begin{equation}\label{etaRestri}
0<\eta_1 \leq {t^{\min(\theta, 1-\theta)} \over 8 \kappa^2 (\log t + 1)} , \qquad \forall t\in [T].
\end{equation}
Then, for all $t\in [T]$,
\begin{equation}\label{compuErrB}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}\|\omega_{t+1} - \nu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2
\leq {16 M v \kappa^2 \over b(1-\theta)} \left( 5\eta_1 t^{-\min(\theta,1-\theta)} + 8\lambda \eta_1^2 t^{(1-2\theta)_+}\right) (1 \vee \log t ).
\end{equation}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
We will use Proposition \ref{pro:compErrA} to prove the result.
Thus, we need to verify the condition \eref{empriskBCon}.
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{t-1} \eta_i^2 \sum_{k=t-i}^{t-1} {1 \over k(k+1)} = \sum_{i=1}^{t-1} \eta_i^2 \left( {1\over t-i} - {1 \over t} \right) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{t-1} {\eta_i^2 \over t-i}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Substituting with $\eta_i = \eta i^{-\theta},$ and by Lemma \ref{lem:estimate2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2 \leq \eta_1^2 \sum_{i=1}^{t-1} {i^{-2\theta} \over t-i} \leq 2\eta_1^2 t^{-\min(2\theta,1)} (\log t +1).
\end{eqnarray*}
Dividing both sides by $\eta_t $ ($= \eta_1 t^{-\theta}$), and then using \eref{etaRestri},
\begin{eqnarray*}
{1\over \eta_t }\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over k(k+1)} \sum_{i=t-k}^{t-1} \eta_i^2 \leq 2\eta_1 t^{-\min(\theta,1-\theta)} (\log t +1) \leq {1 \over 4 \kappa^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This verifies \eref{empriskBCon}. Note also that by taking $t= 1$ in \eref{etaRestri}, for all $t\in [T]$ ,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_t \kappa^2 \leq \eta_1 \kappa^2 \leq {1 \over 8 \kappa^2} \leq {1 \over 2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We thus can apply Proposition \ref{pro:compErrA} to derive \eref{compuErrA}. What remains is to control the right hand side of \eref{compuErrA}.
Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{\eta_{k}^2 \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} = \eta_1 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{k^{-2\theta} \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t i^{-\theta}} \leq \eta_1 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{k^{-2\theta} \over (t-k)t^{-\theta}},
\end{eqnarray*}
combining with Lemma \ref{lem:estimate2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1}{\eta_{k}^2 \over \sum_{i=k+1}^t \eta_i} \leq 2 \eta_1 t^{-\min(\theta,1-\theta)} (\log t +1).
\end{eqnarray*}
Also, by Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1},
\begin{eqnarray*}
{1 \over \eta_k k} \sum_{l=1}^k \eta_l = {1 \over k^{1-\theta}} \sum_{l=1}^k l^{-\theta} \leq {1 \over 1-\theta},
\end{eqnarray*}
and by Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1a},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \eta_{k}^2 = \eta_1^2 \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} k^{-2\theta} \leq \eta_1^2 t^{\max(1-2\theta,0)} (\log t +1).
\end{eqnarray*}
Introducing the last three estimates into \eref{compuErrA} and using that $\eta_t^2 \kappa^2 \leq \eta_1 t^{-\theta}$ by \eref{etaRestri}, we get the desired result. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Collect some of the above analysis, we get the following result for the computational variance.
\begin{thm}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, let $\delta_2 \in]0,1[$, ${9\kappa^2 \over m} \log {m \over \delta_2} \leq \lambda \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|,$ $\delta_3\in ]0,1[$, $m \geq 32 \log^2 {2 \over \delta_3},$ and $\eta_t = \eta_1 t^{-\theta} $ for all $t \in [T],$ with $\theta \in [0,1[$ and $\eta_1$ such that \eref{etaRestri}.
Then, with probability at least $1-\delta_2 -\delta_3$, \eref{compuErrB} holds for all $t\in [T]$.
\end{thm}
\section{Deriving Total Error Bounds} \label{sec:deriveing}
The purpose of this section is to derive total error bounds.
\subsection{Attainable Case}
We have the following general theorem for $\zeta \geq 1/2$, with which we prove our main results stated in Section \ref{sec:main}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:generalRate}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \geq 1/2$, $T \in \mathbb{N}$ with $T\geq 3,$ $\delta \in]0,1[$, $\eta_t = \eta \kappa^{-2} t^{-\theta} $ for all $t \in [T],$ with $\theta \in [0,1[$ and $\eta$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{etaRestriA}
0<\eta \leq {t^{\min(\theta, 1-\theta)} \over 8(\log t + 1)} , \qquad \forall t\in [T].
\end{equation}
If for some $\epsilon \in]0,1],$
\begin{equation}\label{sampleN}
m \geq \left( {18 \kappa^2 \over \epsilon \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|} \log \left( {27 \kappa^2 \over \epsilon \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\| \delta} \right) \right)^{1/\epsilon},
\end{equation}
then the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$: for all $t \in [T],$
\begin{equation}\label{totalErrGen}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{H} \mathcal{E} \leq q_1 (\eta t^{1-\theta})^{-2\zeta} + q_2 m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} (1 \vee \eta^2 m^{2\epsilon-2} t^{2-2\theta} ) (\log T)^2 \log^2 {12 \over \delta} \\ + q_3 \eta b^{-1} ( t^{-\min(\theta,1-\theta)} \vee m^{\epsilon-1}\eta t^{(1-2\theta)_+} ) \log T.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, $q_1 = 2R^2 \zeta^{2\zeta},$ $q_2= {10^4 (R\kappa^{2\zeta} + \sqrt{M})^2 (\kappa/{\sqrt{\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|} + \sqrt{2 \sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} /\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|^{\gamma}} })^2 \over (1-\theta)^2 } ,$ and $q_3 = {208 M v \over 1-\theta}.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\lambda = \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\| m^{\epsilon - 1}.$ Clearly, $\lambda \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|.$
For any $A \geq 0$ and $B\geq 1$, by applying \eref{exppoly} with $\zeta=1, x =(Bm)^{\epsilon}$ and $c = {\epsilon \over 2A B^{\epsilon}},$
\begin{equation}\label{exppolyB}
A \log (Bm) = {A \over \epsilon} \log( (Bm)^{\epsilon}) \leq {A \over \epsilon} \log \left({2 A B^{\epsilon} \over \mathrm{e}\epsilon}\right) + {1 \over 2} m^{\epsilon} \leq {A \over \epsilon} \log \left({A B \over \epsilon} \right) + {1 \over 2} m^{\epsilon}.
\end{equation}
Using the above inequality with
$A = {9\kappa^2 \over \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|}$ and $B={1 \over \delta_2},$
one can prove that the condition \eref{sampleN}
ensures that ${9\kappa^2 \over m} \log {m \over \delta_2} \leq \lambda$ is satisfied with $\delta_2 = {\delta \over 3},$
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem:differOperator}, \eref{differOperator} holds with probability at least $1-\delta_2.$
Similarly the condition \eref{sampleN}
implies that $m \geq 32 \log^2 {2 \over \delta_3}$ is satisfied with $\delta_3 = {\delta \over 3},$ and thus by Lemma \ref{lem:sumY}, \eref{sumY} holds with probability at least $1-\delta_3.$
Combining with Lemma \ref{lem:lambdaNk}, by taking the union bound, we know that with probability at least $1- \delta_1 - \delta_2 - \delta_3$, \eref{differOperator}, \eref{sumY} and \eref{lambdaNk} hold for all $k \in [T].$ Now, we can apply Propositions \ref{pro:sampleErrB} and \ref{pro:compErrB} to get \eref{gSampleErrB} and \eref{compuErrB}. Noting that by \eref{etaRestriA}, $\sqrt{2}\eta \leq 1,$ and by a simple calculation, we derive from \eref{gSampleErrB} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{split}
&\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2 \\
\leq& {4624(R\kappa^{2\zeta} + \sqrt{M})^2 (\kappa/{\sqrt{\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|} + \sqrt{2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} /\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|^{\gamma}} })^2 \over (1-\theta)^2 } m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} (1 \vee \lambda^2 \eta^2\kappa^{-4} t^{2-2\theta} \vee \log^2 t) \log^2 {4 \over \delta_1} \\
\leq& {4624 (R\kappa^{2\zeta} + \sqrt{M})^2 (\kappa/{\sqrt{\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|} + \sqrt{2 \sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} /\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|^{\gamma}} })^2 \over (1-\theta)^2 } m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} (1 \vee \eta^2 m^{2\epsilon -2} t^{2-2\theta} ) (\log T)^2 \log^2 {4 \over \delta_1},
\end{split}\end{eqnarray*}
where for the last inequality, we used $\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\| \leq \kappa^2.$ Similarly, by a simple calculation, we get from \eref{compuErrB} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2
&\leq& {208 M v \over b(1-\theta)} (\eta t^{-\min(\theta,1-\theta)} \vee \lambda \eta^2 \kappa^{-2} t^{(1-2\theta)_+} ) (1 \vee \log t )\\
&\leq& {208 M v \over b(1-\theta)} (\eta t^{-\min(\theta,1-\theta)} \vee m^{\epsilon -1}\eta^2 t^{(1-2\theta)_+} ) \log T.
\end{eqnarray*}
Letting $\delta_1 = {\delta\over 3}$, and
introducing the above estimates and \eref{initialErrB} into \eref{errorDecompos}, we get \eref{totalErrGen}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[of Theorem \ref{thm:main}]
By choosing $\epsilon = 1 - {1 \over 2\zeta + \gamma}$ and $\theta=0$ in Theorem \ref{thm:generalRate}, then the condition \eref{sampleN} reduces to
$m \geq m_{\delta}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{numberDelta}
m_{\delta} = \left( {18 \kappa^2 p \over \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|} \log \left( {27 \kappa^2p \over \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\| \delta} \right) \right)^{p}, \quad p = {2\zeta + \gamma \over 2\zeta + \gamma -1}.
\end{equation}
The desired result thus follows by applying Theorem \ref{thm:generalRate}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Non Attainable Case}
For the non-attainable case, we have the following general results on generalization errors for SGM.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:generalRateNon}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \leq 1/2$, $T \in \mathbb{N}$ with $T\geq 3,$ $\delta \in]0,1[$, $\eta_t = \eta \kappa^{-2} t^{-\theta} $ for all $t \in [T],$ with $\theta \in [0,1[$ and $\eta$ such that \eref{etaRestriA} and
for some $\epsilon \in]0,1],$ \eref{sampleN} holds.
Then the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$: for all $t \in [T],$
\begin{equation}\label{totalErrGenNon}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{H} \mathcal{E}
\lesssim \left( (\eta t^{1-\theta})^{-2\zeta}
+ m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} \right) (1 \vee \eta m^{\epsilon-1} t^{1-\theta} )^3 \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta} \\
+ \eta b^{-1} ( t^{-\min(\theta,1-\theta)} \vee m^{\epsilon-1}\eta t^{(1-2\theta)_+} ) \log T .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
{Here, the constant in the upper bounds is positive and depends only on $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, v, \zeta, R,c_{\gamma}$, $\gamma$ and $\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}$ } .
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that for Theorem \ref{thm:generalRate}. We include the sketch only and omit the constants appeared.
Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:generalRate}, with $\lambda= \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|m^{\epsilon-1},$ one can prove that with probability at least $1- \delta_1 - \delta_2 - \delta_3$, \eref{differOperator}, \eref{sumY} and \eref{lambdaNkNon} hold for all $k \in [T].$ Now, we can apply Propositions \ref{pro:sampleErrB} and \ref{pro:compErrB} to get \eref{gSampleErrBNon} and \eref{compuErrB}. Noting that by \eref{etaRestri}, $\sqrt{2}\eta \leq 1,$ and by a simple calculation, we derive from \eref{gSampleErrBNon} that
\begin{align*}
&\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t+1} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1}\|_{\rho}^2\\
\lesssim& m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} (1 \vee \eta^2 m^{2\epsilon-2} t^{2-2\theta} ) \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta}
+ (\eta t^{1-\theta} )^{-2\zeta} (1\vee \eta t^{1-\theta} m^{-1})(1 \vee \eta^2 m^{2\epsilon-2} t^{2-2\theta} ) \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta}\\
\lesssim& m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} (1 \vee \eta^2 m^{2\epsilon-2} t^{2-2\theta} ) \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta}
+ (\eta t^{1-\theta} )^{-2\zeta} (1 \vee \eta m^{\epsilon-1} t^{1-\theta} )^3 \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta}.
\end{align*}
The rest of the proof parallelizes to that for Theorem \ref{thm:generalRate}.
\end{proof}
Now, we are in a position to prove Theorem \ref{thm:generalRateNonFix}.
\begin{proof}[of Theorem \ref{thm:generalRateNonFix}]
The second part of the theorem follows directly from applying Theorem \ref{thm:generalRateNon} with $\theta=0.$ The first part can be proved by applying Theorem \ref{thm:generalRateNon} with $\theta=0$ and $\epsilon= 1- {1 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}$, combining with the same argument from the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} to verify the condition \eref{sampleN}. We omit the details.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Batch GM}
Following the proof of Theorems \ref{thm:main} and \ref{thm:generalRateNonFix}, we know that the following results hold for batch GM, from which one can prove Theorem \ref{thm:bgmopt}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:bgmoptGen}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, set $\eta_t = \eta \kappa^{-2} $ with $\eta\leq 1$, for all $t \in [m].$ With probability at least $1-\delta$ ($0< \delta < 1$), the following holds for the learning sequence generated by \eref{Alg2B}: \\
1) if $\zeta>1/2$ and $m \geq m_{\delta}$ with $m_{\delta}$ given by \eref{numberDelta}, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bgmBound}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}} [\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{ H}\mathcal{E} \lesssim (\eta t)^{-2\zeta} + m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} (1 + m^{-{1 \over 2\zeta + \gamma}} \eta t )^2 \log^2 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta};
\end{split}
\end{equation}
2) if $\zeta\leq 1/2,$ $2\zeta+\gamma >1$ and $m \geq m_{\delta}$ with $m_{\delta}$ given by \eref{numberDelta}, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{ H} \mathcal{E}
\lesssim \left( (\eta t)^{-2\zeta}
+ m^{-{2\zeta \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \right) (1 \vee m^{-{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \eta t )^3 \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta};
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray*}
3) if $2\zeta+\gamma\leq 1$ and for some $\epsilon \in]0,1],$
\eref{sampleN} hold, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}(\omega_{t+1})] - \inf_{H} \mathcal{E}
\lesssim \left( (\eta t)^{-2\zeta}
+ m^{\gamma(1-\epsilon) -1} \right) (1 \vee \eta m^{\epsilon-1} t )^3 \log^4 T \log^2 {1 \over \delta}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray*}
{Here, all the constants in the upper bounds are positive and depend only on $\kappa^2, \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\|, M, v, \zeta, R,c_{\gamma}$ and $\gamma$ (and also on $\|f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\infty}$ when $\zeta<1/2$) } .
\end{thm}
\section{Convergence in $H$-norm}\label{sec:hnorm}
In this section, we will give convergence results in $H$-norm for Algorithm \ref{alg:1} in the attainable case.
For the sake of simplicity, we will only consider a fixed step-size sequence, i.e, $\eta_t = \eta$ for all $t$.
Using a similar procedure as that for \eref{errorDecompos}, we can prove the following error decomposition,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:errDecHn}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}[\|\omega_{t} - \omega^{\dag}\|_{H}^2] \lesssim \|\mu_{t} - \omega^{\dag}\|_{H}^2 + \|\mu_{t} - \nu_t\|_{H}^2 + \mathbb{E}_{\bf J}[\|\omega_{t} - \nu_t\|_{H}^2].
\end{equation}
To estimate the bias term, $\|\mu_{t} - \omega^{\dag}\|_{H}^2$, we introduce the following lemma from \citep{yao2007early,rosasco2015learning}. Its proof is similar as that for \eref{initialErrB}
and will be given in Appendix \ref{sec:prov_estimates} for the sake of completeness.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:biasHnorm}
Under Assumption \ref{as:regularity},
let $\zeta \geq 1/2$ and $\eta_t = \eta $ for all $t\in \mathbb{N}$, with $\eta \in ]0,\kappa^{-2}]$, then
\begin{equation}\label{initialErrBHnorm}
\|\mu_{t+1} - \omega^{\dag}\|_{H} \leq R \left( \zeta-1/2 \over \eta t \right)^{\zeta-1/2}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
To estimate the sample variance term, $\|\mu_{t} - \nu_t\|_{H}^2$, we use \eref{eq:interm2} and get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\|\nu_{t+1} - \mu_{t+1}\|_{H} = \left\|\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H} \\
&\leq& \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}}\right\|\left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{-{1\over 2}}\Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H}\leq {1\over \sqrt{\lambda}} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{1\over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
From the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sampleErr}, we know that $\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}^{1\over 2}\Pi_{k+1}^t(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) N_k\right\|_{H}$ is upper bounded by the right-hand side of \eref{gSampleErrB}. With $\eta_t = \eta$ and $\lambda = \|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}\| m^{-{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}}$, we thus have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:samErrHnorm}
\|\nu_{t+1} - \mu_{t+1}\|_{H} \lesssim m^{-{\zeta-1/2 \over 2\zeta+\gamma}} (1 + m^{-{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}}\eta t )\log t\log {1 \over \delta}.
\end{equation}
Finally, for the computational variance term, $\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}[\|\omega_{t} - \nu_t\|_{H}^2]$, we use a same procedure as that for \eref{eq:cul_err} to get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:compErrHnorm}
\mathbb{E}_{\bf J}\| \omega_{t+1} - \nu_{t+1}\|_{H}^2
\leq {\kappa^2 \over b} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta^2 \left\|\Pi^t_{k+1}(\mathcal{T}_{\bf x})\right\|^2 \mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}[\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}(\omega_k)]
\lesssim {\eta^2 t \over b} ,
\end{equation}
where we used \eref{empiricalBConse} and \eref{sumY} in the last inequality. Introducing \eref{initialErrBHnorm}, \eref{eq:samErrHnorm} and \eref{eq:compErrHnorm} into the error decomposition \eref{eq:errDecHn}, we can prove Theorem \ref{thm:hnorm}.
\section{Numerical Simulations}\label{sec:numerical}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]
{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{minibatchsgm}
\caption{Minibatch SGM}
\label{fig:minibatch_SGM}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]
{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sgm.pdf} \caption{SGM}
\label{fig:SGM}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[]
{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{batchgm.pdf}
\caption{Batch GM}
\label{fig:batchGM}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Error decompositions for gradient-based learning algorithms on {\em synthesis data}, where {\em m = 100}.}
\label{fig:comparisions}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]
{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bc_mbsgm_v2.pdf}
\caption{Minibatch SGM}
\label{fig:minibatch_SGM_bc}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]
{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bc_sgm_v2.pdf}
\caption{SGM}
\label{fig:SGM_bc}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[]
{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bc_gm_v2.pdf}
\caption{Batch GM}
\label{fig:batchGM_bc}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Misclassification Errors for gradient-based learning algorithms on {\em BreastCancer} dataset.}
\label{fig:comparisions_bc}
\end{figure}
In order to illustrate our theoretical results and the error decomposition, we first performed some simulations on a simple problem. We constructed $m=100$ i.i.d. training examples of the form $y= f_{\rho}(x_i) + \omega_i$.
Here, the regression function is $f_{\rho}(x) = |x - 1/2| - 1/2,$
the input point $x_i$ is uniformly distributed in $[0,1],$ and $\omega_i$ is a Gaussian noise with zero mean and standard deviation $1,$ for each $i\in [m].$
We perform three experiments with the same $H$, a RKHS associated
with a Gaussian kernel $K(x,x') = \exp(-(x-x')^2/(2\sigma^2))$ where $\sigma=0.2$. In the first experiment, we run mini-batch SGM, where the mini-batch size $b=\sqrt{m},$ and the step-size $\eta_t = 1/(8\sqrt{m})$.
In the second experiment, we run simple SGM where the step-size is fixed as $\eta_t = 1/(8m)$, while in the third experiment, we run batch GM using the fixed step-size $\eta_t = 1/8.$
For mini-batch SGM and SGM, the total error $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_{t} - f_{\rho}\|_{L_{\hat{\rho}}^2}^2$, the bias $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \hat{\mu}_{t} - f_{\rho}\|_{L_{\hat{\rho}}^2}^2$, the sample variance $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \hat{\mu}_t\|_{L_{\hat{\rho}}^2}^2$
and the computational variance $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega_t - \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_t\|_{L_{\hat{\rho}}^2}^2$, averaged over 50 trials, are depicted in Figures \ref{fig:minibatch_SGM} and \ref{fig:SGM}, respectively.
For batch GM, the total error $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t} - f_{\rho}\|_{L_{\hat{\rho}}^2}^2$, the bias $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \hat{\mu}_{t} - f_{\rho}\|_{L_{\hat{\rho}}^2}^2$ and the sample variance $\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \nu_{t} - \hat{\mu}_t\|_{L_{\hat{\rho}}^2}^2,$
averaged over 50 trials are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:batchGM}. Here,
we replace the unknown marginal distribution $\rho_{X}$ by an empirical measure $\hat{\rho} = {1 \over 2000}\sum_{i=1}^{2000} \delta_{\hat{x}_i},$
where each $\hat{x}_i$ is uniformly distributed in $[0,1].$
From Figure \ref{fig:minibatch_SGM} or \ref{fig:SGM}, we see that as the number of passes increases\footnote{Note that the terminology `running the algorithm with $p$ passes' means `running the algorithm
with $\lceil mp/b \rceil$ iterations', where $b$ is the mini-batch size.},
the bias decreases, while the sample error increases.
Furthermore, we see that in comparisons with the bias and the sample error, the computational error is negligible.
In all these experiments, the minimal total error is achieved when the bias and the sample error are balanced. These empirical results show the effects of the three terms from the error decomposition, and complement the derived bound \eref{mainTotalErr}, as well as the regularization effect of the number of passes over the data.
Finally, we tested the simple SGM, mini-batch SGM, and batch GM, using similar step-sizes as those in the first simulation,
on the {\it BreastCancer} data-set\footnote{\url{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/}}. The classification errors on the training set and the testing set of these three algorithms are
depicted in Figure \ref{fig:comparisions_bc}. We see that all of these algorithms perform similarly, which complement the bounds in Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMB}, \ref{cor:MbSGMB} and \ref{cor:BSGM}.
\acks{
This material is based upon work supported by the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines (CBMM), funded by NSF STC award CCF-1231216. L. R. acknowledges the financial support of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research FIRB project RBFR12M3AC.}
\appendices
\section{Learning with Kernel Methods}\label{app:learning}
Let the input space $\Xi$ be a closed subset of Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^d$, the output space $Y \subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Let $\mu$ be an unknown but fixed Borel probability measure on $\Xi \times Y$. Assume that $\mathbf \{(\xi_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ are i.i.d. from the distribution $\mu$. A reproducing kernel $K$ is a symmetric function $K: \Xi
\times \Xi \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $(K(u_i, u_j))_{i, j=1}^\ell$ is
positive semidefinite for any finite set of points
$\{u_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ in $\Xi$. The kernel $K$ defines a reproducing
kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) $(\mathcal{H}_K, \|\cdot\|_K)$ as the
completion of the linear span of the set $\{K_{\xi}(\cdot):=K(\xi,\cdot):
\xi\in \Xi\}$ with respect to the inner product $\langle K_{\xi},
K_u\rangle_{K}:=K(\xi,u).$ For any $f \in \mathcal{H}_K$, the reproducing property holds: $f(\xi) = \langle K_{\xi}, f\rangle_K.$
\begin{Exa}
[Sobolev Spaces]
Let $X=[0,1]$ and the kernel
$$
K(x,x') =
\begin{cases}
(1-y)x, & x\leq y; \\
(1-x)y, & x \geq y.
\end{cases}
$$
Then the kernel induces a Sobolev Space $H = \{f : X \to \mathbb{R} | f \mbox{ is absolutely continuous }, f(0) = f(1) =
0, f \in L^2(X)\}. $
\end{Exa}
In learning with kernel methods, one considers the following minimization problem
$$ \inf_{f\in \mathcal{H}_K} \int_{\Xi \times Y} (f(\xi) - y)^2 d\mu(\xi,y).$$
Since $f(\xi) = \langle K_{\xi},f\rangle $ by the reproducing property, the above can be rewritten as
$$ \inf_{f\in \mathcal{H}_K} \int_{\Xi \times Y} (\langle f, K_{\xi} \rangle - y)^2 d\mu(\xi,y).$$
Letting $X = \{K_{\xi}: \xi \in \Xi\}$ and defining another probability measure
$\rho(K_{\xi},y) = \mu(\xi,y)$, the above reduces to the learning setting in Section \ref{sec:learning}.
\section{Further Corollaries for SGM in the non-attainable case}\label{app:further}
In this section, we state the convergence results for the SGM with different parameter choices similar as those in Corollaries \ref{cor:MPSGMA}--\ref{cor:BSGM}, in the non-attainable case.
These results are direct consequences of Theorem \ref{thm:generalRateNonFix}.
\begin{corollary}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \leq 1/2$ , $\delta\in ]0,1[$, $b =1$, and $\eta_t \simeq m^{-{2\zeta \over (2\zeta+\gamma)\vee 1}}$ for all $t \in [m^2]$. With probability at least $1-\delta$, the following holds:\\
1) if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$, $m \geq m_{\delta}$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{{2\zeta+ 1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \rceil$, then we have \eref{minimaxBoundNonA};\\
2) if $2\zeta+\gamma \leq 1$, and for some $\epsilon \in ]0,1[$, $m \geq m_{\delta, \epsilon}$, and
$T^* = \lceil m^{1 + 2\zeta - \epsilon}\rceil,$
then we have \eref{minimaxBoundNonB}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \leq 1/2$ , $\delta\in ]0,1[$, $b \simeq m^{2\zeta \over (2\zeta+\gamma) \vee 1}$, and $\eta_t \simeq {1\over \log m}$ for all $t \in [m]$. With probability at least $1-\delta$, the following holds:\\
1) if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$, $m \geq m_{\delta}$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma}} \rceil$, then we have \eref{minimaxBoundNonA};\\
2) if $2\zeta+\gamma \leq 1$, and for some $\epsilon \in ]0,1[$, $m \geq m_{\delta, \epsilon}$, and
$T^* = \lceil m^{1 - \epsilon}\rceil,$
then we have \eref{minimaxBoundNonB}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Under Assumptions \ref{as:noiseExp}, \ref{as:regularity} and \ref{as:eigenvalues}, let $\zeta \leq 1/2$ , $\delta\in ]0,1[$,
$b = m$ and $\eta_t \simeq {1\over \log m}$ for all $t \in [m]$. With probability at least $1-\delta$, the following holds:\\
1) if $2\zeta+\gamma>1$, $m \geq m_{\delta}$ and $T^* = \lceil m^{{1\over 2\zeta+\gamma} } \rceil$, then we have \eref{minimaxBoundNonA};\\
2) if $2\zeta+\gamma \leq 1$, and for some $\epsilon \in ]0,1[$, $m \geq m_{\delta, \epsilon}$, and
$T^* = \lceil m^{1 - \epsilon}\rceil,$
then we have \eref{minimaxBoundNonB}.
\end{corollary}
\section{Proofs for Lemmas}\label{sec:prov_estimates}
\begin{proof}[of Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1}]
Note that
$$ \sum_{k=1}^{t} k^{-\theta} \leq 1 + \sum_{k=2}^t \int_{k-1}^k u^{-\theta} d u = 1 + \int_{1}^t u^{-\theta} d u = {t^{1-\theta} - \theta\over 1-\theta} ,
$$
which leads to the first part of the desired result.
Similarly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^t k^{-\theta} \geq \sum_{k=1}^t \int_{k}^{k+1}u^{-\theta} d u = \int_{1}^{t+1} u^{-\theta} d u = {(t+1)^{1-\theta} - 1\over 1-\theta},
\end{eqnarray*}
and by mean value theorem, $(t+1)^{1-\theta} - 1 \geq (1-\theta)t (t+1)^{-\theta} \geq (1-\theta)t^{1-\theta}/2. $
This proves the second part of the desired result. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[of Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1a}]
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t} k^{-\theta} = \sum_{k=1}^{t} k^{-1} k^{1-\theta} \leq t^{\max(1-\theta,0)} \sum_{k=1}^{t} k^{-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^t k^{-1} \leq 1 + \sum_{k=2}^t \int_{k-1}^k u^{-1} du = 1 + \log t.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[of Lemma \ref{lem:estimate2}]
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over t-k} k^{-q} = \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {k^{1-q} \over (t-k)k} \leq t^{\max(1-q,0)} \sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over (t-k)k},
\end{eqnarray*}
and that by Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1a},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over (t-k)k} = {1 \over t}\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \left({1 \over t-k} + {1 \over k}\right) = {2 \over t}\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} {1 \over k} \leq {2\over t} (1+\log t).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[of Proposition \ref{pro:initialErr}]
Since $\mu_{t+1}$ is given by \eref{Alg3}, introducing with \eref{frFH},
\begin{equation}\label{Alg3D}
\mu_{t+1} = \mu_{t} - \eta_t (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\mathcal{H}}).
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{Alg3C}
\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1} = \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \eta_t \mathcal{S}_{\rho}(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\mathcal{H}}) = \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - \eta_t \mathcal{L}_{\rho} (\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - f_{\mathcal{H}}) .
\end{equation}
Subtracting both sides by $f_{\mathcal{H}}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1} - f_{\mathcal{H}} = (I - \eta_t \mathcal{L}_{\rho}) (\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t} - f_{\mathcal{H}}) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Using this equality iteratively, with $\mu_1 = 0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1} - f_{\mathcal{H}} = - \Pi_{1}^t(\mathcal{L}_{\rho}) f_{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking the $L^2(H,\rho_X)$-norm, by Assumption \ref{as:regularity},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mu_{t+1} - f_{\mathcal{H}}\|_{\rho} = \|\Pi_{1}^t(\mathcal{L}_{\rho}) f_{\mathcal{H}} \|_{\rho} \leq \|\Pi_{1}^t(\mathcal{L}_{\rho}) \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{\zeta} \| R.
\end{eqnarray*}
By applying Lemma \ref{lemma:initialerror}, we get \eref{initialErrA}. Combining \eref{initialErrA} with Lemma \ref{lem:estimate1}, we get
\eref{initialErrB}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[of Lemma \ref{lemma:htInfty}]
From \eref{Alg3D}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu_{t+1} = (I - \eta_t \mathcal{T}_{\rho}) \mu_{t} + \eta_t \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying this relationship iteratively, and using $\mu_1 = 0,$ we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu_{t+1} = \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \mathcal{T}_{\rho} ) \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\mathcal{H}} = \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* \Pi_{k+1}^t( \mathcal{L}_{\rho} ) f_{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, using Assumption \ref{as:regularity} and spectral theory,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mu_{t+1}\|_{H} \leq \left\|\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* \Pi_{k+1}^t( \mathcal{L}_{\rho} )\mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{\zeta} \right\| R \leq R \max_{\sigma \in ]0,\kappa^2]} \sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) .
\end{eqnarray*}
{\bf Case} $\zeta \geq 1/2. $ For any $\sigma \in ]0,\kappa^2],$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) \leq \kappa^{2\zeta-1} \sigma \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) \leq \kappa^{2\zeta-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
where for the last inequality, we used
\begin{equation}\label{eq:les1}
\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k\sigma \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) = \sum_{k=1}^t (1 - (1- \eta_k\sigma)) \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) = \sum_{k=1}^t \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) - \sum_{k=1}^t \Pi_{k}^t( \sigma ) = 1 - \Pi_{1}^t( \sigma ).
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mu_{t+1}\|_{H} \leq R \kappa^{2\zeta -1} .
\end{eqnarray*}
{\bf Case} $\zeta < 1/2.$ If $\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \leq \kappa^{-2},$ then for any $\sigma \leq \kappa^2,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) \leq \sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \leq \kappa^{2\zeta-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k > \kappa^{-2},$ then for any $\sigma \leq (\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k)^{-1},$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) \leq \sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k
\leq \left(\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k\right)^{1/2 - \zeta},
\end{eqnarray*}
while for $ \kappa^2 \geq \sigma \geq (\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k)^{-1},$ by \eref{eq:les1},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) = \sigma^{\zeta-1/2} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \sigma \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma )
\leq \sigma^{\zeta-1/2} \leq
\left(\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k\right)^{1/2 - \zeta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
From the above analysis, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\max_{\sigma \in ]0,\kappa^2]} \sigma^{1/2+ \zeta} \sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k \Pi_{k+1}^t( \sigma ) \leq \kappa^{2\zeta-1} \vee \left(\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k\right)^{1/2 - \zeta},
\end{eqnarray*}
and thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mu_{t+1}\|_{H} \leq R \left\{\kappa^{2\zeta-1} \vee \left(\sum_{k=1}^t \eta_k\right)^{1/2 - \zeta}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[of Lemma \ref{lem:lambdaNk} (1)]
{\it Bounding $\left\| (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}}\left(\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho} - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y}\right) \right\|_{H}$:}\\
For all $i \in [m],$ let $w_i = y_i (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+ \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} x_i.$
Obviously, from the definitions of $f_{\rho}$ (see \eref{regressionfunc}) and $\mathcal{S}_{\rho}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[w_1] = \mathbb{E}_{x_1} [ f_{\rho}(x_1) (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+ \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} x_1] = (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}+ \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}}\left(\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho} - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y}\right) = {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m (\mathbb{E}[w_i] - w_i).
\end{eqnarray*}
We next estimate the constants $B$ and $\sigma^2(w_1)$ in \eref{bernsteinCondition}.
Note that for any $l \geq 2,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\|w_1 - \mathbb{E}[w_1]\|_{H}^l] \leq \mathbb{E}[(\|w_1\|_{H} + \mathbb{E}[\|w_1\|_{H}])^l].
\end{eqnarray*}
By using H\"{o}lder's inequality twice,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\|w_1 - \mathbb{E}[w_1]\|_{H}^l] \leq 2^{l-1} \mathbb{E}[\|w_1\|_{H}^l + (\mathbb{E}[\|w_1\|_{H}])^l] \leq 2^{l-1} \mathbb{E}[\|w_1\|_{H}^l + \mathbb{E}[\|w_1\|_{H}^l]].
\end{eqnarray*}
The right-hand side is exactly $ 2^{l}\mathbb{E}[\|w_1\|_{H}^l]$. Therefore, by recalling the definition of $w_1$ and expanding the integration,
\begin{equation}\label{estimateMomentInterm}
\mathbb{E}[\|w_1 - \mathbb{E}[w_1]\|_{H}^l]
\leq
2^{l} \int_{X} \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda I)^{-{1\over 2}} x\|_{H}^l \int_{Y} y^l d\rho(y|x) d\rho_{X}(x).
\end{equation}
Introducing \eref{eq:ymoment} and \eref{eq:xmoment} into the above inequality, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\|w_1 - \mathbb{E}[w_1]\|_{H}^l]
\leq l! (2\sqrt{M})^{l} \sqrt{v} \left({\kappa \over \sqrt{\lambda}}\right)^{l-2} c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}
= {1\over 2} l! \left({2 \kappa \sqrt{M} \over \sqrt{\lambda}}\right)^{l-2} 8 M\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying Bernstein inequality with $B= {2 \kappa \sqrt{M} \over \sqrt{\lambda} }$ and $\sigma = \sqrt{ 8 M\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}},$ we get that with probability at least $1 - {\delta_1 \over 2}$, there holds
\begin{equation}\label{concentration_frho}
\left\| (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}}\left(\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho} - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y}\right) \right\|_{H} = \left\| {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m (\mathbb{E}[w_i] - w_i) \right\|_{H} \leq 4 \sqrt{M} \left( { \kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{ 2\sqrt{v} c_{\gamma} } \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}}} \right) \log{4 \over \delta_1}.
\end{equation}
{\it Bounding $\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}-\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \|$:}\\
Let $\xi_i = (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} x_i \otimes x_i, $ for all $i \in [m]$. It is easy to see that $\mathbb{E}[\xi_i] = (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} \mathcal{T}_{\rho},$ and that
$(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}-\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) = {1 \over m}\sum_{i=1}^m (\mathbb{E}[\xi_i] - \xi_i).$
Denote the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of a bounded operator from $H$ to $H$ by $\|\cdot\|_{HS}.$
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\xi_1\|_{HS}^2 = \|x_1\|_{H}^2 \mbox{Trace}((\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1/2}x_1 \otimes x_1 (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1/2}) = \|x_1\|_{H}^2 \mbox{Trace}((\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1}x_1 \otimes x_1 ).
\end{eqnarray*}
By Assumption \eref{boundedKernel},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\xi_1\|_{HS} \leq \sqrt{ \kappa^2 \mbox{Trace}((\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1}x_1 \otimes x_1 )} \leq \sqrt{ \kappa^2 \mbox{Trace}(x_1 \otimes x_1 ) /\lambda} \leq {\kappa^2 / \sqrt{\lambda}},
\end{eqnarray*}
and furthermore, by Assumption \ref{as:eigenvalues},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\|\xi_1\|_{HS}^2 ] \leq \kappa^2 \mathbb{E} \mbox{Trace}((\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1}x_1 \otimes x_1 ) = \kappa^2 \mbox{Trace}((\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-1} \mathcal{T}_{\rho}) \leq \kappa^2 c_{\gamma} \lambda^{-\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray*}
According to Lemma \ref{lem:Bernstein}, we get that with probability at least $1 - {\delta_1 \over 2},$ there holds
\begin{equation}\label{concentration_operator}
\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}-\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \|_{HS} \leq 2\kappa\left( {2\kappa \over m \sqrt{\lambda}} + {\sqrt{c_{\gamma}} \over \sqrt{m \lambda^{\gamma}} } \right) \log {4 \over \delta_1}.
\end{equation}
Finally, using the triangle inequality, we have,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1 \over 2}} N_k \|_{H} \leq \|(\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}} (\mathcal{T}_{\rho}-\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}) \| \|\mu_k\|_{H} + \left\| (\mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda)^{-{1\over 2}}\left(\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f_{\rho} - \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*{\bf y}\right) \right\|_{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying \eref{htInfty} to the above, introducing with \eref{concentration_frho} and \eref{concentration_operator},
and then noting that $\kappa \geq 1$ and $v \geq 1,$
one can prove the first part of the lemma.\\
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[of Lemma \ref{lemma:biasHnorm}]
Obviously, $f_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega^{\dag}$ and thus
$\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \omega^{\dag} = \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^{*} f_{\mathcal{H}}$. Combining with Assumption \ref{as:regularity},
$\mathcal{T}_{\rho} \omega^{\dag} = \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^{*} \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{\zeta} \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{-\zeta} f_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\zeta} \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^{*} \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{-\zeta} f_{\mathcal{H}} $,
and $\omega^{\dag} = \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\dag} \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\zeta} \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^{*} \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{-\zeta} f_{\mathcal{H}}.$ Subtracting $\omega^{\dag}$ from both sides of \eref{Alg3D}, and using $\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^{*} f_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{T}_{\rho} \omega^{\dag}$,
we know that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu_{t+1} - \omega^{\dag} = (I - \eta_t \mathcal{T}_{\rho})(\mu_t - \omega^{\dag}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying this relationship iteratively, with $\mu_1=0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu_{t+1} - \omega^{\dag} = -\Pi_1^t(\mathcal{T}_{\rho})\omega^{\dag}= -\Pi_1^t(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}) \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\dag} \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\zeta} \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^{*} \mathcal{L}_{\rho}^{-\zeta} f_{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mu_{t+1} - \omega^{\dag}\|_{H} \leq \|\Pi_1^t(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}) \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\dag} \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\zeta} \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^{*}\| R \leq \|\Pi_1^t(\mathcal{T}_{\rho}) \mathcal{T}_{\rho}^{\zeta-1/2}\| R.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lemma:initialerror}, one can get the desired result.
\end{proof}
{\section{List of Some Notations} \label{sec:notations}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c | l }
\hline
Notation & Meaning \\ \hline
$H$ & the hypothesis space\\
$X, Y, Z$& the input space, the output space and the sample space ($Z= X \times Y$) \\
$\rho$ & the fixed probability measure on $Z$ \\
$\rho_X$ &the induced marginal measure of $\rho$ on $X$ \\
$\rho(\cdot | x)$ & the conditional probability measure on $Y$ w.r.t. $x\in X$ and $\rho$ \\
$\bf z$ & the sample $\{z_i=(x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ of size $m\in\mathbb{N}$, where each $z_i$ is i.i.d. according to $\rho$.\\
$m$ & the sample size of the sample $\bf z$\\
$\mathcal{E}$ & the expected risk defined by \eref{expectedRisk}\\
$\mathcal{E}_{\bf z}$ & the empirical risk w.r.t the sample $\bf z$ defined by \eref{eq:emprisk} \\
$\kappa^2$ & the constant from the bounded assumption \eref{boundedKernel} on the hypothesis space $H$ \\
$\{\omega_t\}_t$ & the sequence generated by the SGM \\
$\theta$ & the decaying rate on step-sizes \\
$b$ & the minibatch size of the SGM \\
$T$ & the maximal number of iterations for the SGM \\
$j_i $ ($j_t$ etc.)& the random index from the uniform distribution on $[m]$ for the SGM \\
${\bf J}_t$ & the set of random indices at $t$-th iteration of the SGM \\
${\bf J}$ &
the set of all random indices for the SGM after $T$ iterations \\
$\mathbb{E}_{{\bf J}}$ & the expectation with respect to the random variables ${\bf J}$ (conditional on $\bf z$)\\
$\{\eta_t\}_t$ & the sequence of step-sizes \\
$M, v$ & the positive constants from the moment (bounded) assumption on the output \\
$L^2(H,\rho_X)$ & the Hilbert space of square integral functions from $H$ to $\mathbb{R}$ with respect to $\rho_X$ \\
$f_{\rho}$ & the regression function defined \eref{regressionfunc} \\
$H_{\rho}$ & $\{f: X \to \mathbb{R}| \exists \omega \in H \mbox{ with } f(x) = \langle \omega, x \rangle_{H}, \rho_X \mbox{-almost surely}\}$ \\
$\zeta,R$& the parameters related to the `regularity' of $f_{\mathcal{H}}$ (see Assumption \ref{as:regularity}) \\
$\omega^{\dagger}$ & the solution of Problem \eref{expectedRisk} with the minimal norm in the attainable case\\
$\gamma, c_{\gamma}$ & the parameters related to the effective dimension (see Assumption \ref{as:eigenvalues}) \\
$\{\sigma_i\}_i$ & the sequence of eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ \\
$\{\nu_t\}_t$ & the sequence generated by the batch GM \eref{Alg2B}\\
$\{\mu_{k}\}_k$ & the sequence defined by the population iteration \eref{Alg3B} \\
$\mathcal{S}_{\rho}$ & the linear map from $H \to L^2(H,\rho_X)$ defined by $\mathcal{S}_{\rho} \omega = \langle \omega, \cdot \rangle$ \\
$\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*$ & the adjoint operator of $\mathcal{S}_{\rho}$, $\mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* f = \int_{X} f(x) x d\rho_{X}(x) $ \\
$\mathcal{L}_{\rho}$ & the operator from $L^2(H,\rho_X) $ to $L^2(H,\rho_X)$, $\mathcal{L}_{\rho}(f) = \mathcal{S}_{\rho} \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^*f =\int_{X} \langle x, \cdot\rangle_{H} f(x) \rho_{X}(x)$\\
$\mathcal{T}_{\rho}$ & the covariance operator from $H$ to $H$, $\mathcal{T}_{\rho} = \mathcal{S}_{\rho}^* \mathcal{S}_{\rho} = \int_{X} \langle \cdot, x \rangle x d\rho_{X}(x)$ \\
$\mathcal{S}_{\bf x}$ & the sampling operator from $H$ to $\mathbb{R}^{m}$, $(\mathcal{S}_{\bf x} \omega)_i = \langle \omega, x_i \rangle_{H}, i \in [m]$ \\
$\mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^*$ & the adjoint operator of $\mathcal{S}_{\bf x}$, $\mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^* \mathbf{y} = {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m y_i x_i$\\
$\mathcal{T}_{\bf x}$ & the empirical covariance operator, $\mathcal{T}_{\bf x} = \mathcal{S}_{\bf x}^* \mathcal{S}_{\bf x} = {1 \over m} \sum_{i=1}^m \langle \cdot, x_i\rangle x_i$\\
$\Pi_{t+1}^T(L)$ & $= \Pi_{k=t+1}(I - \eta_k L)$ when $t\in [T-1]$ and $\Pi_{T+1}^{T} = I$ \\
$\sum_{i=t+1}^t\eta_i $ & $ = 0$ \\
$\lambda$ & a `regularization' parameter, $\lambda>0$\\
$\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda}$, & $\mathcal{T}_{\rho,\lambda} = \mathcal{T}_{\rho} + \lambda$\\
$\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda}$, & $\mathcal{T}_{{\bf x},\lambda} = \mathcal{T}_{\bf x} +\lambda$\\
$\{N_k\}_k$ & the sequence defined by \eref{Nt}. \\
$M_{k,i}$ & defined by \eref{Mk}
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
|
\section{Background}
\label{background}
The following notation will hold
throughout the paper.
Let $\bar X$ be a closed Riemann surface
with an integrable
meromorphic quadratic differential $q$.
We remind the reader that $q$ may have poles of order $1$.
We denote the vertical and
horizontal foliations of $q$ by $\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^-$
respectively. Let $\PP$ be a finite subset of $\bar X$
that includes the poles of $q$ if any, and let
$X = \bar X \ssm \PP$.
Let $\mathrm{sing}(q)$ denote the union of $\PP$ with the set of zeros
of $q$.
We require further that $q$ has no horizontal or
vertical saddle connections, that is no leaves of $\lambda^\pm$ that
connect two points of $\mathrm{sing}(q)$.
This situation holds in particular if
$\lambda^\pm$ are the stable/unstable foliations of a pseudo-Anosov
map $f:X\to X$, which will often be the case for us.
If $\PP=\mathrm{sing}(q)$ (i.e. $\PP$ contains all zeros of $q$)
we say $X$ is {\em fully-punctured}.
Let $\hat X$ denote the metric completion of the universal cover $\til
X$ of $X$, and note that there is an infinite branched covering
$\hat X \to \bar X$, infinitley branched over the points of $\PP$. The
preimage $\hat\PP$ of $\PP$ is the set of completion points.
The space $\hat X$ is a complete CAT$(0)$ space with the metric induced by
$q$.
\subsection{Veering triangulations}
\label{veering defs}
In this section let $\PP=\mathrm{sing}(q)$.
The veering triangulation, originally defined by Agol in
\cite{agol2011ideal} in the case
where $q$ corresponds to
a pseudo-Anosov $f:X\to X$, is an ideal
layered triangulation of $X\times\mathbb{R}$ which projects to a triangulation
of the mapping torus $M$ of $f$. The
definition we give here is due to Gu\'eritaud \cite{gueritaud}.
(Agol's ``veering'' property itself will not actually play a role in
this paper, so we will not give its definition).
A {\em singularity-free rectangle} in $\hat X$ is an embedded rectangle whose
edges consist of leaf segments of the lifts of $\lambda^\pm$ and whose
interior contains no singularities of $\hat X$.
If $R$ is a {\em maximal} singularity-free rectangle in $\hat X$ then
it must contain a singularity on each edge. Note that there cannot be
more than one singularity on an edge since $\lambda^\pm$ have no
saddle connections.
We associate to $R$ an ideal tetrahedron whose vertices are $\partial R
\cap \hat\PP$, as in \Cref{gue-tetra}.
This tetrahedron comes equipped with a ``flattening'' map into $\hat X$ as pictured.
\realfig{gue-tetra}{A maximal singularity-free rectangle $R$ defines a
tetrahedron equipped with a map into $R$.}
The tetrahedron comes with a natural orientation, inherited from the
orientation of $\hat X$ using the convention that the edge connecting
the horizontal boundaries of the rectangle lies {\em above} the edge
connecting the vertical boundaries. This orientation is indicated in \Cref{gue-tetra}.
The union of all these ideal tetrahedra, with faces identified whenever they
map to the same triangle in $\hat X$, is Gu\'eritaud's construction of
the veering triangulation of $\til X \times \mathbb{R}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{gueritaud construction} {\rm\cite{gueritaud}}
Suppose that $X$ is fully-punctured.
The complex of tetrahedra associated to maximal rectangles of $q$ is
an ideal triangulation $\til\tau$ of $\til X\times \mathbb{R}$, and the maps of
tetrahedra to their defining rectangles piece together to a fibration
$\pi:\til X \times \mathbb{R} \to \til X$. The action of $\pi_1(X)$ on $(\til
X,\til q)$ lifts simplicially
to $\til\tau$, and equivariantly with respect to $\pi$.
The quotient is
a triangulation of $X \times \mathbb{R}$.
If $q$
corresponds to a pseudo-Anosov $f:X\to X$
then the action of $f$ on $(X,q)$ lifts simplicially and
$\pi$-equivariantly to $\Phi:X\times\mathbb{R}\to X\times\mathbb{R}$.
The quotient is
a triangulation $\tau$ of the mapping torus $M$. The fibers of $\pi$
descend to flow lines for the suspension flow of $f$.
\end{theorem}
We will frequently abuse notation and use $\tau$ to refer to the
triangulation both in $M$ and in its covers.
We note that a saddle connection $\sigma$ of $q$ is an edge of $\tau$
if and only if $\sigma$ spans a singularity-free rectangle in $X$. See
\Cref{extend-rect}.
\realfig{extend-rect}{The singularity-free rectangle spanned by $\sigma$ can be
extended horizontally (or vertically) to a maximal one.}
If $e$ and $f$ are two crossing $\tau$-edges spanning rectangles $R_e$ and $R_f$,
note that $R_e$ crosses $R_f$ from top to bottom, or from left to
right -- any other configuration would contradict the singularity-free
property of the rectangles (\Cref{edges-cross}). If $\sl(e)$ denotes
the absolute value of the slope of $e$ with respect to $q$, we can see
that $R_e$ crosses $R_f$ from top to bottom if and only if
$e$ crosses $f$ and
$\sl(e) > \sl(f)$. We say that $e$ is {\em more vertical} than $f$ and
also
write $e>f$. We will see that $e>f$ corresponds to $e$ lying higher
than $f$ in the uppward flow direction.
Indeed we can see already that the relation $>$ is transitive, since
if $e>f$ and $f>g$ then the rectangle of $g$ is forced to intersect
the rectangle of $e$.
\realfig{edges-cross}{The rectangle of $e$ crosses $f$ from top to
bottom and we write $e>f$.}
We conclude with a brief description of the local structure of $\tau$ around
an edge $e$: The rectangle spanned by $e$ can be extended
horizontally to define a tetrahedron lying below $e$ in the flow direction (\Cref{extend-rect}),
and vertically to define a tetrahedron lying above $e$ in the flow
direction. Call these $Q_-$ and $Q_+$ as in
\Cref{edge-swing}. Between these, on each side of $e$,
is a sequence of tetrahedra $Q_1,\ldots,Q_m$ $(m\ge 1)$ so that two successive
tetrahedra in the sequence $Q_-,Q_1,\ldots,Q_m,Q_+$ share a triangular
face adjacent to $e$.
We find this sequence by starting with one
of the two top faces of $Q_-$, extending its spanning rectangle vertically until it hits
a singularity, and calling $Q_1$ the tetrahedron whose projection is inscribed in the new rectangle. If the new singularity belongs to $Q_+$ we are done $(m = 1)$, otherwise we repeat from the top face of $Q_1$ containing $e$ to find $Q_2$, and continue in this manner.
\Cref{edge-swing} illustrates this structure on one side of an edge
$e$. Repeating on the other side, note that the link of the edge $e$ is a circle, as expected.
\realfig{edge-swing}{The tetrahedra adjacent to an edge $e$ on one
side form a sequence ``swinging'' around $e$}
\subsection{Arc and curve complexes}
\label{sec: arc_complex}
The arc and curve complex $\A(Y)$ for a compact surface $Y$ is usually
defined as follows:
its vertices are essential homotopy classes of
embedded circles and properly embedded arcs $([0,1],\{0,1\}) \to
(Y,\partial Y)$, where ``essential'' means not homotopic to a point or
into the boundary \cite{MM2}. We must be clear about the meaning of homotopy
classes here, for the case of arcs: If $Y$ is not an annulus,
homotopies of arcs are assumed to be homotopies of maps of pairs. When
$Y$ is an annulus the homotopies are also required to fix the endpoints.
Simplices of $\A(Y)$, in all cases, correspond to tuples of vertices
which can be simultaneously realized by maps that are disjoint on
their interiors. We endow $\A(Y)$ with the simplicial distance on its
$1$-skeleton.
It will be useful, in the non-annular case, to observe that the
following definition is equivalent: Instead of maps of closed
intervals consider proper embeddings $\mathbb{R} \to \int(Y)$ into the
interior of $Y$, with equivalence arising from proper homotopy. This
definition is independent of the compactification of
$\int(Y)$. The natural isomorphism between these two versions of
$\A(Y)$ is induced by
a straightening construction in a collar
neighborhood of the boundary.
If $Y\subset S$ is an essential subsurface (meaning the inclusion of
$Y$ is $\pi_1$-injective and is not homotopic to a point or to an end
of $S$), we have subsurface projections $\pi_Y(\lambda)$ which are
defined for simplices $\lambda\subset \A(S)$ that intersect $Y$
essentially. Namely, after lifting $\lambda$ to the
cover $S_Y$ associated to $\pi_1(Y)$ (i.e. the cover to which $Y$
lifts homeomorphically and for which $S_Y \cong \int(Y)$),
we obtain a collection of
properly embedded disjoint essential arcs and curves,
which determine a simplex of $\A(Y)$.
We let $\pi_Y(\lambda)$ be the union of these vertices \cite{MM2}.
We make a similar definition for a lamination $\lambda$ that
intersects $Y$ essentially, except that we include not just the leaves
of $\lambda$ but all leaves that one can add in the complement of
$\lambda$ which accumulate on $\lambda$. This is natural when we
realize $\lambda$ as a measured {\em foliation} (as we do in most of
the paper), and need to include {\em generalized leaves}, which are
leaves that are allowed to pass through singularities.
Note that the diameter of $\pi_Y(\lambda)$ in $\A(Y)$ is at most 2.
Note that when $Y$ is an annulus these arcs have natural endpoints
coming from the standard compactification of $\til S = \HH^2$ by a
circle at infinity. We remark that $\pi_Y$ does not depend on any choice
of hyperbolic metric on $S$.
When $Y$ is not an annulus and $\lambda$ and $\partial Y$ are in
minimal position, we can also identify $\pi_Y(\lambda)$ with the
isotopy classes of components of $\lambda\cap Y$.
These definitions naturally extend to
immersed surfaces arising from covers of $S$.
Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated subgroup of $\pi_1(S)$. Then the
corresponding cover $S_\Gamma \to S$ has a compact core $W$ -- a
compact subsurface $W \subset S_\Gamma$ such that $S_\Gamma \ssm
W$ is a collection of boundary parallel annuli. For curves or
laminations $\lambda^\pm$ of $S$, we have lifts
$\widetilde{\lambda}^\pm$ to $S_\Gamma$ and define
$d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) = d_{S_\Gamma}(\widetilde{\lambda}^-,
\widetilde{\lambda}^+)$.
Throughout this paper, when $\lambda,\lambda'$ are two laminations or
arc/curve systems, we denote by $d_Y(\lambda,\lambda')$ the {\em
minimal} distance between their images in $\A(Y)$,
that is
$$
d_Y(\lambda,\lambda') = \min\{d_Y(l,l') : l \in \pi_Y(\lambda), l' \in \pi_Y(\lambda') \}.
$$
To denote the \emph{maximal} distance between $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$ in $\A(Y)$ we write
$$
\mathrm{diam}_Y(\lambda,\lambda') = \mathrm{diam}_{\A(Y)}(\pi_Y(\lambda)\cup\pi_Y(\lambda')).
$$
\subsection{Flat geometry}
\label{AY in flat geometry}
In this section we return to the singular Euclidean geometry of $(X,q)$
and describe a circle at infinity for the flat metric
induced by $q$ on the universal cover $\til X$.
We identify $\til X$ with $\HH^2$
after fixing a reference hyperbolic metric on $X$.
Because of incompleteness of the flat metric
at the punctures $\PP$, the connection between the circle we will describe
and the usual circle at infinity for
$\HH^2$ requires a bit of care. A related
discussion appears in Gu\'eritaud \cite{gueritaud}, although he deals
explicitly only with the fully-punctured case.
With this picture of the
circle at infinity we will be able to describe $\pi_Y$ in terms of
$q$-geodesic representatives, and to describe a
$q$-convex hull for essential subsurfaces of $X$. In this section we do
not assume that $X$ is fully-punctured.
The completion points $\hat \PP$ in $\hat X$ correspond
to parabolic fixed points for $\pi_1(X)$ in $\partial \HH^2$, and
we abuse notation slightly by identifying $\hat\PP$ with this subset
of $\partial \HH^2$.
A {\em complete $q$-geodesic ray} is either a geodesic ray
$r:[0,\infty)\to\hat X$ of infinite
length, or a finite-length geodesic segment that
terminates in $\hat\PP$. A complete $q$-geodesic line is a geodesic
which is split by any point into two complete $q$-geodesic rays.
Our goal in this section is to describe a
circle at infinity that corresponds to endpoints of these rays.
\begin{proposition}\label{same compactification}
There is a compactification $\beta(\til X)$ of $\til X$ on which $\pi_1(X)$ acts
by homeomorphisms, with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a $\pi_1(X)$-equivariant homeomorphism $\beta(\til X) \to
\overline{\HH^2}$, extending the identification of $\til X$ with $\HH^2$ and
taking $\hat \PP$ to the corresponding
parabolic fixed points in $\partial \HH^2$.
\item If $l$ is a complete $q$-geodesic line in $\hat X$ then its
image in $\overline{\HH^2}$ is an embedded arc with endpoints on
$\partial\HH^2$ and interior points in $\HH^2 \cup \hat \PP$. Conversely, every pair of distinct points $x,y$ in
$\partial\beta(\til X) = \beta(\til X) \ssm \til X$ are the
endpoints of a complete $q$-geodesic line. The termination point in
$\partial\HH^2$ of a complete $q$-geodesic
ray is in $\hat\PP$ if and only if it has finite length.
\item The $q$-geodesic line connecting distinct
$x,y\in\partial\beta(\til X)$ is either unique, or there is a
family of parallel geodesics making up an infinite Euclidean strip.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
One of the tricky points of this picture is that $q$-geodesic rays and
lines may meet points of the boundary $\partial\beta(\til X)$ not just at their
endpoints.
\begin{proof}
When $\PP = \emptyset$ and $X$ is a closed surface, $\til X$ is
quasi-isometric to $\HH^2$ and the proposition holds for the standard
Gromov compactification. We assume from now on that
$\PP\ne\emptyset$.
We begin by setting $\hat \HH^2 = \HH^2 \cup \hat \PP$ and endowing
it with the topology obtained
by taking, for each $p \in \hat \PP$, horoballs based at $p$ as a
neighborhood basis for $p$.
\begin{lemma}\label{hat same}
The natural identification of $\widetilde{X}$ with $\HH^2$
extends to a homeomorphism from $\hat X$ to $\hat \HH^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First note that $\hat \PP$ is discrete as both a subspace of $\hat X$
and of $\hat \HH^2$. Hence, it suffices to show that a sequence of
points $x_i$ in $\widetilde{X} = \HH^2$ converges to a point $p \in
\hat \PP$ in $\hat X$ if and only if it converges to $p$ in $\hat
\HH^2$. This follows from the fact that the horoball neighborhoods of
$p$ descend to cusp neighborhoods in $X$ which form a
neighborhood basis for the puncture that is equivalent to the
neighborhood basis of $q$-metric balls.
\end{proof}
Our strategy now is to form the {\em Freudenthal space} of $\hat X$
and equivalently $\hat \HH^2$, which appends a space of {\em
ends}. This space will be compact but not Hausdorff, and after a
mild quotient we will obtain the desired compactification which can be
identified with $\overline{\HH^2}$. Simple properties of this
construction will then allow us to obtain the geometric conclusions in
part (2) of the proposition.
Let $\epsilon(\hat X)$ be the space of ends of $\hat X$, that is the
inverse limit of the system of path components of complements of
compact sets in $\hat X$. The Freudenthal space $\operatorname{Fr}(\hat X)$ is the
union $\hat X\cup \ep(\hat X)$ endowed with the toplogy generated by
using path components of complements of compacta to describe
neighborhood bases for the ends. Because $\hat X$ is not locally
compact, $\operatorname{Fr}(\hat X)$ is not guaranteed to be compact, and we have to take a bit of
care to describe it.
The construction can of course be repeated for $\hat\HH^2$, and
the homeomorphism of \Cref{hat same} gives rise to a
homeomorphism $\operatorname{Fr}(\hat X) \to \operatorname{Fr}(\HH^2)$.
Let us work in $\hat\HH^2$ now, where we can describe the ends
concretely using the following observations:
Every compact set
$K\subset \hat\HH^2$ meets $\hat\PP$ in a finite set $A$ (since $\hat
\PP$ is discrete in $\hat\HH^2$), and such a $K$ is
contained in an embedded closed disk $D$ which also meets $\hat\PP$ at
$A$. (This is not hard to see but does require attention to deal
correctly with the horoball neighborhood bases).
The components of $\hat\HH^2\ssm D$ determine a partition of
$\ep(\hat\HH^2)$, which in fact depends only on the set $A$ and not on
$D$ (if $D'$ is another disk meeting $\hat\PP$ at $A$, then $D\cup
D'$ is contained in a third disk $D''$, and this common refinement
of the neighborhoods gives the same partition).
Thus we have a more manageble (countable) inverse system of
neighborhoods in $\ep(\hat\HH^2)$, and with this description it is not
hard to see that $\ep(\hat\HH^2)$ is a Cantor set.
For each $p\in\hat\PP$ there are two distinguished ends $p^+,p^-\in
\ep(\hat\HH^2)$ defined as follows: For each finite subset $A\subset\hat\PP$
with at least two
points one of which is $p$, the two partition terms adjacent to $p$ in the
circle (or equivalently, in the boundary of any $D\subset \hat \HH^2$
meeting $\hat\PP$ in $A$)
define neighborhoods in
$\ep(\hat\HH^2)$, and this pair of neighborhood systems determines $p^+$ and
$p^-$ respectively.
One can also see that $p^+$ (and $p^-$) and $p$ do not admit disjoint
neighborhoods, and this is why $\operatorname{Fr}(\hat\HH^2)$ is not Hausdorff. We
are therefore led to define the quotient space
\[
\beta(\hat \HH^2) = \operatorname{Fr}(\hat\HH^2) / \sim ,
\]
where we make the identifications $p^- \sim p \sim p^+$, for each $p\in\hat\PP$.
We can make the same definitions in $\hat X$, obtaining
\[
\beta(\hat X) = \operatorname{Fr}(\hat X) / \sim ,
\]
which we rename $\beta(\til X)$.
Since the definitions are purely in terms of the topology of the spaces
$\hat\HH^2$ and $\hat X$,
the homeomorphism of
\Cref{hat same} extends to a homeomorphism $\beta(\til X) \to \beta(\hat\HH^2)$.
Part (1) of
\Cref{same compactification} follows once we establish that the
identity map of $\HH^2$ extends to a homeomorphism
$$
\beta(\hat\HH^2) \cong \overline{\HH^2}.
$$
This is not hard to see once we observe that the disks used above to
define neighborhood systems can be chosen to be ideal hyperbolic polygons. Their
halfspace complements serve as neighborhood systems for points of
$\partial\HH^2\setminus\hat\PP$. A sequence converges in
$\overline{\HH^2}$ to a point $p\in \hat\PP$
if it is eventually contained in any union of a horoball centered at p and two half-planes adjacent to $p$ on opposite sides.
This is modeled exactly by the equivalence relation $\sim$.
For part (2), let $D_0$ be a fundamental domain for $\pi_1(X)$ in
$\hat X$, which may be chosen to be a disk with vertices at points of
$\hat\PP$, and of finite $q$-diameter. Translates of $D_0$ can be glued
to build a sequence of nested disks $D_n$ exhausting $\hat X$, each of
which meets $\hat\PP$ in a finite set of vertices, and whose boundary is composed
of arcs of bounded diameter between successive vertices.
A complete $q$-geodesic ray $r$ either has finite length and terminates in
a point of $\hat\PP$, or has infinite length in which case it leaves
every compact set of $\hat X$, and visits each point of $\hat\PP$ at
most once. Thus it must terminate in a point of
$\ep(\hat X)$ in the Freudenthal space. We claim that this point
cannot be $p^+$ or $p^-$ for $p\in\hat\PP$. If $r$ terminates in
$p^+$, then for each disk $D_n$ ($n$ large) it must pass through the edge of
$\partial D_n$ adjacent to $p$ on the side associated to $p^+$. Any
two such consecutive edges meet in $p$ at one of finitely many angles (images of
corners of $D_0$), and hence the accumulated angle between edges goes
to $\infty$ with $n$. If we replace these edges by their $q$-geodesic
representatives, the angles still go to $\infty$.
This means that $r$ contains infinitely many disjoint subsegments
whose endpoints are a bounded distance from $p$, but this contradicts the
assumption that $r$ is
a geodesic ray.
The image of $r$ in the quotient $\beta(\til X)$ therefore terminates
in a point of $\hat\PP$ when it has finite length, and a point in
$\partial\beta(\til X)\ssm \hat\PP$ otherwise. The same is true for
both ends of a complete $q$-geodesic line $l$, and we note that both
ends of $l$
cannot land on the same point because then we would have a sequence of
segments $l_n\subset l$ of length going to $\infty$ with both
endpoints of $l_n$ on the same edge or on two consecutive edges
of $\partial D_n$, a
contradiction to the fact that $l_n$ is a geodesic and the arcs in
$\partial D_n$ have bounded $q$-length.
Now let $x,y$ be two distinct points in $\partial\beta(\til
X)$. Assume first that both are not in $\hat\PP$. Then for large
enough $n$, they are in separate components of the complement of
$D_n$. If we let $x_i \to x$ and $y_i\to y$ be sequences in $\beta(\til X)$, then eventually $x_i$ and
$y_i$ are in the same components of the complement of $D_n$ as $x$ and
$y$, respectively. The
geodesic from $x_i$ to $y_i$ must therefore pass through the
corresponding boundary segments of $D_n$ and in particular through $D_n$,
so we can extract a
convergent subsequence as $i\to\infty$. Letting $n\to\infty$ and diagonalizing we
obtain a limiting geodesic which terminates in $x,y$ as desired. If
$x\in \hat\PP$ or $y\in\hat\PP$ the same argument works except that we
can take $x_i \equiv x$ or $y_i \equiv y$. This establishes part (2).
Now let $l$ and $l'$ be two $q$-geodesics terminating in $x$ and $y$.
If $x$ and $y$ are in $\hat\PP$ then $l=l'$ since the metric is
CAT(0). If $x\notin \hat\PP$ then both $l$ and $l'$ pass through
infinitely many segments of $\partial D_n$ on their way
to $x$. Since these segments have uniformly bounded lengths, $l$ and
$l'$ remain a bounded distance apart. If $y\in\hat\PP$ then again
CAT(0) implies that $l=l'$, and if $y\notin\hat\PP$ then $l$ and $l'$
must cobound an infinite flat strip. This establishes part (3).
\qedhere
\end{proof}
With \Cref{same compactification} in hand we can consider
each complete $q$-geodesic line $l$ in $\hat X = \hat \HH^2$ as an arc
in the closed disk $\overline{\HH^2}$, which by the Jordan curve
theorem separates the disk ${\HH^2}$ into at least
$2$ components. Each component is an open disk whose closure meets
$\partial\HH^2$ in a subarc of one of the complementary arcs of the endpoints of
$l$. We call the union of disks whose closures meet one of these complementary arcs
of the endpoints of $l$
an {\em open side} $\openside{l}$ of $l$. The closure of each open side in $\overline \HH^2$ is then a connected union
of closed disks, attached to each other along the points of $\hat\PP$
that $l$ meets on the circle.
We call the closure of the open side $\openside{l}$ of $l$ in $\overline{\HH^2}$ the {\em side} $\side{l}$.
Note that $\openside{l} = \int (\side{l} \cap \HH^2) = \side{l} \ssm (\partial \HH^2 \cup l)$, and if $\side{l}$ and $\side{l}'$ are the two sides of $l$, then $\side{l} \cap \side{l}' = l$.
See \Cref{line-disks}.
\realfig{line-disks}{A complete $q$-geodesic line $l$ ands its endpoints on $\partial \HH^2$.}
With this picture we can state the
following:
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:side_coherence}
Let $a,b$ be disjoint arcs in $\HH^2$ with well-defined, distinct endpoints on $\partial \HH^2$ and let $a_q,b_q$ be $q$-geodesic lines with the same endpoints as $a$ and $b$, respectively. Then $b_q$ is contained in a single side of $a_q$.
\end{corollary}
\realfig{ab-intersect}{Disjoint arcs with their $q$-geodesic representatives.}
\begin{proof}
Letting $L$ and $R$ be the arcs of $\partial\HH^2$
minus the endpoints of $a$,
the endpoints of $b$ must lie in one of them, say $L$, since
$a$ and $b$ are disjoint.
Since $a_q$ and $b_q$ are geodesics in the CAT$(0)$ space $\hat X$,
their intersection is connected. If their intersection is empty, then
the corollary is clear. Otherwise, $b_q\ssm a_q$ is one or
two arcs, each with one endpoint on $a_q$ and the other on $L$. It follows
that $b_q\ssm a_q$ is on one open side of $a_q$, and the corollary
follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Subsurfaces and projections in the flat metric}
Let $Y \subset X$ be an essential compact subsurface, and let
$X_Y=\til X/\pi_1(Y)$ be the associated cover of $X$. (Here we have identified $\pi_1(X)$ with the deck transformations of $\widetilde{X} \to X$ and fixed $\pi_1(Y)$ within its conjugacy class.)
For any
lamination $\lambda$ in $X$, we want to show that the projection
$\pi_Y(\lambda)$ can be
realized by subsegments of the $q$-geodesic representative of $\lambda$.
Recall that $X$ is not necessarily
fully-punctured.
We say a boundary component of $Y$ is {\em puncture-parallel} if it bounds a
disk in $\bar X \ssm Y$ that contains a single point of $\PP$. We
denote the corresponding subset of $\PP$ by $\PP_Y$ and refer to them
as the \emph{punctures} of $Y$. Let $\til{\PP}_Y$ denote the subset of
punctures of $X_Y$ which are encircled by the boundary components of
the lift of $Y$ to $X_Y$.
In terms of the completed space $\bar X_Y$, $\til \PP_Y$ is exactly the set of completion points which have finite total angle.
Let $\partial_0Y$ denote the union of the puncture-parallel components of
$\partial Y$ and let $\partial'Y$ denote the rest. Observe that the
components of $\partial_0 Y$ are in natural bijection with $\PP_Y$ and set
$Y' = Y\ssm\partial_0Y$.
Identifying $\til X$ with $\HH^2$,
let $\Lambda\subset \partial\HH^2$ be the limit set of
$\pi_1(Y)$, $\Omega =
\partial\HH^2 \ssm \Lambda$, and $\hat\PP_Y\subset \Lambda$
the set of parabolic fixed points of $\pi_1(Y)$.
Let $C(X_Y)$ denote the compactification of $X_Y$ given by
$(\HH^2 \cup \Omega\cup \hat\PP_Y)/\pi_1(Y)$, adding a point for each
puncture-parallel end of $X_Y$, and a circle for each of the other
ends. Now given a lamination (or foliation) $\lambda$, realized geodesically in the
hyperbolic metric on $X$, its lift to $X_Y$ extends to properly
embedded arcs in $C(X_Y)$, of which the ones that
are essential give
$\pi_Y(\lambda)$.
\Cref{same compactification}
allows us to
perform the same construction with the $q$-geodesic representative of
$\lambda$. Note that the leaves we obtain may
meet points of $\til \PP_Y$
in their interior, but a slight perturbation
produces properly embedded lines in $X_Y$ which are properly isotopic
to the leaves coming from $\lambda$.
If $Y$ is an annulus the same construction works, with the observation
that the ends of $Y$ cannot be puncture-parallel and hence $C(Y)$ is
a closed annulus and the leaves have well-defined endpoints in its
boundary. We have proved:
\begin{lemma}
\label{q arcs for AY}
Let $Y\subset X$ be an essential subsurface.
If $\lambda$ is a proper arc or lamination in $X$ then the lifts of its $q$-geodesic
representatives to $X_Y$, after discarding inessential components, give representatives of $\pi_Y(\lambda)$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection*{$q$-convex hulls}
We will need a flat-geometry analogue of the hyperbolic convex hull.
The main idea is simple -- pull the boundary
of the regular
convex hull tight using $q$-geodesics. The only difficulty comes from
the fact that
these geodesics can pass through parabolic fixed points, and
fail to be disjoint from each other, so
the resulting object may fail to be an embedded surface.
Our discussion is similar to Section $3$ of
Rafi \cite{rafi2005characterization}, but the discussion there
requires adjustments to handle correctly the incompleteness at punctures.
As above, identify $\til X$ with $\HH^2$. Let
$\Lambda \subset \partial \HH^2$ be a closed set and let
${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ be the convex hull of $\Lambda$ in $\HH^2$. We define
${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ as follows.
Assume first that $\Lambda$ has at least 3 points.
Each boundary geodesic $l$ of ${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ has the same
endpoints as a
(biinfinite) $q$-geodesic $l_q$.
By part (3) of \Cref{same compactification},
$l_q$ is
unique unless it is part of a parallel family of geodesics, making a
Euclidean strip.
The plane is divided by $l_q$ into two sides as in the discussion
before \Cref{cor:side_coherence},
and one of the sides, which we call
$\side{l}$, meets $\partial \HH^2$
in a subset of the complement of $\Lambda$.
Recall that $\side{l}$ is either a disk
or a string of disks attached along puncture
points.
If $l_q$ is one of
a parallel family of geodesics, we include this family in $\side{l}$.
After deleting from $\hat X$ the interiors of $\side{l}$ for all $l$
in $\partial {\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ (which are disjoint by \Cref{cor:side_coherence}),
we obtain ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$, the
$q$-convex hull.
If $\Lambda$ has 2 points then ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ is the closed Euclidean strip
formed by the union of $q$-geodesics joining those two points.
\medskip
Now fixing a subsurface $Y$ we can define a $q$-convex hull for the
cover $X_Y$, by taking a quotient of the $q$-convex hull of the limit
set $\Lambda_Y$ of $\pi_1(Y)$. This quotient, which we will denote by
${\operatorname{CH}}_q(X_Y)$, lies in the completion $\bar{X}_Y$.
Because ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(X_Y)$
may not be homeomorphic to $Y$, we pay explicit attention to a marking
map between $Y$ and its hull.
Let $\hat\iota:Y \to X_Y$ be the lift of the inclusion map to the
cover.
\begin{lemma}
\label{q tight}
The lift $\hat\iota:Y\to X_Y$ is homotopic to a map $\hat\iota_q:Y\to \bar
X_Y$ whose image is the $q$-hull ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(X_Y)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item The homotopy $(h_t)_{t \in[0,1]}$ from $\hat\iota$ to $\hat\iota_q$ has the property that
$h_t(Y) \subset X_Y$ for all $t \in [0,1)$.
\item Each
component of $\partial_0 Y$
is taken by
$\hat\iota_q$ to the corresponding completion point of $\til{\PP}_Y$.
\item If $Y$ is an annulus then the image of $\hat\iota_q$ is either a maximal flat cylinder in $\bar X_Y$ or the unique geodesic representative of the core of $Y$ in $\bar X_Y$.
\item If $Y$ is not an annulus then
each component $\gamma$ of $\partial' Y$
is taken by $\hat\iota_q$ to a
$q$-geodesic representative in $\bar X_Y$. If there is a flat
cylinder in the homotopy class of $\gamma$ then the interior of
the cylinder is disjoint from $\hat\iota_q(Y)$.
\item There is a deformation retraction $r:\bar X_Y \to
\hat\iota_q(Y)$. For each component $\gamma$ of $\partial'Y$, the
preimage $r^{-1}(\hat\iota_q(\gamma))$ intersects $X_Y$ in either
an open annulus or a union of open disks joined in a cycle along
points in their closures.
\item If the interior $\int({\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda_Y))$ is a disk then
$\hat\iota_q$ is a homeomorphism from $Y' = Y\ssm\partial_0Y$ to its image.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Gamma = \pi_1 Y$ and let
$\Lambda =\Lambda_Y \subset \partial \HH^2$ denote the limit set of $\Gamma$.
As usual, ${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)/\Gamma$ can be identified with $Y' = Y \ssm \partial_0 Y$. After
isotopy we may assume $\hat\iota:Y'\to {\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)/\Gamma$ is this
identification.
First assume that $Y$ is not an annulus.
Form ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ as above,
and for a boundary geodesic $l$ of
${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ define $l_q$ and its side $\side{l}$ as in the
discussion above. The quotient of $l_q$ is
a geodesic representative of a component of $\partial Y$, and
the quotient of the open side $\openside{l}$ in $X_Y$
is either an open annulus or a
union of open disks joined in a cycle along points in their completion.
The $q$-geodesic may pass
through points of $\hat \PP$,
so that there is a homotopy from $l$ to $l_q$ rel endpoints which
stays in $\HH^2$ until the last instant.
We may equivariantly deform the identity to a map
${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda) \to {\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$, which takes each $l$ to
$l_q$: since ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ is contractible, it suffices to give a
$\Gamma$-invariant triangulation of ${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ and define the
homotopy successively on the skeleta. This homotopy descends to a map
from $Y'$ to ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)/\Gamma$, and can be chosen so that the
puncture-parallel boundary components map to the corresponding points of $\PP_Y$. This
gives the desired map $\hat\iota_q$ and establishes properties (1-4).
Using the description of the sides $\side{l}$, we may equivariantly
retract $\overline\HH^2$ to ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$, giving rise to the
retraction $r$ of part (5).
Finally, if the interior of ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ is a disk, then its
quotient is a surface. Our homotopy yields a
homotopy-equivalence of $Y'$ to this surface which preserves peripheral
structure and can therefore be deformed rel boundary to a
homeomorphism. We let $\hat\iota_q$ be this homeomorphism, giving part $(6)$.
When $Y$ is a (nonperipheral) annulus, $\Lambda_Y$ is a pair of points
and we recall from above that ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ is either a flat strip
in $\hat{X}$ which descends to a flat cylinder in $\bar X_Y$, or it is
a single geodesic. The proof in the annular case now proceeds exactly
as above.
\end{proof}
Let $\iota_q : Y \to \bar X$ be the composition of $\hat \iota_q$ with
the (branched) covering $\bar X_Y \to \bar X$ and set
$\partial_q Y = \iota_q(\partial' Y)$. Note that this will be a 1-complex of saddle connections and not necessarily a homeomorphic image of $\partial' Y$.
\subsection{Fibered faces of the Thurston norm}
A fibration $\sigma\colon M\to S^1$ of a finite-volume hyperbolic
3-manifold $M$ over the circle comes with the following structure:
there is an integral cohomology class in $H^1(M;\mathbb{Z})$
represented by $\sigma_*:\pi_1M\to \mathbb{Z}$, which is the Poincar\'e dual
of the fiber $F$. There is a
representation of $M$ as a quotient $F\times\mathbb{R}/\Phi$
where $\Phi(x,t) = (f(x),t-1)$ and $f:F\to F$ is called the monodromy
map. This map is pseudo-Anosov and has stable and unstable (singular) measured foliations
$\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^-$ on $F$. Finally there is the suspension
flow inherited from the natural $\mathbb{R}$ action on $F\times\mathbb{R}$, and
suspensions $\Lambda^\pm$ of $\lambda^\pm$ which are flow-invariant 2-dimensional
foliations of $M$. All these objects are defined up to isotopy.
The fibrations of $M$ are organized by the {\em Thurston norm}
$||\cdot||$ on $H^1(M;\mathbb{R})$ \cite{thurston1986norm} (see also \cite{candel2000foliations}). This norm has a
polyhedral unit ball $B$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Every cohomology class dual to a fiber is in the
cone $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$ over a top-dimensional open face $\mathcal{F}$ of $B$.
\item If $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$ contains a cohomology class dual to a fiber
then {\em every} irreducible integral class in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$ is dual to a
fiber. $\mathcal{F}$ is called a {\em fibered face} and its irreducible integral
classes are called fibered classes.
\item For a fibered class $\omega$ with associated fiber $F$,
$||\omega||=-\chi(F)$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular if $\dim H^1(M;\mathbb{R})\ge 2$ and $M$ is fibered then there
are infinitely many fibrations, with fibers of arbitrarily large
complexity.
We will abuse terminology a bit by saying that a fiber (rather than
its Poincar\'e dual) is in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$.
The fibered faces also organize the suspension flows and the
stable/unstable foliations: If $\mathcal{F}$ is a fibered face then there is a
single flow $\psi$ and a single pair $\Lambda^\pm$ of foliations whose leaves
are invariant by $\psi$, such that {\em every} fibration
associated to $\mathbb{R}^+\mathcal{F}$ may be isotoped so that its suspension flow is
$\psi$ up to a reparameterization, and the foliations $\lambda^\pm$ for the monodromy of its fiber $F$ are
$\Lambda^\pm\cap F$.
These results were proven by Fried \cite{fried1982geometry}; see also
McMullen \cite{mcmullen2000polynomial}.
\subsection*{Veering triangulation of a fibered face}
A key fact for us is that the veering triangulation of the manifold
$M$ depends only on the fibered face $\mathcal{F}$ and not on a particular
fiber. This was known to Agol for his original construction (see
sketch in \cite{agol-overflow}), but
Gu\'eritaud's construction makes it almost immediate.
\begin{proposition}[Invariance of $\tau$] \label{prop:invariance}
Let $M$ be a hyperbolic 3-manifold with fully-punctured fibered face
$\mathcal{F}$.
Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be
fibers of $M$ each contained in $\mathbb{R}_+ \mathcal{F}$
and let $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ be the corresponding veering
triangulations of $M$. Then, after an isotopy preserving
transversality to the suspension flow,
$\tau_1 = \tau_2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The suspension flow associated to $\mathcal{F}$ lifts to the universal cover
$\til M$, and any fiber $S$ in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$ is covered
by a copy
of its universal cover $\til S$ in $\til M$ which meets every flow
line transversely, exactly once. Thus we may
identify $\til S$ with the leaf space ${\mathcal L}$ of this flow. The lifts
$\til\Lambda^\pm$ of the suspended laminations project to the leaf
space where they are identified
with the lifts $\til\lambda^\pm$ of $\lambda^\pm$ to $\til S$.
The foliated rectangles used in the construction of $\tau$ from
$\til{q}$ on $\til{S}$ depend
only on the (unmeasured) foliations $\til\lambda^\pm$.
Thus the abstract cell structure of $\tau$ depends
only on the fibered face $\mathcal{F}$ and not on the fiber. The map $\pi$ from each tetrahedron
to its rectangle does depend a bit on the fiber, as we choose
$q$-geodesics for the edges (and the metric $q$ depends on the
fiber); but the edges are always mapped to arcs
in the rectangle that are transverse to both foliations. It follows
that there is a transversality-preserving isotopy between the
triangulations associated to any two fibers.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Fibers and projections}
We next turn to a few lemmas relating subsurface projections over the various fibers in a fixed face of the Thurston norm ball.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:subgroup_projection}
If $\mathcal{F}$ is a fibered face for $M$
and $Y \to S$ is an infinite covering where
$S$ is a fiber in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$ and $\pi_1(Y)$ is finitely generated,
then the projection distance $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+)$ depends only on $\mathcal{F}$ and
the conjugacy class of the subgroup $\pi_1(Y) \le \pi_1(M)$ (and not
on $S$).
\end{lemma}
Note that $Y$ need not correspond to an embedded subsurface of $S$.
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of \Cref{prop:invariance}, $\til S$ can be
identified with the leaf space ${{\mathcal L}}$ of the flow in $\til M$.
The action of $\pi_1(M)$ on $\til M$ descends to ${\mathcal L}$, and
thus the cover $Y = \til S/\pi_1(Y)$ is identified with the quotient
${{\mathcal L}}/\pi_1(Y)$ and the lifts of $\lambda^\pm$ to $Y$ are identified
with the images of $\til\Lambda^\pm$ in ${{\mathcal L}}/\pi_1(Y)$. Thus the
projection $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)$ can be obtained without
reference to the fiber $S$.
\end{proof}
This lemma justifies the notation $d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$ used in
the introduction.
We will also require the following lemma, where we allow maps homotopic to fibers which are not necessarily embeddings.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:flow_to_fiber_2}
Let $F$ be a fiber of $M$. Let $Y\subset M$ be a
compact surface and let $h \colon F \to M$ be a map which is
homotopic to the inclusion. Suppose that $h(F) \cap Y$ is inessential
in $Y$, i.e. each component of the intersection is homotopic into the
ends of $Y$. Then the image of $\pi_1(Y)$ is
contained in $\pi_1(F) \vartriangleleft \pi_1(M)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\zeta$ be the cohomology class dual to $F$. Since $h(F)$
meets $Y$ inessentially, every loop in $Y$ can be pushed off of $h(F)$
so $\zeta$ vanishes on $\pi_1(Y)$. But the
kernel of $\zeta$ in $\pi_1(M)$ is exactly $\pi_1(F)$, so the image of
$\pi_1(Y)$ is in $\pi_1(F)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Rectangle and triangle hulls}
\label{hulls}
In this section we discuss a number of constructions that associate a
configuration of $\tau$-edges to
a saddle connection of the quadratic differential $q$. These
will be used later to show that subsurfaces with large projection are
compatible with the veering triangulation in the appropriate sense.
As a byproduct of our investigation, we prove the (to us) unexpected result
(\Cref{th:total geodesic})
that the edges of the veering triangulation form a totally
geodesic subgraph of the curve and arc graph of $X$.
We emphasize that in \Cref{sec:rectangles_along_saddles} and
\Cref{sec:t_hulls}, the surface $X$ is not necessarily
fully-punctured. Thus by $\tau$ we mean the veering triangulation
associated to the fully-punctured surface $X \ssm \mathrm{sing}(q)$. We will
say that a saddle connection of $X$ is a {\em $\tau$-edge} if its interior
is an edge of this veering triangulation. In particular this means
that its lift to $\til X$ spans a singularity-free rectangle.
\subsection{Maximal rectangles along a saddle connection}
\label{sec:rectangles_along_saddles}
Let $\sigma$ be a saddle connection, for the moment in the completed universal
cover $\hat X$. Consider the set $\mathcal{R}(\sigma)$ of all rectangles which are {\em maximal
with respect to the property that $\sigma$ passes through a diagonal}.
Thus each $R\in\mathcal{R}(\sigma)$ contains singularities in at least two
edges. Let $h(R)$ be the convex hull in $R$ of the singularities
in the boundary of $R$ and let $h^{(1)}(R)$ denote its $1$-skeleton
(see \Cref{rect-hulls}).
\realfig{rect-hulls}{The eight possible (up to symmetry) convex hulls $h(R)$, assuming
at most one singularity per leaf of $\lambda^\pm$. The saddle
connection $\sigma$ is in blue.}
Let
$$
\rhull(\sigma) = \bigcup \{ h^{(1)}(R): R\in \mathcal{R}(\sigma) \}.
$$
See \Cref{r-example} for an example.
Note that all the saddle connections in $\rhull(\sigma)$ are edges of $\tau$ ---
each of these arcs spans a singularity-free rectangle by construction.
Moreover, $\rhull(\sigma) = \{\sigma\}$ if $\sigma$ is itself a $\tau$-edge.
\realfig{r-example}{Example of $\rhull(\sigma)$ (in red)}
The following lemma will play an important role throughout
this paper.
\begin{lemma}\label{r disjoint}
If saddle connections $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ have no transversal intersections then
neither do $\rhull(\sigma_1)$ and $\rhull(\sigma_2)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Say that two rectangles meet {\em crosswise} if their interiors
intersect, and no corners of one are in the interior of the
other. Note that when two distinct rectangles meet crosswise,
any two of their diagonals intersect. We say that the rectangles meet
{\em properly crosswise} if they also do not share any corners, in
which case any two diagonals intersect in the interior.
Let $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ be saddle connections in $\rhull(\sigma_1)$
and $\rhull(\sigma_2)$, respectively, and suppose that they intersect
transversely. Hence their spanning rectangles $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ must
cross as in \Cref{edges-cross}. Assume that $Q_1$ is the taller and
$Q_2$ the wider.
Now let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be the rectangles of $\mathcal{R}(\sigma_1)$ and
$\mathcal{R}(\sigma_2)$ containing $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, respectively.
Because of the singularities in the corners of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, $R_2$
is no taller than $Q_1$ and $R_1$ is no wider than $Q_2$. Hence $R_1$
and $R_2$ meet crosswise. (See \Cref{crossing-rects}).
\realfig{crossing-rects}{Three examples of the crossing pattern. The rectangles $R_1$
and $R_2$ are in blue, $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are in red, and $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are shaded. In {\em (i)} and
{\em (ii)} the
crossing is proper. In {\em (iii)} the corner $c$ is shared.}
If they met properly crosswise then $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ would
have an interior intersection, which is a contradiction. Hence $R_1$
and $R_2$ share a corner $c$. But the edges meeting at $c$ would
have to pass through boundary edges of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$. Those edges already
have the singularities of $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, and so $c$ cannot be
a singularity. Thus if $c$ is the intersection of the diagonals
contained in $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ it would be in the interior of
both saddle connections, again a contradiction.
We conclude that $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ cannot cross.
\end{proof}
An immediate consequence of \Cref{r disjoint} is that we can carry out the
construction downstairs: If $\sigma$ is a saddle connection in $\bar X$ we
can construct $\rhull(\hat \sigma)$ for each of its lifts $\hat \sigma$
to $\hat X$, and the lemma tells us none of them intersect
transversally. Thus the construction projects downstairs to give a
collection of $\tau$-edges with disjoint interior.
Moreover if $K$ is {\em any} collection
of saddle connections with disjoint interiors then $\rhull(K)$ makes sense as a subcomplex of
$\tau$ supported on some section by \Cref{lem:extension}.
Hence, we will continue to use $\rhull(\cdot)$ to denote
the corresponding map on saddle connections of $\bar X$. We remark that although
$\rhull(\cdot)$ takes collections of saddle connections with disjoint interiors to collections of
$\tau$-edges with disjoint interiors, it may do so with multiplicity.
\subsection{Triangle hulls} \label{sec:t_hulls}
Now let us consider a similar operation that uses right triangles
instead of rectangles, and associates to a transversely oriented
saddle connection in the universal cover a homotopic path of saddle
connections.
If $\sigma$ is a saddle connection in $\hat X$ equipped with a
transverse orientation, let $\cT(\sigma)$ denote the collection of
Euclidean right triangles which are {\em maximal with respect to the
property that they are attached along the hypotenuse to $\sigma$ along
the side given by its transverse orientation}. A triangle $t$ in
$\cT(\sigma)$ must have exactly one singularity in each of its legs,
and so their convex hull $h(t)$ is a single saddle connection.
The set $\cT(\sigma)$ must be finite, and its hypotenuses cover
$\sigma$ in a sequence
of non-nested intervals,
ordered by their left (or right) endpoints. See \Cref{t-example}.
Let $\thull(\sigma)$ be the union of segments $h(t)$ for $t\in\cT(\sigma)$.
\realfig{t-example}{An example of $\thull(\sigma)$ and $P(\sigma)$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{thull structure}
Either $\thull(\sigma) = \sigma$ or
$\sigma\cup\thull(\sigma)$ is the boundary of an embedded Euclidean
polygon $P(\sigma)$ in $\hat X$ which is foliated by arcs of $\lambda^\pm$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $t$ and $t'$ are triangles of $\cT(\sigma)$ and $p\in
t\cap t'$ is in the interior of $t$. Let $l$ and $l'$ be the vertical
line segments in $t$ and $t'$, respectively, joining $p$ to the
respective hypotenuses ($l'$ could be a single point). If $l$ and
$l'$ leave $p$ in opposite directions then $l\cup l'$ is a
vertical geodesic connecting two points of $\sigma$, which
contradicts the uniqueness of geodesics in $\hat X$. If they leave
$p$ in the same direction but are not equal, then their difference is a vertical
geodesic with endpoints on $\sigma$, again a contradiction.
We conclude that if $t$ and $t'$ intersect they do so on a common
subarc of their hypotenuses. This subarc spans a (nonmaximal) right triangle which
is exactly $t\cap t'$.
Now given $t\in\cT(\sigma)$, the vertical and
horizontal legs of $t$ each contain a single singularity of $\hat X$;
denote these singularities by $v_t$ and $h_t$, respectively. By
construction of $\cT(\sigma)$, there is a unique triangle $t' \in \cT(\sigma)$ such
that $h_{t'} = v_{t}$, unless $v_{t}$ is an endpoint of
$\sigma$. Hence, given an orientation on $\sigma$, the edges of
$\thull(\sigma)$ come with a natural ordering induced by moving along
$\sigma$. By our observations above, we see that $\thull(\sigma)$ is
an embedded arc and meets $\sigma$ only at its endpoints.
Since $\hat X$ is contractible, $\sigma$ and $\thull(\sigma)$ must be
homotopic and hence cobound a disk $P(\sigma)$. In fact this disk is foliated by
both $\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^-$, as we can see by noting that each
edge of $\thull(\sigma)$ cobounds a vertical (similarly a horizontal)
strip with a segment in $\sigma$. Hence $P(\sigma)$ admits an isometry
to a polygon in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\end{proof}
Let us define a map $\thull^+_\sigma:\sigma\to \thull(\sigma)$ (resp. $\thull^-_\sigma$) which
is the result of pushing the points of $\sigma$ along the
vertical (resp. horizontal) foliation to the other side of $P(\sigma)$.
If $f\colon I \to \hat X$ is an embedding of an oriented 1-manifold $I$ that parametrizes
some union of saddle connections, we let
\begin{equation}\label{thull f}
\thull^+ f\colon I \to \hat X
\end{equation}
be the map that sends each $p\in I$ to $\thull^+_\sigma(f(p))$, where
$\sigma$ is the saddle connection containing $f(p)$ with transverse orientation induced by the orientation on $I$. By composing with
covering maps we can use the same notation for the resulting operation
in quotients $\hat X_Y$ or $\bar X$.
Unlike the rectangle hulls, the edges of $\thull(\sigma)$ are not
necessarily $\tau$-edges. (See the upper-right red saddle connection in \Cref{t-example}.)
Moreover, the $\thull$-version of \Cref{r disjoint} is in general not true.
That is, the image of $\thull$ may not project to an embedded complex in $\bar X$ since $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ can be disjoint while $\thull(\sigma_1)$ and $\thull(\sigma_2)$ cross. However, we do have the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{disjoint_thulls}
Let $\sigma,\sigma'$ be saddle connections in $\hat X$ with disjoint interiors. Let $l$ be an
arc of $\lambda^+$ with endpoints on $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$, and give
$\sigma$ and $\sigma'$ the transverse orientation pointing toward the
interior of $l$. Then the polygons $P(\sigma)$ and $P(\sigma')$ of $\hat X$ (from \Cref{thull structure}) have disjoint interiors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose towards a contradiction that there is a point $p$ which is in
the interior of each of the polygons $P = P(\sigma)$ and $P' =
P(\sigma')$.
Since $P$ and $P'$ are foliated by $\lambda^+$, let $m$ and $m'$ be
the arcs of $\lambda^+$ which are properly embedded in $P$ and $P'$
respectively, and pass through $p$. Orient $m$ so that it begins in
$\sigma$, and $m'$ so that it terminates in $\sigma'$. These
orientations agree at $p$: if they did not we would obtain a
contradiction by applying Gauss--Bonnet to the circuit passing through
$m$,$\sigma$,$l$,$\sigma'$ and $m'$.
Thus, the union $J=m\cup m'$ is an interval in a leaf of $\lambda^+$ with endpoints on
$\sigma$ and $\sigma'$, with $p$ in the interior of $m\cap m'$. (If $p$ were in $l$ already then
we would have $J=l$.)
Orienting $J$ as $[y,y']$ where $y\in \sigma$ and $y'\in\sigma'$, we
can write $m=[y,x]$ and $m'=[x',y']$, where $x = J\cap
\thull(\sigma)$ and $x'= J\cap \thull(\sigma')$. These points
appear, in order along $J$, as $y,x',p,x,y'$.
\realfig{disjoint-P}{The point $p$ cannot lie in the interior of both
$P(\sigma)$ and $P(\sigma')$.}
Let $t$ and $t'$ be the triangles of $\cT(\sigma)$ and $\cT(\sigma')$
containing $x$ and $x'$, respectively. Then $p\in t\cap t'$.
Let $\kappa$ and $\kappa'$ be the
saddle connections of $\thull(\sigma)$ and
$\thull(\sigma')$ spanning $t$ and $t'$, respectively
(See \Cref{disjoint-P}).
The fact that the endpoints of $\kappa$ and $\kappa'$ are disjoint
from the intersection of $t$ and $t'$ implies that $\kappa\cap
J$, which is $x$, lies below $\kappa'\cap J$, which is
$x'$. This contradicts the ordering of the points in $J$.
\qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Retractions in $\A$} \label{sec:totally_geo}
In this subsection, $X$ is fully-punctured.
Let $\A(\tau) \subset \A(X)$ be the span of the vertices of $\A(X)$
which are represented by edges of $\tau$. We will
construct a \emph{coarse 1-Lipschitz retraction} from $\A(X)$ to $\A(\tau)$.
By this, we mean a coarse map which takes diameter $\le 1$ sets to diameter $\le 1$
sets and restricts to the identity on the 0-skeleton of $\A(\tau) \subset \A(X)$.
First, let $\mathcal{SC}(q) \subset \A(X)$ be the arcs of $X$ which
can be realized by saddle connections of $q$. Hence,
$\A(\tau) \subset \mathcal{SC}(q) \subset \A(X)$.
For any $a \in \A(X)$
define $\mathbf{s}(a)\subset \mathcal{SC}(q)$ as follows: If $a_q$ is the
$q$-geodesic representative of $a$ in $\bar X$, then let $\mathbf{s}(a)$
be the set of saddle connections of $q$ composing
$a_q$. If $a$ is a cylinder curve of $q$, then we take $\mathbf{s}(a)$ to be
the set of saddle connections appearing in the boundary of the maximal
cylinder of $a$. Note that if $a \in \A(X)$ is itself represented by a saddle
connection of $q$, then $\mathbf{s}(a)=\{a\}$.
The following lemma shows that $\mathbf{s}$ is well-defined and is a
coarse $1$-Lipschitz retraction, in the above sense.
\begin{lemma} \label{saddle_proj}
For adjacent vertices $a,b \in \A(X)$, the vertices of $\mathbf{s}(a)$ and
$\mathbf{s}(b)$ are pairwise adjacent or equal.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that adjacency of vertices in $\A(X)$ corresponds to disjointness of their
hyperbolic geodesic representative, and for vertices realized by
saddle connections, this corresponds to the lack of transverse
intersection of their interiors.
But if any arcs of $\mathbf{s}(a)$ and $\mathbf{s}(b)$ have crossing interiors,
\Cref{cor:side_coherence} implies that the hyperbolic geodesic
representatives of $a$ and $b$ must cross as well. The lemma follows.
\end{proof}
Combining this lemma with \Cref{r disjoint} gives us the proof of
\Cref{th:total geodesic}, which we restate here in somewhat more
precise language:
\restate{th:total geodesic}{
{\rm (Geodesically connected theorem).}
Let $(X,q)$ be fully punctured with associated veering triangulation $\tau$.
The composition $\rhull \circ \mathbf{s} \colon \A(X) \to \A(\tau)$ is a coarse
$1$--Lipschitz retraction in the sense that it takes diameter $\le 1$ sets
to diameter $\le 1$ sets, and is the identity on the $0$-skeleton of $\A(\tau)$.
Hence, any two vertices in $\A(\tau)$ are joined by a geodesic of $\A(X)$ that lies
in $\A(\tau)$.}
\begin{proof}
\Cref{saddle_proj} says that $\mathbf{s}:\A(X)\to\mathcal{SC}(q)$ is a coarse $1$-Lipschitz
retraction. \Cref{r disjoint}, interpreted as a statement about the
arc and curve complexes, says the same for
$\rhull:\mathcal{SC}(q)\to\A(\tau)$. The theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Let $M$ be a 3-manifold fibering over the circle with fiber $S$ and
pseudo-Anosov monodromy $f$. The stable/unstable laminations
$\lambda^+,\lambda^-$ of $f$ give rise to a function on the essential
subsurfaces of $S$,
$$
Y \mapsto d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-),
$$
where $d_Y$ denotes distance in the curve and arc complex of $Y$
between the lifts of $\lambda^\pm$ to the cover of $S$ homeomorphic to $Y$. This distance
function plays an important role in the geometry of the mapping class
group of $S$ \cite{MM2,BKMM, masur2013geometry}, and in the hyperbolic
geometry of the manifold $M$ \cite{ECL1, ELC2}.
In this paper we study the function $d_Y$ when $M$ is fixed
and the fibration is varied. The fibrations of a given manifold are
organized by the faces of the unit ball of Thurston's norm on
$H_2(M,\partial M)$, where each {\em fibered face} $\mathcal{F}$ has the
property that every irreducible integral class in the open cone $\RR_+\mathcal{F}$
represents a fiber.
There is a pseudo-Anosov flow which is transverse to
every fiber represented by $\mathcal{F}$, and whose stable/unstable
laminations $\Lambda^\pm\subset M$ intersect each fiber to give the laminations
associated to its monodromy. With this we note that
the projection distance $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)$ can be defined for any
subsurface $Y$ of any fiber in $\mathcal{F}$. We use $d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$ to
denote this quantity.
Our main results give explicit connections between $d_Y$ and
the {\em veering triangulation} of $M$, introduced by Agol \cite{agol2011ideal} and refined by
Gu\'eritaud \cite{gueritaud}, with the main feature being that when $d_Y$ satisfies
explicit lower bounds, a thickening of $Y$ is realized as
an embedded subcomplex of
the veering triangulation. In this way, the ``complexity'' of the
monodromy $f$ is visible directly in the triangulation in a way that
is independent of the choice of fiber in the face $\mathcal{F}$.
This is in contrast with the results of \cite{ELC2} in which the estimates
relating $d_Y$ to the hyperbolic geometry of $M$ are
heavily dependent on the genus of the fiber.
The results are cleanest in the setting of a {\em fully-punctured}
fiber, that is when the singularities of the monodromy $f$ are assumed
to be punctures of the surface $S$ (one can obtain such examples by
starting with any $M$ and puncturing the singularities and their
flow orbits). All fibers in a face $\mathcal{F}$ are fully-punctured when any one
is, and in this case we say that $\mathcal{F}$ is a {\em fully-punctured face.}
In this setting $M$ is a cusped manifold and the veering triangulation
$\tau$ is an ideal triangulation of $M$.
We obtain bounds on $d_W(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$ that hold for $W$ in any
fiber of a given fibered face:
\begin{theorem}[Bounding projections over a fibered
face] \label{th:bounding projections}
Let $M$ be a hyperbolic 3-manifold with fully-punctured fibered face
$\mathcal{F}$ and veering triangulation $\tau$.
For any essential subsurface $W$ of any fiber of $\mathcal{F}$,
\[
\alpha \cdot (d_W(\Lambda^- ,\Lambda^+) -\beta) < |\tau|,
\]
where $|\tau|$ is the number of tetrahedra in $\tau$,
$\alpha = 1$ and $\beta = 10$ when $W$ is an annulus and
$\alpha = 3|\chi(W)|$ and $\beta = 8$ when $W$ is not an annulus.
\end{theorem}
Note that
this means that $d_W \le |\tau| +10$ for each subsurface $W$,
no matter which fiber $W$ lies in.
Further, the complexity $|\chi(W)|$ of any subsurface $W$ of any fiber
of $\mathcal{F}$ with $d_W(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-) \ge 9$ is also bounded in
terms of $M$ alone.
In addition, given one fiber with a collection of subsurfaces
of large $d_Y$, we obtain control over the appearance of
high-distance subsurfaces in all other fibers:
\begin{theorem}[Subsurface dichotomy] \label{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}
Let $M$ be a hyperbolic 3-manifold with fully-punctured fibered face
$\mathcal{F}$ and suppose that $S$ and $F$ are each fibers in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$.
If $W$ is a subsurface of $F$, then either $W$ is isotopic
along the flow to a subsurface of $S$, or
$$3|\chi(S)| \ge d_W(\Lambda^-,\Lambda^+) -\beta,$$
where $\beta =10$ if $W$ is an annulus and $\beta = 8$ otherwise.
\end{theorem}
One can apply this theorem with $S$ taken to be the
smallest-complexity fiber in $\mathcal{F}$. In this case there is some finite
list of ``large'' subsurfaces of $S$, and
for all other fibers and all subsurfaces $W$ with $d_W$ sufficiently large,
$W$ is already accounted for on this finite list.
For a sample
application of \Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured},
let $W$ be an essential annulus with core
curve $w$ in a fiber $F$ of $M$
and suppose that $d_W(\Lambda^-,\Lambda^+) \ge K$ for some $K > 10$. (We note
that it is easy to construct explicit examples of $M$ with $d_W(\Lambda^-,\Lambda^+)$
as large as one wishes by starting with a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism of $F$
with large twisting about the curve $w$.) If $w$ is trivial
in $H_1(M)$, then \Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}
(or more precisely \Cref{always subsurface}) implies that $w$ is actually isotopic
to a simple closed curve in \emph{every} fiber in the open cone $\RR_+\mathcal{F}$ containing
$F$. When $w$ is nontrivial in $H_1(M)$ it determines a codimension-$1$ hyperplane
$P_w$ in $H^1(M) = H_2(M,\partial M)$ consisting of cohomology classes which
vanish on $w$. For each fiber $S$ of $\RR_+\mathcal{F}$ either $S$ is contained in $P_w$,
in which case $w$ is isotopic to a simple closed curve in $S$ as before, or $S$ lies
outside of $P_w$ and $|\chi(S)| \ge \frac{K-10}{3}$.
We remark that the second alternative is non-vacuous so long as
$H^1(M)$ has rank at least 2.
The general (non-fully-punctured) setting is also approachable with
our techniques, but a number of complications arise and
the connection to the veering triangulation of the fully-punctured manifold
is much less explicit.
An extension of the results in this paper to the
general setting will be the subject of a subsequent paper.
\subsection*{Pockets in the veering triangulation}
When $Y$ is a subsurface of a fiber $X$ in $\mathcal{F}$ and
$d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)>1$, we show (\Cref{thm: tau-compatible})
that $Y$ is realized simplicially in the veering triangulation lifted
to the cover $X\times\mathbb{R}$. If $d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$ is even larger then
this realization can be thickened to a ``pocket'', which is a
simplicial region bounded by two isotopic copies of $Y$. With
sufficiently large assumptions this pocket can be made to embed in $M$
as well, and this is our main tool for connecting arc complexes to the
veering triangulation and establishing Theorems \ref{th:bounding
projections} and \ref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:pocket summary}
Suppose $Y$ is a subsurface of a fiber $X$ with
$d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > \beta$, where $\beta=8$ if $Y$ is
nonannular and $\beta=10$ if $Y$ is an annulus.
Then there is an embedded simplicial pocket $V$ in $M$ isotopic to a
thickening of $Y$, and
with $d_Y(V^-,V^+) \ge d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) - \beta$.
\end{theorem}
In this statement, $V^+$ and $V^-$ refer to the triangulations of the
top and bottom surfaces of the pockets, regarded as simplices in
the curve and arc complex $\A(Y)$. Also, $d_Y(V^-,V^+)$ denotes
the smallest $d_Y$-distance between an arc of $V^ -$ and an arc of $V^+$.\\
The veering triangulation in fact
recovers a number of aspects of the geometry of curve
and arc complexes in a fairly concrete way. As an illustration we prove
\begin{theorem}\label{th:total geodesic}
In the fully punctured setting, the arcs of the veering triangulation
form a geodesically connected subset $\A(\tau)$ of the curve and arc graph, in the sense that any two points in $\A(\tau)$ are connected by a geodesic that lies in $\A(\tau)$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection*{Hierarchies of pockets}
One is naturally led to generalize \Cref{thm:pocket summary} from a
result embedding one pocket at a time to a description of all pockets
at once. Indeed \Cref{prop:disjoint_pockets} tells us that whenever
subsurfaces $Y$ and $Z$ of $X$ have large enough projection distances and are
not nested,
they have associated pockets $V_Y$ and $V_Z$ which are disjoint in
$X \times \RR$.
These facts, taken together with
\Cref{th:total geodesic}, strongly suggest that the veering triangulation $\tau$
encodes the hierarchy of curve complex geodesics between $\lambda^\pm$ as
introduced by Masur-Minsky in \cite{MM2}. We expect that, using a
version of \Cref{th:total geodesic} that applies to subsurfaces and
adapting the notion of ``tight geodesic'' from \cite{MM2}, one can
carry out a hierarchy-like construction within the veering triangulation
and recover much of the structure found in \cite{MM2}, with more
concrete control, at least in the
fully-punctured setting. We plan to explore this approach in future
work.
\subsection*{Related and motivating work}
The theme of using fibered 3-manifolds to study infinite families of
monodromy maps is deeply explored in McMullen \cite{mcmullen2000polynomial} and
Farb-Leininger-Margalit \cite{farb-leininger-margalit}, where the focus is on
Teichm\"uller translation distance.
Distance inequalities analogous to
\Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}, in the setting of Heegaard
splittings rather than surface bundles, appear in Hartshorn \cite{hartshorn},
and then more fully
in Scharlemann-Tomova \cite{scharlemann-tomova}. Bachman-Schleimer
\cite{BSc} use Heegaard surfaces to give bounds on the
curve-complex translation distance of the monodromy of a fibering. All
of these bounds apply to entire surfaces and not to subsurface
projections. In Johnson-Minsky-Moriah
\cite{johnson-minsky-moriah:subsurface}, subsurface projections are
considered in the setting of Heegaard splittings. A basic difficulty
in these papers which we do not encounter here is the compressibility of
the Heegaard surfaces, which makes it tricky to control essential
intersections. On the other hand,
unlike the surfaces and handlebodies that are used to obtain control
in the Heegaard setting, the foliations we consider here are infinite
objects, and the connection between them and finite arc systems in the
surface is a priori dependent on the fiber complexity. The veering
triangulation provides a finite object that captures this connection
in a more uniform way.
The totally-geodesic statement of \Cref{th:total geodesic} should be compared to
Theorem 1.2 of Tang-Webb \cite{tang-webb}, in which Teichm\"uller disks give rise to
quasi-convex sets in curve complexes. While the results of
Tang-Webb are more general, they are coarse, and it is interesting
that in our setting a tighter statement holds. Finally, we note that work by several authors
has focused on geometric aspects of the veering triangulation, including \cite{hodgson2011veering,futer2013explicit,hodgson2016non}.
\subsection*{Summary of the paper}
In \Cref{background} we set some notation and give Gu\'eritaud's
construction of the veering triangulation.
We also recall basic facts
about curve and arc complexes, subsurface projections and Thurston's
norm on homology. We spend some time in this section describing the
flat geometry of a punctured surface with an integrable
holomorphic quadratic
differential, and in particular giving an explicit description of the
circle at infinity of its universal cover (\Cref{same compactification}).
While this is a fairly familiar picture, some delicate issues arise
because of the incompleteness of the metric at the punctures.
In \Cref{sections} we study {\em sections} of the veering
triangulations, which are simplicial surfaces isotopic to $X$ in the
cover $X\times\mathbb{R}$, and transverse to the suspension flow of the
monodromy. These can be thought of as triangulations of the surface
$X$ using only edges coming from the veering triangulation.
We prove \Cref{lem:extension} which says that a partial triangulation
of $X$ using only edges from $\tau$ can always be extended to a full section, and
\Cref{prop:connect} which says that any two extensions of a partial
triangulation are connected by a sequence of ``tetrahedron
moves''. This is what allows us to define and study the ``pockets''
that arise between any two sections.
In \Cref{hulls} we define a simple but useful construction, rectangle and
triangle hulls, which map saddle connections in our surface to unions
of edges of the veering triangulation. An immediate consequence of
the properties of these hulls is a proof of \Cref{th:total
geodesic}.
In \Cref{surface_reps} we apply the flat geometry developed in
\Cref{background} to control the convex hulls of subsurfaces of the
fiber, and then use \Cref{hulls} to construct what we call
$\tau$-hulls, which are representatives of the homotopy class of a
subsurface that are simplicial
with respect to the veering triangulations. \Cref{thm: tau-compatible}
states that quite mild assumptions on $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)$ imply
that the $\tau$-hull of $Y$ has embedded interior. The idea here is that any
pinching point of the $\tau$-hull is crossed by leaves of $\lambda^+$ and
$\lambda^-$ that intersect each other very little.
The main results of both \Cref{hulls} and \Cref{surface_reps} apply
in a general setting and do not require that the surface $X$ be fully-punctured.
In \Cref{pockets} we put these ideas together to prove our main
theorems for fibered manifolds with a fully-punctured fibered face.
In \Cref{Y pocket} we describe the maximal
pocket associated to a subsurface $Y$ with $d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$
sufficiently large (greater than 2, for nonannular $Y$).
We then introduce the notion of an {\em isolated pocket},
which is a subpocket of the maximal pocket
that has good embedding properties in the manifold $M$. The existence
and embedding properties of these pockets are established in
\Cref{lem:iso_pocket} and \Cref{prop:disjoint_pockets}, which
together allow us to prove \Cref{thm:pocket summary}.
From here, a simple counting argument gives \Cref{th:bounding projections}: the size of the
embedded isolated pockets is bounded from below in terms of
$d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$ and $\chi(Y)$, and from above by the total number
of veering tetrahedra.
To obtain \Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}, we use the pocket
embedding results to show that, if $Y$ is a subsurface of one fiber
$F$ and $Y$ essentially intersects another fiber $S$, then $S$ must
cross every level surface of the isolated pocket of $Y$, and hence the
complexity of $S$ gives an upper bound for $d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$. To
complete the proof we need to show that, if $Y$ does not essentially
cross $S$, it must be isotopic to an embedded (and not merely immersed)
subsurface of $S$. This is handled by
\Cref{lem:embedding_fullly_punctured}, which may be of independent
interest. It gives a uniform upper bound for $d_Y(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$ when
$Y$ corresponds to a finitely generated subgroup of $\pi_1(S)$, unless
$Y$ covers an embedded subsurface.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to Ian Agol and Fran\c{c}ois Gu\'eritaud for explaining their work to us. We also thank Tarik Aougab, Jeff Brock, and Dave Futer for helpful conversations and William Worden for pointing out some typos in an earlier draft. Finally, we thank the referee for a thorough reading of our paper and comments which improved its readability.
\section{Embedded pockets of the veering triangulation and bounded projections}
\label{pockets}
In this section, let $X$ be fully-punctured with respect to the
foliations $\lambda^\pm$ of a pseudo-Anosov $f:X\to X$, and let $M$ be
the mapping torus. Recall that every fiber associated to the fibered
face $\mathcal{F}$ of $X$ must also be fully-punctured because they are transverse
to the same suspension flow, and hence that $\mathcal{F}$ is
a \emph{fully-punctured fibered face}.
We now prove our two main theorems on the structure of subsurface projections
in a fully-punctured fibered face, \Cref{th:bounding projections} and
\Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}. The main tools in the proof
are the structure and embedding theorems for pockets associated with
high-distance subsurfaces, which we develop below. Recall that $\mathrm{diam}_Z(\cdot)$ denotes the diameter of $\pi_Z(\cdot)$ in $\A(Z)$ and that subsurfaces $Y$ and $Z$ \emph{overlap} if, up to isotopy, they are neither disjoint nor nested.
\subsection{Projections and $\tau$--compatible subsurfaces}
We begin by discussing projection to $\tau$-compatible subsurfaces.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:overlap_tau}
Let $Y$ and $Z$ be $\tau$-compatible subsurfaces of $X$ and let $K \subset X$
be a disjoint collection of saddle connections which correspond to edges from $\tau$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $K$ meets $\int_\tau(Y)$, then $\pi_Y(K) \neq \emptyset$, and $\mathrm{diam}_Y(\pi_Y (K)) \le 1$.
\item If $Y$ and $Z$ are disjoint, then so are $\int_\tau(Y)$ and $\int_\tau(Z)$.
\item If $Y$ and $Z$ overlap, then $\mathrm{diam}_Z(\partial Y \cup \partial_\tau Y) \le 1$.
\item The subsurface $\int_\tau(Y)$ is in minimal position with the foliations $\lambda^\pm$. In particular, the arcs of $\int_\tau(Y) \cap \lambda^\pm$ agree with the arcs of $\pi_Y(\lambda^\pm)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For item (1), the main point is to show that an edge of $K$ that
meets $\int_\tau(Y)$ lifts to an {\em essential edge} in $\bar X_Y$.
This is true for edges meeting $\int_q(Y)$, using the local CAT(0) geometry
of $\bar X_Y$ and the fact that $\hat\iota_q(Y')$ is a locally convex embedding.
Thus it will suffice to show that any $\tau$-edge $e$ meeting
$\int_\tau(Y)$ must also meet $\int_q(Y)$.
Suppose, on the contrary, that $e$ meets $\int_\tau(Y)$ but not $\int_q(Y)$.
Then $e$ meets the interior of a polygon $P(\sigma)$ where $\sigma$ is
an outward-oriented saddle connection in $\partial_q Y$
(recall from \Cref{rmk:fully}
that, since $X$ is fully-punctured, the
inner $\thull$ step in the construction of $\hat\iota_\tau$ is the
identity, and the outer $\thull$ is in fact a rectangle hull).
Let
$R$ be the singularity-free rectangle spanned by $e$. If $e$ is
contained in $P(\sigma)$ then $R$ can be extended to a rectangle whose
diagonal lies in $\sigma$, and hence $e$ is one of the edges of
$\rhull(\sigma)$; but this contradicts the assumption that $e$ meets
$\int_\tau(Y)$. Thus $e$
crosses some edge $f$ of
$\rhull(\sigma)$. However, $f$ is contained in a singularity-free
triangle whose hypotenuse lies along $\sigma$ and so $\sigma$ must
cross the rectangle $R$ either top-to-bottom or side-to-side. In
either case, we see that $e$ crosses $\sigma \subset \partial_q Y$,
a contradiction.
We conclude that if a $\tau$-edge meets $\int_\tau(Y)$, then it also meets $\int_q(Y)$
and hence has a well-defined projection to $Y$.
The diameter bound in item $(1)$ is then immediate since $K$ is a disjoint collection of essential arcs of $\A(X)$.
For item $(2)$, first note that when $Y$ and $Z$ are disjoint subsurfaces of $X$,
the interiors $\int_q(Y)$ and $\int_q(Z)$ are also disjoint. This follows from \Cref{cor:side_coherence} and the $q$-hulls construction in \Cref{q tight}. More precisely,
let $\Lambda_Y$ and $\Lambda_Z$ be the limit sets of $Y$ and $Z$ in $\partial \HH^2$ (using our identifications from \Cref{AY in flat geometry}). Since $Y$ and $Z$ do not intersect, $\Lambda_Y$ and $\Lambda_Z$ do not link in $\partial \HH^2$ and so ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda_Y)$ and ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda_Z)$ have disjoint interiors by \Cref{cor:side_coherence}. This implies that $\int_q(Y)$ and $\int_q(Z)$ are disjoint in $X$.
To obtain $\int_\tau (Y)$ from $\int_q (Y)$ we append to each saddle
connection $\sigma$ in $\partial_q Y$ the (open) polygon $P(\sigma)$,
where $\sigma$ is oriented out of $Y$. We obtain $\int_\tau (Z)$ from
$\int_q (Z)$ by the same construction.
Since $\int_q(Y)$ and $\int_q(Z)$ are disjoint in $X$, it suffices to show that $P(\sigma)$ and $P(\kappa)$ have disjoint interiors, where $\sigma \subset \partial_qY$ and $\kappa \subset \partial_q Z$. If $\sigma = \kappa$, then this saddle connection spans a singularity-free rectangle and $P(\sigma) = \sigma = \kappa = P(\kappa)$. Otherwise, $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ have disjoint interiors and \Cref{disjoint_thulls} implies that $P(\sigma)$ and $P(\kappa)$ have disjoint interiors, as required.
This proves item (2).
Since $\int_\tau(Y)$ is an embedded representative of the interior of $Y$, $\partial Y$
has a representative disjoint from the collection of saddle
connections in $\partial_\tau Y$. Hence $\mathrm{diam}_Z(\partial Y \cup
\partial_\tau Y) \le 1$, proving item $(3)$. For
item $(4)$, first note that the subsurface $\int_q(Y)$ is in minimal position with the foliations $\lambda^\pm$. This is immediate from the local CAT$(0)$ geometry in $\bar X_Y$ and
the fact that $\lambda^\pm$ are geodesic: any bigon in $\bar X_Y$ between $\hat \iota_q(\partial' Y)$ and a leaf of $\lambda^\pm$ would lift to a bigon in $\hat X$ bounded by two geodesic segments, a contradiction to uniqueness of geodesics in $\hat X$.
The statement for
$\int_\tau(Y)$ then follows from the fact that the homotopy from
$\partial_q Y$ to $\partial_\tau Y$ can be taken to move either along
vertical or along horizontal leaves, using either $\thull^+$ or $\thull^-$ as in
the proof of \Cref{thm: tau-compatible}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Pockets for a $\tau$-compatible subsurface}
Suppose that $Y \subset X$ is \linebreak $\tau$--compatible. By
\Cref{cor:top}, the set $T(\partial_\tau Y)$ of sections containing
$\partial_\tau Y$ contains a top and a bottom section, denoted $T^+ =
T^+(\partial_\tau Y)$
and $T^- = T^-(\partial_\tau Y)$, which between them bound a number of
pockets. See \Cref{sections} for terminology related to sections and pockets.
Our assumption on $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+)$ will imply that one
of these pockets is isotopic to a thickening of $Y$, as explained in
the following proposition:
\begin{proposition}[Pockets in $\tau$]\label{Y pocket}
Let $(X,q)$ be fully-punctured and $Y\subset X$ an essential
nonannular subsurface.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 0$ then
$d_Y(T^+,\lambda^+) = d_Y(T^-,\lambda^-) = 0$.
\item If $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 2$ then
$T^+$ and $T^-$ bound
a pocket $U_Y$ whose interior is isotopic to a thickening of
$\int(Y)$.
\end{enumerate}
When $Y$ is an annulus,
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 1$ then
$d_Y(T^+,\lambda^+) = d_Y(T^-,\lambda^-) = 1$.
\item If $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 4$ then
$T^+$ and $T^-$ bound
a pocket $U_Y$ whose interior is isotopic to a thickening of
$\int(Y)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Begin with the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{near lambda}
Suppose that $Y \subset X$
is $\tau$-compatible,
let $e$ be an edge of $\partial_\tau Y$ and let $f$ be a $\tau$-edge
crossing $e$ with $f>e$. Then $d_Y(f,\lambda^+) \le 1$ if $Y$ is an annulus and $d_Y(f,\lambda^+) =0$ otherwise. Similarly if
$f<e$ then the same statement holds for $d_Y(f,\lambda^-)$.
\end{lemma}
\realfig{f-above-e_2}{Local picture near the $\tau$-edge $e$ of $\partial_\tau Y$ with $\int_\tau(Y) \subset X$ shaded. When $f>e$, the edge $l^+$ of $Q$ represents
$\pi_Y(\lambda^+)$ and is disjoint from $f$. Note that $Q$ is \emph{immersed} in $X$.}
The key idea of the proof is pictured in \Cref{f-above-e_2}. Here it is shown that if $f$ crosses $e \subset \partial_\tau Y$ with $f>e$, then some component of the intersection of $f$ with $\int_\tau(Y)$ is disjoint from some arc in $\pi_Y(\lambda^+)$. However, the spanning rectangle $Q$ for $f$ is immersed in $X$ (rather than necessarily embedded).
To handle this issue, we work in the cover $\widetilde X$.
\begin{proof}
Let $C^{\mathrm{o}}$ be a component of the preimage of $\int_\tau(Y)$ under $\widetilde X \to X$ and choose a saddle connection $\til e$ in the boundary of $C^{\mathrm{o}}$ which projects to $e$.
Further, let $\til f$ be any lift of $f$ which crosses $\til e$.
Since $f$ is a $\tau$-edge, $\til f$ spans a singularity-free rectangle $\til Q$ whose immersed image in $X$ we denote by $Q$.
Every $\tau$-edge which crosses $\til Q$ does so either
top to bottom or side to side.
Since $f>e$, $\til e$ must cross $\til Q$ from side to side (see
\Cref{sections}).
Since all $\tau$-edges in $\partial C^{\mathrm{o}}$ are disjoint, they all must
cross $\til Q$ from side to side.
Since $\int_\tau(Y)$ is in minimal position with $\lambda^+$
(\Cref{lem:overlap_tau}), $C^{\mathrm{o}}$ intersects each leaf of the vertical
foliation in a connected set.
Together these observations
imply that $\til Q \cap C^{\mathrm{o}}$ is a single polygon $\til B$,
bounded by at least one edge crossing $\til Q$ from side to side
(which we have called $\til e)$. See \Cref{f-above-e_cover}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = .7]{f-above-e_cover}
\caption{The 3 possibilities for $\til B$. The lightly shaded region is part of $C^{\mathrm{o}}$ in $\widetilde X$.}
\label{f-above-e_cover}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{claim*}
$\til B$ embeds in $\int_\tau (Y)$ under the covering $\til X \to X$.
\end{claim*}
\begin{proof}[Proof of claim]
Since $\til B \subset C^{\mathrm{o}}$, the image of $\til B$ is contained in $\int_\tau (Y)$.
Suppose that $x,y \in \til B$ map to the same point in $\int_\tau(Y)$, and denote by $l_x$ and $l_y$ the vertical leaf segments in $\til X$ starting at $x$ and $y$, respectively, and continuing to $\til e$. Since $\til B$ is convex,
$l_x,l_y \subset \til B$. Suppose that $l_x$ is no longer than $l_y$ and let $l_y'$ be the subsegment of $l_y$ with length equal to that of $l_x$. Then $l_x$ and $l_y'$ are identified under the map $\til X \to X$. But the identification of $ \partial l_x \ssm \{x\} \subset \til e$ and $ \partial l'_y \ssm \{y\} \subset \til B \cup \til e \subset C^{\mathrm{o}} \cup \til e$ gives a contradiction, unless $x=y$: the edge $\til e$ is mapped injectively into $X$ with image $e\subset \partial_\tau Y$ disjoint from the image of $C^{\mathrm{o}}$, which is $\int_\tau (Y)$.
\end{proof}
Let $\til s$ be the vertex of $\til f$ which
is on the same side of $\til e$ as $\til B$.
Let $\til l$ be the vertical side of $\til Q$ starting at $\til s$.
Let $B$ be the image of $\til B$ in $X$. By the claim, $B$ is a
singularity-free quadrilateral in $X$ whose interior is contained in
$\int_\tau(Y)$. The images in $X$ of $\til f \cap \til B$ and $\til l
\cap \til B$ are therefore disjoint proper arcs in
$\int_\tau(Y)$, which by
\Cref{lem:overlap_tau} are representatives of
$\pi_Y(f)$ and $\pi_Y(\lambda^+)$, respectively. Moreover, these arcs are properly
homotopic in $\int_\tau(Y)$ by a homotopy supported in $B$.
Hence, when $Y$ is nonannular, we conclude that $d_Y(f,\lambda^+) =0$.
If $Y$ is an annulus, we project the picture to the annular cover
$X_Y$, where
we note that the image $l$ of $\til l$, continued to infinity, cannot intersect
$f$ without meeting $Q$, and hence $e$, again. Since $l$ can only
meet $\partial_q Y$ once in the annular cover, we conclude it is
disjoint from $f$ and so
$d_Y(f,\lambda^+) =1$.
The case $f<e$ is similar, so \Cref{near lambda} is proved.
\end{proof}
We return to the proof of \Cref{Y pocket}.
Let $Y$ be nonannular.
Note that by definition the only
upward-flippable edges in $T^+$ must lie in $\partial_\tau Y$. Let
$e$ be such an edge and consider the single flip move that replaces
$e$ with an edge $f$. Then $f>e$, so by \Cref{near lambda},
$d_Y(f,\lambda^+) = 0$. On the other hand $f$ and $e$ are diagonals
of a quadrilateral made of edges of $T^+$, at least one of which, $e'$,
gives the same element of $\A(Y)$ as $f$. Hence
$d_Y(T^+,\lambda^+) = 0.$
If $Y$ is an annulus, we note that $e'$ and the vertical leaf in the
proof of \Cref{near lambda} give adjacent vertices of $\A(Y)$, so
$d_Y(T^+,\lambda^+)\le 1$. Note that $d_Y(T^+,\lambda^+) \ne 0$ because no
leaf of the foliation $\lambda^+$ has both its endpoints terminating at
completion points.
To prove the statements about pockets, let $K$ be the common edges of
$T^+$ and $T^-$,
viewed as a subcomplex of $X$.
If $\int_\tau(Y)$ contains an edge of $K$ then from the triangle inequality,
together with the first part of the proposition,
we obtain $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) \le 2$ when $Y$ is
nonannular, and
$d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) \le 4$ when $Y$ is an annulus. By our
hypotheses this does not happen, so we conclude that
$T^+,T^- \in T(\partial_\tau Y)$ have no common edges contained
in $\int_\tau (Y)$. Hence $T^+$ and $T^-$ bound a pocket $U_Y$ whose base is
$\int_\tau(Y)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Isolated pockets and projection bounds}
Let $X$ be a fiber in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$, and
let $Y$ be a $\tau$--compatible subsurface of $X$
such that $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+)>4$.
An \emph{isolated pocket} for $Y$ in $(X \times \mathbb{R}, \tau)$ is a subpocket $V = V_Y$ of $U_Y$ with base $\int_\tau (Y)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each edge $e$ of $V$ which is not contained in $\partial_\tau Y$,
\[
d_Y(e,\lambda^+) \ge 3 \quad \text{and} \quad d_Y(e,\lambda^-) \ge 3
\]
if $Y$ is nonannular, and
\[
d_Y(e,\lambda^+) \ge 4 \quad \text{and} \quad d_Y(e,\lambda^-) \ge 4
\]
if $Y$ is an annulus.
\item Denoting by $V^\pm$ the top and bottom of $V$ with their induced triangulations,
\[
d_Y(V^-, V^+) \ge 1.
\]
\end{enumerate}
Note that condition $(2)$ guarantees that $\mathrm{int}(V_Y) \cong \int_\tau(Y) \times (0,1)$ is still a pocket just as in \Cref{Y pocket}. The next lemma shows that for $Y$ with $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+)$ sufficiently large, $Y$ has an isolated pocket with $d_Y(V^-,V^+)$ roughly $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:iso_pocket}
Suppose that $Y$ is a nonannular subsurface of $X$ with
$d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 8$. Then $Y$ has an isolated pocket $V$
with $d_Y(V^-,V^+) \ge d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) - 8$.
If $Y$ is an annulus with
$d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 10$, then $Y$ has an isolated pocket $V$
with $d_Y(V^-,V^+) \ge d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) - 10$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $c=4$ if $Y$ is an annulus and $c=3$ otherwise, and assume that
$d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 2c+2$.
Since the pocket $U = U_Y$ is connected (\Cref{prop:connect}), there is a sequence of
sections $T^- = T_0, T_1, \ldots, T_N = T^+$ in $T(\partial_\tau Y)$
such that $T_{i+1}$ differs from $T_i$
by an upward diagonal exchange. From \Cref{Y pocket}, we know that
$d_Y(T^- , \lambda^-) \le 1$ and $d_Y(T^+ , \lambda^+) \le 1$. Let $0
< a < N$ be largest integer such that
$d_Y(T_{a-1}, \lambda^-) < c$; hence $d_Y(T_{i}, \lambda^-) \ge c$
for all $i\ge a$. Now let $b<N$ be the smallest integer greater than
$a$ such that
$d_Y(T_{b+1},\lambda^+) < c$; then $d_Y(T_{i},\lambda^+) \ge c$ for
all $a\le i \le b$.
Note that these indices exist since $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) \ge 2c+1$.
Now let $V$ be the pocket between $T_a$ and $T_b$ with base contained in
$\int_\tau(Y)$ and note that $V$ is a subpocket of $U$.
Any edge $e$ of $V$ not contained in $\partial_\tau Y$ is
contained in a section
$T_i \in T(\partial_\tau Y)$ for $a \le i \le b$. Since we have
$d_Y(T_i,\lambda^\pm)\ge c$, we have $d_Y(e,\lambda^\pm)\ge c$. Thus it
only remains to get a lower bound on $d_Y(V^+,V^-)$.
The triangle
inequality (and diameter bound on $T_a$ and $T_b$) gives
\[
d_Y (V^-,V^+) = d_Y(T_a,T_b) \ge d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) - 2c -2 \ge 1.
\]
This implies that $\int_\tau (Y)$ is the base of $V$ and completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following proposition shows that isolated pockets coming from either disjoint or overlapping subsurfaces of $X$ have interiors which do not meet.
\begin{proposition}[Disjoint pockets] \label{prop:disjoint_pockets}
Suppose that $Y$ and $Z$ are subsurfaces of $X$ with isolated pockets $V_Y$ and $V_Z$. Then, up to switching $Y$ and $Z$, either $Y$ is nested in $Z$, or the isolated pockets $V_Y$ and $V_Z$ have disjoint interiors in $X \times \mathbb R$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If the subsurfaces $Y$ and $Z$ are disjoint, then $\int_\tau(Y)$ and $\int_\tau(Z)$ are also disjoint by \Cref{lem:overlap_tau}. Hence, the maximal pockets $U_Y$ and $U_Z$ have disjoint interiors by definition.
Now suppose that $Y$ is not an annulus.
We claim that if $Y$ and $Z$ overlap then either
\[
d_Y(\partial_\tau Z, \lambda^+)\le 1 \; \text{ or } \; d_Y(\partial_\tau Z,\lambda^-) \le 1.
\]
To see this, first note that there is some edge $f$
contained in $\int_\tau(Z)$
such that $f$ crosses some edges of $\partial_\tau Y$.
Otherwise, every triangulation of $\int_\tau(Z)$ by $\tau$--edges
would contain edges from $\partial_\tau Y$. But then applying this to
$T^\pm(\partial_\tau Z)$ and using \Cref{Y pocket},
we would have that
\[
d_Z(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) \le 2 + \mathrm{diam}_Z(\partial_\tau Y) \le 3,
\]
contradicting our assumption on the subsurface $Z$.
Now if $f$ intersects an edge $e$ of $\partial_\tau Y$ and $f>e$, then
by \Cref{near lambda}, $d_Y(\partial_\tau Z, \lambda^+)\le
d_Y(\partial_\tau Z, f) \le 1$. If $f<e$ then \Cref{near lambda} gives
$d_Y(\partial_\tau Z, \lambda^-)\le d_Y(\partial_\tau Z, f) \le 1$.
Now suppose that $e$ is an edge of $U_Y \cap U_Z$ which is not
contained in $\partial_\tau Y \cup \partial_\tau Z$. Then $e$, as a
$\tau$-edge in $X$, is disjoint from $\partial_\tau Z$ and so
$d_Y(e,\lambda^+) \le 2$ or
$d_Y(e,\lambda^-) \le 2$.
Hence $e$ cannot be contained in $V_Y$.
We conclude that $V_Y \cap V_Z \subset \partial_\tau Y \cup
\partial_\tau Z$. This completes the proof when $Y$ is not an
annulus.
When $Y$ is an annulus, then a similar argument using the annular case of \Cref{near lambda} shows that if $Y$ and $Z$ overlap then either
\[
d_Y(\partial_\tau Z, \lambda^+)\le 2 \; \text{ or } \; d_Y(\partial_\tau Z,\lambda^-) \le 2.
\]
Hence, if $e$ is an edge of $U_Y \cap U_Z$ which is not
contained in $\partial_\tau Y \cup \partial_\tau Z$, then
$d_Y(e,\lambda^\pm) \le 3$. So again $e$ cannot be contained in $V_Y$ and we conclude that $V_Y \cap V_Z \subset \partial_\tau Y \cup \partial_\tau Z$ as required.
\end{proof}
We next prove that isolated pockets embed into the fibered manifold
$M$. This is \Cref{thm:pocket summary}, which we restate here in more
precise language.
\restate{thm:pocket summary}{
{\rm (Embedding the pocket).}
Suppose $Y$ is a subsurface of a fully-punctured fiber $X$ with
$d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > \beta$, where $\beta=8$ if $Y$ is
nonannular and $\beta=10$ if $Y$ is an annulus.
Then $Y$ has an isolated pocket $V_Y$ in $X \times \mathbb{R}$, and the
covering map $X \times \mathbb{R} \to M$ restricts to an embedding of the
subcomplex $V_Y \to M$.
}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Phi$ be the simplicial isomorphism of $X \times \mathbb{R}$ induced by $f$ as in \Cref{gueritaud construction}.
Note that if $T$ is a section of $\tau$, then $\Phi (T)$ is the section of $\tau$ whose corresponding triangulation of $X$ is $f(T)$.
Hence, $\Phi(T(\partial_\tau Y)) = T(\partial_\tau{f (Y)})$.
By \Cref{lem:iso_pocket}, $Y$ has an
isolated pocket $V =V_Y$. Note that $V$ embeds into $M$ if and only if it is disjoint from its translates $V_i = \Phi^i(V)$ for each $i \neq 0$. By the remark above, each $V_i$ is itself an isolated pocket for the subsurface $Y_i = f^i(Y)$, and any two of these subsurfaces are either disjoint or overlap in $X$. Hence, by \Cref{prop:disjoint_pockets} the isolated pockets $V_i$ are disjoint as required.
\end{proof}
We will now prove \Cref{th:bounding projections}, whose
statement we recall here:
\restate{th:bounding projections}{
Let $M$ be a hyperbolic 3-manifold with fully-punctured fibered face
$\mathcal{F}$ and veering triangulation $\tau$.
For any subsurface $W$ of any fiber of $\mathcal{F}$,
\[
\alpha \cdot (d_W(\lambda^- ,\lambda^+) -\beta) < |\tau|,
\]
where $|\tau|$ is the number of tetrahedra in $\tau$,
$\alpha = 1$ and $\beta = 10$ when $W$ is an annulus and
$\alpha = 3|\chi(W)|$ and $\beta = 8$ when $W$ is not an annulus.
}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $W$ is any nonannular subsurface of any fiber $F$ in $\mathbb{R}_+ \mathcal{F}$.
We may assume that $d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) >8$.
Then \Cref{lem:iso_pocket} implies that $W$ has an isolated pocket $V_W$ in $(F \times \mathbb{R}, \tau)$ such that $d_W(V_W^-,V_W^+)\ge d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) -8$.
By \Cref{thm:pocket summary}, the isolated pocket $V_W \subset (F \times
\mathbb{R}, \tau)$ embeds into $(M,\tau)$. Hence
$|V_W| \le |\tau|$, where $|V_W|$ denotes the number of
tetrahedra of $V_W$.
Now each tetrahedron of $V_W$ corresponds to a diagonal exchange between
the triangulations $V_W^-$ and $V_W^+$ of $W_\tau$ and each diagonal
exchange replaces a single edge of the triangulation.
There are at least $3|\chi(W)| + 1$ non-boundary edges to each triangulation of $W$,
and the diameter in $\A(W)$ of an ideal triangulation is 1, so we conclude
\begin{align} \label{ineq:pocket_growth}
|\tau| &\ge |V_W| = \#\{\text{diagonal exchanges from } V_W^- \text{ to } V_W^+\}\\
&> 3|\chi(W)| \cdot d_W(V^-,V^+) \nonumber \\
&\ge 3|\chi(W)| \cdot (d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) - 8) \nonumber.
\end{align}
This completes the proof when $W$ is nonannular.
When $W$ is an annulus, we use the annular case of
\Cref{lem:iso_pocket} to obtain an isolated pocket $V_W$ in $(F \times
\mathbb{R}, \tau)$ such that $d_W(V_W^-,V_W^+)\ge d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+)
-10$. Noting that a triangulation of the annulus contains at least 2
(non-boundary) edges, the same argument implies that
\begin{align*}
|\tau| &\ge |V_W| = \#\{\text{diagonal exchanges from } V_W^- \text{ to } V_W^+\}\\
&> d_W(V^-,V^+) \nonumber \\
&\ge d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) - 10 \nonumber,
\end{align*}
as required.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Sweeping through embedded pockets}
We are now ready to prove \Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured},
whose statement we reproduce below.
This theorem relates subsurfaces of large projections among different fibers of a
fixed face.
\restate{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}{
Let $M$ be a hyperbolic 3-manifold with fully-punctured fibered face
$\mathcal{F}$ and suppose that $S$ and $F$ are each fibers in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$.
If $W$ is a subsurface of $F$, then either $W$ is isotopic
along the flow to a subsurface of $S$, or
$$3|\chi(S)| \ge d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) -\beta,$$
where $\beta =10$ if $W$ is an annulus and $\beta = 8$ otherwise.
}
Recall from \Cref{lem:subgroup_projection} that
we can identify $d_W(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)$ with
$d_W(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-)$, agreeing with the statement given in the introduction.
We will require the following lemma, which essentially states that immersed subsurfaces with large projection are necessarily covers of subsurfaces. Recall that in \Cref{sec: arc_complex} we defined the distance $d_W(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)$ when $W$ is a compact core of a cover $X_\Gamma \to X$ corresponding to a finitely generated subgroup $\Gamma \le \pi_1(X)$.
\begin{lemma}[Immersion to cover] \label{lem:embedding_fullly_punctured}
Suppose that $(X,q)$ is a fully-punctured surface.
Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated subgroup of $\pi_1(X)$ and let $W$ be a compact core of the cover $X_\Gamma \to X$.
If $W$ is nonannular and $d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 4$ or
if $W$ is an annulus and
$d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) >6$,
then there is a subsurface $Y$ of $X$ such that
$W \to X$ is homotopic to a finite cover $W \to Y \subset X$.
In particular, $\Gamma$ is
a finite index subgroup of $\pi_1(Y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > 4$ if $W$ is nonannular and
$d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) >6$ if $W$ is an annulus.
Let $p \colon \check X \to X$ be a finite cover to which $W \to X$
lifts to an embedding $W \to \check{X}$ (this exists since surface
groups are LERF \cite{scott-LERF}),
and identify $W$ with its
image in $\check{X}$. Lift $q$ along with the veering triangulation to
$(\check{X} \times \mathbb{R},\tau)$. By \Cref{thm: tau-compatible},
$W$ is a $\tau$--compatible subsurface of $\check X$, and
by \Cref{thm: tau-compatible}
and \Cref{prop:connect},
$T_{\check{X}}(\partial_\tau W)$ is nonempty and connected. To prove the lemma, we
show that $\int_\tau(W) \to X$ covers a subsurface of $X$. For this, it suffices to prove
that each edge of $p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$ is disjoint from $\int_\tau(W)$. Indeed, since
$W$ is $\tau$--compatible, one component of $\check X \ssm \partial_\tau W$ is $\int_\tau(W)$. If $p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$ is disjoint from $\int_\tau(W)$, then $\int_\tau(W)$ is also a component of $\check X \ssm p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$. As components of $\check X \ssm p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$ cover components of $X \ssm p(\partial_\tau W)$, this will show that $\int_\tau(W) \to X$ covers a subsurface of $X$.
Hence, we must show that each edge of $p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$ is disjoint from $\int_\tau(W)$. This is equivalent to the statement that no edge of $p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$ crosses $\partial_\tau W$ nor is contained in $\int_\tau(W)$.
First suppose that $W$ is not an annulus.
If $\check T$ is a section
of $(\check{X} \times \mathbb{R},\tau)$ with an edge $f$ such that $f>e$ for
an edge $e$ of $\partial_\tau W$,
then \Cref{near lambda} implies that
$d_W(\check T,\lambda^+) = 0$. Similarly if $f<e$ then $d_W(\check T,\lambda^-) =
0$. Hence, if $T$ is \emph{any section of} $(X \times \mathbb{R},\tau)$ such that
$d_W(T,\lambda^\pm) \ge 1$, then its lift
$\check{T} = p^{-1}(T)$ to $\check{X}$ must contain the edges of
$\partial_\tau W$ and so $\check{T} \in T_{\check{X}}(\partial_\tau
W)$. Moreover, such a section $T$ of $(X \times \mathbb{R},\tau)$ with $d_W(T,\lambda^\pm) \ge 1$ must exist.
This is because
by \Cref{gue-sweep}, we may sweep through $X\times\mathbb{R}$ with sections going from
near $\lambda^-$ to near $\lambda^+$. If all sections were to have $d_W$--distance
$0$ from either $\lambda^-$ or $\lambda^+$, then there would be a pair $T,T'$ differing by
a single diagonal exchange such that $d_W(T, \lambda^-)= d_W(T',\lambda^+) = 0$. But this would imply that
$d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) \le 2$, contradicting our assumption on distance.
Putting these facts together, we conclude that
there exists a section $T$ of $(X \times \mathbb{R},\tau)$ with $d_W(T,\lambda^\pm)\ge 1$, and that
for each such section
\[
p^{-1}(T) \in T_{\check{X}}(p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))).
\]
Note that this in particular implies that no edge of $p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$
crosses an edge of $\partial_\tau W$.
We claim now that no edge
$e$ in $p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$ can be
contained in $\int_\tau (W)$. Such an edge would have
a well-defined projection to
$\A(W)$ and
would necessarily appear in each section of $T_{\check{X}}(p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W)))$ (by definition of $T_{\check X}(\cdot)$).
Using our conclusion from above, this would imply that
$d_W(p^{-1}(T),e) = 0$ whenever $d_W(T,\lambda^\pm)\ge 1$.
But just as before, by sweeping through $X\times\mathbb{R}$ with sections going from
near $\lambda^-$ to near $\lambda^+$,
we produce sections $T_1, T_2$ with $d_W(T_1, \lambda^-) =d_W(T_2,\lambda^+)=1$.
Since each of these sections' preimage in $\check X$ contains the edge $e$, we get that
$d_W(\lambda^\pm,e)\le 2$, which contradicts our hypothesis that
$d_W(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 4$.
This shows that no edge of $p^{-1}(p(\partial_\tau W))$ can meet $\int_\tau(W)$ and
completes the proof when $W$ is nonannular.
When $W$ is an annulus, one proceeds exactly as above using the annular version of \Cref{near lambda}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}]
We may assume that $W$ is a subsurface of $F$ such that
$d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > \beta$.
First suppose that $\pi_1(W)$ is contained in $\pi_1(S)$.
Then by \Cref{lem:embedding_fullly_punctured}, there is a subsurface
$Y$ of $S$ such that, up to conjugation in $\pi_1(S)$, $\pi_1(W) \le
\pi_1(Y)$ is a finite index subgroup; let
$n \ge 1$ denote this index. If $\eta_F \colon \pi_1(M) \to
\mathbb{Z}$ is the homomorphism representing the cohomology class dual to
$F$, then $\eta_F | \pi_1(Y)$ vanishes on the index $n$ subgroup
$\pi_1(W)$.
Since $\mathbb{Z}$ is torsion-free we must have that $\eta$ vanishes on
$\pi_1(Y)$ and hence $\pi_1(Y)$ is contained in $\pi_1(F)$.
However, since the fundamental group of an embedded subsurface, in this case $W \subset F$, can not be nontrivially finite-index inside another subgroup of $\pi_1(F)$, we see that $n=1$ and $\pi_1(W) = \pi_1(Y)$.
That $W$ is isotopic along the flow in $M$ to $Y \subset S$ can be seen by lifting $W$ and $Y$ to the cover $S \times \mathbb{R} \to M$.
Hence, we may suppose by \Cref{lem:flow_to_fiber_2} that the image of
any $S \to M$ homotopic to the fiber $S$ intersects any isotope of $W
\subset F$ essentially. Since $d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) > \beta$, $W$
has a nonempty isolated pocket $V_W \subset F \times \mathbb R$
which simplicially embeds into $(M, \tau)$ by
\Cref{thm:pocket summary}. Let $\{W_i\}$ denote a sequence of sections of $V_W$ from $V^-_W$ to $V^+_W$ with $W_{i+1}$ differing from $W_i$ by an upward diagonal flip. Also, fix a simplicial map $f \colon S \to (M,\tau)$ which is obtained by composing a section of $(S \times \mathbb{R},\tau)$ with the covering map $S \times \mathbb{R} \to M$.
Note that for each $i$, $f(S)$ meets at least one edge of the interior of $W_i$. Otherwise, the image of $S$ in $M$ misses the interior of $W_i$ contradicting our assumption. In fact, even more is true: Call a component $c$ of $f(S) \cap W_i$ \emph{ removable} if the triangles of $f(S)$
incident to the edges of $c$
lie locally to one side of $W_i$ in $M$. If $c$ is removable, then
there is an isotopy of $W_i$ supported in a neighborhood of $c$ which
removes $c$ from the intersection $f(S) \cap W_i$. Hence, if we denote
by $E_i$ the edges of $f(S) \cap W_i$ which do not lie in removable components , then $E_i$ must be nonempty for each $i$.
We claim that for each $i$, $E_i$ shares an edge with $E_{i+1}$. Otherwise, both $E_i$ and $E_{i+1}$ consist of a single edge and
the tetrahedron corresponding to the diagonal exchange from $W_i$ to
$W_{i+1}$ has $E_i$ as its bottom edge and $E_{i+1}$ as its top
edge. But then both of these edges must be removable since pushing the bottom two faces of the tetrahedron slightly upward makes that intersection disappear, and similarly for the top. This contradicts our above observation and establishes that $E_i$ and $E_{i+1}$ have a common edge.
We obtain a sequence in $\A(W)$,
\[
V^-_W \supset E_0 , E_1, \ldots, E_n \subset V^+_W,
\]
having the property that for each edge $e_i$ of $E_i$ there is an edge $e_{i+1}$ of $E_{i+1}$ such that $e_i$ and $e_{i+1}$ are disjoint. We conclude that the number of distinct edges in the sequence $E_0 , E_1, \ldots, E_n$ is at least $d_W(V^-_W, V^+_W)$.
Combining this with the fact that the number of edges in an ideal triangulation
of $S$ is $3|\chi(S)|$ and \Cref{lem:iso_pocket}, we see that
\[
3|\chi(S)| \ge d_W(V^-_W, V^+_W) \ge d_W(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) - \beta,
\]
as required.
\end{proof}
\medskip
We conclude the paper by recording the following corollary of
\Cref{lem:embedding_fullly_punctured} and the proof of
\Cref{th:sub_dichotomy_fully_punctured}.
\begin{corollary}\label{always subsurface}
Let $M$ be a hyperbolic manifold with fully-punctured fibered face
$\mathcal{F}$. Let $W$ be a subsurface of a fiber $F\in\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$ such that
$d_W(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-) > 4$ if $W$ is nonannular and
$d_W(\Lambda^+,\Lambda^-) > 6$ if $W$ is an annulus. If $S$ is any
fiber in $\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{F}$ such that $\pi_1(W) < \pi_1(S)$, then $W$ is isotopic
to a subsurface of $S$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Sections and pockets of the veering triangulation}
\label{sections}
In this section the surface $X$ is fully-punctured.
A {\em section} of the veering triangulation $\tau$ is an
embedding $(X,T) \to (X \times \mathbb{R}, \tau)$ which is simplicial with
respect to an ideal triangulation $T$ of $X$, and is a section of the
fibration $\pi \colon X \times \mathbb{R} \to X$ (hence transverse to the vertical flow). By \emph{simplicial} we
mean that the map takes simplices to simplices.
The edges of $T$ are saddle connections of $q$ that are also edges of $\tau$ (i.e.
those which span singularity-free rectangles), and indeed any
triangulation by $\tau$-edges gives rise to a section.
We will abuse
terminology a bit by letting $T$ denote both the triangulation and the
section.
A {\em diagonal flip} $T\to T'$ between sections is an isotopy that
pushes $T$ through a single tetrahedron of $\tau$, either above it or below
it. Equivalently, if $R$ is a maximal rectangle and $Q$ its associated
tetrahedron, the bottom two faces of $Q$ might appear in $T$, in which
case $T'$ would be obtained by replacing these with the top two
faces. This is an upward flip, and the opposite is a downward flip.
We will refer to the transition as both a \emph{diagonal flip/exchange} and a \emph{tetrahedron move}, depending on the perspective.
An edge $e$ of $T$ can be flipped downward exactly when it is the
tallest edge, with respect to $q$, among the edges in either of the
two triangles adjacent to it. This makes $e$ the top edge of a
tetrahedron (i.e. the diagonal of a quadrilateral that connects the
horizontal sides of the corresponding rectangle).
Similarly it can be flipped upward when it is the widest
edge among its neighbors.
See \Cref{flippability2}.
\realfig{flippability2}{The edge $e$ is upward flippable, $g$ is
downward flippable, and $f$ is not flippable.}
In particular it follows that every section has to admit both an
upward and downward flip -- simply find the tallest edge and the
widest edge.
However it is not a priori obvious that a section even
exists. Gu\'eritaud gives an argument for this and more:
\begin{lemma}[\cite{gueritaud}]\label{gue-sweep}
There is a sequence of sections $\cdots \to T_i\to
T_{i+1}\to\cdots$ separated by upward diagonal flips, which sweeps through the
entire manifold $(X\times\mathbb{R},\tau)$.
Moreover, when $(X\times\mathbb{R},\tau)$ covers the manifold $(M,\tau)$, this sequence is invariant by
the deck translation $\Phi$.
\end{lemma}
We remark that Agol had previously proven a version of \Cref{gue-sweep} with his original definition of the veering triangulation \cite{agol2011ideal}.
For an alternative proof that sections exist, see the second proof of \Cref{lem:extension}.
We remark that \Cref{gue-sweep} does not give a complete picture of all possible
sections of $\tau$. In this section we will establish a bit more
structure.
\medskip
For a subcomplex $K \le \tau$, denote by $T(K)$ the collection of
sections $T$ of $\tau$ containing the edges of $K$. A necessary
condition for $T(K)$ to be nonempty is that $\pi(K)$ is an
embedded complex in $X$ composed of $\tau$-simplices. We will continue
to blur the distinction between $K$ and $\pi(K)$.
Our first result states that the necessary condition is sufficient:
\begin{lemma}[Extension lemma] \label{lem:extension}
Suppose that $E$ is a collection of
$\tau$-edges in $X$ with
pairwise disjoint interiors. Then $T(E)$ is nonempty.
\end{lemma}
The second states that $T(K)$ is always connected by tetrahedron
moves. This includes in particular the case of $T(\emptyset)$, the set
of all sections.
\begin{proposition}[Connectivity] \label{prop:connect}
If $K$ is a collection of
$\tau$-edges in $X$ with
pairwise disjoint interiors,
then $T(K)$ is connected
via tetrahedron moves.
\end{proposition}
\subsection*{Finding flippable edges}
Let $T$ be a section and let $\sigma$ be an edge of $\tau$, which is
not an edge of $T$. Any edge $e$ of $T$ crossing $\sigma$ must do so
from top to bottom ($e>\sigma$) or left to right ($e<\sigma$), as in
\Cref{veering defs}, and we further note that all
edges of $T$ that cross $\sigma$ do it consistently, all top-bottom or all
left-right, since they are disjoint from each other.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:down_flip}
Let $T$ be a section and suppose that an edge $\sigma$ of $\tau$ is
crossed by an edge $e$ of $T$. If $e>\sigma$, then
there is an edge of $T$ crossing $\sigma$ which is downward flippable.
Similarly if $e<\sigma$ then
there is an edge of $T$ crossing $\sigma$ which is upward flippable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assuming the crossings of $\sigma$ are top to bottom,
let $e$ be the edge crossing $\sigma$ that has largest height with
respect to $q$. Let $D$ be a triangle of $T$ on either side of
$e$ and let $f$ be its tallest edge.
Drawing the rectangle $M$ in which $D$ is inscribed (\Cref{tallest-crossing})
one sees that $R$, the rectangle of $\sigma$, is forced to cross it
from left to right. Hence, the edge $f$ must also cross $\sigma$.
Therefore, $f=e$ by choice of $e$.
It follows that $e$ is a downward flippable edge.
\end{proof}
\realfig{tallest-crossing}{The tallest $T$-edge crossing $\sigma$ must
also be tallest in its own triangles.}
\subsection*{Pockets}
Let $T$ and $T'$ be
two sections and $K$ their intersection, as a subcomplex in $X\times\mathbb{R}$. Because both sections are embedded copies of $X$
transverse to the suspension flow, their union $T \cup T'$ divides
$X \times \mathbb{R}$ into two unbounded regions and some number of bounded
regions. Each bounded region $U$ is a union of tetrahedra bounded by two isotopic
subsurfaces of $T$ and $T'$, which correspond to a component $W$ of
the complement of $\pi(K)$ in $X$. The isotopy is obtained by
following the flow, and if it takes the subsurface of $T'$ upward to
the subsurface of $T$ we say that
{\em $T$ lies above $T'$ in $U$}. We call $U$ a \emph{pocket over
$W$}, and sometimes write $U_W$. We call $W$ the \emph{base} of the pocket $U$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:slope_drop}
With notation as above, $T$ lies above $T'$ in the pocket $U_W$ if and only if,
for every edge $e$ of $T$ in $W$ and edge $e'$ of $T'$ in $W$, if $e$ and $e'$ cross then $e>e'$.
\end{lemma}
Note that, for each edge $e$ of $T$ in $W$ there is in fact an edge $e'$ of
$T'$ in $W$ which crosses $e$, since both $T$ and $T'$ are
triangulations, with no common edges in $W$.
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $T$ lies above $T'$ in $U_W$ and let $e$ be an edge of
$T$ in $W$; hence, it is in the top boundary of
$U$. Let $Q$ be the tetrahedron of $\tau$ for which $e$ is the top
edge. Via the local picture around $e$ (see \Cref{veering defs} and
\Cref{edge-swing}), we see that $Q$ lies locally
below $T$. Its interior is of course disjoint from $T$ and $T'$ (and
the whole $2$- skeleton), hence it is inside $U$. Let $e_1$ be the
bottom edge of $Q$.
Note $e > e_1$. If $e_1$ is in $T'$,
stop (with $e' = e_1$). Otherwise it is in the interior of $U$, and we can repeat with
the tetrahedron for which $e_1$ is the top edge. We get a sequence of
steps terminating in some $e'$ in $T'$, which must be in the boundary
of $U$, and conclude $e > e'$ (by the transitivity of $>$ as in
\Cref{veering defs}). Now from the paragraph before \Cref{lem:down_flip},
the same slope relation holds for every edge of $T'$
crossing $e$, hence giving the first implication of the lemma. For the
other direction, exchange the roles of $T$ and $T'$ in the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Connectedness of $T(K)$}
We can now prove \Cref{prop:connect}.
\begin{proof}
Let us consider $T$, $T'$ in $T(K)$. Let $U$ be one of the pockets,
and suppose $T$ lies above $T'$ in $U$. \Cref{lem:slope_drop} together
with \Cref{lem:down_flip} implies that $T$ has a downward flippable
edge $e$ which crosses an edge of $T'$ that is in $W$. In particular
$e$ itself is in $W$.
Performing this flip we reduce the number of tetrahedra contained in pockets. Thus a finite number of moves will take $T$ to $T'$, without disturbing $K$.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of \Cref{prop:connect} and its proof we have:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:top}
If $K$ is a nonempty subcomplex of $\tau$ and $T(K) \neq \emptyset$,
then there are unique sections $T^+(K)$ and $T^-(K)$ in $T(K)$ such
that every $T \in T(K)$ can be upward flipped to $T^+(K)$ and downward flipped
to $T^-(K)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
First note that $T(K)$ is finite: because $\tau$ is locally finite at the edges, there are only finitely many choices for a triangle adjacent to $K$. We then enlarge $K$ successively, noting that there is a bound on the number of triangles in a section.
Thus there exists a section $T^+$ in $T(K)$ which is not upward
flippable in $T(K)$.
For any two sections $T_1,T_2\in T(K)$ there is a $T_3\in
T(K)$ obtained as the union of the tops of the pockets of $T_1$ and
$T_2$ and their intersection. Thus $T_1$ is upward flippable unless
$T_1=T_3$, and similarly for $T_2$. This implies that $T^+$ is the
unique section in $T(K)$ which is not upward flippable, and every
other section is upward flippable to $T^+$.
We define $T^-$ analogously.
\end{proof}
The section $T^+(K)$ is called the \emph{top of $T(K)$} and the
section $T^-(K)$ is called the \emph{bottom of $T(K)$}. Note that any
section obtained from $T^+(K)$ by upward diagonal exchanges is not in
$T(K)$.
\subsection*{Extension lemma}
We conclude this section with two proofs of \Cref{lem:extension}.
\begin{proof}[Proof one]
\Cref{gue-sweep} gives us, in particular, the existence of at
least one section $T_0$ which is disjoint from $E$, which we may
assume lies above every edge of $E$.
Then by \Cref{lem:down_flip} there is a downward
flippable edge $e$ in $T_0$. The tetrahedron involved in the move lies
above $E$, so $E$ still lies below (or is contained in) the new
section $T_1$. We repeat this process, and at each stage every edge
of $E$ is either contained in $T_i$ or crosses an edge of $T_i$ and
lies below it. Thus by \Cref{lem:down_flip}, unless $E\subset T_i$ each $T_i$
contains a downward flippable edge that is not contained in
$E$.
Because $\tau$ is locally finite at each
edge, {\em any} sequence of downward flips is a proper sweepout of
the region below $T_0$, and hence
must eventually meet every edge of $\tau$ below $T_0$. Thus we may
continue until every edge of $E$ lies in $T_i$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof two] Our second proof does not use \Cref{gue-sweep}, and in
particular it gives an independent proof of the existence of
sections.
Let $D$ be a component of the complement of $E$ which is not a triangle.
Let $e$ be an edge of $\partial D$ and consider the collection of
$\tau$-tetrahedra adjacent to $e$. These contain a sequence
$Q_-,Q_1,\ldots Q_m,Q_+$, as in \Cref{edge-swing}, where $Q_-$ is the
tetrahedron with $e$ as its top
edge, $Q_+$ is the tetrahedron with $e$ as its bottom edge, and the
rest are adjacent to $e$
on the same side as $D$ (if $D$ meets $e$ on two sides we just choose one).
Two successive tetrahedra in this sequence
share a triangular face. We claim that one of
these faces must be contained in $D$. Equivalently we claim that one
of the triangles is not crossed by any edge of $E$.
Since each tetrahedron $Q$ is inscribed in a singularity free rectangle $R$, if an edge
$f$ of $E$ crosses any edge of $Q$ its rectangle crosses
all of $R$. It follows immediately, since the edges of $E$
have disjoint interiors, that they consistently cross $R$ all vertically, or
all horizontally. Because successive tetrahedra in the sequence share
a face it follows inductively that, if all the faces are crossed
by $E$, then they are all consistently crossed horizontally,
or all vertically.
However, $Q_-$ can
only be crossed vertically by $E$ (since $E$ does
not cross $e$). Similarly $Q_+$ can only be crossed horizontally. It
follows that there must be a triangular face $F$ that is {\em not} crossed
by $E$. Thus $F$ is contained in $D$. Since $D$ is not a triangle,
at least one edge of $F$ passes through the
interior of $D$. We add this edge to $E$ and
proceed inductively.
\end{proof}
\section{Projections and compatible subsurfaces}
\label{surface_reps}
In this section we show that if $Y\subset X$ is a compact essential subsurface of large projection distance $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)$, then $Y$ has
particularly nice representations with respect to, first, the quadratic
differential $q$ and, second, the veering triangulation $\tau$. We
emphasize that in this section, the surface $X$ is not necessarily
fully-punctured.
\subsection{Projection and $q$--compatibility}
Recall the $q$-convex hull map $\hat\iota_q \colon Y \to \bar X_Y$
constructed in \Cref{q tight}. We
say that $Y$ is {\em $q$-compatible}
if $\hat\iota_q$ is an embedding of $Y' = Y\ssm \partial_0 Y$, as in part (6) of \Cref{q tight}.
(Recall that $\partial_0 Y$
maps to completion points of $\til \PP_Y$).
This condition implies
a little more:
\realfig{Y_q_cartoon_2}{The image of a $q$-compatible subsurface $Y$ in $\bar X_Y$ under $\hat \iota_q$. Open circles are points of $\til \PP_Y$ (corresponding to the image of $\partial_0 Y$) and dots are singularities not contained in $\til \PP_Y$. The ideal boundary of $X_Y$ is in blue.}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:int_embed}
If $Y \subset X$ is $q$-compatible, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item the projection $\iota_q \colon Y \to \bar X$ of $\hat
\iota_q$ to $\bar X$ is an embedding from $\int(Y)$ into $X$
which is homotopic to the inclusion, and
\item $\hat\iota_q(\partial'Y)$ does not pass through points of $\til\PP_Y$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Recall that $\partial'Y = \partial Y \ssm \partial_0Y$.
\begin{proof}
Recall from \Cref{q tight} that $q$-compatibility of $Y$ is equivalent
to the statement that
the interior of the $q$-hull ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda) \subset
\hat X$ is a disk (i.e. it is not pinched along singularities or
saddle connections).
If $\iota_q \colon \int(Y) \to X$ fails to be an
embedding, then it must be that for some deck transformation $g$ of
the universal covering $\til X \to X$ the interiors of ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$
and $g \cdot {\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ are distinct and overlap. But then it
follows immediately from \Cref{cor:side_coherence} that the distinct
hyperbolic convex hulls ${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ and $g \cdot {\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$
overlap, contradicting that $Y$ is a subsurface of $X$. This proves
part (1).
For part (2), let $\beta$ be a component of $\partial_0 Y$. Since
$\hat\iota_q$ embeds $Y\ssm \partial_0Y$, a collar
neighborhood $U$ of $\beta$ in $Y$ maps to a neighborhood $V$ of the puncture
$p = \hat\iota_q(\beta)$. Now if $\gamma$ is a component of
$\partial'Y$, $q$-compatibility again implies its
image must avoid $V\ssm p$. Since $\hat\iota_q(\gamma)$ cannot
equal $p$, it must be disjoint from it.
\end{proof}
Note that $Y$ is a $q$-compatible annulus if and only if the core of $Y$ is a cylinder curve in $X$. In this case, the corresponding open flat cylinder in $X$ is $\iota_q(\int (Y))$. In general, if $Y$ is $q$-compatible then one component of $X \ssm \partial_q Y$ is an open subsurface isotopic to the interior of $Y$; this is the image $\iota_q(\int(Y))$ and is denoted $\int_q(Y)$.
The following proposition shows that mild assumptions on
$d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)$ imply that
$Y$ is $q$-compatible.
\begin{proposition}[$q$-Compatibility] \label{prop: q_compatible}
Let $Y\subset X$ be an essential subsurface.
If $Y$ is non-annular and $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 0$, then $Y$ is $q$-compatible.
If $Y$ is an annulus and $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 1$, then
$Y$ is $q$-compatible. In this case, $\int_q(Y)$ is a flat cylinder.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We treat the non-annular case first. Suppose that $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)>0$.
Recall from \Cref{AY in flat geometry} that we have identified $\til X$ with $\HH^2$,
set $\Lambda\subset \partial\HH^2$ to be the limit set of
$\Gamma = \pi_1(Y)$, set $\Omega =
\partial\HH^2\ssm \Lambda$, and defined $\hat\PP_Y\subset \Lambda$
to be the set of parabolic fixed points of $\pi_1(Y)$. Note that $\hat \PP_Y = \Lambda \cap \hat \PP$.
Further recall from part (6) of \Cref{q tight} that the
map from $Y'$ to ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(X_Y)$ is an embedding,
provided the interior of ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ is a disk.
Since ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$ is the result of deleting the interior of the side $\side{l}$ from $\hat X$ for each
hyperbolic geodesic line $l$ in $\partial {\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$, it suffices to show that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for each geodesic line $l$ in $\partial {\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$, the
interior of the corresponding $q$-geodesic $l_q$ does not meet $\partial \HH^2 \ssm \side{l}$, and
\item if $l$ and $l'$ are distinct geodesic lines in $\partial {\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ then
$l_q$ and $l'_q$ do not meet in $\widetilde X$.
\end{enumerate}
First suppose that condition $(1)$ is violated for some geodesic line $l$ in $\partial {\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ and point $\hat p \in \partial \HH^2 \ssm \side{l}$. Set $p$ to be the image of $\hat p$ in $\bar X_Y$. Letting $\gamma$ be the boundary component of $\partial' Y$ that is the image of $l$ in $X_Y$, we see that the image of $l_q$ in $\bar X_Y$, which equals $\gamma_q = \hat \iota_q(\gamma)$, passes through the point $p$.
Since $l_q$ is a geodesic in $\hat X$, we see that $\hat p$ is a completion point and so either $\hat p \in \hat \PP_Y$ or $\hat p \in \hat \PP \ssm \hat \PP_Y$.
Assume that $\hat p\in \hat \PP_Y$. Then
$p\in \widetilde \PP_Y$ corresponds to a puncture of $Y$.
Recall that by \Cref{q tight}, the image of the open side
$\openside{l} = \int(\side{l} \cap \widetilde X)$
in $X_Y$ is either an open annulus or a disjoint union of open disks; in either case, set $A_\gamma$ equal to the component which contains $p$ in its boundary.
The angle at $p$ in $A_\gamma$ between the incoming and
outgoing edges of $\gamma_q$ is at least $\pi$, which implies that
$A_\gamma$ contains a horizontal and a vertical ray $l^-,l^+$
emanating from $p$. (\Cref{p_gamma}.)
\realfig{p_gamma}{When $\hat\iota_q(\partial' Y)$ passes through a
point of $\widetilde \PP_Y$, $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) =0$.}
These rays are proper $q$-geodesic lines in $X_Y$ (because $p$ is a
puncture, not a point of $X_Y$), and hence by \Cref{q arcs for
AY} represent vertices of $\pi_Y(\lambda^-)$ and
$\pi_Y(\lambda^+)$, respectively. Further, since the rays only intersect within the annulus or disk $A_\gamma$ and $Y$ is itself nonannular, we see that $l^-$ and $l^+$ in fact represent the same point in $\A(Y)$. (Actually, if $A$ does not contain a flat cylinder, then the interiors of $l^-$ and $l^+$ are disjoint as we show below). Either way, it follows that
$$
d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) =0,
$$
a contradiction.
Next assume that $\hat p \in \hat \PP \ssm \hat \PP_Y$. Since $\hat p \notin \side{l} \cap \partial \HH^2$ we may set $A$ to be the component of the image of $\openside{l}$
in $X_Y$ which contains $p \in \hat X_Y$ in its boundary.
As before, the angle subtended by $\gamma_q$ at $x$ in the boundary of $A$
is at least $\pi$ (see
\Cref{modified_pinch-puncture}). A pair of rays $l^\pm$
emanating from $x$ into $A$ are properly embedded lines and again
represent the same vertex of $\A(Y)$, giving us
$d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) =0$.
\realfig{modified_pinch-puncture}{$Y_q$ is pinched at a completion point.}
We conclude that condition $(1)$ is satisfied.
Next suppose that geodesics $l$ and $l'$ in the boundary of ${\operatorname{CH}}(\Lambda)$ violate $(2)$, i.e. $l_q$ and $l'_q$ meet in $\til X$. Let $\til I = l_q \cap l'_q \subset \hat X$ which, since $\hat X$ is CAT$(0)$, is a connected subset of each of $l_q,l'_q$.
In general, the intersection in $\hat X$ of two $q$-geodesic lines is either a single singularity (possibly a completion point) or a union of saddle connections.
Because $l_q$ and $l'_q$ meet in $\widetilde X$, $\til I$ contains either a saddle connection or a singularity which is not a completion point.
Let $\gamma,\gamma',\gamma_q,\gamma'_q, I$, be the images in $\bar X_Y$ of $l,l',l_q,l'_q,\til I$, respectively.
Suppose first that $I$ contains a saddle connection $\sigma$.
In this case, let $A$ be the component of the image of
the open side $\openside{l}$
in $X_Y$ which contains $\sigma$ in its boundary, and define $A'$ similarly.
(Note that it is possible that $A = A'$ and that $A$ and $A'$ meet along other saddle connections and singularities besides $\sigma$, but this will not change the discussion.)
Any point of $\sigma$ is crossed
by a pair $l^+,l^-$ of leaves of $\lambda^+,\lambda^-$, which
as proper arcs of $X_Y$ determine the same vertex of $\A(Y)$. Hence,
we conclude once again that $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) =0.$
\realfig{common-saddle}{$Y_q$ is pinched along a saddle connection.}
Finally, suppose that $I$ contains a singularity $x$ in $X_Y$ (i.e. $x$ is not a completion point). Again, set $A$ to be the component of the image of $\openside{l}$
in $X_Y$ which contains $x$ in its boundary and $A'$ to be the component of the image of $\openside{l'}$ in $X_Y$ which contains $x$ in its boundary.
As before, there is an angle of at least $\pi$ on the $A$ side of
$\gamma_q$ and on the $A'$ side of $\gamma'_q$,
so we can find pairs of rays $r_0^\pm$ emanating from $x$ on
the $A$ side, and $r_1^\pm$ emanating on the $A'$ side (see \Cref{common-sing}).
The unions
$l^+ = r_0^+\cup_x r_1^+$ and $l^- = r_0^-\cup_x r_1^-$ are
generalized leaves of $\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^-$, respectively, and
again determine the same point in $\A(Y)$ so we conclude
that $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) =0. $
\realfig{common-sing}{$Y_q$ is pinched at a singularity which is not a completion point.}
We conclude that if $Y$ is nonannular and $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) >0$, then $Y$ is $q$-compatible.
When $Y$ is an annulus, almost the same argument applies. The
difference is that the arcs $l^\pm$ we obtain are not homotopic with
fixed endpoints, and so do not determine the same vertex of
$\A(Y)$. However, in each case we will show they have disjoint interiors,
concluding $d_Y(l^+,l^-) \le 1$, and so
$$
d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) \le 1.
$$
To see this, let $\gamma$ denote the core of $Y$ and let $\gamma_q$ be a geodesic
representative in $\bar X_Y$. Supposing that $\int_q(Y)$ is not a flat annulus, we first claim the following: For any singular point $p$ crossed by $\gamma_q$, if $l^+$ and $l^-$ are rays of $\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^-$, respectively, meeting with angle $\pi/2$ at $p$,
then the interiors of $l^+$ and $l^-$ do not meet.
\realfig{GB_annulus_2}{The $q$-geodesic $\gamma_q$ is the black hexagon. An interior
intersection between $l^+$ and $l^-$ contradicts the Gauss--Bonnet
theorem.}
To establish the claim, assume that the interiors of $l^{\pm}$ meet
and refer to \Cref{GB_annulus_2}. Let $A_\gamma$ be the complementary
region of $\gamma_q$ in $\bar X_Y$ containing $p'$, the interior intersection of
$l^{\pm}$. If $A_\gamma$ is a disk, then the claim follows
immediately from the uniqueness of geodesics in a CAT(0)
space. Hence, we may assume that $A_\gamma$ is an annulus. Let
$l^+_\ep$ be leaf of $\lambda^+$ parallel to $l^+$ and slightly
displaced to the interior of $A_\gamma$, so that the region $R$
bounded by $\gamma_q$ and the segments of $l^-$ and $l^+_\ep$
is an annulus. The total curvature of the $l^-l^+_\ep$ boundary of
$R$ is 0 since it is straight except for two right turns of opposite
signs, and the total curvature of $\gamma_q$ as measured from inside
$R$ is nonpositive (since each singularity on $\gamma_q$ subtends at
least angle $\pi$ within $R$). Since $\chi(R)= 0$ and the Gaussian
curvature in $R$ (including singularities) is nonpositive, the
Gauss--Bonnet theorem implies that the total curvature of $\partial
R$ is nonnegative. This implies that the total curvature of
$\gamma_q$ is 0, which means that $\gamma_q$ bounds a flat cylinder,
contradicting our assumption. This establishes the claim.
We now return to the proof of the proposition. First suppose that $\gamma_q$ passes through a completion point $x$ of $\bar X_Y$. Then, just as in \Cref{modified_pinch-puncture}, we can find a pair of rays $l^\pm$ emanating from $x$ into $A_\gamma$. By the claim above, the interiors of these rays do not meet and so $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) \le 1$ as desired.
Finally, suppose that $\gamma_q$ remains in $X_Y$, i.e. it does not
pass through any completion points. It must still pass through a singularity $x$,
and we note that the total angle at $x$ is at
least $3\pi$. Recall that $\gamma_q$ subtends at least angle $\pi$ at
$x$ to either of its sides and we note that some side of $\gamma$ sees
angle at least $3\pi /2$ at $x$. Let $A$ denote this
side of $\gamma_q$ and let $A'$ denote the other side.
Note that $A \neq A'$ since $X_Y$ is an annulus which $\gamma_q$ separates.
The angle of $3\pi/2$ tells us there
are at least $3$ rays of $\lambda^\pm$ emanating into $A$. Now choose
rays $r_0^\pm$ of $\l^\pm$ emanating from $x$ on the $A'$ side.
Because the $3$ (or more) rays of $\lambda^\pm$ emanating from $x$ into
$A$ alternate between $\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^-$, we can choose from
them two rays $r_1^\pm$ of $\l^\pm$ such that
$r_0^+,r_1^+,r_1^-,r_0^-$ are listed
in the cyclic ordering of directions at $x$ (either
clockwise or counterclockwise).
The generalized leaves $l^+ = r_0^+\cup_x r_1^+$
and $l^- = r_0^-\cup_x r_1^-$ then represent arcs in the projections
$\pi_Y(\l^+)$ and $\pi_Y(\l^-)$ and after a slight perturbation these
leaves have disjoint interiors. Hence, again we see that
$d_Y(\l^+,\l^-)\le 1$.
We conclude that if $Y$ is an annulus with $d_Y(\l^+,\l^-)\ge 1$ then $Y$ is
$q$-compatible. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Projections and $\tau$-compatibility}
\label{sec: hulls_punctured}
We now show how to associate to a subsurface $Y$ of
large projection a representative of $Y$ which is ``simplicial'' with
respect to the veering
triangulation. This will later be used to prove that such a subsurface induces a
pocket of the veering triangulation $\tau$.
Informally, we start with a $q$-compatible subsurface $Y \subset X$
and homotope $\hat \iota_q$ by pushing $\partial_q Y$ onto
$\tau$-edges (this process is depicted locally in \Cref{thull-twice}). Formally, this is done in two steps using the map $\thull(\cdot)$
described in \Cref{sec:t_hulls}, although some care must be taken in
order to ensure that the resulting object gives an embedded
representative of $\int(Y)$.
Call a subsurface $Y \subset X$ \emph{$\tau$-compatible} if the map $\hat\iota_q:Y \to \bar X_Y$ is homotopic rel $\partial_0 Y$ to a map
$\hat\iota_\tau:Y\to \bar X_Y$ which is an embedding on $Y' = Y\ssm \partial_0Y$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\hat\iota_\tau$ takes each component of $\partial'Y = \partial Y \ssm \partial_0 Y$ to a simple curve in $\bar X_Y \ssm \til{\PP}_Y$ composed of
a union of $\tau$-edges and
\item the map $\iota_\tau \colon Y \to \bar X$ obtained by composing
$\hat \iota_\tau$ with $\bar X_Y \to \bar X$ restricts to an embedding from $\int(Y)$ into $X$.
\end{enumerate}
We will show that when $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+)$ is sufficiently large, the subsurface $Y$ is $\tau$-compatible and in this case we set $\partial_\tau Y = \iota_\tau(\partial'Y)$ which is a collection of $\tau$-edges with disjoint interiors. We call $\partial_\tau Y$ the \emph{$\tau$--boundary} of $Y$ and consider it as a $1$-complex of $\tau$-edges. Similar to the situation of a $q$-compatible subsurface, if $Y$ is $\tau$-compatible then one component of $X \ssm \partial_\tau Y$ is an open subsurface isotopic to the interior of $Y$; this is the image $\iota_\tau(\int(Y))$ and is denoted $\int_\tau (Y)$.
\begin{theorem}[$\tau$-Compatibility]\label{thm: tau-compatible}
Let $Y\subset X$ be an essential subsurface.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $Y$ is nonannular and $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 0$,
then $Y$ is $\tau$-compatible.
\item If $Y$ is an annulus and $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 1$, then
$Y$ is $\tau$-compatible.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 0$ if $Y$ is nonannular and
$d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) > 1$ otherwise.
By \Cref{prop: q_compatible}, $Y$ is $q$-compatible and so $\hat \iota_q:Y\to \bar X_Y$ is an
embedding on $Y'$.
Let $Y_q$ denote its image. We first suppose that $Y$ is not an annulus.
Give $\partial ' Y$ the transverse orientation pointing into $Y$. For
any saddle connection $\sigma$ in $\hat\iota_q(\partial' Y)$ and any
triangle $t \in \cT(\sigma)$ pointing into $Y$ (see
\Cref{sec:t_hulls} for definitions), note that the
singularities of $\bar X_Y$ in $\partial t$ are \emph{not} completion
points of $\bar X_Y$, that is they do not correspond to punctures of
$X$. This is because any completion point lying in $t$ is the
endpoint of leaves $l^\pm$ of $\lambda^\pm$ whose initial segments
lie in $t$. These leaves correspond to essential proper arcs of $X_Y$
which are homotopic giving $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) =0$, a
contradiction.
Similarly, we can conclude that for each saddle connection $\sigma$
in $\hat\iota_q(\partial' Y)$ and any $t \in \cT(\sigma)$ pointing
into $Y$, the triangle $t$ is entirely contained in $Y_q$. Otherwise,
similar to the proof of \Cref{prop: q_compatible}, we find leaves
$l^+$ and $l^-$ in $\bar X_Y$ whose intersection with $Y_q$ is
contained in $t$ and hence whose projections to $\A(Y)$ are
equal. See the left side of \Cref{modified_thull-overlap}. Since $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-)>0$ this is impossible.
Hence, the map $\thull^+(\hat\iota_q|_{\partial' Y})$ (as defined in
(\ref{thull f}) in \Cref{sec:t_hulls}) is
homotopic to $\hat\iota_q|_{\partial' Y}$ in $\bar X_Y \ssm \til{\PP}_Y$
by pushing across the polygonal regions
given by \Cref{thull structure} along leaves of $\lambda^+$. This
extends to a homotopy of $\hat
\iota_q$ to a map $\hat \iota' \colon Y \to \bar X_Y$
which we claim is still an embedding.
(Note that, in the case that $X$ is fully-punctured,
$\hat \iota' = \hat\iota_q$,
since all singularities of fully-punctured surfaces are completion points.)
To prove that $\hat\iota'$ is an embedding, let $C$ be a component of the preimage of
$\hat\iota_q(Y')$ in
$\hat X$
(using the notation of \Cref{AY in flat geometry}, $C$ is a translate of ${\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$).
If $\alpha$ is a geodesic segment in $\partial C$, the
triangles used in the hull construction are attached to $\alpha$ and are contained in $C$.
If such a triangle $t$ intersects a triangle $t'$ from
a different segment $\alpha'$, they overlap as in the right side of
\Cref{modified_thull-overlap}. Any two
arcs $l^+,l^-$ of $\lambda^+$ and $\lambda^-$ passing through a point
in the overlap must intersect both $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$.
These arcs are
at distance 0 in $\A(Y)$, since they can be isotoped to each other rel $\partial
Y$.
Hence $d_Y(\lambda^-,\lambda^+) = 0$, contradicting the
hypothesis. Therefore, $t,t'$ cannot overlap.
\realfig{modified_thull-overlap}{Left: If $t \in \cT(\sigma)$ (in red) is not contained in $Y_q$ then $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) =0$. Right:
An overlap of two hull triangles. Any completion point in the boundary of a hull triangle does not correspond to a puncture in $\til{\PP}_Y$.}
We conclude that the polygonal regions of our homotopy are embedded
and disjoint, and thus the homotopy can be chosen so that
$\hat \iota'$ is an
embedding. Since the image of $\hat \iota'$ is contained in the image of $\hat \iota_q$, we apply \Cref{lem:int_embed} to get that the projection $\iota' \colon Y \to \bar X$ restricts to an embedding on $\int(Y)$.
Now orient $\partial'Y$ in the opposite direction, pointing out of
the surface, and apply $\thull$ again, this time to $\hat \iota'(\partial' Y)$.
The triangles in the construction now extend outside the surface,
and the result of the operation is the rectangle hull
$\rhull(\thull(\hat\iota_q(\partial' Y)))$,
which is therefore composed of $\tau$-edges.
Using the homotopy pushing $\hat \iota'|_{\partial' Y}$
outward along leaves of $\lambda^+$ to $\thull^+(\hat\iota'|_{\partial' Y})$ (again using
\Cref{thull structure}) we obtain our final map
$\hat\iota_\tau$. See \Cref{thull-twice}. It remains to show that
$\hat\iota_\tau \colon Y \to \bar X_Y$ has the required properties.
To prove this, let us recapitulate the construction in the universal
cover.
\realfig{thull-twice}{An inner $\thull$ followed by outer $\thull$
yields $\tau$-edges. This locally depicts the homotopy from $\hat \iota_q$ to $\hat \iota_\tau$.}
As before, let $C = {\operatorname{CH}}_q(\Lambda)$. The map $\hat \iota'$ lifts to a
$\pi_1(Y)$-equivariant homeomorphism $C \to C'$, where $C'$ is
obtained by giving each saddle connection $\kappa$ in the boundary of
$C$ the transverse orientation pointing into $C$ and removing the
polygons $P(\kappa)$ given in \Cref{thull structure}. This map is
equivariantly homotopic to the identity by pushing along leaves of the
vertical foliation.
The outward step of our construction then pushes back along leaves of
the vertical foliation to obtain a $\pi_1(Y)$-equivariant map $C'\to
C_\tau\subset \hat X$, so that the composition $C\to C'\to C_\tau$ is a lift of the map
$\hat\iota_\tau \colon Y'
\to \bar X_Y$.
To show that $\hat\iota_\tau \colon Y' \to
\bar X_Y$ is an embedding, it suffices to show that the composition
$C\to C_\tau$ is a homeomorphism.
For every non-singular point $p\in \partial C$ there is an arc $n_p$ in
$\lambda^+$ such that the deformation of $C$ to $C_\tau$ is supported
on the union $\bigcup n_p$, and preserves each $n_p$. Thus to show
that $C\to C_\tau$ is a homeomorphism it suffices to show that $n_p
\cap n_{p'} =\emptyset$ for each $p\ne p'$ in $\partial C$.
The interior pieces, $n_p\cap C$, are already disjoint for
distinct points, by our
construction. Thus if $n_p$ intersects $n_{p'}$ their union is an
interval $J$ in a leaf of $\lambda^+$ with some subinterval between $p$ and $p'$ lying outside
$C$. This contradicts the convexity of $C$.
To show that $\iota_\tau$ is an embedding when restricted to $\int(Y)$, it suffices to check that the interior of $C_\tau$ is disjoint from all its translations under the entire deck group $\pi_1(X)$. To see this, take $g \in \pi_1(X)$ so that $C_\tau$ and $g \cdot C_\tau$ are distinct and intersect. Since $\iota' \colon \int(Y) \to X$ is an embedding, $C'$ and $g \cdot C'$ meet only along their boundary. Further, if $\sigma$ is a saddle connection in $\partial C' \cap \partial (g \cdot C')$, then $\sigma$ is the hypotenuse of a singularity-free triangle pointing into $C'$ as well as one pointing into $g\cdot C'$. Hence, $\sigma$ is a $\tau$-edge and so is fixed under the map $C' \to C_\tau$.
Now if the interiors of $C_\tau$ and $g\cdot C_\tau$ intersect there must be saddle connections $\sigma,\kappa \subset \partial C'$
such that
$P(\sigma)$ and $P(g \cdot \kappa)$ have intersecting interiors. (Here, $\sigma,\kappa$ are oriented out of $C'$.)
By the previous paragraph, $\sigma$ and $g\cdot \kappa$ are distinct.
As $C'$ and $g \cdot C'$ meet only along their boundary, $\sigma$ and
$g \cdot \kappa$ have disjoint interiors and any arc $l$ of $\lambda^+$ joining $\sigma$ to $g \cdot \kappa$ within $P(\sigma) \cup P(g \cdot \kappa)$ lives outside of $C'$ and $g \cdot C'$. In particular, the chosen transverse orientations on $\sigma$ and $g \cdot \kappa$ point to the interior of $l$.
However, by \Cref{disjoint_thulls}, in this situation, the interiors
of $P(\sigma)$ and $P(g \cdot \kappa)$ do not intersect. It follows that $\iota_\tau \colon \int(Y) \to X$ is an embedding.
It only remains to prove property $(1)$ of the definition of $\tau$-compatible.
Since $\hat \iota_\tau \colon Y' \to
\bar X_Y$ is an embedding, it follows that
$\hat \iota_\tau|_{\partial' Y}$ is an embedding, and its image
does not meet
$\widetilde P_Y$ by the same argument used to prove item $(2)$ of
\Cref{lem:int_embed}.
By construction the image $\hat \iota_\tau (\partial' Y)$ is composed of
$\tau$-edges.
Now suppose that $Y$ is an annulus. Then $\hat \iota_q(Y)$ is the
(nondegenerate) maximal flat cylinder of $\bar X_Y$ by \Cref{prop:
q_compatible}. Choosing the inward-pointing orientation for
$\partial Y$, we claim that
$\thull^+(\hat \iota_q|_{\partial Y}) = \hat \iota_q|_{\partial Y}$:
Otherwise, there must be a
saddle connection $\sigma$ on the boundary of the flat annulus
$\hat \iota_q(Y)$, and a triangle $t$ pointing into the annulus
with hypotenuse on $\sigma$, which encounters a singularity or
puncture $x$ on the other side of the annulus.
The picture is similar to the left side of \Cref{modified_thull-overlap}.
A variation on the Gauss--Bonnet argument
in the annulus case of \Cref{prop: q_compatible} then produces
vertical and horizontal leaves passing through $x$ which have disjoint
representatives, and hence $d_Y(\lambda^+,\lambda^-) \le 1$.
Thus the inward step of the process is the identity, and the outward
step and the rest of the proof proceed just as in the nonannular case.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rmk:fully}
From the proof of \Cref{thm: tau-compatible}, we record the fact that if $X$ is fully-punctured and $Y$ satisfies
the hypotheses of \Cref{thm: tau-compatible}, then $\thull^+(\hat \iota_q|_{\partial Y}) = \hat \iota_q|_{\partial Y}$
and $\iota' = \hat \iota_q$.
Hence, in this case we have that $\partial_\tau Y = \rhull(\partial_q Y)$.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
Shifts in word meaning exhibit systematic regularities \cite{breal_essai_1897,ullmann_semantics:_1962}.
The rate of semantic change, for example, is higher in
some words than others \cite{blank_why_1999} --- compare
the stable semantic history of \textit{cat} (from Proto-Germanic \textit{kattuz}, ``cat'') to
the varied meanings of English \textit{cast}: ``to mould'', ``a collection of actors', ``a hardened bandage'', etc.\@ (all from Old Norse \textit{kasta}, ``to throw'', \def\citename##1{{\frenchspacing##1}, }\@internalcitec{simpson_oxford_1989}).
Various hypotheses have been offered about such regularities in semantic change,
such as an increasing subjectification of meaning, or the grammaticalization
of inferences (e.g., \def\citename##1{{\frenchspacing##1}, }\@internalcitec{geeraerts_diachronic_1997,blank_why_1999,traugott_regularity_2001}).
But many core questions about semantic change remain unanswered.
One is the role of {\em frequency}. Frequency plays a key role in other linguistic changes,
associated sometimes with faster change---sound changes like lenition occur in more frequent words---and sometimes with slower change---high frequency words are more resistant to morphological regularization
\cite{bybee_frequency_2007,pagel_frequency_2007,lieberman_quantifying_2007}.
What is the role of word frequency in meaning change?
Another unanswered question is the relationship between semantic change and {\em polysemy}.
Words gain senses over time as they semantically drift \cite{breal_essai_1897,wilkins_part_1993,hopper_grammaticalization_2003},
and polysemous words\footnote{We use `polysemy' here to refer
to related senses as well as rarer cases of accidental homonymy.}
occur in more diverse contexts, affecting lexical access speed \cite{adelman} and
rates of L2 learning \cite{crossley2010}.
But we don't know whether the diverse contextual use of polysemous words makes them more or less likely to undergo change
\cite{geeraerts_diachronic_1997,winter_cognitive_2014,xu_historical_2015}.
Furthermore, polysemy is strongly correlated with frequency---high frequency words have more senses \cite{zipf_meaning-frequency_1945,ilgen_investigation_2007}---so understanding how polysemy relates to semantic change requires controling for word frequency.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{wordpaths-final.png}
\vspace*{-10pt}
\caption{Two-dimensional visualization of semantic change in English using SGNS vectors.\footnotemark
$\:$\textbf{a}, The word \textit{gay} shifted from meaning ``cheerful'' or ``frolicsome'' to referring to homosexuality. \textbf{b}, In the early 20th century \textit{broadcast} referred to ``casting out seeds''; with the rise of television and radio its meaning shifted to ``transmitting signals''. \textbf{c}, \textit{Awful} underwent a process of pejoration, as it shifted from meaning ``full of awe'' to meaning ``terrible or appalling'' \protect\cite{simpson_oxford_1989}.}
\label{wordpaths}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure*}
Answering these questions requires new methods that can go beyond the case-studies of a few words
(often followed over widely different time-periods) that are our most common diachronic data
\cite{breal_essai_1897,ullmann_semantics:_1962,blank_why_1999,hopper_grammaticalization_2003,traugott_regularity_2001}.
One promising avenue is the use of distributional semantics, in which
words are embedded in vector spaces according to their co-occurrence relationships
\cite{bullinaria_extracting_2007,turney_frequency_2010}, and
the embeddings of words are then compared across time-periods.
This new direction has been effectively demonstrated in a number of case-studies
\cite{sagi_tracing_2011,wijaya_understanding_2011,gulordava_distributional_2011,jatowt_framework_2014}
and used to perform large-scale linguistic change-point detection \cite{kulkarni_statistically_2014}
as well as to test a few specific hypotheses,
such as whether English synonyms tend to change meaning in similar ways \cite{xu_computational_2015}.
However, these works employ widely different embedding approaches
and test their approaches only on English.
In this work, we develop a robust methodology for quantifying semantic change using embeddings by comparing state-of-the-art approaches (PPMI, SVD, word2vec) on novel benchmarks.
We then apply this methodology in a large-scale cross-linguistic analysis using 6 corpora spanning 200 years and 4 languages
(English, German, French, and Chinese).
Based on this analysis, we propose two statistical laws relating frequency and polysemy to semantic change:
\begin{itemize}[itemsep=0pt,topsep=0pt, parsep=0pt]
\item
\textbf{The law of conformity:} Rates of semantic change scale with a negative power of word frequency.
\item
\textbf{The law of innovation:} After controlling for frequency, polysemous words have significantly higher rates of semantic change.
\end{itemize}
\footnotetext{Appendix B details the visualization method.}
\section{Related work}
There is a substantial amount of linguistic literature on semantic change.
\subsection{Traditional linguistic studies}\label{tradling}
Most studies of semantic change in traditional linguistic literature focus on taxonimizing case-studies of semantic change \cite{breal_essai_1897,ullmann_semantics:_1962,blank_why_1999,crowley_introduction_2010}.
There is also a subset of literature that addresses the cognitive underpinnings of semantic change and focuses on uncovering regularities in known historical examples.
Work in this area employs detailed case-studies to argue that certain types of semantic change are regular and proceed in stereotypical ways across languages \cite{geeraerts_diachronic_1997,traugott_regularity_2001,hopper_grammaticalization_2003}.
For example, \newcite{traugott_regularity_2001} argue that adverbials (e.g., \textit{actually}) have a general tendency to undergo subjectification where they shift from objective statements about the world (e.g., ``Sorry, the car is actually broken'') to subjective statements (e.g., ``I can't believe he actually did that", indicating surprise/disbelief).
\subsection{Computational linguistic studies}
There are also a number of recent works analyzing semantic change using computational methods.
\newcite{sagi_tracing_2011} use latent semantic analysis to analyze how word meanings broaden and narrow over time.
\newcite{jatowt_framework_2014} use raw co-occurrence vectors to perform a number of historical case-studies on semantic change, and \newcite{wijaya_understanding_2011} perform a similar set of small-scale case-studies using temporal topic models.
\newcite{gulordava_distributional_2011} construct point-wise mutual information-based embeddings and found that semantic changes uncovered by their method had reasonable agreement with human judgments.
\newcite{kulkarni_statistically_2014} and \newcite{kim_temporal_2014} use ``neural'' word-embedding methods to detect linguistic change points.
Finally, \newcite{xu_computational_2015} analyze historical co-occurrences to test whether synonyms tend to change in similar ways.
With the exception of \newcite{xu_computational_2015} and \newcite{kulkarni_statistically_2014}, these approaches largely focus on proof-of-concept case-studies, and all these previous works consider only one distributional method tested on English data.
We substantially extend this line of work by rigorously comparing different distributional approaches and by showing how these methods can be used uncover law-like regularities across different languages.
\section{Diachronic embedding methods}\label{methods}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
{
\begin{tabular}{lllrr}
\toprule
Name & Language & Description & Tokens & Years \\
\midrule
\textsc{EngAll} & English & Google books (all genres) & $8.5 \times 10^{11}$ & 1800-1999 \\
\textsc{EngFic} & English & Fiction from Google books & $7.5 \times 10^{10}$ & 1800-1999 \\
\textsc{COHA} & English & Genre-balanced sample & $4.1 \times 10^{8}$ & 1810-2009 \\
\textsc{FreAll} & French & Google books (all genres) & $1.9 \times 10^{11}$& 1800-1999 \\
\textsc{GerAll} & German & Google books (all genres) & $4.3 \times 10^{10}$& 1800-1999 \\
\textsc{ChiAll} & Chinese & Google books (all genres) & $6.0 \times 10^{10}$& 1950-1999 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Six large historical datasets from various languages and sources are used. }
\label{datasets-table}
\end{table*}
The following sections outline how we construct diachronic (historical) word embeddings,
by first constructing embeddings in each time-period and then aligning them over time,
and the metrics that we use to quantify semantic change.
All of the learned embeddings and the code we used to analyze them are made publicly available.\footnote{{\scriptsize\url{http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/histwords}}}
\subsection{Embedding algorithms}
We use three methods to construct word embeddings within each time-period: PPMI, SVD, and SGNS (i.e., word2vec).\footnote{Synchronic applications of these three methods are reviewed in detail in \newcite{levy_improving_2015}.}
These distributional methods represent each word $w_i$ by a vector $\mathbf{w}_i$ that captures information
about its co-occurrence statistics.
These methods operationalize the `distributional hypothesis' that word semantics are implicit in co-occurrence relationships \cite{Harris54,firth_synopsis_1957}.
The semantic similarity/distance between two words is approximated by the cosine similarity/distance between their vectors \cite{turney_frequency_2010}.
\subsubsection{PPMI}
In the PPMI representations, the vector embedding for word $w_i \in \mathcal{V}$ contains the positive point-wise mutual information (PPMI) values between $w_i$ and a large set of pre-specified `context' words.
The word vectors correspond to the rows of the matrix $\mathbf{M}^{\textrm{PPMI}} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{V}| \times |\mathcal{V}_C|}$ with entries given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}^{\textrm{PPMI}}_{i,j} = \max\left\lbrace\log\left(\frac{\hat{p}(w_i,c_j)}{\hat{p}(w)\hat{p}(c_j)}\right)-\alpha ,0\right\rbrace,
\end{equation}
where $c_j \in \mathcal{V}_C$ is a context word and $\alpha > 0$ is a negative prior, which provides a smoothing bias \cite{levy_improving_2015}.
The $\hat{p}$ correspond to the smoothed empirical probabilities of word \mbox{(co-)occurrences} within fixed-size sliding windows of text.
Clipping the PPMI values above zero ensures they remain finite and has been shown to dramatically improve results \cite{bullinaria_extracting_2007,levy_improving_2015}; intuitively, this clipping ensures that the representations emphasize positive word-word correlations over negative ones.
\subsubsection{SVD}
SVD embeddings correspond to low-dimensional approximations of the PPMI embeddings learned via singular value decomposition \cite{levy_improving_2015}.
The vector embedding for word $w_i$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{w}^{\textrm{SVD}}_{i} = \left(\mathbf{U}\mathbf{\Sigma}^\gamma\right)_{i},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{M}^{\textrm{PPMI}} = \mathbf{U}\mathbf{\Sigma}\mathbf{V}^\top$ is the truncated singular value decomposition of $\mathbf{M}^{\textrm{PPMI}}$ and $\gamma \in [0,1]$ is an eigenvalue weighting parameter. Setting $\gamma <1$ has been shown to dramatically improve embedding qualities \cite{turney_frequency_2010,bullinaria_extracting_2012}.
This SVD approach can be viewed as a generalization of Latent Semantic Analysis \cite{landauer_solution_1997}, where the term-document matrix is replaced with $\mathbf{M}^{\textrm{PPMI}}$.
Compared to PPMI, SVD representations can be more robust, as the dimensionality reduction acts as a form of regularization.
\subsubsection{Skip-gram with negative sampling}
SGNS `word2vec' embeddings are optimized to predict co-occurrence relationships using an approximate objective known as `skip-gram with negative sampling' \cite{mikolov_distributed_2013}. In SGNS, each word $w_i$ is represented by two dense, low-dimensional vectors: a word vector ($\mathbf{w}^{\textrm{SGNS}}_i$) and context vector ($\mathbf{c}^{\textrm{SGNS}}_i)$. These embeddings are optimized via stochastic gradient descent so that
\begin{equation}\label{sgns}
\hat{p}(c_i | w_i) \propto \exp(\mathbf{w}^{\textrm{SGNS}}_i\cdot\mathbf{c}^{\textrm{SGNS}}_j),
\end{equation}
where $p(c_i | w_i)$ is the empirical probability of seeing context word $c_i$ within a fixed-length window of text, given that this window contains $w_i$.
The SGNS optimization avoids computing the normalizing constant in \eqref{sgns} by randomly drawing `negative' context words, $c_n$, for each target word and ensuring that $\exp(\mathbf{w}^{\textrm{SGNS}}_i\cdot\mathbf{c}^{\textrm{SGNS}}_n)$ is small for these examples.
SGNS has the benefit of allowing incremental initialization during learning, where the embeddings for time $t$ are initialized with the embeddings from time $t-\Delta$ \cite{kim_temporal_2014}.
\subsection{Datasets, pre-processing, and hyperparameters}
We trained models on the 6 datasets described in Table \ref{datasets-table}, taken from Google N-Grams \cite{lin_syntactic_2012} and the \textsc{COHA} corpus \cite{davies_corpus_2010}.
The Google N-Gram datasets are extremely large (comprising ${\approx}6\%$ of all books ever published), but they also contain many corpus artifacts due, e.g., to shifting sampling biases over time \cite{pechenick_characterizing_2015}.
In contrast, the \textsc{COHA} corpus was carefully selected to be genre-balanced and representative of American English over the last 200 years,
though as a result it is two orders of magnitude smaller.
The \textsc{COHA} corpus also contains pre-extracted word lemmas, which we used to validate that our results hold at both the lemma and raw token levels.
All the datasets were aggregated to the granularity of decades.\footnote{The 2000s decade of the Google data was discarded due to shifts in the sampling methodology \cite{michel_quantitative_2011}.}
We follow the recommendations of \newcite{levy_improving_2015} in setting the hyperparameters for the embedding methods, though preliminary experiments were used to tune key settings.
For all methods, we used symmetric context windows of size 4 (on each side).
For SGNS and SVD, we use embeddings of size 300. See Appendix A for further implementation and pre-processing details.
\subsection{Aligning historical embeddings}
In order to compare word vectors from different time-periods we must ensure that the vectors are aligned to the same coordinate axes.
Explicit PPMI vectors are naturally aligned, as each column simply corresponds to a context word.
Low-dimensional embeddings will not be naturally aligned due to the non-unique nature of the SVD and the stochastic nature of SGNS.
In particular, both these methods may result in arbitrary orthogonal transformations, which do not affect pairwise cosine-similarities within-years but will preclude comparison of the same word across time.
Previous work circumvented this problem by either avoiding low-dimensional embeddings (e.g., \def\citename##1{{\frenchspacing##1}, }\@internalcitec{gulordava_distributional_2011,jatowt_framework_2014}) or by performing heuristic local alignments per word \cite{kulkarni_statistically_2014}.
We use orthogonal Procrustes to align the learned low-dimensional embeddings.
Defining $\mathbf{W}^{(t)} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times |\mathcal{V}|}$ as the matrix of word embeddings learned at year $t$, we align across time-periods while preserving cosine similarities by optimizing:
\begin{equation}\label{procrustes}
\mathbf{R}^{(t)} = \arg\min_{\mathbf{Q}^\top\mathbf{Q} = \mathbf{I}} \| \mathbf{Q}\mathbf{W}^{(t)} - \mathbf{W}^{(t+1)} \|_F,
\end{equation}
with $\mathbf{R}^{(t)} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$. The solution corresponds to the best rotational alignment and can be obtained efficiently using an application of SVD \cite{schonemann_generalized_1966}.
\subsection{Time-series from historical embeddings}
Diachronic word embeddings can be used in two ways to quantify semantic change: (i) we can measure changes in pair-wise word similarities over time, or (ii) we can measure how an individual word's embedding shifts over time.
\paragraph{Pair-wise similarity time-series}
Measuring how the cosine-similarity between pairs of words changes over time allows us to test hypotheses about specific linguistic or cultural shifts in a controlled manner.
We quantify shifts by computing the similarity time-series
\begin{equation}
s^{(t)}(w_i,w_j) = \textrm{cos-sim}(\mathbf{w}^{(t)}_i,\mathbf{w}^{(t)}_j)
\end{equation}
between two words $w_i$ and $w_j$ over a time-period $(t,...,t+\Delta$).
We then measure the Spearman correlation ($\rho$) of this series against time, which allows us to assess the magnitude and significance of pairwise similarity shifts; since the Spearman correlation is non-parametric, this measure essentially detects whether the similarity series increased/decreased over time in a significant manner, regardless of the `shape' of this curve.\footnote{Other metrics or change-point detection approaches, e.g. mean shifts \cite{kulkarni_statistically_2014} could also be used.}
\paragraph{Measuring semantic displacement}\label{displacement}
After aligning the embeddings for individual time-periods, we can use the aligned word vectors to compute the semantic displacement that a word has undergone during a certain time-period.
In particular, we can directly compute the cosine-distance between a word's representation for different time-periods, i.e.\@ $\textrm{cos-dist}(\mathbf{w}_t, \mathbf{w}_{t+\Delta})$, as a measure of semantic change.
We can also use this measure to quantify `rates' of semantic change for different words by looking at the displacement between consecutive time-points.
\section{Comparison of different approaches}
We compare the different distributional approaches on a set of
benchmarks designed to test their scientific utility. We evaluate
both their {\em synchronic} accuracy (i.e., ability to capture word similarity within
individual time-periods) and their {\em diachronic} validity
(i.e., ability to quantify semantic changes over time).
\subsection{Synchronic Accuracy}
We evaluated the synchronic (within-time-period) accuracy of the methods using a standard modern benchmark and the 1990s portion of the \textsc{EngAll} data.
On \newcite{bruni_distributional_2012}'s MEN similarity task of matching human judgments of word similarities, SVD performed best ($\rho=0.739$), followed by PPMI ($\rho=0.687$) and SGNS ($\rho=0.649$).
These results echo the findings of \newcite{levy_improving_2015}, who found SVD to perform best on similarity tasks while SGNS performed best on analogy tasks (which are not the focus of this work).
\subsection{Diachronic Validity}
We evaluate the diachronic validity of the methods on two historical semantic tasks: detecting known shifts and discovering shifts from data.
For both these tasks, we performed detailed evaluations on a small set of examples (28 known shifts and the top-10 ``discovered'' shifts by each method).
Using these reasonably-sized evaluation sets allowed the authors to evaluate each case rigorously using existing literature and historical corpora.
\paragraph{Detecting known shifts.}
\begin{table*}
\centering
{\small
\begin{tabular}{llllr}
\toprule
Word & Moving towards & Moving away & Shift start & Source \\
\midrule
gay & homosexual, lesbian & happy, showy & ca 1920 & \cite{kulkarni_statistically_2014}\\
fatal &illness, lethal & fate, inevitable & $<$1800 & \cite{jatowt_framework_2014}\\
awful & disgusting, mess & impressive, majestic & $<$1800 & \cite{simpson_oxford_1989}\\
nice & pleasant, lovely & refined, dainty & ca 1900 & \cite{wijaya_understanding_2011}\\
broadcast & transmit, radio & scatter, seed & ca 1920 & \cite{jeffers_principles_1979}\\
monitor & display, screen & --- & ca 1930 & \cite{simpson_oxford_1989}\\
record & tape, album & --- & ca 1920 & \cite{kulkarni_statistically_2014}\\
guy & fellow, man & --- & ca 1850 & \cite{wijaya_understanding_2011}\\
call & phone, message & --- & ca 1890 & \cite{simpson_oxford_1989}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Set of attested historical shifts used to evaluate the methods. The examples are taken from previous works on semantic change and from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), e.g.\@ using `obsolete' tags. The shift start points were estimated using attestation dates in the OED. The first six examples are words that shifted dramatically in meaning while the remaining four are words that acquired new meanings (while potentially also keeping their old ones). }
\label{testwords}
\end{table*}
\newcommand{\textbf}{\textbf}
First, we tested whether the methods capture known historical shifts in meaning.
The goal in this task is for the methods to correctly capture whether pairs of words moved closer or further apart in semantic space during a pre-determined time-period.
We use a set of independently attested shifts as an evaluation set (Table \ref{testwords}).
For comparison, we evaluated the methods on both the large (but messy) \textsc{EngAll} data and the smaller (but clean) \textsc{COHA} data.
On this task, all the methods performed almost perfectly in terms of capturing the correct directionality of the shifts (i.e., the pairwise similarity series have the correct sign on their Spearman correlation with time), but there were some differences in whether the methods deemed the shifts statistically significant at the $p<0.05$ level.\footnote{All subsequent significance tests are at $p<0.05$.}
Overall, SGNS performed the best on the full English data, but its performance dropped significantly on the smaller \textsc{COHA} dataset, where SVD performed best.
PPMI was noticeably worse than the other two approaches (Table \ref{falseomission}).
\paragraph{Discovering shifts from data.}
\begin{table}
\centering
{\small
\begin{tabular}{llrr}
\toprule
Method & Corpus & \% Correct & \%Sig. \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{0.7cm}{PPMI} & \textsc{EngAll} & 96.9 & 84.4\\
& \textsc{COHA} & 100.0 & 88.0\\
\multirow{2}{0.7cm}{SVD} & \textsc{EngAll} & 100.0 & 90.6\\
& \textsc{COHA} & 100.0 & 96.0 \\
\multirow{2}{0.7cm}{SGNS} & \textsc{EngAll} & 100.0 & 93.8\\
& \textsc{COHA} & 100.0 & 72.0\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Performance on detection task, i.e. ability to capture the attested shifts from Table \ref{testwords}. SGNS and SVD capture the correct directionality of the shifts in all cases (\%Correct), e.g., \textit{gay} becomes more similar to \textit{homosexual}, but there are differences in whether the methods deem the shifts to be statistically significant at the $p<0.05$ level (\%Sig.).}
\label{falseomission}
\end{table}
We tested whether the methods discover reasonable shifts by examining the top-10 words that changed the most from the 1900s to the 1990s according to the semantic displacement metric introduced in Section \ref{displacement} (limiting our analysis to words with relative frequencies above $10^{-5}$ in both decades).
We used the \textsc{EngFic} data as the most-changed list for \textsc{EngAll} was dominated by scientific terms due to changes in the corpus sample.
Table \ref{discovery} shows the top-10 words discovered by each method.
These shifts were judged by the authors as being either clearly genuine, borderline, or clearly corpus artifacts.
SGNS performed by far the best on this task, with $70\%$ of its top-10 list corresponding to genuine semantic shifts, followed by $40\%$ for SVD, and $10\%$ for PPMI.
However, a large portion of the discovered words for PPMI (and less so SVD) correspond to borderline cases, e.g.\@ $\textit{know}$, that have not necessarily shifted significantly in meaning but that occur in different contexts due to global genre/discourse shifts.
The poor quality of the nearest neighbors generated by the PPMI algorithm---which are skewed by PPMI's sensitivity to rare events---also made it difficult to assess the quality of its discovered shifts.
SVD was the most sensitive to corpus artifacts (e.g., co-occurrences due to cover pages and advertisements), but it still captured a number of genuine semantic shifts.
We opted for this small evaluation set and relied on detailed expert judgments to minimize ambiguity; each potential shift was analyzed in detail by consulting consulting existing literature (especially the OED; \def\citename##1{{\frenchspacing##1}, }\@internalcitec{simpson_oxford_1989}) and all disagreements were discussed.
Table \ref{examples} details representative example shifts in English, French, and German.
Chinese lacks sufficient historical data for this task, as only years 1950-1999 are usable; however, we do still see some significant changes for Chinese in this short time-period, such as \begin{CJK*}{UTF8}{gbsn} 病毒 \end{CJK*} (``virus'') moving closer to\begin{CJK*}{UTF8}{gbsn} 电脑 \end{CJK*} (``computer'', $\rho=0.89$).
\begin{table*}
\centering
{\small
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
Method & Top-10 words that changed from 1900s to 1990s\\
\midrule
PPMI & \underline{know}, \underline{got}, \underline{would}, \underline{decided}, \underline{think}, \underline{stop}, \underline{remember}, \textbf{started}, \underline{must}, \underline{wanted}\\
SVD & harry, \textbf{headed}, \textbf{calls}, \textbf{gay},
wherever, \underline{male}, \textbf{actually}, special, cover, \underline{naturally}\\
SGNS & \textbf{wanting}, \textbf{gay}, \textbf{check}, \textbf{starting}, \textbf{major}, \textbf{actually}, \underline{touching}, harry, \textbf{headed}, romance\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Top-10 English words with the highest semantic displacement values between the 1900s and 1990s. Bolded entries correspond to real semantic shifts, as deemed by examining the literature and their nearest neighbors; for example, \textit{headed} shifted from primarily referring to the ``top of a body/entity'' to referring to ``a direction of travel.''
Underlined entries are borderline cases that are largely due to global genre/discourse shifts; for example, \textit{male} has not changed in meaning, but its usage in discussions of ``gender equality'' is relatively new.
Finally, unmarked entries are clear corpus artifacts; for example, \textit{special}, \textit{cover}, and \textit{romance} are artifacts from the covers of fiction books occasionally including advertisements etc. }
\label{discovery}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
{\small
\begin{tabular}{llp{2.15in}p{2.3in}}
\toprule
Word & Language & Nearest-neighbors in 1900s & Nearest-neighbors in 1990s\\
\midrule
wanting & English & {lacking, deficient, lacked, lack, needed} & {wanted, something, wishing, anything, anybody} \\
\addlinespace[3pt]
asile & French & {refuge, asiles, hospice, vieillards, infirmerie } & {demandeurs, refuge, hospice, visas, admission}\\
\addlinespace[3pt]
widerstand & German & {scheiterte, volt, stromstärke, leisten, brechen} & {opposition, verfolgung, nationalsozialistische, nationalsozialismus, kollaboration}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Example words that changed dramatically in meaning in three languages, discovered using SGNS embeddings. The examples were selected from the top-10 most-changed lists between 1900s and 1990s as in Table \ref{discovery}. In English, \textit{wanting} underwent subjectification and shifted from meaning ``lacking'' to referring to subjective ''desire'', as in ``the education system is wanting'' (1900s) vs. "I've been wanting to tell you'' (1990s). In French \textit{asile} (``asylum'') shifted from primarily referring to ``hospitals, or infirmaries'' to also referring to ``asylum seekers, or refugees''. Finally, in German \textit{Widerstand} (``resistance'') gained a formal meaning as referring to the local German resistance to Nazism during World War II.}
\label{examples}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Methodological recommendations}
PPMI is clearly worse than the other two methods;
it performs poorly
on all the benchmark tasks, is extremely sensitive to rare events,
and is prone to false discoveries from global genre shifts.
Between SVD and SGNS the results are somewhat equivocal, as both perform best on two out of the four tasks (synchronic accuracy, \textsc{EngAll} detection, \textsc{COHA} detection, discovery).
Overall, SVD performs best on the synchronic accuracy task and has higher average accuracy on the `detection' task, while SGNS performs best on the `discovery' task.
These results suggest that both these methods are reasonable choices for studies of semantic change but that they each have their own tradeoffs:
SVD is more sensitive, as it performs well on detection tasks even when using a small dataset, but this sensitivity also results in false discoveries due to corpus artifacts.
In contrast, SGNS is robust to corpus artifacts in the discovery task, but it is not sensitive enough to perform well on the detection task with a small dataset.
Qualitatively, we found SGNS to be most useful for discovering new shifts and visualizing changes (e.g., Figure \ref{wordpaths}), while SVD was most effective for detecting subtle shifts in usage.
\section{Statistical laws of semantic change}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|p{3.81in}}
\toprule
Top-10 most polysemous & yet, always, even, little, called, also, sometimes, great, still, quite\\
\addlinespace[3pt]
Top-10 least polysemous & {photocopying, retrieval, thirties, mom, sweater, forties, seventeenth, fifteenth, holster, postage}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{The top-10 most and least polysemous words in the \textsc{EngFic} data. Words like \textit{yet}, \textit{even}, and \textit{still} are used in many diverse ways and are highly polysemous. In contrast, words like \textit{photocopying}, \textit{postage}, and \textit{holster} tend to be used in very specific well-clustered contexts, corresponding to a single sense; for example, \textit{mail} and \textit{letter} are both very likely to occur in the context of \textit{postage} and are also likely to co-occur with each other, independent of \textit{postage}.}
\label{diversity}
\end{table*}
We now show how diachronic embeddings can be used in a large-scale cross-linguistic analysis to reveal statistical laws that relate frequency and polysemy to semantic change.
In particular, we analyze how a word's rate of semantic change,
\begin{equation}
\Delta^{(t)}(w_i)=\textrm{cos-dist}(\mathbf{w}_i^{(t)},\mathbf{w}_i^{(t+1)})
\end{equation}
depends on its frequency, $f^{(t)}(w_i)$ and a measure of its polysemy, $d^{(t)}(w_i) $ (defined in Section \ref{innovation})
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{coha-effects-annot.png}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{Higher frequency words have lower rates of change (\textbf{a}), while polysemous words have higher rates of change (\textbf{b}). The plots show robust linear regression fits \cite{huber_robust_2011} with 95\% CIs on the 2000s decade of the \textsc{COHA} \-lemma data.}
\label{scatter}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Setup}
We present results using SGNS embeddings.
Using all four languages and all four conditions for English (\textsc{EngAll}, \textsc{EngFic}, and \textsc{COHA} with and without lemmatization),
we performed regression analysis on rates of semantic change, $\Delta^{(t)}(w_i)$;
thus, we examined one data-point per word for each pair of consecutive decades and analyzed how a word's frequency and polysemy at time $t$ correlate with its degree of semantic displacement over the next decade.
To ensure the robustness of our results, we analyzed only non-stop words that occurred more than 500 times in both decades contributing to a change (lower-frequency words tend to lack sufficient co-occurrence data across years).
We also log-transformed the semantic displacement scores and normalized the scores to have zero mean and unit variance; we denote these normalized scores by $\tilde{\Delta}^{(t)}(w_i)$.
Though SGNS and SVD embeddings performed similarly in our evaluation tasks, we opted to use the SGNS embeddings since they provide a better estimate of the relationship between frequency and semantic change.
With SVD embeddings the effect of frequency is confounded by the fact that high frequency words have less finite-sample variance in their co-occurrence estimates, which makes the word vectors of high frequency words appear more stable between corpora, regardless of any real semantic change.
The SGNS embeddings do not suffer from this issue because they are initialized with the embeddings of the previous decade.\footnote{In fact, the SGNS embeddings may even be biased in the other direction, since higher frequency words undergo more SGD updates ``away'' from this initialization.}
We performed our analysis using a linear mixed model with random intercepts per word and fixed effects per decade; i.e., we fit $\beta_{f}$, $\beta_{d}$, and $\beta_t$ s.t.
\begin{multline}\label{mixed}
\tilde{\Delta}^{(t)}(w_i) = \beta_{f}\log\left(f^{(t)}(w_i)\right) + \beta_{d}\log\left(d^{(t)}(w_i)\right)\\ + \beta_{t} + z_{w_i} + \epsilon^{(t)}_{w_i} \:\:\forall w_i \in \mathcal{V},t\in \{t_0,...,t_n\},
\end{multline}
where $z_{w_i} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_{w_i})$ is the random intercept for word $w_i$ and $\epsilon^{(t)}_{w_i} \in \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma)$ is an error term.
$\beta_f,\beta_d$ and $\beta_t$ correspond to the fixed effects for frequency, polysemy and the decade $t$, respectively\footnote{Note that time is treated as a categorical variable, as each decade has its own fixed effect.}.
Intuitively, this model estimates the effects of frequency and polysemy on semantic change, while controlling for temporal trends and correcting for the fact that measurements on same word will be correlated across time.
We fit \eqref{mixed} using the standard restricted maximum likelihood algorithm (\def\citename##1{{\frenchspacing##1}, }\@internalcitec{mcculloch_generalized_2001}; Appendix C).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{full-effects-new-annot.png}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{\textbf{a}, The estimated linear effect of $\log$-frequency ($\hat{\beta}_{f}$) is significantly negative across all languages. From the \textsc{COHA} data, we also see that the result holds regardless of whether lemmatization is used. \textbf{b}, Analogous trends hold for the linear effect of the polysemy score ($\hat{\beta}_{d}$), which is significantly positive across all conditions. The magnitudes of $\hat{\beta}_{f}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{d}$ vary significantly across languages, indicating language-specific variation within the general scaling trends. 95\% CIs are shown.}
\label{bar}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Overview of results}
We find that, across languages, rates of semantic change obey a scaling relation of the form
\begin{equation}
\Delta(w_i) \propto f(w_i)^{\beta_{f}} \times d(w_i)^{\beta_{d}},
\end{equation}
with $\beta_{f}<0$ and $\beta_{d} > 0$.
This finding implies that frequent words change at slower rates while polysemous words change faster, and that both these relations scale as power laws.
\subsection{Law of conformity: Frequently used words change at slower rates}
Using the model in equation \eqref{mixed}, we found that the logarithm of a word's frequency, $\log(f(w_i))$, has a significant and substantial negative effect on rates of semantic change in all settings (Figures 2a and 3a).
Given the use of log-transforms in pre-processing the data this implies rates of semantic change are proportional to a negative power ($\beta_{f}$) of frequency, i.e.\@
\begin{equation}
\Delta(w_i) \propto f(w_i)^{\beta_f},
\end{equation}
with $\beta_{f} \in [-1.24, -0.30]$ across languages/datasets.
\subsection{Law of innovation: Polysemous words change at faster rates}\label{innovation}
There is a common hypothesis in the linguistic literature that ``words become semantically extended by being used in diverse contexts'' \cite{winter_cognitive_2014}, an idea that dates back to the writings of \newcite{breal_essai_1897}.
We tested this notion by examining the relationship between polysemy and semantic change in our data.
\subsubsection*{Quantifying polysemy}
Measuring word polysemy is a difficult and fraught task, as even ``ground truth'' dictionaries differ in the number of senses they assign to words \cite{simpson_oxford_1989,fellbaum_wordnet_1998}.
We circumvent this issue by measuring a word's {\em contextual diversity} as a proxy for its polysemousness.
The intuition behind our measure is that words that occur in many distinct, unrelated contexts will tend to be highly polysemous.
This view of polysemy also fits with previous work on semantic change, which emphasizes the role of contextual diversity \cite{breal_essai_1897,winter_cognitive_2014}.
We measure a word's contextual diversity, and thus polysemy, by examining its neighborhood in an empirical co-occurrence network.
We construct empirical co-occurrence networks for the top-10,000 non-stop words of each language using the PPMI measure defined in Section \ref{methods}.
In these networks words are connected to each other if they co-occur more than one would expect by chance (after smoothing).
The polysemy of a word is then measured as its local clustering coefficient within this network \cite{watts_collective_1998}:
\begin{equation}
d(w_i) = -\frac{\sum_{c_i, c_j \in N_{\textrm{PPMI}}(w_i)}\mathbb{I}\left\lbrace \textrm{PPMI}(c_i, c_j) > 0\right\rbrace}{|N_{\textrm{PPMI}}(w_i)|(|N_{\textrm{PPMI}}(w_i)|-1)},
\end{equation}
where $N_{\textrm{PPMI}}(w_i) = \lbrace w_j : \textrm{PPMI}(w_i, w_j) > 0\rbrace$.
This measure counts the proportion of $w_i$'s neighbors that are also neighbors of each other.
According to this measure, a word will have a high clustering coefficient (and thus a low polysemy score) if the words that it co-occurs with also tend to co-occur with each other.
Polysemous words that are contextually diverse will have low clustering coefficients, since they appear in disjointed or unrelated contexts.
Variants of this measure are often used in word-sense discrimination and correlate
with, e.g., number of senses in WordNet \cite{dorow_discovering_2003,ferret_discovering_2004}.
However, we found that it was slightly biased towards rating contextually diverse discourse function words (e.g., \textit{also}) as highly polysemous, which needs to be taken into account when interpreting our results.
We opted to use this measure, despite this bias, because it has the strong benefit of being clearly interpretable: it simply measures the extent to which a word appears in diverse textual contexts.
Table \ref{diversity} gives examples of the least and most polysemous words in the \textsc{EngFic} data, according to this score.
As expected, this measure has significant intrinsic positive correlation with frequency.
Across datasets, we found Pearson correlations in the range $0.45 < r < 0.8$ (all $p<0.05$), confirming frequent words tend to be used in a greater diversity of contexts.
As a consequence of this high correlation, we interpret the effect of this measure only after controlling for frequency (this control is naturally captured in equation \eqref{mixed}).
\subsubsection*{Polysemy and semantic change}
After fitting the model in equation \eqref{mixed}, we found that the logarithm of the polysemy score exhibits a strong positive effect on rates of semantic change, throughout all four languages (Figure 3b).
As with frequency, the relation takes the form of a power law
\begin{equation}
\Delta(w_i) \propto d(w_i)^{\beta_{d}},
\end{equation}
with a language/corpus dependent scaling constant in $\beta_{d} \in [0.08, 0.53]$.
The distribution of polysemy scores varies substantially across languages, so the large range for this constant is not surprising.\footnote{For example, the \textsc{EngAll} \ polysemy scores have an excess kurtosis that is $25\%$ larger than \textsc{GerAll}.}
Note that this relationship between polysemy and semantic change is a complete reversal from what one would expect according to $d(w_i)$'s positive correlation with frequency; i.e., since frequency and polysemy are highly positively correlated, one would expect them to have similar effects on semantic change, but we found that the effect of polysemy completely reversed after controlling for frequency.
Figure 2b shows the relationship of polysemy with rates of semantic change in the \textsc{COHA} \-lemma data after regressing out effect of frequency (using the method of \def\citename##1{{\frenchspacing##1}, }\@internalcitec{graham_confronting_2003}).
\section{Discussion}
We show how distributional methods can
reveal statistical laws of semantic change and
offer a robust methodology for future work in this area.
Our work builds upon a wealth of previous research on quantitative approaches to semantic change, including prior work with distributional methods \cite{sagi_tracing_2011,wijaya_understanding_2011,gulordava_distributional_2011,jatowt_framework_2014,kulkarni_statistically_2014,xu_computational_2015}, as well as recent work on detecting the emergence of novel word senses \cite{lau_word_2012,mitra_thats_2014,cook_novel_2014,mitra_automatic_2015,frermann_bayesian_2016}.
We extend these lines of work by rigorously comparing different approaches to quantifying semantic change and by using these methods to propose new statistical laws of semantic change.
The two statistical laws we propose have strong implications for future work in historical semantics.
The {\em law of conformity}---frequent words change more slowly---clarifies frequency's role in semantic change.
Future studies of semantic change must account for frequency's conforming effect: when examining the interaction between some linguistic process and semantic change, the {\em law of conformity} should serve as a null model in which the interaction is driven primarily by underlying frequency effects.
The {\em law of innovation}---polysemous words change more quickly---quantifies the central role polysemy plays in semantic change, an issue that has concerned linguists for more than 100 years \cite{breal_essai_1897}.
Previous works argued that semantic change leads to polysemy \cite{wilkins_part_1993,hopper_grammaticalization_2003}.
However, our results show that polysemous words change faster, which suggests that polysemy may actually lead to semantic change.
These empirical statistical laws also lend themselves to various causal mechanisms.
The {\em law of conformity} might be a consequence of learning: perhaps
people are more likely to use rare words mistakenly in novel ways,
a mechanism formalizable by Bayesian models of word learning
and corresponding to the biological notion of genetic drift \cite{reali_words_2010}.
Or perhaps a sociocultural conformity bias makes people less likely to accept
novel innovations of common words, a mechanism analogous to the biological
process of purifying selection \cite{boyd_culture_1988,pagel_frequency_2007}.
Moreover, such mechanisms may also be partially responsible for the {\em law of innovation}.
Highly polysemous words tend to have more rare senses \cite{kilgarriff},
and rare senses may be unstable by the {\em law of conformity}.
While our results cannot confirm such causal links, they nonetheless highlight a new role for
frequency and polysemy in language change and the importance of distributional
models in historical research.
\section{Hyperparameter and pre-processing details}
For all datasets, words were lowercased and stripped of punctuation.
For the Google datasets we built models using the top-100000 words by their average frequency over the entire historical time-periods, and we used the top-50000 for COHA.
During model learning we also discarded all words within a year that occurred below a certain threshold (500 for the Google data, 100 for the COHA data).
For all methods, we used the hyperparameters recommended in \newcite{levy_improving_2015}.
For the context word distributions in all methods, we used context distribution smoothing with a smoothing parameter of $0.75$.
Note that for SGNS this corresponds to smoothing the unigram negative sampling distribution.
For both, SGNS and PPMI, we set the negative sample prior $\alpha = \log(5)$, while we set this value to $\alpha=0$ for SVD, as this improved results.
When using SGNS on the Google data, we also subsampled, with words being random removed with probability $p_r(w_i) = 1 - \sqrt{\frac{10^{-5}}{f(w_i)}}$, as recommended by \newcite{levy_improving_2015} and \newcite{mikolov_distributed_2013}.
Furthermore, to improve the computational efficiency of SGNS (which works with text streams and not co-occurrence counts), we downsampled the larger years in the Google N-Gram data to have at most $10^{9}$ tokens.
No such subsampling was performed on the \textsc{COHA} data.
For all methods, we defined the context set to simply be the same vocabulary as the target words, as is standard in most word vector applications \cite{levy_improving_2015}.
However, we found that the PPMI method benefited substantially from larger contexts (similar results were found in \def\citename##1{{\frenchspacing##1}, }\@internalcitec{bullinaria_extracting_2007}), so we did not remove any low-frequency words per year from the context for that method.
The other embedding approaches did not appear to benefit from the inclusion of these low-frequency terms, so they were dropped for computational efficiency.
For SGNS, we used the implementation provided in \newcite{levy_improving_2015}.
The implementations for PPMI and SVD are released with the code package associated with this work.
\section{Visualization algorithm}
To visualize semantic change for a word $w_i$ in two dimensions we employed the following procedure, which relies on the t-SNE embedding method \cite{van_der_maaten_visualizing_2008} as a subroutine:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Find the union of the word $w_i$'s $k$ nearest neighbors over all necessary time-points.
\item
Compute the t-SNE embedding of these words on the most recent (i.e., the modern) time-point.
\item
For each of the previous time-points, hold all embeddings fixed, except for the target word's (i.e., the embedding for $w_i$), and optimize a new t-SNE embedding only for the target word. We found that initializing the embedding for the target word to be the centroid of its $k'$-nearest neighbors in a time-point was highly effective.
\end{enumerate}
Thus, in this procedure the background words are always shown in their ``modern'' positions, which makes sense given that these are the current meanings of these words.
This approximation is necessary, since in reality all words are moving.
\section{Regression analysis details}
In addition to the pre-processing mentioned in the main text, we also normalized the contextual diversity scores $d(w_i)$ within years by subtracting the yearly median.
This was necessary because there was substantial changes in the median contextual diversity scores over years due to changes in corpus sample sizes etc.
We removed stop words using the available lists in Python's NLTK package \cite{bird_natural_2009}.
We follow \newcite{kim_temporal_2014} and allow a buffer period for the historical word vectors to initialize; we use a buffer period of four decades from the first usable decade and only measure changes after this period.
When analyzing the effects of frequency and contextual diversity, the model contained fixed effects for these features and for time along with random effects for word identity.
We opted not to control for POS tags in the presented results, as contextual diversity is co-linear with these tags (e.g., adverbs are more contextual diverse than nouns), and the goal was to demonstrate the main effect of contextual diversity across all word types.
To fit the linear mixed models, we used the Python $\texttt{statsmodels}$ package with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) \cite{statsmodels2010}.
All mentioned significance scores were computed according to Wald's $z$-tests.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank D.\@ Friedman, R.\@ Sosic, C.\@ Manning, V. Prabhakaran, and S. Todd for their helpful comments and discussions.
We also thank S.\@ Tsutsui for catching a typo in equation \eqref{procrustes}, which is present in previous versions.
We are also indebted to our anonymous reviewers.
W.H. was supported by an NSERC PGS-D grant and the SAP Stanford Graduate Fellowship. W.H., D.J., and J.L. were supported by the Stanford Data Science Initiative, and NSF Awards IIS-1514268, IIS-1149837, and IIS-1159679.
|
\section{Introduction}
Zero-shot learning \cite{bengio08, hinton09,lampert09,farhadi09} is an extension to the conventional supervised learning scenario
that does not need labeled instances for all categories in order to recognize them.
Instead, some sort of description that is called \textit{class signatures} is also available for all the categories.
Signatures may be a set of human-annotated discriminative attributes or textual description of the categories.
The problem addressed by zero-shot learning rises naturally in practice wherever it is not feasible to acquire abundant labeled instances for all the categories (e.g., fine-grained classification problems).
To describe the task more precisely, in the training phase, labeled instances for some categories which are called seen classes are provided
while for other categories called unseen ones there is no labeled instance available.
In the test phase, unlabeled instances should be classified into seen or unseen categories. In this work, however, we focus on the most popular version of zero-shot recognition in which test instances belong only to unseen categories.
Most existing methods for zero-shot learning focus on using labeled images to learn a compatibility function indicating how similar an image is
to each label embedding~\cite{Akata2015,emb15,sse}. Each instance will then be labeled with the category having the most compatible signature.
On the other hand, recent advances in deep convoloutional neural networks provide rich visual features with high discrimination capability~\cite{vgg}.
We will show in Section\ref{experiments} through experiments that the space of deep visual features is indeed a rich space in which instances of different categories usually form natural clusters. However, little attention has been paid to exploiting this property of visual features in the context of zero-shot learning.
In this paper, we propose a semi-supervised zero-shot learning method that uses both labeled samples of seen classes and unlabeled instances of unseen classes to find a more proper representation of labels (i.e., label embedding) in the space of deep visual features. We seek a linear transformation to map the auxiliary information to the space of abstract visual features and jointly find assignments of unlabeled samples to unseen classes.
We intend to learn a linear transformation such that the mapped signature of each seen class tends to be representative for samples of the corresponding class and simultaneously it is possible to find an assignment of unlabeled samples to unseen classes such that the mapped signature of each unseen class will also tend to be the representative of the assigned samples to that class.
Using the unlabeled samples of the unseen classes, we can substantially mitigate the domain shift problem previously introduced in \cite{eccv14} that impairs the zero-shot recognition performance.
We also propose a simpler method that does not jointly learn the linear transformation on class signatures and label assignments to unlabeled data.
Instead, after finding the mapping according to just instances of seen classes, it uses a clustering algorithm to assign labels to instances of unseen classes.
In Section~\ref{experiments}, we present experimental results on four popular zero-shot classification benchmarks and see that the proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on three out of these four datasets.
The rest of paper is organized as follow. First, in Section~\ref{related}, we briefly introduce existing methods for zero-shot learning.
Then, in Section~\ref{proposed}, we present our semi-supervised zero-shot learning method. In Section \ref{experiments}, we report our experiments and finally in Section~\ref{conclusion}
we conclude.
\section{Related Work} \label{related}
Most existing methods for zero-shot object recognition can be described as finding a compatibility function scoring how
similar an image and a description are.
We can consider the following steps for these methods:
\begin{itemize}
\item Find (or use the existing) embeddings for class labels in a semantic space.
\item Map images into that semantic space.
\item Classify images in the semantic space based on the compatibility of the mapped image and the embedded labels in this space (usually using a nearest neighbor classifier or label propagation).
\end{itemize}
Learning of these three steps may be done independently or jointly.
A notable body of work in zero-shot recognition belongs to attribute prediction from images \cite{lampert09, topicmodel, ajoint11, unified13, suzuki14}.
In these methods, the semantic label embeddings are considered to be externally provided attributes as auxiliary information. Thus, attributes as label embeddings are available and the task is just to map images to the semantic space, i.e., predicting attributes for the images.
Early methods, like \cite{lampert09}, assume independence between attributes and train binary attribute classifiers.
Probabilistic graphical models have been utilized to model and/or learn correlations among different attributes \cite{topicmodel, unified13} to improve the prediction of the attributes.
In \cite{jayaraman14}, a random forest approach has been employed that accounts for unreliability in attribute predictions for final class assignment.
In \cite{Akata2015pami}, a max-margin objective function similar to the structured SVM is defined for attribute-based image classification.
More recent works exploit bilinear models \cite{Yu2013, devise, convex, sse, emb15,semi15} that are also equivalent to embedding images and labels into a
common space and considering the inner product in the embedded space as the compatibility score.
Until now, several objective functions have been proposed for learning such bilinear models.
In \cite{emb15}, the sum of the squared error on the label prediction is used.
However, extra regularization terms that compensate undesirable characteristics of this cost function are also utilized.
This method can be seen as learning a mapping that transforms description of each class to a linear classifier for that class.
This idea has also been used in \cite{li15max, semi15} that introduce a max margin objective function for this purpose.
These two methods also learn labels for test instances simultaneously and so they differ from almost all of other existing methods in this way. This provides the possibility of
leveraging unsupervised information available in test images, for instance as done in \cite{semi15}, by using a Laplacian regularization term that penalizes similar objects assigned to different classes.
Designing label embeddings in multi-class classification
is another line of research that can also be used for zero-shot recognition.
In \cite{Yu2013}, an objective function is proposed to derive such label embeddings based on information about similarities among categories.
A relatively popular embedding for labels is to describe unseen categories as how similar they are to the seen ones.
One way to use this embedding is creating classifiers for unseen categories by linear combination of
classifiers for seen categories using similarity scores as mixing weights.
In \cite{convex}, the outputs from the softmax layer of a CNN trained on seen categories are used to score similarity between test instances and seen classes.
Using these outputs as weights, the introduced method in \cite{convex} represents images in the semantic space as a convex combination of seen class label embeddings.
Moreover, in \cite{sse}, a histogram showing seen class proportions is used for label embedding and then a max margin framework is defined to embed images in this space. The authors of \cite{convex} extend their work further in \cite{agnostic} and formulate a supervised dictionary learning method that jointly learns image and label embeddings.
The idea of combining already available classifiers to create new ones for unseen categories is also used in \cite{Synthesized}
but rather than using seen categories as basis, they define a set of (possibly smaller) \textit{phantom} classes and learn base classifiers on them.
Although most of the studies on zero-shot recognition consider attributes as auxiliary information, some of the existing methods utilize textual
information for classes as auxiliary information.
This text be obtained from online encyclopedias or be just the name of classes.
Some existing methods first extract features from auxiliary text information and then turn them into vectors that can be treated analogous to attribute vectors.
\cite{devise} introduces a bilinear model to find the compatibility score of deep visual features and Word2vec \cite{word2vec} representation of class names. \cite{ba2015} proposes nonlinear mappings modeled by neural networks on the image and the text inputs to find their compatibility.
\cite{mohamed13} presents an objective function to predict classifier parameters from textual descriptions. In \cite{Akata2015}, different label embeddings such as attribute vectors, GloVe \cite{pennington2014glove}, word2vec \cite{word2vec}, a variant of word2vec with weak supervision, and also a combination of these different embeddings have been considered as the label embedding for zero-shot recognition. In \cite{Xian2016}, this work is extended further to model nonlinear compatibility
functions that can be expressed as a mixture of bilinear models.
In \cite{Qiao2016}, a modification of \cite{emb15} is presented as for use with textual auxiliary information by decomposing the bilinear mapping.
In \cite{Fu2016}, a set of vocabulary much larger than just seen and unseen class names is used and mapping from images to word embeddings is learned
by maximizing the margin with respect to all words in the vocabulary; this framework can be used in zero-shot and also supervised and open set learning problems.
In \cite{Akata2016}, authors propose to use multiple auxiliary information and also part annotation in image domain to compensate for weaker supervision in textual data.
Convolutional and recurrent neural networks have also been used for text embedding in \cite{Akata2016rnn}.
The most related methods to our method are the introduced ones in \cite{li15max, semi15, Kodirov2015} that are indeed semi-supervised zero-shot learning methods. Here, we briefly specify the differences between these methods and ours. First, we use abstract visual features obtained by deep learning as the semantic space as opposed to these methods. \cite{li15max, semi15}
learn a max margin classifier on the image space classifying both seen and unseen instances while we use a ridge regression to map signatures to the semantic visual space resulting in a much simpler optimization problem to solve. Since samples of different classes are usually condensed in distinct regions of the deep visual representation space, our proposed optimization problem is based on clustering of data in this space and we try to map the class signatures on the centroid of the corresponding samples. We also explicitly account for domain shift problem in our objective function and thus achieving better results compared to these methods.
There are major differences between our work and ~\cite{Kodirov2015} using a dictionary learning scheme
in which coding coefficients are considered to be label embeddings in a semantic space
and a sparse coding objective is used to map images into this representation space.
Most importantly, in our method labels of unseen instances are jointly learned
with the mapping of the signatures to the semantic space in our objective function while in \cite{Kodirov2015}
the label prediction is accomplished using the nearest neighbor or the label propagation on embeddings of images.
Also, we do not need to learn embedding of test instances in the semantic space as opposed to \cite{Kodirov2015},
alternatively we learn just the representation of class signatures in the visual domain.
\section{Proposed Approach} \label{proposed}
In this section, we introduce a zero-shot learning method that uses the deep visual features as the semantic space and learns
a mapping from class signatures to this semantic space and also learns labels of instances belonging to unseen classes.
First, we propose a simple and efficient semi-supervised zero-shot learning method in Section~\ref{clustering}.
Then, we introduce an optimization problem that tries to simultaneously learn the mapping and the label assignment to test instances in Section~\ref{joint}.
Finally, we introduce an iterative method to solve this optimization problem in Section~\ref{optimization}
and use the simple method proposed in Section~\ref{clustering} to find a start point for this method (i.e., as an initial labellings for instances of unseen classes).
\subsection{Notation}
Let $X, \mathbf{x}$, and $x$ denote matrices, column vectors, and scalars respectively. $\norm{X}$ shows the squared Frobenius norm of a matrix and
$X_{(i)}$ denotes its $i$th column.
Suppose there are $n_s$ seen categories and $n_u$ unseen categories. For each category y,
auxiliary information $a_y \in \mathbb{R}^r$ is available. We assume that labels $\{1, \ldots, n_s \}$ correspond to seen categories.
Let $X_s \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times N_s}$ and $X_u \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times N_u}$
denote matrices whose columns are seen and unseen images respectively where $d$ is the dimension of image features.
$S_s = [a_1, \ldots, a_{n_s}]$ presents the matrix of signatures for seen classes. $S_u$ is also defined similarly for unseen classes.
$Z_s = [ \mathbf{z_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{z_{N_s}} ]$
contains labels of training data in one-hot encoding format.
\subsection{Clustering Method} \label{clustering}
Our first method can be roughly summarized in three steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Using data from seen classes, we learn a linear mapping from attribute vectors to the semantic space.
\item We find a data clustering using our proposed semi-supervised clustering algorithm.
\item For instances of each cluster, we find the label whose mapped signature in the semantic visual space is the nearest one to the center of that cluster and assign that label to all of these instances.
\end{enumerate}
We use a simple ridge regression to map class signatures to visual features. We intend to find a mapping from class signatures to the deep visual representation space such that each mapped (seen) class signature is close to the samples of that class in this space in average.
The linear mapping is found using the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mapping}
D = \argmin_D \norm{X_s - D Y_s} + \gamma \norm{D},
\end{equation}
where columns of $ Y_s \in \mathbb{R}^{r \times n_s} $ are the class signatures of the samples lied in the columns of $X_s$.
This optimization problem is known to have the following closed form solution:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dic}
D = X_s Y_s^T (Y_s Y_s^T + \gamma I)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The parameter $\gamma$ is determined through cross validation as we will describe precisely in Section~\ref{experiments}.
Here, we intend to find labels for instances belonging to unseen classes. To this end, we want to find a clustering of instances in the space of deep visual features and assign a label to each cluster according to the distance between the center of that cluster and the mapped signature of the unseen classes (i.e., consider the label whose mapped signature is the closest one to the cluster center as the assigned label to the instances of this cluster). To find a better clustering of instances belonging to unseen classes, we can also incorporate labeled instances of seen classes too. The clustering problem over unseen instances, we encountered here, is different from the conventional semi-supervised learning problem \cite{chapel06}.
In fact, all labeled data are from seen classes and there is no labeled sample for unseen classes that is due to the special characteristic of zero-shot learning problem. Therefore, here, we propose a semi-supervised learning method which
can be seen as an extension to k-means suitable for this problem.
We try to find a clustering such that labeled instances tend to be assigned to the corresponding classes and all instances tend to be close to the center of the clusters to which they are assigned:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:simple}
\minimize_{R, \mathbf{\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_k }} \sum_{n,k} r_{nk} \lVert \mathbf{x_n - \mu_k} \rVert +
\beta \sum_{n=1}^{N_s} \mathds{1}(\mathbf{r_n \neq z_n}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\mu_i'}$s are cluster centers and $R = [\mathbf{r_1, \ldots, r_{N_s + N_u }} ]$ is cluster assignments in one-hot encoding format.
The objective function is similar to that of the k-means clustering algorithm but for each labeled instance there is a penalty of $\beta$ if its assigned cluster number that is different from its label. Thus, this objective function encourages
the first $n_s$ clusters be corresponding to the seen classes.
Parameters $\beta$ and $k$ can be determined via the cross validation. However, in our experiments, we found out
the model is not very sensitive to these so we fix $\beta=1$
when data is normalized such that $\lVert x_i \rVert_1 = 1$. We set $k = (n_s + n_u)$, i.e., the number of clusters is considered
equal to the number of categories as a natural choice.
Finally, to assign labels to test instances, we use the mapping $D$ from Eq.\eqref{eq:dic} to
map class signatures to visual features, creating a set of \textit{class representatives}
in the visual feature space. We then assign to all instances of a cluster the class label whose representative is
the nearest to center of that cluster.
A key distinction between the clustering-based method presented here and other existing methods lies in the nature of the compatibility function. The compatibility function in
other works is a similarity measure between each instance and class description that is found independently for different instances.
Here, the compatibility function relies strongly on the distribution of instances in the semantic space and the compatibility of a label for an instance is found according to the similarity of the cluster center to which this instance is assigned and the mapped signature of that label. Therefore, by considering the distribution of data points (via clustering)
in designing the compatibility function we can reach a more reliable measure.
This compatibility function can be plugged in every other method in this way that after final predictions are made by the method,
a clustering algorithm is ran on data and then we assign an identical label to all cluster
members by majority voting on those predictions. We found through experiment that this extra step will improve performance of
many existing methods.
Although the above method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on most zero-shot recognition benchmarks, it uses only the instances of the seen classes to find the linear transformation from class signatures to the visual feature space and thus the proposed method may suffer from the domain shift problem introduced in \cite{eccv14}.
To overcome the domain shift problem more substantially, we propose an optimization problem for finding the linear transform from class signatures to the visual feature space that uses instances of both seen and unseen classes.
\subsection{Learning Mapping and Clustering Jointly}
\label{joint}
In this section, we propose an optimization problem for learning a linear transformation from class signatures to the visual features space such that the mapped signatures are good representatives of the corresponding instances.
We intend to learn a transformation such that for the seen classes, the sum of the squared distances of instances from the mapped signature of the corresponding class is minimized. Moreover, for instances of unseen classes, we can find class assignments such that the sum of the squared distances of unseen instances from the mapped signature of classes to which they are assigned is also minimized.
The objective function is formulated as follows:
\begin{align} \label{eq:main}
\minimize_{R,D} \norm{X_s - D Y_s} &+ \lambda \norm{X_u - D S_u R^T } + \gamma \norm{D} \\
\text{s. t.} \quad & R \in \{0,1\}^{N_u \times n_u}. \nonumber
\end{align}
The first term in the above optimization problem is identical to Eq.\eqref{eq:mapping} and the second one incorporates unlabeled data for learning the mapping $D$. By enforcing
the signatures to be mapped close to test instances, this term confronts the domain shift problem. In fact, we seek a class assignment for instances of unseen classes such that we can learn a linear transformation on class signature to use the mapped signature of both seen and unseen classes as good representatives for the corresponding instances.
The second term can be essentially considered as a clustering objective with two advantages. First, the number of clusters is no longer a
parameter and it is determined by the number of unseen classes. Second, the cluster centers are set to be the mapped signatures of test classes.
\subsection{Optimization} \label{optimization}
Optimization of the objective function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:simple} is done by alternating between
$\mathbf{\mu_i'}$s and R. $\mathbf{\mu_i'}$s are updated using:
\begin{equation}
\mu_i = \frac{\sum_{n=1}^{N_s + N_u} \mathds{1}(r_{ni}=1)\mathbf{x_n}}{\sum_{n=1}^{N_s+N_u}\mathds{1}(r_{ni}=1)},
\end{equation}
$R$ is updated by assigning each instance to the cluster that minimizes the corresponding term in Eq.\eqref{eq:simple}.
To initialize $\mathbf{\mu_i'}$s, for clusters corresponding to seen classes the centers are set as mean of instances from that class. Centers of other
clusters are initialized using k-means++ \cite{kmeanspp} on unlabeled instances.
The overall training algorihm for LECA is presented in Algorithm \ref{leca}
The Eq.~\eqref{eq:main} is not convex and considering that $R$ is a partitioning of instances, the global optimization requires an
exhaustive search over all possible labeling of test data with $n_u$ labels. Therefore, we use a simple coordinate descent
method (like k-means). We alternate between optimizing $R$ and $D$ while fixing the other.
Having fixed the labeling $R$, the problem becomes a simple multi-task ridge regression which has the following closed-form solution:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:d_update}
D = (X_s Y_s^T + \beta X_u R S_u^T) (Y_s Y_s^T + \beta S_u R^T R S_u^T + \gamma I)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
By fixing $D$, the optimal $R$ can be achieved via assigning each instance to the closest class representative:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:r_update}
r_{ij} = \mathds{1}[j = \argmin_{k} \lVert X_{u(i)} - D S_{u(k)} \rVert_2 ].
\end{equation}
Whenever a row of $R$ contains no 1's, i.e. an empty cluster is encountered we assign 2\% of instances randomly to that cluster.
We continue alternating between updates of $D$ and $R$ till R remains constants, i.e., no label changes. In our experiments, this always happens
in less that 20 iterations.
To evade poor local minima, we propose a good initialization that is based on the simple method proposed in \ref{clustering}. We initialize $R$ by final predictions found by this method.
\section{Experiments} \label{experiments}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{Accuracy score (\%) of cluster assignments converted to labels
using majority voting on ground truth labels on four zero-shot recognition benchmarks.
Results are our method are average $\pm$ std of three runs.
} \vspace{2mm} \label{tab:cluster}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Clustering Method & Animals with Attributes & CUB-2011 & aPascal-aYahoo & SUN Attribute \\
\hline
k-means & 65.80 & 35.61 & 65.37 & 17.49 \\
\hline
Ours (Simple) & \textbf{70.74$\pm$0.32} & \textbf{42.63$\pm$0.07} & \textbf{69.93$\pm$ 3.4} & \textbf{ 45.50$\pm$1.32} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{2mm}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{Classification accuracy in \% on four public datasets: Animals with Attributes, CUB-2011, aPascal-aYahoo and SUN
in form of average $\pm$ std.
} \vspace{2mm} \label{tab:results}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Feature & Method & Animals with Attributes & CUB-2011 & aPascal-aYahoo & SUN \\
\hline
{Shallow}
& Li and Guo \cite{li15max} & 38.2$\pm$2.3 & & & 18.9$\pm$2.5 \\
& Li \etal~\cite{semi15} & 40.05$\pm$2.25 & & 24.71 $\pm$3.19 & \\
& Jayaraman and Grauman \cite{jayaraman14} &43.01 $\pm$ 0.07 & & 26.02 $\pm$ 0.05 & 56.18 $\pm$ 0.27 \\
\hline
{GoogleNet}
& Akata \etal~\cite{Akata2015} & 66.7 & 50.1 & & \\
& Changpinyo \etal~\cite{Synthesized} & 72.9 & 54.5 & & 62.7 \\
& Xian \etal~\cite{Xian2016} & 71.9 & 45.5 & & \\
\hline
{VGG-19}
& Khodirov \etal \cite{Kodirov2015}
& 73.2 & 39.5 & 26.5 & \\
& Akata \etal~\cite{Akata2015} & 61.9 & 50.1 & & \\
& Zhang and Saligrama \cite{sse} & 76.33$\pm$0.53 & 30.41 $\pm$0.20 & 46.23 $\pm$ 0.53 & 82.50 $\pm$ 1.32 \\
& Zhang and Saligrama \cite{agnostic} & 80.46$\pm$0.53 & 42.11 $\pm$0.55 & \textbf{50.35 $\pm$ 2.97} & 83.83 $\pm$ 0.29 \\
& Ours (Simple) & 86.58$\pm$1.12 & 52.19$\pm$0.83 & 49.86$\pm$2.36 & 84.50$\pm$1.32 \\
& Ours (Joint - init D) & 83.03 & 57.55 & 42.62 & 72.50\\
& Ours (Joint - init R) & \textbf{\em 88.64$\pm$0.04} & \textbf{\em 58.80$\pm$0.64} & 49.77$\pm$2.02 & \textbf{\em 86.16$\pm$0.57} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table*}
In this section, we conduct experiments on the popular benchmarks to obtain results of the proposed method on these benchmarks and compare them with those of the other methods.
\textbf{Datasets.}
We evaluate our proposed methods on four popular public benchmarks for zero-shot classification.
(1) Animal with Attributes (AwA) \cite{lampert09}. There are images of 50 mammal species in this data set
Each class is described by a single $85-$dimensional attribute vector. We use the continuous attributes rather than
the binary version as it has proved to be more discriminative in previous works like \cite{Akata2015}. The train/test split provided by the dataset is used accordingly.
(2) aPascal/aYahoo \cite{farhadi09}. The 20 categories from Pascal VOC 2008 \cite{pascal} are considered as seen classes and
categories from aYahoo are considered to be unseen. As this dataset provides instance level attribute vectors,
for class signatures we use the average of the provided instance attributes.
(3) SUN Attribute \cite{sun}. The dataset consists of 717 categories and all images are annotated with 102 attributes, we just
use the average attributes among all instances of each categories for our experiments. We use the same train/test spilt
as in \cite{jayaraman14} where 10 classes have been considered unseen.
(4) Caltech UCSD Birds-2011 (CUB) \cite{cub}. This a dataset for fine-grained classification task. There are 200 species of
birds where each image has been annotated with 312 binary attributes. Again, we average over instances to get continuous class signatures.
We use the same train/test split as in \cite{akata13} (and many other following works) to make comparison possible.
As our method relies on meaningful structure in visual features domain, we use features from a deep CNN known that are
more discriminative than \textit{shallow} features like SIFT or HOG. We report results using
$4096-$dimensional features from the first fully connected layer of 19 layer VGG network \cite{vgg}
pre-trained on the subset, provided publicly by \cite{sse}.
\textbf{Testing Cluster Assumption:}
First, to give evidence for our key assumption of our method that instances from each class usually form a cluster in visual feature domains
and to demonstrate effectiveness of our proposed clustering algorithm we design an
experiment in which instances from unseen categories are clustered using our proposed clustering algorithm and also the k-means algorithm. Then,
each cluster is assigned with a class label based on majority voting on ground truth labels. The number of clusters
is set to the number of classes as a natural choice (increasing the number of clusters improves the accuracy).
For the k-means algorithm, we use the implementation available in Scikit-learn library \cite{scikit-learn} and run it with 20 different initializations
and report results of that one with the best score.
Accuracy of this labeling scheme that is based on clustering is reported in Table~\ref{tab:cluster}.
These results shows the effectiveness of our proposed clustering method and that the cluster structure assumption in the visual semantic space is usually right.
\textbf{Cross Validation:}
To adjust parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:d_update}, we split training data into train and validation sets.
We choose a number of categories randomly from training data as validation categories. For each data set, the size of the
validation set has the same ratio to the train set as the size of the test categories to the total of the train and the validation one.
In our experiments, we used $10-$fold cross validation, i.e., average results from ten different validation splits are used to decide on
optimal parameters.
Once optimal $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are determined through the grid search by testing on validation set, the model
is then trained on all seen categories.
We summarize our experimental results in Table~\ref{tab:results}.
\textit{Ours (Simple)} corresponds to the method presented in Section~\ref{clustering}.
\textit{Ours(init D)} and \textit{Ours(init - R)} correspond to optimizing Eq.~\eqref{eq:main}
with respectively initializing $D$ using Eq.~\eqref{eq:dic} and initializing $R$ by our simple method proposed in Section~\ref{clustering}.
For our methods, average and standard deviation of different runs are reported. As it can be seen, the initialization done
by our simple method has critical effect on the performance. This can be justified by noting the information from structure of
unlabeled data is leveraged when initializing $R$ while such information is absent in initializing $D$.
For other methods, we use the results reported in their original publication. Note that some experimental settings of these works may differ from those of ours. We did not re-implement any of the other methods and if the original paper does not report results on a data set we leave the corresponding cell as blank.
Our method performs the best on three out of the four datasets (outperforms the others on all except to the aPascal-aYahoo dataset). This can be explained by the nature of the dataset in which class signatures obtained by averaging instance attributes are very similar. We suppose trying to learn
more discriminative signatures from data can potentially improve the result. We investigate this in our future work.
\section{Conclusion} \label{conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed semi-supervised methods for zero-shot object recognition. We used the space of deep visual features as a semantic visual space and learned a linear transformation to map class signatures to this space such that the mapped signatures provide good representative of the corresponding instances. We utilized this property that the rich deep visual features provide a representation space in which samples of each class are usually condensed in a cluster. In the proposed method that jointly learns the mapping of class signatures and the class assignments of unlabeled data, we used also unlabeled instances of unseen classes when learning the mapping to alleviate the domain shift problem. Experimental results showed that the proposed method generally outperformed the other recent methods.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}
|
\section*{}
Consider the following rational elliptic curves
\[
E\colon y^2+xy=x^3-8x+27
\]
and
\[
E'\colon y^2+xy=x^3+8124402x-11887136703
\]
labelled \cite[\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/3675.g1}{3675.g1}]{lmfdb} and~\cite[\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/47775.be1}{47775.be1}]{lmfdb} in LMFDB res\-pectively. Their discriminants are given by the following identities~:
\[
\Delta(E)=-3^5\cdot 5^2\cdot 7^2\quad\text{and}\quad \Delta(E')=-3^5\cdot 5^2\cdot 7^2\cdot 13^{17}.
\]
The aim of this note is to prove that their \(17\)-torsion groups are isomorphic as Galois modules\footnote{As pointed out to the author, these congruences were known to John Cremona since 2007 (unpublished).}. We apply Proposition~4 of~\cite{KrOe92} with (in their notation) \(N=3675\) and \(N'=47775\). We then have~\(M=N'\) (both~\(E\) and~\(E'\) have bad multiplicative split reduction at~\(3\)) and \(\mu(M)=20160\). We thus have to check that
\[
a_l(E)\equiv a_l(E')\pmod{17}\quad\text{for every prime \(l<3360\), \(l\not= 3,5,7,13\)}
\]
and
\[
a_{13}(E)a_{13}(F)\equiv\pm(13+1)\pmod{17}.
\]
This can be easily done using~\textsc{Sage} (\cite{sage}). Therefore, the mod 17 representations attached to~\(E\) and~\(E'\), denoted (as in~\cite{KrOe92}) \(\rho\) and~\(\rho'\) respectively, have isomorphic semi-simplifications. However, both representations are irreducible. This follows from the fact that both curves have bad additive reduction at~\(5\) with \(\mathrm{ord}_5(\Delta(E))=\mathrm{ord}_5(\Delta(E'))=2\). Hence the group \(\Phi_5\) is cyclic of order~\(6\) and the images of~\(\rho\) and~\(\rho'\) cannot be included in a Borel subgroup of~\(\mathrm{GL}_2(\Ff[17])\). For more details and the definition of the group~\(\Phi_5\), see \S5.6 and Ex.~5.7.4 of~\cite{Ser72} (or Prop.~3.3 of~\cite{Bil11}).
As of April 2016, there are eight known pairs (up to isomorphism) of non-isogenous $17$-congruent rational elliptic curves with conductors less than $360,000$. They turn out to be all quadratic twists of the pair~$(E,E')$. Besides, to the author's knowledge there is no known example of two non-isogenous rational curves with $p$-torsion subgroups isomorphic as Galois modules for some prime number~$p>17$. Any such example would be quite interesting in view of the conjecture below.
\begin{conj}[Frey-Mazur]
There exists a constant~\(C\) such that for any prime $p\geq C$ and any pair of elliptic curves~\(E,E'\) over~\(\mathbf{Q}\), the following holds~:
\[
E[p]\text{ and }E'[p]\text{ are isomorphic as Galois modules }\Longrightarrow E\text{ and \(E'\) are isogenous}.
\]
\end{conj}
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}
|
\section{Implementation Details}
\subsection{Hyperparameters}
For all architectures, the first convolution layer consists of $32, 4\times 4,$ filters with a stride of 2 and a padding of 1. The second convolution layer consists of $64, 4\times 4,$ filters with a stride of 2 and a padding of 1. In Deep Q-Learning, batch size of 32 and discount factor of $0.99$ are used. We used a replay memory size of $10^6$ for random mazes and $5\times10^4$ for I-Maze and Pattern Matching tasks. We linearly interpolated $\epsilon$ from $1$ to $0.1$ for the initial $10^6$ steps in the $\epsilon$-greedy policy. We chose the best learning rate from $\{0.0001, 0.00025, 0.0005, 0.001\}$ that does not lead to value function explosion depending on the tasks and architectures. The chosen learning rates are shown in Table~\ref{table:lr}. The parameter is updated after every $4$ steps. RMSProp was used with a momentum of 0.95 and a momentum of squared gradients of 0.95. Gradients were clipped at $l2$-norm of 20 to prevent divergence. We used ``soft'' target Q-network updates with a momentum of 0.999 as suggested by~\cite{lillicrap2015continuous}.
\subsection{Map Generation for Pattern Matching}
There are a total of 512 possible visual patterns in a $3\times 3$ room with blocks of two colors. We randomly picked 250 patterns and generated two maps for each pattern: one that contains the same pattern in two rooms and another that has a different randomly generated pattern in one of the rooms that is randomly selected. This produces 500 maps, 250 with identical rooms, and 250 with different rooms, which are used for training. For evaluating generalization, we picked another exclusive set of 250 visual patterns, and generated 500 maps by following the same procedure.
\newpage
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{Learning rates. }
\vspace{-5pt}
\label{table:lr}
\vskip 0.1in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.4pt}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
\hline
\abovespace\belowspace
Task & DQN & DRQN & MQN & RMQN & FRMQN \\
\hline \abovespace
I-Maze & 0.00025 & 0.0005 & 0.0005 & 0.0005 & 0.0005 \\
Matching & 0.00025 & 0.001 & 0.0005 & 0.0005 & 0.0005 \\
Single & 0.0001 & 0.00025 & 0.0001 & 0.00025 & 0.00025 \\
Seq & 0.00025 & 0.0005 & 0.00025 & 0.00025 & 0.00025 \\
Single+I & 0.0001 & 0.0005 & 0.00025 & 0.0005 & 0.00025 \\ \belowspace
Seq+I & 0.00025 & 0.001 & 0.00025 & 0.00025 & 0.0005 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\clearpage
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_imaze_train.pdf}
\caption{I-Maze (Train)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_imaze_test.pdf}
\caption{I-Maze (Unseen)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_match_train.pdf}
\caption{Pattern Matching (Train)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_match_test.pdf}
\caption{Pattern Matching (Unseen)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_single_train.pdf}
\caption{Single (Train)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_single_test.pdf}
\caption{Single (Unseen)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_single_large.pdf}
\caption{Single (Unseen-L)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\raisebox{15mm}{\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figures/plots/legend.pdf}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_seq_train.pdf}
\caption{Sequential (Train)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_seq_test.pdf}
\caption{Sequential (Unseen)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_seq_large.pdf}
\caption{Sequential (Unseen-L)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\hfill
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_single_indicator_train.pdf}
\caption{Single+I (Train)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_single_indicator_test.pdf}
\caption{Single+I (Unseen)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_single_indicator_large.pdf}
\caption{Single+I (Unseen-L)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\hfill
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_seq_indicator_train.pdf}
\caption{Sequential+I (Train)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_seq_indicator_test.pdf}
\caption{Sequential+I (Unseen)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/plots/error_seq_indicator_large.pdf}
\caption{Sequential+I (Unseen-L)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\hfill
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Learning curves. X-axis and y-axis correspond to the number of training epochs (1 epoch = 10K steps) and the average reward respectively. For I-Maze, `Unseen' represents unseen maps with different sizes. For Pattern Matching, `Unseen' represents maps with different visual patterns. For the rest plots, `Unseen' and `Unseen-L' indicate unseen topologies with the same sizes and larger sizes of maps, respectively. The performance was measured from 4 runs for random mazes and 10 runs for I-Maze and Pattern Matching. }
\label{fig:full-plot}
\end{figure*}
\clearpage
\input{appendix_frmqn_imaze.tex}
\input{appendix_frmqn_pattern_matching.tex}
\input{appendix_frmqn_single.tex}
\input{appendix_frmqn_seq.tex}
\input{appendix_frmqn_single_ind.tex}
\input{appendix_frmqn_seq_ind.tex}
\subsection{I-Maze: Description and Results}
\label{sec:exp-imaze}
\paragraph{Task.}
Our I-Maze task was inspired by T-Mazes which have been used in animal cognition experiments~\cite{olton1979mazes}. Maps for this task (see Figure~\ref{fig:map-i-maze}) have an indicator at the top that has equal chance of being yellow or green. If the indicator is yellow, the red block gives +1 reward and the blue block gives -1 reward; if the indicator is green, the red block gives -1 and the blue block gives +1 reward. Thus, the agent should memorize the color of the indicator at the beginning while it is in view and visit the correct goal depending on the indicator-color. We varied the length of the vertical corridor to $l=\{5,7,9\}$ during training. The last 12 frames were given as input for all architectures, and the size of memory for our architectures was 11.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Performance on the training set.}
We observed two stages of behavior during learning from all the architectures: 1) early in the training the discount factor and time penalty led to the agent to take a chance by visiting any goal, and 2) later in the training the agent goes to the correct goal by learning the correlation between the indicator and the goal. As seen in the learning curves in Figure~\ref{fig:plot-imaze}, our architectures converge more quickly than DQN and DRQN to the correct behavior. In particular, we observed that DRQN takes many more epochs to reach the second stage after the first stage has been reached. This is possibly due to the long time interval between seeing the indicator and the goals.
Besides, the indicator block is important only when the agent is at the bottom end of the vertical corridor and needs to decide which way to go (see Figure~\ref{fig:map-i-maze}). In other words, the indicator information does not affect the agent's decision making along its way to the end of the corridor. This makes it even more difficult for DRQN to retain the indicator information for a long time. On the other hand, our architectures can handle these problems by storing the history of observations into memory and retrieving such information when it is important, based on the context.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Generalization performance.}
To investigate generalization performance, we evaluated the architectures on maps that have vertical corridor lengths $\{4,6,8,10,15,20,25,30,35,40\}$ that were not present in the training maps.
More specifically, testing on $\{6, 8\}$ sizes of maps and the rest of the sizes of maps can evaluate \textit{interpolation} and \textit{extrapolation} performance, respectively~\cite{schaul2015universal}.
Since some unseen maps are larger than the training maps, we used 50 last frames as input during evaluation on the unseen maps for all architectures except for DQN, which can take only 12 frames as discussed in the experimental setup. The size of memory for our architectures is set to 49. The performance on the unseen set of maps is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:plot-imaze-test}. Although the generalization performances of all architectures are highly variable even after training performance converges, it can be seen that FRMQN consistently outperforms the other architectures in terms of average reward. To further investigate the performance for different lengths of the vertical corridor, we measured the performance on each size of map in Table~\ref{table:i-maze}. It turns out that all architectures perform well on $\{6,8\}$ sizes of maps, which indicates that they can interpolate within the training set of maps. However, our architectures extrapolate to larger maps significantly better than the two baselines.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Analysis of memory retrieval.}
Figure~\ref{fig:play-imaze} visualizes FRMQN's memory retrieval on a large I-Maze, where FRMQN sharply retrieves the indicator information only when it reaches the end of the corridor where it then makes a decision of which goal block to visit.
This is a reasonable strategy because the indicator information is important only when it is at the end of the vertical corridor. This qualitative result implies that FRMQN learned a general strategy that looks for the indicator, goes to the end of the corridor, and retrieves the indicator information when it decides which goal block to visit. We observed similar policies learned by MQN and RMQN, but the memory attention for the indicator was not as sharp as FRMQN's attention and so they visit wrong goals in larger I-Mazes more often.
\begin{table}
\vspace*{-0.08in}
\caption{Performance on pattern matching. The entries represent the probability of visiting the correct goal block for each set of maps with standard error. The performance reported is averages over 10 runs and 10 best-performing parameters for each run. }
\label{table:matching}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
\hline
& Train & Unseen \\
\hline
DQN & $62.9\%$ $(\pm 3.4\%) $ & $60.1\%$ $(\pm 2.8\%)$ \\
DRQN & $49.7\%$ $(\pm 0.2\%)$ & $49.2\%$ $(\pm 0.2\%)$ \\
MQN & $99.0\%$ $(\pm 0.2\%) $ & $69.3\%$ $(\pm 1.5\%)$ \\
RMQN & $82.5\%$ $(\pm 2.5\%)$ & $62.3\%$ $(\pm 1.5\%)$ \\
FRMQN & $\textbf{100.0\%}$ $(\pm 0.0\%)$ & $\textbf{91.8\%}$ $(\pm 1.0\%)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.3in}
\end{table}
The results on I-Maze shown above suggest that solving a task on a set of maps does not guarantee solving the same task on similar but unseen maps, and such generalization performance highly depends on the feature representation learned by deep neural networks. The extrapolation result shows that context-dependent memory retrieval in our architectures is important for learning a general strategy when the importance of an observational-event depends highly on the temporal context.
\vspace*{-0.1in}} %{\vspace*{-0.05in}}
\subsection{Pattern Matching: Description and Results}
\label{sec:exp-pattern-matching}
\vspace*{-0.04in}} %{\vspace*{-0.04in}}
\paragraph{Task.}
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:map-pattern-matching}, this map consists of two $3\times3$ rooms. The visual patterns of the two rooms are either identical or different with equal probability. If the two rooms have the exact same color patterns, the agent should visit the blue block. If the rooms have different color patterns, the agent should visit the red block. The agent receives a +1 reward if it visits the correct block and a -1 reward if it visits the wrong block. This pattern matching task requires more complex reasoning (comparing two visual patterns given at different time steps) than the I-Maze task above.
We generated 500 training and 500 unseen maps in such a way that there is little overlap between the two sets of visual patterns. Details of the map generation process are described in the supplementary material.
The last 10 frames were given as input for all architectures, and the size of memory was set to 9.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Performance on the training set.}
The results plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:plot-match} and Table~\ref{table:matching} show that MQN and FRMQN successfully learned to go to the correct goal block for all runs in the training maps. We observed that DRQN always learned a sub-optimal policy that goes to any goal regardless of the visual patterns of the two rooms. Another observation is the training performances of DQN and RMQN are a bit unstable; they often learned the same sub-optimal policy, whereas MQN and FRMQN consistently learned to go to the correct goal across different runs. We hypothesize that it is not trivial for a neural network to compare two visual patterns observed in different time-steps unless the network can model high-order interactions between two specific observations for visual matching, which might be the reason why DQN and DRQN fail more often. Context-dependent memory retrieval mechanism in our architectures can alleviate this problem by retrieving two visual patterns corresponding to the observations of the two rooms before decision making.
\paragraph{Generalization performance.}
Table~\ref{table:matching} and Figure~\ref{fig:plot-match-test} show that FRMQN achieves the highest success rate on the unseen set of maps. Interestingly, MQN fails to generalize to unseen visual patterns. We observed that MQN pays attention to the two visual patterns before choosing one of the goals through its memory retrieval. However, since the retrieved memory is just a convex combination of two visual patterns, it is hard for MQN to compare the similarity between them. Thus, we believe that MQN simply overfits to the training maps by memorizing the weighted sum of pairs of visual patterns in the training set of maps. On the other hand, FRMQN can utilize retrieved memory as well as its recurrent connections to compare visual patterns over time.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Analysis of memory retrieval.}
An example of FRMQN's memory retrieval is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:play-matching}. FRMQN pays attention to both rooms, gradually moving weight from one to the other as time progresses, which means that the context vector is repeatedly refined based on the encoded features of the room retrieved through its feedback connections. Given this visualization and its good generalization performance, we hypothesize that FRMQN utilizes its feedback connection to compare the two visual features over time rather than comparing them at a single time-step. This result supports our view that feedback connections can play an important role in tasks where more complex reasoning is required with retrieved memories.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/play-imaze.pdf}
\caption{I-Maze (\S\ref{sec:exp-imaze})}
\label{fig:play-imaze}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/play-matching-color.png}
\caption{Pattern matching (\S\ref{sec:exp-pattern-matching})}
\label{fig:play-matching}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/play-seqi-color.png}
\caption{Sequential w/ Ind (\S\ref{sec:exp-random-mazes})}
\label{fig:play-seq-i}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Visualization of FRMQN's memory retrieval. Each figure shows a trajectory of FRMQN at the top row, and the following rows visualize attention weights over time. (a) The agent looks at the indicator, goes to the end of the corridor, and retrieves the indicator frame before visiting the goal block. (b) The agent looks at both rooms at the beginning and gradually switches attention weights from one room to another room as it approaches the goal blocks. (c) The agent pays attention to the indicator (yellow) and the first goal block (blue).}
\label{fig:game-play}
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Performance on random maze. The `Size' column lists the size of each set of maps. The entries in the `Reward', `Success', and `Fail' columns are average rewards, success rates, and failure rates measured from 4 runs. We picked the 10 best parameters based on performance on unseen maps for each run and evaluated them on 1000 episodes. `Success' represents the number of correctly completed episodes divided by the total number of episodes, and `Fail' represents the number of incorrectly completed episodes divided by the total number of episodes (e.g., visiting goals in reverse order in sequential goal tasks). The standard errors are lower than $0.03$, $1.5\%$, $1.0\%$ for all average rewards, success rates, and failure rates respectively. }
\vspace{-5pt}
\label{table:rand}
\vskip 0.1in
\begin{center}
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{sc}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.2pt}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|c|ccc|ccc|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Task} & \multirow{2}{*}{Type} & \multirow{2}{*}{Size} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{DQN} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{DRQN} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{MQN} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{RMQN} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{FRMQN} \\ \cline{4-18}
& & & reward & success & fail & reward & success & fail & reward & success & fail & reward & success & fail & reward & success & fail \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Single} & train &4-8 & $0.31$ & $90.4\%$ & $0.6\%$ & $\textbf{0.45}$ & $94.5\%$ & $0.1\%$ & $0.01$ & $78.8\%$ & $0.4\%$ & $\textbf{0.49}$ & $95.7\%$ & $0.1\%$ & $\textbf{0.46}$ & $94.6\%$ & $0.3\%$ \\
& unseen & 4-8 & $0.22$ & $87.3\%$ & $0.7\%$ & $0.23$ & $86.6\%$ & $0.2\%$ & $0.02$ & $79.4\%$ & $0.3\%$ & $\textbf{0.30}$ & $89.4\%$ & $0.3\%$ & $\textbf{0.26}$ & $88.0\%$ & $0.5\%$ \\
& unseen-l & 9-14 & $\textbf{-0.28}$ & $70.0\%$ & $0.3\%$ & $-0.40$ & $63.0\%$ & $0.1\%$ & $-0.63$ & $54.3\%$ & $0.4\%$ & $\textbf{-0.28}$ & $69.3\%$ & $0.1\%$ & $\textbf{-0.28}$ & $69.0\%$ & $0.1\%$ \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Seq} & train &5-7 & $-0.60$ & $47.6\%$ & $0.8\%$ & $-0.08$ & $66.0\%$ & $0.6\%$ & $-0.48$ & $52.1\%$ & $0.1\%$ & $\textbf{0.21}$ & $77.0\%$ & $0.2\%$ & $\textbf{0.22}$ & $77.6\%$ & $0.2\%$ \\
& unseen & 5-7 & $-0.66$ & $45.0\%$ & $1.0\%$ & $-0.54$ & $48.5\%$ & $0.9\%$ & $-0.59$ & $48.4\%$ & $0.1\%$ & $\textbf{-0.13}$ & $64.3\%$ & $0.1\%$ & $\textbf{-0.18}$ & $63.1\%$ & $0.3\%$ \\
& unseen-l & 8-10 & $-0.82$ & $36.6\%$ & $1.4\%$ & $-0.89$ & $32.6\%$ & $1.0\%$ & $-0.77$ & $38.9\%$ & $0.6\%$ & $\textbf{-0.43}$ & $49.6\%$ & $1.1\%$ & $\textbf{-0.42}$ & $50.8\%$ & $1.0\%$ \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Single+I} & train &5-7 & $-0.04$ & $79.3\%$ & $6.3\%$ & $0.23$ & $87.9\%$ & $1.2\%$ & $0.11$ & $83.9\%$ & $0.7\%$ & $\textbf{0.34}$ & $91.7\%$ & $0.8\%$ & $0.24$ & $88.0\%$ & $1.4\%$ \\
& unseen & 5-7 & $-0.41$ & $64.8\%$ & $16.1\%$ & $-0.46$ & $61.0\%$ & $13.4\%$ & $-0.46$ & $64.2\%$ & $7.8\%$ & $\textbf{-0.27}$ & $70.0\%$ & $10.2\%$ & $\textbf{-0.23}$ & $71.8\%$ & $8.2\%$ \\
& unseen-l & 8-10 & $-0.74$ & $49.4\%$ & $31.6\%$ & $-0.98$ & $38.5\%$ & $28.3\%$ & $-0.66$ & $55.5\%$ & $17.1\%$ & $\textbf{-0.39}$ & $63.4\%$ & $20.4\%$ & $\textbf{-0.43}$ & $63.4\%$ & $17.2\%$ \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Seq+I} & train &4-6 & $-0.13$ & $68.0\%$ & $7.0\%$ & $0.25$ & $78.5\%$ & $1.1\%$ & $-0.07$ & $67.7\%$ & $2.3\%$ & $0.37$ & $83.7\%$ & $1.0\%$ & $\textbf{0.48}$ & $87.4\%$ & $0.9\%$ \\
& unseen & 4-6 & $-0.58$ & $54.5\%$ & $14.5\%$ & $-0.65$ & $48.8\%$ & $9.7\%$ & $-0.71$ & $47.3\%$ & $7.2\%$ & $\textbf{-0.32}$ & $62.4\%$ & $7.2\%$ & $\textbf{-0.28}$ & $63.8\%$ & $7.5\%$ \\
& unseen-l & 7-9 & $-0.95$ & $39.1\%$ & $17.8\%$ & $-1.14$ & $30.2\%$ & $13.1\%$ & $-1.04$ & $34.4\%$ & $9.9\%$ & $\textbf{-0.60}$ & $49.5\%$ & $12.5\%$ & $\textbf{-0.54}$ & $51.5\%$ & $12.9\%$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.27in
\end{table*}
\vspace*{-0.1in}} %{\vspace*{-0.05in}}
\subsection{Random Mazes: Description and Results}
\label{sec:exp-random-mazes}
\vspace*{-0.04in}} %{\vspace*{-0.04in}}
\paragraph{Task.}
A random maze task consists of randomly generated walls and goal locations as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:map-rand} and~\ref{fig:map-rand-i}. We present 4 classes of tasks using random mazes.
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\setlength\itemsep{0em}
\item \textbf{Single Goal}: The task is to visit the blue block which gives +1 reward while avoiding the red block that gives -1 reward.
\item \textbf{Sequential Goals}: The task is to visit the red block first and then the blue block later which gives +0.5 and +1 reward respectively. If an agent visits the colored blocks in the reverse order, it receives -0.5 and -1 reward respectively.
\item \textbf{Single Goal with Indicator}: If the indicator is yellow, the task is to visit the red block. If the indicator is green, the task is to visit the blue block. Visiting the correct block results in +1 reward and visiting the incorrect block results in -1 reward.
\item \textbf{Sequential Goals with Indicator}: If the indicator is yellow, the task is to visit the blue block first and then the red block. If the indicator is green, the task is to visit the red block first and then the blue block. Visiting the blocks in the correct order results in +0.5 for the first block and +1 reward for the second block. Visiting the blocks in the reverse order results in -0.5 and -1 reward respectively.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-10pt}
We randomly generated 1000 maps used for training and two types of unseen evaluation sets of maps: 1000 maps of the same sizes present in the training maps and 1000 larger maps. The last 10 frames were given as input for all architectures, and the size of memory was set to 9.
\vspace*{-0.00in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Performance on the training set.}
\vspace*{-0.00in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
In this task, the agent not only needs to remember important information while traversing the maps (e.g., an indicator) but it also has to search for the goals as different maps have different obstacle and goal locations. Table~\ref{table:rand} shows that RMQN and FRMQN achieve higher asymptotic performances than the other architectures on the training set of maps.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{figures/plot_dist_singlei_precision_v2.pdf}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Precision vs. distance. X-axis represents the distance between indicator and goal in Single Goal with Indicator task. Y-axis represents the number of correct goal visits divided by the total number of goal visits. }
\label{fig:plot-dist}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Generalization performance.}
\vspace*{-0.00in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
For the larger-sized unseen maps, we terminated episodes after 100 steps rather than 50 steps and used a time penalty of $-0.02$ considering their size. During evaluation, we used 10 frames as input for DQN and DRQN and 30 frames for MQN, RMQN, and FRMQN; these choices gave the best results for each architecture.
The results in Table~\ref{table:rand} show that, as expected, the performance of all the architectures worsen in unseen maps. From the learning curves (see Figure~\ref{fig:plot}e-g), we observed that generalization performance on unseen maps does not improve after some epochs, even though training performance is improving. This implies that improving policies on a fixed set of maps does not necessarily guarantee better performance on new environments. However, RMQN and FRMQN generalize better than the other architectures in most of the tasks. In particular, compared to the other architectures, DRQN's performance is significantly degraded on unseen maps. In addition, while DQN shows good generalization performance on the Single Goal task which primarily requires search, on the other tasks it tends to go to any goal regardless of important information (e.g., color of indicator). This can be seen through the higher failure rate (the number of incorrectly completed episodes divided by the total number of episodes) of DQN on indicator tasks in Table~\ref{table:rand}.
To investigate how well the architectures handle partial observability, we measured precision (proportion of correct goal visits to all goal visits) versus the distance between goal and indicator in Single Goal with Indicator task, which is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:plot-dist}. Notably, the gap between our architectures (RMQN and FRMQN) and the other architectures becomes larger as the distance increases. This result implies that our architectures are better at handling partial observability than the other architectures, because large distance between indicator and goal is more likely to introduce deeper partial observability (i.e., long-term dependency).
Compared to MQN, the RMQN and FRMQN architectures achieve better generalization performance which suggests that the recurrent connections in the latter two architectures are a crucial component for handling random topologies. In addition, FRMQN and RMQN achieve similar performances, which implies that the feedback connection may not be always helpful in these tasks. We note that given a retrieved memory (e.g., indicator), the reasoning required for these tasks is simpler than the reasoning required for Pattern Matching task.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Analysis of memory retrieval.}
\vspace*{-0.00in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
An example of memory retrieval in FRMQN is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:play-seq-i}. It retrieves memory that contains important information (e.g., indicator) before it visits a goal block. The memory retrieval strategy is reasonable and is an evidence that the proposed architectures make it easier to generalize to large-scale environments by better handling partial observability.
\section{Introduction}
\vspace*{-0.05in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.01in}}
\input{introduction.tex}
\vspace*{-0.1in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.03in}}
\section{Related Work} \label{sec:related-work}
\input{related_work.tex}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/memory-write.pdf}
\caption{Write}
\label{fig:mem-write}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/memory-read.pdf}
\caption{Read}
\label{fig:mem-read}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Illustration of memory operations. }
\label{fig:memory}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{-0.1in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.03in}}
\section{Background: Deep Q-Learning}
\vspace*{-0.05in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.01in}}
\input{preliminaries.tex}
\vspace*{-0.1in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.03in}}
\section{Architectures} \label{sec:method}
\vspace*{-0.05in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.01in}}
\input{method.tex}
\section{Experiments}
\vspace*{-0.05in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.01in}}
\input{experiments.tex}
\vspace*{-0.1in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.03in}}
\section{Discussion}
\vspace*{-0.05in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.01in}}
\input{discussion.tex}
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\clearpage
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work was supported by NSF grant IIS-1526059. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.
\bibliographystyle{icml2016}
\subsection{Encoding} \label{sec-encoding}
\vspace*{-0.04in}} %{\vspace*{-0.04in}}
For each time-step, a raw observation (pixels) is encoded to a fixed-length vector as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\textbf{e}_t = \varphi^{enc} \left(\textbf{x}_t\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textbf{x}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{c\times h \times w}$ is $h\times w$ image with $c$ channels, and $\textbf{e}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{e}$ is the encoded feature at time $t$. In this work, we use a CNN to encode the observation.
\vspace*{-0.1in}} %{\vspace*{-0.05in}}
\subsection{Memory} \label{sec-memory}
\vspace*{-0.04in}} %{\vspace*{-0.04in}}
The memory operations in the proposed architectures are similar to those proposed in MemNN.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Write.} \label{sec-memory-write}
\vspace*{-0.00in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
The encoded features of last $M$ observations are linearly transformed and stored into the memory as \textit{key} and \textit{value} memory blocks as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:mem-write}. More formally, two types of memory blocks are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \textbf{M}^{key}_t = \textbf{W}^{key} \textbf{E}_{t} \\
& \textbf{M}^{val}_t = \textbf{W}^{val} \textbf{E}_{t}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textbf{M}^{key}_t,\textbf{M}^{val}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times M}$ are memory blocks with $m$-dimensional embeddings, and $\textbf{W}^{key},\textbf{W}^{val} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times e}$ are parameters of the linear transformations for keys and values respectively. $\textbf{E}_{t}=\left[\textbf{e}_{t-1}, \textbf{e}_{t-2}, ... , \textbf{e}_{t-M} \right] \in \mathbb{R}^{e\times M}$ is the concatenation of features of the last $M$ observations.
\vspace*{-0.15in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
\paragraph{Read.} \label{sec-memory-read}
\vspace*{-0.00in}}%{{\vspace*{-0.1in}}
The reading mechanism of the memory is based on soft attention~\cite{graves2013generating,bahdanau2014neural} as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:mem-read}. Given a context vector $\textbf{h}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ (\S\ref{sec-controller}), the memory module draws soft attention over memory locations (and implicitly time) by computing the inner-product between the context and all key memory blocks as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{t,i} = \frac{\exp{\left( \mathbf{h}^{\top}_t\mathbf{M}^{key}_{t}[i] \right )}}{\sum_{j=1}^{M} \exp{\left( \mathbf{h}^{\top}_t\mathbf{M}^{key}_{t}[j] \right )}}
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_{t,i} \in \mathbb{R}$ is an attention weight for i-th memory block ($t-i$ time-step).
The output of the read operation is the linear sum of the value memory blocks based on the attention weights as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\textbf{o}_t = \textbf{M}^{val}_{t}\textbf{p}_{t}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textbf{o}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ and $\textbf{p}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{M}$ are the retrieved memory and the attention weights respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.60\linewidth]{figures/controller-new.pdf}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Unrolled illustration of FRMQN.
\label{fig:controller}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Context} \label{sec-controller}
\vspace*{-0.04in}} %{\vspace*{-0.04in}}
To retrieve useful information from memory, the context vector should capture relevant spatio-temporal information from the observations. To this end, we present three different architectures for constructing the context vector:
\begin{flalign}
\mbox{MQN: }& \textbf{h}_t = \textbf{W}^{c}\textbf{e}_t \\
\mbox{RMQN: }& \left[\textbf{h}_t, \textbf{c}_t \right] = \mbox{LSTM}\left(\textbf{e}_t, \textbf{h}_{t-1}, \textbf{c}_{t-1}\right) \\
\mbox{FRMQN: }& \left[\textbf{h}_t, \textbf{c}_t \right] = \mbox{LSTM}\left(\left[\textbf{e}_t, \textbf{o}_{t-1} \right], \textbf{h}_{t-1}, \textbf{c}_{t-1}\right)
\end{flalign}
where $\textbf{h}_t,\textbf{c}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ are a context vector and a memory cell of LSTM respectively, and $\left[\textbf{e}_t, \textbf{o}_{t-1} \right]$ denotes concatenation of the two vectors as input for LSTM. \textbf{MQN} is a feedforward architecture that constructs the context based on only the current observation, which is very similar to MemNN except that the current input is used for memory retrieval in the temporal context of an RL problem. \textbf{RMQN} is a recurrent architecture that captures spatio-temporal information from the history of observations using LSTM. This architecture allows for retaining temporal information through LSTM as well as external memory. Finally, \textbf{FRMQN} has a feedback connection from the retrieved memory to the context vector as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:controller}. This allows the FRMQN architecture to refine its context based on the previously retrieved memory so that it can do more complex reasoning as time goes on. Note that feedback connections are analogous to the idea of \textit{multiple hops} in MemNN in the sense that the architecture retrieves memory blocks multiple times based on the previously retrieved memory. However, FRMQN retrieves memory blocks through time, while MemNN does not.
Finally, the architectures estimate action-values by incorporating the retrieved memory and the context vector:
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \textbf{q}_{t} = \varphi^{q}\left(\textbf{h}_t, \textbf{o}_t\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textbf{q}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{a}$ is the estimated action-value, and $\varphi^{q}$ is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) taking two inputs. In the results we report here, we used an MLP with one hidden layer as follows: $\textbf{g}_t = f\left(\textbf{W}^{h}\textbf{h}_t + \textbf{o}_{t}\right), \textbf{q}_{t} = \textbf{W}^{q}\textbf{g}_t$
where $f$ is a rectified linear function~\cite{nair2010rectified} applied only to half of the hidden units for easy optimization by following \citet{sukhbaatar2015end}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Space and time play foundational roles in all experiments and most
equations. Measurement of \textit{space} only requires the definition of a standard
length. What difficulties prevent easy measurement of time? A day or year is too long for
describing the fall of an apple, while heartbeats depend on unpredictable biological
conditions. A pendulum, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:CoordGeo}, oscillates through
\textit{time}, setting a scale on the order of one second when
$l \approx 1/4(m)$ and $g \approx 9.81(m/s^2)$.
History credits Galileo with early discoveries regarding the time dependent behavior
of oscillating pendulums \cite{Ariotti}. He noticed the \textit{isochrony} of identical
pendulums, manifest as one characteristic time, the period. Galileo's initial pronouncement
that the period depends not on amplitude now resounds false. The flourishing of classical
mechanics provides a logical alternative in perturbation theory. Experiments yielding digital
data support predictions contrary to the musings of Galilean renaissance.
The timing of a pendulum does depend on its initial condition\cite{Landau,HarterBook}.
After Legendre and Abel, C.G.J. Jacobi standardized and optimized the solution of the pendulum's motion by
defining a set of elliptic functions\cite{Jacobi,Brizard}. The Jacobian elliptic functions
have many interpretations in physics, but do not fall into the core curriculum
because they present serious technical challenges \cite{JacobiBead,JacobiErdos}.
As an alternative the physics literature contains a variety of approximate solution methods, including:
\textit{ad hoc} \cite{MeanApproximation,KFApproximation}, Lindstedt-Poincar\'{e}
\cite{Landau,Fulcher,Park}, and canonical perturbation theory\cite{Lowenstein}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.45]{ExperimentalGeometry.eps}
\caption{Simple pendulum and coordinate geometry. Half height $a$ determines the period of oscillation.}
\label{fig:CoordGeo}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our novel method views the pendulum as a one-dimensional, anharmonic oscillator with parity
symmetry. In a two-dimensional phase space spanned by position and momentum coordinates,
geometric methods apply. Motion happens along a Conserved Energy Surface (C.E.S.), which
is not too different from the perimeter of a circle. We make a deformation ansatz and apply
an iterative algorithm that sets undetermined functions to force convergence of the energy
to one conserved value. One dimensional oscillators are integrable systems, so time dependence
follows readily.
The program of derivation involves no mistaken assumptions and refuses temptation to plagiarize
standard references. By solving the pendulum equations of motion to high precision, we obtain a
series expansion of the Jacobi Elliptic functions $sn(\vartheta,\alpha)$ and $cn(\vartheta,\alpha)$.
This exercise distinguishes the derivation as arbitrary-precision and free of error.
A third approximation suffices to describe the pendulum's motion through one period so long
as the motion obeys $\theta \in [-\pi/2,\pi/2]$. A thrift experiment takes place in this range.
The setup utilizes a modified USB mouse to produce digital data. Analysis yields extracted
parameters that closely agree with carefully derived predictions.
Ultimately we reveal the details of a semiclassical analogy between time-independent perturbation
theories. In quantum mechanics approximate wavefunctions must nearly conserve energy. Comparing
results for quartic oscillators, we derive a quantum condition, which is equivalent to the
Sommerfeld-Wilson prescription in the classical limit.
\section{Dimensional Analysis}
The plane pendulum consists of a massive bob attached by a string
or a rod, assumed massless, to an axle as in Fig.~\ref{fig:CoordGeo}\cite{HarterBook}.
Gravity acts on the bob with vertical force $mg$, and the attachment applies a response
force, the tension. As time elapses the bob swings and executes a periodic motion
along a circular trajectory of radius $l$. In \textit{librational motion}
the sign of $\dot{\theta}$ alternates while the pendulum reaches a maximum
deflection $\pm\theta_0$ at regular intervals throughout the experiment. The
time of one complete oscillation, say from $\theta_0$ to $-\theta_0$ back to $\theta_0$, is called the
\textit{period}.
Table \ref{tab:PQList} collects the relevant physical quantities, read directly
from Fig.~\ref{fig:CoordGeo}. Dimensional symbols $[\;L\;]$, $[\;M\;]$, and $[\;T\;]$, denote
length, mass, and time. The quantities $\{\sqrt{l/g},\sqrt{a/g},\sqrt{b/g}\}$ all have
dimension of time, $[\;T\;]$. Assuming Galileo's observation correct, $\sqrt{l/g}$ must
be the dimensional scale of time because quantities $\{a,b\}$ depend on the amplitude
of motion.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Dimensional Quantities.}
\label{tab:PQList}
\begin{tabular}{ c | c | c }
\hline \hline
Symbol & \;\;\;\; Dimension \;\;\;\; & Trigonometric Form \\
\hline
$l$ & $[\;L\;]$ & $\cdot$ \\
$a$ & $[\;L\;]$ & $l\;\sin^2(\theta_0/2)$ \\
$b$ & $[\;L\;]$ & $\;\;l\;\sin(\theta_0/2)\;\cos(\theta_0/2)\;\;$ \\
$g$ & $[\;L\;]\;[\;T\;]^{-2}$ & $\cdot$ \\
$m$ & $[\;M\;]$ & $\cdot$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
A naive energy argument improves the estimation. The maximum potential energy is
$2 m g a$. Assume that this energy converts entirely to kinetic energy
as the mass $m$ moves at constant velocity $2\sqrt{ga}$ through a distance $8b$, then
$T_0 \approx 4b/\sqrt{ga} $. In the small angle approximation, $a \ll l$,
$b \approx \sqrt{l\;a}$, and $T_0 \approx 4\;\sqrt{l/g} $, certainly
an underestimate.
The exact period follows from a more sophisticated calculation, again based on conservation
of energy. At any half-height $z=(l/2)(1-\cos(\theta))<a$, the kinetic energy equals $2mg(a-z)$, the velocity
equals $2\sqrt{g(a-z)}$, and the period equals\cite{Landau,Brizard}
\begin{eqnarray}
T(a/l) &= \int_0^{T}dt = 4\int_0^{l\theta_0}\frac{ds}{2\sqrt{g(a-z)}} \\
&= 4 \sqrt{\frac{l}{g}}\int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{d\xi}{\sqrt{1-(a/l)\sin^2(\xi)}}
= 4 \sqrt{\frac{l}{g}} K(\frac{a}{l}),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $ds$ goes along the arc of motion. The complete elliptic integral of the first kind, $K$,
admits no simple closed-form. Alternatively, the small angle approximation
eliminates dependence on $a$ and gives a concise result
\begin{eqnarray}
T_0 &= \lim\limits_{a\rightarrow 0} 4\int_0^{2\;b}\frac{dx}{2\sqrt{g(a-z)}} \\
&= \lim\limits_{a\rightarrow 0} 2\sqrt{\frac{l}{g}}\int_0^{a}\frac{dz}{\sqrt{z(a-z)}} =2\pi\sqrt{\frac{l}{g}} , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which requires small-angle identity $s \approx x \approx 2\sqrt{lz}$ to change from the circular line element $ds$ to
the horizontal $dx$, and finally to the vertical $dz$. The simple result only applies
in the limit $a\rightarrow0$.
In a general one-dimensional oscillation with small-amplitude period $T_0$,
we usually have something along the lines
\begin{equation}
T(\alpha,\boldsymbol\epsilon) = f(\alpha,\boldsymbol\epsilon)\; T_0 ,
\end{equation}
with $f(\alpha,\boldsymbol\epsilon)$ a complicated function
of dimensionless energy $\alpha$, and $\boldsymbol\epsilon$, structure
constants of the potential energy.
With the pendulum experiment the trouble is in the initial conditions. Each initial condition
determines one critical parameter
\begin{equation}
\alpha = a/l = \frac{1}{2}\big( 1 - \cos(\theta_0) \big) = \sin^2(\theta_0 / 2),
\end{equation}
proportional to the total energy. In the simple harmonic
approximation $\alpha$ tends to zero as $\theta_0^2$. Considering this fact,
the hypothesis that factor $f(\alpha,\boldsymbol\epsilon) \rightarrow f(\alpha)$
has a non-terminating power series expansion seems likely. Referencing the expansion
of $K(\alpha)$ \cite{Wolfram} we have
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\alpha) =\frac{T(\alpha)}{T_0} = \frac{2}{\pi}K(\alpha)
= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \bigg(\frac{(2\;n-1)!!}{(2\;n)!!}\bigg)^2\;\alpha^n \nonumber\\
= 1+\frac{\alpha}{4} + \frac{9 \alpha^2}{64} + \frac{25 \alpha^3}{256} \ldots
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\end{eqnarray}
Numerous approximation schemes (cf. \cite{MeanApproximation}, Table III) aim to simplify the
description of a pendulum's \textit{anharmonicity}, as measured by coefficients to the
powers of $\alpha$. At small $\alpha$ all formulae for $T(\alpha)$ must asymptotically approach Eq.5, so
exact and approximate agreement to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$
respectively is a common feature of the many published results. For example,
the empirical Kidd-Fogg formula \cite{KFApproximation} has
\begin{equation}
f(\alpha) =\frac{1}{(1-\alpha)^{1/4}} = 1+\frac{\alpha}{4} + \frac{5 \alpha^2}{32} + \frac{15 \alpha^3}{128} \ldots
\end{equation}
Of course, other factors introduce uncertainty to physical experiments \cite{Nelson}, and
these uncertainties always cause the data to deviate from theoretical expectations. Say that we
write the standard deviation $\sigma$ in units of $T_0$, then $\sigma$ competes in order of
magnitude with terms from the expansion of $f(\alpha)$ until eventually, for some integer $n$, we have $c_n\;\alpha^n \ll \sigma$.
This logic is useful in data analysis and gives some restraint to our exploration of approximate solutions.
\section{Phase Space Geometry}
\subsection{Small Angle Approximation}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{Parabaloid.eps}
\caption{Total Energy Surface. Level sets of the total energy function project
trajectories into the plane of phase space, the Conserved Energy Surfaces. }
\label{fig:Para}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In terms of the phase space coordinates, $(\widetilde{q},\widetilde{p})=(l\;\theta , m\;l\;\dot{\theta})$,
the pendulum kinetic and potential energy are
\begin{equation}
T = \widetilde{p}^2/2m, \;\;\;\;\; V = m \;g\; l \;(1-\cos(\widetilde{q}/l)).
\end{equation}
The potential expands in power series
\begin{equation}
V = m \;g\; l \;\sum_{n=1} \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{(2n)!}(\widetilde{q}/l)^{2n}.
\end{equation}
In the small angle approximation we assume that $\widetilde{q} \ll l$ throughout the experiment.
Keeping only the first potential term allows us to write the conserved, total energy of the
pendulum oscillator in the small angle approximation
\begin{equation}
E(\alpha) = 2\;m\;g\;l\;\alpha \approx \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{m}\widetilde{p}^2 + \frac{m\;g}{l} \widetilde{q}^2).
\end{equation}
Clearly there exists a bijection between energies and elliptical
trajectories, depicted as a projection in Fig.~\ref{fig:Para}.
Define radius $\Psi$ and angle $\phi$ the polar coordinates of phase space.
Each closed curve $\Psi(\alpha,\phi) \rightarrow \Psi(\alpha)$ is alternatively a
\textit{phase space trajectory } or a \textit{Conserved Energy Surface} (C.E.S.).
It is much easier to determine time dynamics in a system of measurement where the phase
space trajectory takes the particular form of a circle, so we need to apply a canonical
transformation\cite{RalstonSymp}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\widetilde{q} \rightarrow q & = \bigg(\frac{m^2\;g}{l}\bigg)^{1/4}\;\widetilde{q}\;, \\
\widetilde{p} \rightarrow p & = \bigg(\frac{l}{m^2\;g}\bigg)^{1/4}\;\widetilde{p}\;, \\
E(\alpha) \rightarrow E(\alpha) & = \frac{\omega_0}{2}\big(p^2 + q^2\big),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $\omega_0=\sqrt{g/l}$. Transformation Eq. 10 takes elliptical trajectories into circular trajectories
with equal energy and equal enclosed \textit{phase area}
\begin{equation}
\lambda(\alpha) = \oint d\widetilde{q} \; \widetilde{p}(\alpha,\widetilde{q}) = \oint dq \; p(\alpha,q).
\end{equation}
The period
\begin{equation}
T(\alpha) = \oint dt = \oint d\widetilde{q}\;\frac{m}{\widetilde{p}(\alpha,\widetilde{q})} = \oint \frac{dq}{\omega_0\;p(\alpha,q)},
\end{equation}
also remains invariant under the canonical transformation Eq. 10. To see this we use another
definition\cite{Arnold} for the period
\begin{equation}
T = \frac{d\lambda}{dE} = \oint dq \bigg(\frac{dE}{dp}\bigg)^{-1} = \oint \frac{dq}{\omega_0\;p} ,
\end{equation}
with $\alpha$ dependence suppressed. This equation proves a connection between the physical period of motion
and the purely geometric phase area.
As $\lambda(\alpha)$ and $E(\alpha)$ remain invariant under canonical transformation
so too must $T(\alpha)$.
Circular trajectories transform invariantly under rotations around the origin of phase
space, which immediately implies $\ddot{\phi}=0$. Then the time-dependent
solution to the equations of motion is
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
q = \Psi(\alpha,0) \; \cos\big(-\omega_0 ( t-t_0) \big) , \\
p = \Psi(\alpha,0) \; \sin\big(-\omega_0 ( t-t_0) \big) ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with angular frequency $\omega_0 = 2\;\pi/T_0$, $t_0$ an arbitrary constant.
The small angle approximation does not say anything about the expansion for $T(\alpha)$. To
illustrate the dangers of approximation, let us work out a clever ruse. With
$\widetilde{q} \ll l \Longrightarrow l\theta_0 \approx 2b$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi(\alpha,0)^2 & = (\frac{m^2 g}{l})^{\frac{1}{2}}(2b)^2= 4\;\beta^2\;m \;\sqrt{g\;l^3} \;\;\;\; \\
& = 4\;\alpha\;(1-\alpha)\;m\;\sqrt{g\;l^3} \nonumber,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta^2 = (b/l)^2 = \alpha\;(1-\alpha)$. The constant radius $\Psi(\alpha,0)$ determines
the phase area bounded by closed-curve $\Psi(\alpha)$, again assumed circular,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda(\alpha) &= \oint p(\alpha,q) \;dq = \int_0^{2\;\pi} d\phi \int_0^{\Psi(\alpha,0)} r \;dr \;\;\;\;\; \\
& = \pi\;\Psi(\alpha,0)^2 = \lambda_0\;(\alpha-\alpha^2), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_0 = 2\;m\;g\;l\;T_0\;$. We have yet to determine $T(\alpha)$, and do
not assume that $T(\alpha)=T_0$. Instead we calculate $T(\alpha)$ by the beautiful
formula Eq. 13.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.35]{PeriodGraph.eps}
\caption{Comparison of Period Approximations. The small angle approximation doesn't prevent wrong, divergent predictions.
Labels for convergent approximations follow naming convention of section IIIB. }
\label{fig:PeriodGraph}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our \textit{phase space geometry} consists of a triple
$\{E, \Psi , \lambda \}$. In the small angle approximation,
height $E(\alpha)$ is an exact function of $\alpha$ while perimeter
$\Psi(\alpha)$ and area $\lambda(\alpha)$ are merely approximations,
so we expect to find inconsistency in the geometry wherever the
assumptions break down,
\begin{equation}
f(\alpha) = \frac{1}{T_0} \frac{d \alpha}{d E} \frac{d \lambda}{d\alpha} = \frac{1}{\lambda_0} \frac{d \lambda}{d\alpha} = (1-2\;\alpha).
\end{equation}
Comparing with Eq. 5, we see that $T(\alpha)$ in the small angle approximation
may give the wrong $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ asymptote as depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:PeriodGraph}. Worse, the small angle approximation
allows us to predict incorrectly that the period \textit{decreases}
with increasing total energy!
\subsection{Simple Anharmonic Approximation}
The \textit{reductio ad absurdum} of section III.A clearly states the need to find a better approximation
of the exact phase space geometry. To present results in a more general fashion, we
treat the pendulum as an anharmonic oscillator with a potential $V$. The potential expands in power series
around a position of stable equilibrium, i.e.,
$\frac{\partial V}{\partial q}|_{q=0} = 0,\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial q^2}|_{q=0}>0$.
Imposing the symmetry constraint $V(q) = V(-q)$, the most general form for the total energy
reduces to
\begin{equation}
E =\frac{\omega_0}{2}\big(p^2 + q^2\big) +\sum_{n=1}\frac{\omega_0}{(2(n+1))!}\frac{\epsilon_{n}}{\lambda_{\pi}^{n}}q^{2(n+1)},
\end{equation}
We make an ansatz of the form
\begin{equation}
\Psi(\alpha,\phi) = \sqrt{2\;\lambda_{\pi}\;\alpha} \; \bigg(\;1 + \sum_n \alpha^n \; \psi_n(\phi)\;\bigg) ,\;\;\;\;\;
\end{equation}
with $\lambda_{\pi} = \frac{\lambda_0}{2\;\pi}$.
Our strategy is to substitute $\Psi(\alpha,\phi)$ into the energy equation, and determine the functions $\psi_n(\phi)$ in terms of the
expansion coefficients $\epsilon_n$ by forcing the energy to equal $\lambda_{\pi}\omega_0\alpha + \mathcal{O}(\alpha^{N+2})$ for
some integer $N \ge 0$. As the C.E.S. more nearly obeys conservation of energy, the approximation improves.
\subsubsection{$N=1$, The $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ Approximation}
A first approximation only requires the first term of each sum in Eqs. 18 \& 19. Applying
$(q,p)\rightarrow(\Psi(\alpha,\phi)\cos(\phi),\Psi(\alpha,\phi)\sin(\phi))$ to the energy
equation and collecting terms by order, we have
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\alpha \;&:\;\lambda_{\pi}\omega_0\alpha, \\
\alpha^2 \;&:\; \lambda_{\pi} \omega_0 \alpha^2 \big(\frac{\epsilon_1}{6}\;\cos(\phi)^4+2\;\psi_1(\phi)\big).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Setting terms at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ equal to zero and solving for $\psi_1(\phi)$,
we find
\begin{equation}
\Psi(\alpha,\phi) = \sqrt{2\;\lambda_{\pi}\;\alpha}\big(1-\frac{\epsilon_1}{12}\;\alpha\;\cos^4(\phi)+\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)\big).
\end{equation}
As in section III.A. the phase space geometry determines approximate quantities
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\lambda(\alpha) &= \oint p(\alpha,q) \;dq = \int_0^{2\;\pi} d\phi \int_0^{\psi(\alpha,\phi)} r \;dr \;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
& = \lambda_0\;(\;\alpha-\frac{\epsilon_1\;\alpha^2}{16}) + \mathcal{O}(\alpha^3), \\
f(\alpha) & = 1-\frac{\epsilon_1\;\alpha}{8} + \mathcal{O}(\alpha^2). \;\;\;\;
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The pendulum has $\epsilon_1=-2$, which makes Eq. 22b asymptotic with Eq. 5 to
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$.
\subsubsection{$N=2$, The $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ Approximation}
The approximation improves if we include summands for $n=1$ and $n=2$.
Evaluation of the energy yields the same constraints as above and
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha^3 \;&:\; \lambda_{\pi} \omega_0 \alpha^3\big(\;
\frac{1}{90}\; \epsilon_2\;\cos^6(\phi) + 2 \; \psi_2(\phi)
\\
&+ \frac{2}{3} \;\epsilon_1\;\cos^4(\phi) \; \psi_1(\phi) + \psi_1(\phi)^2\;\big). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Setting $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ terms equal to zero,
substituting the determined form of $\psi_1(\phi)$,
and solving for $\psi_2(\phi)$ determines
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi(\alpha,\phi) & = \sqrt{2\;\lambda_{\pi}\;\alpha}\big(1-\frac{\epsilon_1}{12}\;\alpha\;\cos^4(\phi) \\
& +\frac{7\;\epsilon_1^2}{288}\;\alpha^2\;\cos^8(\phi) -\frac{\epsilon_2}{180}\;\alpha^2\;\cos^6(\phi)+\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)\big). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The estimation of $f(\alpha)$ slightly improves,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\lambda(\alpha) &= \lambda_0\;(\alpha-\frac{\epsilon_1\;\alpha^2}{16} \\
&+\frac{35\;\epsilon_1^2 \;\alpha^3}{2304}-\frac{\epsilon_2\;\alpha^3}{288}) + \mathcal{O}(\alpha^4) \nonumber \\
f(\alpha) & = 1 - \frac{\epsilon_1\;\alpha}{8} \\
& + \frac{35\;\epsilon_1^2 \;\alpha^2}{768}-\frac{\epsilon_2\;\alpha^2}{96}
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha^3). \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Inserting pendulum values $(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)=(-2,4)$ makes Eq. 25b
asymptotic with Eq. 5 to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$.
\subsubsection{The $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^N)$ Approximation}
By iterating the procedure applied for $N=1$ and $N=2$, we obtain an approximation
to arbitrary order. Every $\psi_n(\phi)$ can be expanded in Fourier series or in
even powers of cosine. For smooth potentials with a single minimum, the
approximation converges according to
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty}E=\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \lambda_{\pi}\omega_0\alpha
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha^{N+2}) = \lambda_{\pi}\omega_0\alpha.
\end{equation}
If the $\boldsymbol\epsilon$ coefficients grow rapidly or contain a divergence, then more
detailed analysis is required.
A simple symbolic computation calculates higher order expansions by routine. Taking the pendulum as
an example with $\epsilon_n = (-2)^n$, we write a simple code, and store expansion coefficients in
the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences \cite{OEIS} (Cf.
\href{https://oeis.org/A273506}{A273506},
\href{https://oeis.org/A273507}{A273507},
\href{https://oeis.org/A274130}{A274130},
\href{https://oeis.org/A274131}{A274131},
\href{https://oeis.org/A274076}{A274076},
\href{https://oeis.org/A274078}{A274078}). Relaxing the condition $V(q)=V(-q)$, we also calculate
various expansions for a potential where the $\boldsymbol\epsilon$ variables take on arbitrary values
(Cf.
\href{https://oeis.org/A276738}{A276738},
\href{https://oeis.org/A276814}{A276814},
\href{https://oeis.org/A276815}{A276815},
\href{https://oeis.org/A276816}{A276816}).
\textit{Mathematica} algorithms available via OEIS entries \href{https://oeis.org/A273506}{A273506} and
\href{https://oeis.org/A276816}{A276816} give two different ways to compute
arbitrary precision expansions of phase space trajectories and $K(\alpha)$\cite{Klee}. Whenever $N<10$,
these algorithms operate in small time on a personal computer. For moderate ranges of $\alpha$, enumeration
beyond $N=3$ follows a law of diminishing returns. As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:PeriodGraph}, the
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ approximation already captures to within $1\%$, the exact behavior of the pendulum
in the range $\alpha \in [0,1/2]$, $\theta_0 \in [-\pi/2,\pi/2]$, where our experiment takes place.
\subsection{Time Dependence}
The phase space trajectory determines time evolution
\begin{eqnarray}
dt = \frac{dq}{\omega_0\;p} = \frac{d\phi}{\omega_0} \bigg(\frac{\Psi'(\alpha,\phi)}{\Psi(\alpha,\phi)}\; cot(\phi)-1 \bigg),
\end{eqnarray}
where prime indicates differentiation with respect to $\phi$. Again expand in powers of
$\alpha$
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Psi'(\alpha,\phi)}{\Psi(\alpha,\phi)} = \alpha \; \psi_1'(\phi)
+ \alpha^2\;\big( \; \psi_2'(\phi) - \\
\psi_1(\phi)\;\psi_1'(\phi)\;\big) +\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Between two near points in phase space
\begin{eqnarray}
dt & \approx \frac{d \phi}{\omega_0}\big(-1+ \frac{1}{3} \; \cos^4(\phi)\;\epsilon_1\;\alpha \\
& + (\;\frac{1}{30}\;\cos^6(\phi)\;\epsilon_2 -\frac{1}{6}\;\cos^8(\phi)\;\epsilon_1^2\;)\;\alpha^2 \; \big), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we drop terms higher than $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$. Expanding cosine terms (Cf. \href{https://oeis.org/A273496}{A273496}) allows direct integration
of $dt$; however, results at high order are not easy to express in concise form. To first order
\begin{eqnarray}
t_1 &= \int_0^{t_1} dt = -\frac{\phi_1}{\omega_0}(1-\frac{\epsilon_1\;\alpha}{8}) \\
&+\frac{\alpha\;\epsilon_1}{\omega_0}\big(\frac{1}{12} \sin(2\phi_1) + \frac{1}{96} \sin(4\phi_1) \big) + \mathcal{O}(\alpha^2), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with limits $\phi(0)=0$ and $ \phi(t_1)=\phi_1$. By Lagrange inversion we could in principle obtain
$\phi_1(t_1)$ \cite{Lang,WW27}.
Alternatively, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\phi}{dt} = \dot{\phi}(\phi) = \cos^{2}(\phi)\frac{d}{dt}\bigg( \tan(\phi)\bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
Using the equations of motion and substituting an approximation for
$\frac{d}{dt}\tan(\phi)=(q\dot{p}-\dot{q}p)/q^2$, we obtain expressions for the phase
space angular velocity, such as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\phi}{dt} \approx -\omega\bigg( \; 1+ \frac{1}{3} \; \cos^4(\phi)\;\epsilon_1\;\alpha
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \\
+ \big(\frac{1}{30}\; \cos^6(\phi) \; \epsilon_2 -\frac{1}{18} \; \cos^8(\phi)\; \epsilon_1^2 \; \big)\; \alpha^2 \; \bigg).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The phase velocity $\dot{\phi}$ depends on the phase angle $\phi$, as expected in
any oscillation where the phase space trajectory deforms away from elliptical or circular
shape. Either limit $(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2) \rightarrow (0,0)$ or $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ recovers
constant $\dot{\phi}$, when again trajectories become ellipses or circles.
There are numerous well known methods for calculating numerical time evolution of a Hamiltonian
system including symplectic integration \cite{Symplectic}. In the present case, time evolution
occurs along the one-dimensional C.E.S. The standard Runge-Kutta algorithm applies; though,
the task of integration requires only minimal complexity. The simple Euler's method (RK1) suffices.
Iteration through time according to $\dot{\phi}$ yields time-dependent predictions, as depicted
in Fig.~\ref{fig:TimeEvo}. This is the first plot to clearly show anharmonicity as anisochronous
motion of pendulums with different initial conditions.
Around $\alpha = 0$ all approximations become indistinguishable. To $\alpha=1/2$, the
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ approximation closely matches the exact numerical solution, which
is nearly indistinguishable from the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ approximation. Isochrony becomes
more pronounced at high $\alpha$ where, after $8$ intervals of $\Delta t = T_0/8$,
the pendulum does not nearly reach its initial condition.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.28]{TimeEvolution.eps}
\caption{Time Evolution of Pendulums in Phase Space. The $N=10$ ( black ), $N=1$ ( gray ),
and circular ( dashed gray ) trajectories are plotted for $ \alpha = \{0.01,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5 \} $.
The $N=10$ trajectory completely overlaps the $N=3$ trajectory for all $\alpha$ values, showing
convergence. Small filed circles mark initial conditions, while open circles indicate the state of a system
at intervals of $\Delta t = T_0/8$ as it rotates clock-wise through phase space. Large open circles are
calculated by the technique of symplectic integration.}
\label{fig:TimeEvo}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Comparison with Standards}
\subsection{Jacobian Elliptic Functions}
The Jacobian elliptic functions determine exactly the phase space geometry of the simple pendulum.
The properties of these functions are well known and recorded in a number of standard resources
\cite{Abramowitz,WW27,Wolfram}. Paul Erd\"os gives a creative, geometric introduction via the
Seiffert spirals\cite{JacobiErdos}.
The exact pendulum phase space trajectory is
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
q(\alpha,\vartheta) &= \sqrt{2 \;\lambda_{\pi} }\;\arcsin(\sqrt{\alpha}\;sn(\vartheta,\alpha)) , \\
p(\alpha,\vartheta) & =
\sqrt{2 \;\lambda_{\pi}\;\alpha}\;cn(\vartheta,\alpha) , \\
\Psi(\alpha,\vartheta) &=\sqrt{q(\alpha,\vartheta)^2+p(\alpha,\vartheta)^2},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $cn$, $sn$ are Jacobian elliptic functions of angular coordinate $\vartheta = K(\alpha)+\omega_0\;t$
with period $4K(\alpha)$.
Substituting in time dependence such as Eq. 30, it is possible to expand $\Psi(\alpha,\vartheta)$ in
powers of $\alpha$ and prove, order-by-order, equivalence between the exact solution and the
approximate solution of III.B. We need not perform this tedious calculation, for any
solution that conserves energy must be equivalent to the exact solution. Rather, let us explore
convergence by plotting the approximations of $sn$ and $cn$ near the divergence $\alpha=1$.
Setting the left hand side of Eqs. 33a-b equal to an $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^N)$ approximation
allows us to solve for an approximation of both $sn$ and $cn$ \cite{Klee}. Composing approximate trajectories
$\Psi(\alpha,\phi)$ and time dependence $t(\phi)$ gives parametric function graphs appropriately
scaled for comparison, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:SnCnCompare}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{CnSnApprox.eps}
\caption{Approximation Around the Divergence. Approximations of $sn$ and $cn$ for $N\in 1,2,3,\ldots 10$ are shown to
approach the exact functions, even at $\alpha = 0.9$. Vertical lines mark the end of one complete period of the $N^{th}$
approximation.}
\label{fig:SnCnCompare}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Once we extend the approximation to functions such as $cn$ and $sn$, it becomes possible to treat other
classical motions. We could solve Euler's equations for the free rotational motion of a rigid
body\cite{Landau}, or describe a photon orbit around a Kerr black hole\cite{Stein}.
Using the inversion relations\cite{Brizard,JacobiErdos}, we could approximate rotational
motion ($\alpha>1$) of a plane pendulum. We follow Erd\"os\cite{JacobiErdos} by plotting a
couple of Seiffert spirals\cite{Seiffert}, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Seiffert}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.55]{SeiffertSpirals.eps}
\caption{Approximating Seiffert Spirals. For small $\alpha$, $N=1$ approximations closely follow exact Seiffert spirals (left).
Approximate trajectories (gray) for $N=1,2,3,\ldots 6$ approach the exact spiral when $\alpha \approx 0.628$ (right).
The $N=7$ approximation (black) appears nearly indistinguishable from the exact spiral.}
\label{fig:Seiffert}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Comparing Figs. ~\ref{fig:TimeEvo},~\ref{fig:SnCnCompare}, and ~\ref{fig:Seiffert} gives an idea of
limitations encountered when truncating an arbitrary precision result. In a ''small angle'',
even a simple approximation works well. As $\alpha$ becomes large, more terms in the expansion
need to be computed. Slow convergence motivates nome expansions\cite{Jacobi}, useful to know
of, but unnecessary in the present context.
\subsection{Alternative Approaches}
\subsubsection{Canonical Perturbation Theory}
The Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics also allows one to obtain an
arbitrary-precision expansion for the phase space trajectory by applying
a succession of canonical transformations \cite{Lowenstein}. The method
above is similar in spirit but with a gentle learning curve.
\subsubsection{Mistaken Expansions}
A great many authors \cite{Landau,Fulcher,Park} recommend
solving anharmonic oscillations by some variant of the
Lindstedt-Poincar\'{e} method. This method is error-prone, and usually a
wrong assumption is made regarding time dependence (cf. Eq. 30), leading
to something like $\psi_1(\phi) \propto \cos^2(\phi)$ rather than
$\psi_1(\phi) \propto \cos^4(\phi)$. Taking the wrong $\psi_1(\phi)$,
it is still possible to compute the correct term of the $f(\alpha)$ series
expansion, so the mistake often escapes notice.
\section{Experimental Verification}
The experimental setup, procedure, and analysis for determining the period of a plane pendulum
are among the most simple and ubiquitous in the physics classroom. A majority of physics students
have completed the basic experiment, while relatively few go on to measure amplitude dependence
of the period. As is usual in measurement of small perturbations, more stringent precision goals
require more sophisticated technology. To make fine measurements of the pendulum's motion, we
need to implement a system with digital data acquisition.
\subsection{Setup and Data Processing}
Experimental systems are available at cost from manufacturers of scientific classroom equipment, but
a USB mouse device \cite{BallPendulum, OpticalPendulum} provides a thrifty DIY solution, our preference. After modifying the
mouse into a digital pendulum, we connect it to a Linux work station running the
X window system \cite{ArchXorg}. The utility program \texttt{xdotool} measures the cursor
location directly from the computer's desktop environment. Integrating with a \texttt{bash}
script obtains data at nearly millisecond resolution while the pendulum goes through damping
from maximum amplitude to stop, as in Fig. ~\ref{fig:Data}.
The oscillation decays through time, only by a small amount per period. Partitioning
at zero-amplitude intercepts obtains a division of the amplitude vs. time data into
a number of non-overlapping, nearly-sinusoidal samples of one-period duration.
Averaging maximum and minimum amplitude, we then associate one-to-one a set of periods
and a set of amplitudes. Converting amplitude to energy yields a set of period vs. energy
values. Repeating this process for 100 separate trials, we obtain a dense sample,
as in Fig. ~\ref{fig:Data}.
The bulk data obviously shows significant noise, but the sheer number of data points,
more than $2000$, enables noise reduction by a procedure of binning and averaging.
We set meta-analysis parameters for bin width $\Delta\alpha$ and a minimum energy
cutoff $\alpha_{min}$ to obtain a more manageable data set, with no apparent
noise problem.
\subsection{Recursive Data Analysis}
Of course we are not the first to obtain digital pendulum data, or even the first
to analyze amplitude dependence \cite{EuroMeasure,DigitalPendulum,AnharmMeasure}.
We fit $K(\alpha)$ using the period as a free parameter and observe good agreement
over the data range, as in previous investigations. To determine just how well $K(\alpha)$
describes the data requires a novel analysis.
It should be possible to extract expansion coefficients by fitting a cubic function to
the data, but immediately we encounter a covariance problem. The slope of the data does not
change sign, remains nearly flat. One pass analysis yields inaccurate parameter estimation,
a wide range of plausible fits.
To improve accuracy and precision we take advantage of the data's asymptotic nature by partitioning
the entire set into three simply connected, disjoint subsets. This introduces two additional analysis priors,
energy values, $\alpha_{LQ}$ and $\alpha_{QC}$, which demarcate boundaries as in Fig. ~\ref{fig:Data}.
The fit procedure first determines the period and linear expansion coefficient from linear data,
subsequently determines the quadratic expansion coefficient from the union of linear and quadratic
data, finally determines the cubic expansion coefficient from all data.
In total, the analysis depends on four meta-analysis parameters: $\{\alpha_{min},\Delta\alpha,\alpha_{LQ},\alpha_{QC}\}$.
To set these values we adopt the following heuristics:
\begin{itemize}
\item Use as much data as possible.
\item Exclude noisy data around $\alpha=0$.
\item Make the bin width as small as possible.
\item Capture at least 10 data points per bin.
\item In the linear range $[0,\alpha_{LQ}]$:
$$ \frac{2}{\pi}K(\alpha) - (1+\frac{1}{4}\alpha) < 0.001 \times \frac{2}{\pi}K(\alpha). $$
\item In the quadratic range $[0,\alpha_{QC}]$:
$$ \frac{2}{\pi}K(\alpha) - (1+\frac{1}{4}\alpha+\frac{9}{64}\alpha^2) < 0.001 \times \frac{2}{\pi}K(\alpha). $$
\item The extracted linear, quadratic, cubic coefficients should have increasing uncertainty.
\item Minimize uncertainty where possible.
\end{itemize}
From these we have initial values $\{\alpha_{min},\Delta\alpha,\alpha_{LQ},\alpha_{QC}\}
=\{0.003,0.013,0.083,0.21 \}$. Searching around, not too far,
we find the best fit of Table \ref{tab:params}. Comparison of extracted parameters with coefficients
of Eq. 6 leads to the humorous conclusion that the Kidd-Fogg formula\textemdash
though false \textit{de facto}\textemdash also adequately fits the data. That is,
the cubic fit does not distinguish between competing Eqs.5-6. To decide against
Kidd-Fogg by data alone requires an experiment with sufficient quality up to and
beyond $\alpha=0.6$, i.e. $5-10$ expansion coefficients of $K(\alpha)$.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Cubic Best Fit Parameters.}
\label{tab:params}
$\{\alpha_{min},\Delta\alpha,\alpha_{LQ},\alpha_{QC}\} =\{0.003,0.013,0.08,0.22 \}$
\begin{tabular}{ c | c | c }
\hline \hline
\;\;\;Expectation\;\;\; & \;\;\;\;\;\; Estimate \;\;\;\;\;\; & \;\;\;\;\;\;Error\;\;\;\;\;\; \\
\hline
$\frac{1}{4}\approx 0.2500$ &$0.2463\pm 0.0071$ & $0.52 \sigma \;, \; 1.5\%$ \\
$\frac{9}{64}\approx 0.1406$ &$0.1508\pm 0.0082$ & $1.24 \sigma \; , \; 7.2\%$ \\
$\frac{25}{256}\approx 0.0977$ &$0.1037\pm 0.0126$ & $0.48 \sigma \; , \; 6.2\%$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Choosing other vales for $\{\alpha_{min},\Delta\alpha,\alpha_{LQ},\alpha_{QC}\}$ we obtain
similar best fit parameters, especially when heuristics are nearly obeyed. To facilitate
comparison of various analyses, archival data and basic tools are available
online\cite{GITKlee,AURKlee}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.22]{Data.eps}
\caption{Measuring $K(\alpha)$. Above: Sample amplitude vs. time data. Below: Period vs.
energy data points in gray are binned and averaged into the black points. Sequential linear
and quadratic fits are depicted as dashed lines, while final cubic fit is a solid line going
through all points. Dashed vertical lines mark the boundaries between data subsets. }
\label{fig:Data}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantum Classical Analogy}
The choice of nomenclature in section III suggests a quantum/classical analogy at work.
The symbol $\Psi$ connotes a quantum wavefunction, but
above it denotes a C.E.S. Our use of $\Psi$ follows other
semi-classical works \cite{Harter,RalstonSymp}. In the sequel, we extend the analogy to
time-independent perturbation theory.
\subsection{Conservation of Energy}
Whenever we use approximate methods in the analysis of physical systems,
classical or quantum, we also introduce terms of error at some level of
precision. For example, approximation of a pendulum's motion may only conserve total energy
up to some power of $\alpha$. A similar situation often arises in quantum
mechanics.
We assume a Hamiltonian $H = H_0+\epsilon\;V$ for which the eigenstates $|\psi_n \rangle$ are
approximately known and non-degenerate,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
H |\psi_n \rangle & = E_n\;|\psi_n \rangle \\
H_0|\psi_{n,0} \rangle & = E_{n,0}|\psi_{n,0} \rangle.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The standard perturbation theory\cite{Peebles} determines corrections to the zero-order
wavefunctions and energies.
To first order, the time-independent Schr\"odinger equation becomes
\begin{equation}
H |\psi_{n,1} \rangle = ( E_{n,0}+ \epsilon\; E_{n,1})|\psi_{n,1} \rangle +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).
\end{equation}
We make the ansatz
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{n,1} \rangle = |\psi_{n,0} \rangle + \sum_{i \neq n}\epsilon\;c_{n,i}^1\; |\psi_{i,0} \rangle,
\end{equation}
and solve for
\begin{equation}
c_{n,i}^1 = \frac{\langle \psi_{i,0} |V|\psi_{n,0} \rangle}{E_{n,0}-E_{i,0}}, \;\;\;\;\;
E_{n,1} = \langle \psi_{n,0} |V|\psi_{n,0} \rangle.
\end{equation}
As with classical perturbation theory, quantum perturbation theory allows iteration to arbitrary
$N$ \cite{SinghQuant}, where the approximate eigenfunctions
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{n,N} \rangle = |\psi_{n,0} \rangle + \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{i \neq n}\epsilon^j\;c^j_{n,i}\; |\psi_{i,0} \rangle,
\end{equation}
are nearly stationary with regard to energy
\begin{equation}
H|\psi_{n,N} \rangle = \sum_{i=0}^N \epsilon^i \; E_{n,i} |\psi_{n,N} \rangle +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{N+1}).
\end{equation}
Though again a law of diminishing returns applies to higher order corrections.
The semiclassical analogy associates conservation of energy with the eigenvalue equation.
In either theory, iteration of a recursive algorithm changes the shape of a
C.E.S. or a wavefunction such that the perturbed solution becomes
increasingly precise ( Cf. Fig. ~\ref{fig:QuantPert} ).
As time evolves the $N^{th}$ classical approximation satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE}{dt}=0 + \mathcal{O}(\alpha^{N+2}).
\end{equation}
To find an analogous equation in quantum dynamics, we apply an
infinitesimal time-translation by expanding the Hamiltonian propagator
\begin{eqnarray}
& |\psi_{n,N}(t + \Delta t)\rangle = e^{-\frac{i \Delta t}{\hbar} H }|\psi_{n,N}(t)\rangle \\
& \approx (1-\frac{i \Delta t}{\hbar} H )|\psi_{n,N}(t)\rangle \nonumber \\
& \approx (1-\frac{i \Delta t}{\hbar} \sum_{i=0}^N \epsilon^i \; E_{n,i} )|\psi_{n,N}(t)\rangle +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{N+1}) \nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
This equation shows that time-evolution acts on the approximate eigenfunctions as a change of complex
phase, but only to $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{N+1})$. Complex phases cancel in expectation products, so
Eq. 41 implies no worse convergence than
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\langle H \rangle}{dt} = 0 + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{N+1}).
\end{eqnarray}
As ever, the analogy involves an obvious fallacy: $\alpha$ and $\epsilon$ are
dimensionless quantities belonging to two separate classes. In the classical theory, we
suppress dependence on the $\epsilon$ coefficients and implicitly assume that a convergence
criteria can always be stated as a maximum value for $\alpha$ given an approximation and
a precision goal. The quantum theory requires quantization of $\alpha$. After more
exploration and explicit calculation, we hope to gain a better understanding of the
semiclassical analogy's inner workings.
\subsection{Quantum Anharmonic Oscillator}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.25]{Gaussian12.eps}
\caption{Perturbed oscillator wavefunction. From light gray to black, the approximate wavefunctions
for $N=0,1,2$ with parameter values $\epsilon_1=-2$ and $ h/\lambda_0 = 1$. }
\label{fig:QuantPert}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We consider the quantum anharmonic oscillator, with Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H = \frac{\omega_0}{2}(p^2 + q^2) + \frac{\omega_0}{24}\frac{\epsilon_1}{\lambda_{\pi}}\;q^4.
\end{equation}
Using the technique of ladder operators, it is relatively easy to solve for
energy to $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
E_{n,0} &= \frac{1}{2}(2n+1)\hbar\omega_0, \\
E_{n,1} &= \frac{1}{32}(2\;n^2+2\;n+1)\hbar\omega_0 ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\hbar = h / (2\pi)$ is the reduced Planck's constant and $\epsilon = \epsilon_1 \frac{h}{\lambda_{0}}$.
Setting equal quantum and classical energies, we see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha & = \frac{E_{n,0} +\epsilon\;E_{n,1}}{\lambda_{\pi}\;\omega_0}
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\frac{h}{\lambda_{0}}(2\;n+1) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{\epsilon_1}{32}(\frac{h}{\lambda_{0}})^2 (2\;n^2+2\;n+1)
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \nonumber,
\end{eqnarray}
or equivalently, by Eq. 22a,
\begin{equation}
\lambda(n) = (n +\frac{1}{2})h + \frac{\epsilon_1}{64}\frac{h^2}{\lambda_0} +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).
\end{equation}
The \textit{quantum conditions} Eqs. 44 \& 45 recall the Sommerfeld-Wilson
prescription of old quantum mechanics\cite{Tomonaga,ChildBook}
\begin{equation}
\lambda(n) = \oint p \; dq = (n+\delta)\;h,
\end{equation}
with \textit{Maslov index}
\begin{equation}
\delta = \frac{1}{2}+ \frac{\epsilon_1}{64}\frac{h}{\lambda_0},
\end{equation}
slightly perturbed from $\delta = 1/2$, the usual value associated with
harmonic vibrational motion.
In the case of a ''quantum pendulum'', $\epsilon_1$ can not be made small, so fidelity of
approximate methods depends entirely on the constant $\lambda_{0}$. As $l$ and $m$ become
increasingly small, $\lambda_{0}$ approaches $h$. Whenever $h/\lambda_{0}<1/10$ and
$n < 5$ then $\alpha<1/2$, a first or second approximation adequately describes the
quantized wavefunctions. The $N=0,1,2$ approximations of the quantum anharmonic
oscillator's groundstate wavefunction appear in Fig. ~\ref{fig:QuantPert}, with
extreme expansion parameter $h/\lambda_0=1$.
\section{Conclusion}
The pendulum takes an eminent place in the physics canon, not only as a
measurement device but also as an example of anharmonic
oscillation. The simple harmonic approximation leaves
open the possibility of spectacular failure because it only
reliably determines the overall scale of time. Apprehension of the
dependence on $\theta_0$ or $\alpha$ requires more careful and
detailed analysis. Here we present a novel algorithm, which solves
equations of motion and produces the expansion coefficients of $K(\alpha)$.
Calculations require minimal technical skill and avoid any
confusing artifice.
Thrift experiment produces good enough
data. Taking into account theoretical expectations by writing out
a list of prior beliefs, we define an analysis where the extracted
parameters closely match the expected values. Nothing precludes our
analysis from applying to higher energy motions in the domain
$\alpha \in [0,1]$. It would be interesting to see how many
expansion coefficients this method may accurately and
precisely determine. As many as five, ten?
Perturbation methods extend beyond the important but simple example of
a plane pendulum. Extending the ansatz Eq. 19 to include
half-powers of $\alpha$ allows arbitrary precision solution of any one-dimensional,
power-series potential. This important elaboration leads to applications in
mathematical biology\cite{Lotka,ArnoldDiffEq}, classical astronomy\cite{KleeClassical},
and relativistic astronomy \cite{KleeRelativistic}. In higher dimensional phase space,
we obtain angular equations of motion along a variety of multidimensional C.E.S.
Subsequent work will explore the multidimensional generalization.
The classical/quantum analogy reveals fundamental principles that apply throughout
physics. Time-independent perturbation theories subject phase space trajectories
and wavefunctions to perturbative variations. Evolving through time, trajectories
and wavefunctions meet the expectation that higher precision approximations
more nearly conserve energy. Exploration of quantum conditions resolves a fallacy
in the analogy by showing that quantum theory replaces continuous energy parameter
$\alpha$ with a quantum number $n$. We have yet to find any connections to
the Matheiu functions\cite{QuantPend}, but speculate of their existence.
Ultimately we reach a detailed understanding of the plane pendulum and its relation
to time. The pendulum is a particular anharmonic oscillator,
with a period that varies slightly as a function of amplitude. On
the quantum scale atomic oscillations, for example in Cesium-133, provide
the highest precision time scales. On the astronomical scale, we also measure
long times, even for the practical purpose of keeping a calendar. Seconds are
useful units for time, but physics also needs nanoseconds and years.
Wherever we find an oscillation, usually anharmonicity is not too far behind,
leading to unexpected behaviors such as precession.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author gratefully acknowledges dissertation committee members, William Harter, Salvador Barraza-Lopez,
and Daniel Kennefick for helpful discussions, comments on earlier drafts of
the paper; also, Wolfdieter Lang and many other volunteer editors for their work
on the OEIS. This work was supported in part by a Doctoral Fellowship awarded by the
University of Arkansas.
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
A (commutative) standard graded algebra $R$ over a field $\mathbbm{k}$ is a quotient of a polynomial ring over $\mathbbm{k}$ in a finite number of variables by a homogeneous ideal $I$ not containing any linear form. We say that $R$ is \emph{Koszul} when the minimal graded free resolution of $\mathbbm{k}$ as an $R$-module is linear: for a survey about Koszulness in the commutative setting, see \cite{CDRKoszul}. It is well-known that any Koszul algebra is quadratic, i.e. its defining ideal $I$ is generated by quadrics. Note that, if $R$ is a trivial fiber extension, i.e. it contains a linear form $\ell \in R_1$ such that $\ell R_1 = 0$, then $R$ is Koszul if and only if $R/{\ell}$ is Koszul.
For the rest of this introduction, let $R$ be a quadratic standard graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra, where $\mathbbm{k}$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from two.
Backelin proved in \cite{BackelinThesis} that, if $\dim_\mathbbm{k}R_2 = 2$, then $R$ is Koszul (this actually holds for any field $\mathbbm{k}$). Conca then proved in \cite{Conca2009} that, if $\dim_\mathbbm{k}R_2 = 3$ and $R$ is Artinian, then $R$ is Koszul. The main problem we are addressing in this paper is to find out what happens when, in the latter case, we drop the Artinian assumption. We will prove in Theorem \ref{mainthm} that, up to trivial fiber extension, the only non-Koszul algebras live in embedding dimension three. More precisely, these non-Koszul algebras in three variables are the two (or three, when $\fchar\mathbbm{k} = 3$) objects exhibited by Backelin and Fr\"oberg in \cite{BackFrPoin}. As a byproduct, we shall also obtain a list of all possible Hilbert series when $\dim_\mathbbm{k}R_2 = 3$, see Theorem \ref{hilblist}.
Our results are in agreement with the numerical data presented by Roos in the characteristic 0 four-variable case, see \cite{Roos}.
Another interesting property one can investigate is whether or not $R$ is G-quadratic, i.e. it admits a Gr\"obner basis of quadrics (possibly after a change of coordinates). It is well-known that G-quadraticness is a sufficient but not necessary condition for Koszulness, see \cite[Section 6]{ERT}. We will show in Corollary \ref{notGquad} that, in our context, there exist four-variable Koszul algebras which are not G-quadratic and are not trivial fiber extensions: this answers a question asked by Conca in \cite[Section 4]{Conca2009}.
Computations made using the computer algebra system {\hbox{\rm C\kern-.13em o\kern-.07em C\kern-.13em o\kern-.15em A}}~\cite{CoCoA} helped us to produce conjectures and gave us hints about the behaviour of the objects studied.
\section{Tools and techniques}
\subsection{Koszulness and related concepts}
We are going to recall very briefly some definitions to put our results into context. We direct the interested reader to the survey \cite{CDRKoszul} for further information.
Let $\mathbbm{k}$ be a field, $S$ the polynomial ring $\mathbbm{k}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ and $I$ a homogeneous ideal of $S$ not containing any linear form. Let $R$ be the standard graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra $S/I$.
\begin{defin}
The (commutative) $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra $R$ is \emph{Koszul} if the minimal graded free resolution of the residue field $\mathbbm{k}$ as an $R$-module is linear.
\end{defin}
It is usually very difficult to establish the Koszulness of a certain algebra by making use of the definition only. Because of this we will collect below some sufficient conditions, see Theorem \ref{suffcondkoszul}.
\begin{defin}
If there exists a family $\mathfrak{F}$ of ideals of $R$ such that: \begin{itemize}
\item $(0) \in \mathfrak{F}$, $(R_1) \in \mathfrak{F}$,
\item every nonzero $I \in \mathfrak{F}$ is generated by elements of degree 1,
\item for every nonzero $I \in \mathfrak{F}$ there exists $J \in \mathfrak{F}$ such that $J \subseteq I$, $I/J$ is cyclic and $J :_R I \in \mathfrak{F}$,
\end{itemize}
we say that $R$ admits a \emph{Koszul filtration} $\mathfrak{F}$, see \cite{CTVKoszul}.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}
If there exists a change of coordinates $g \in \GL_n(\mathbbm{k})$ such that $g(I)$ admits a quadratic Gr\"obner basis with respect to some term order $\tau$, we say that $R$ is \emph{G-quadratic}.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}An \emph{integral weight} $\omega = (\omega_1, \ldots, \omega_n)$ is an element of $\mathbb{N}^n$. Every integral weight induces a grading on $S$ obtained by imposing that $\deg(x_i) = \omega_i$ for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. For this reason, we will often introduce a weight $\omega$ by associating an integer $\omega_i$ with each variable $x_i$ in $S$.
Given a nonzero $f \in S$, we will denote by $in_{\omega}(f)$ the part of $f$ having maximum degree with respect to the grading induced by $\omega$. We will denote by $in_{\omega}(I)$ the \emph{initial ideal} of $I$ with respect to $\omega$, i.e. the ideal generated by $\{in_{\omega}(f) \ | \ f \in I, f \neq 0\}$.
\end{defin}
\begin{rem} \label{initialrem}
In what follows we will deal very frequently with initial ideals, with respect to both weights and term orders: let us record an easy observation for further reference. Fix an ideal $I $ of $S$ and let $\omega$ be either a weight or a term order on $S$. Now pick an ideal $J$ of $S$ such that $J \subseteq in_{\omega}(I)$ (for instance, $J$ may be chosen as the ideal generated by the initial parts with respect to $\omega$ of a fixed generating set of $I$). If the Hilbert series $\mathbf{H}$ of $S/J$ happens to be coefficientwise smaller than or equal to the Hilbert series of $S/I$, then (denoting Hilbert series by $\HS$ and coefficientwise inequality by $\preceq$) one has that
\[\mathbf{H} \preceq \HS(S/I) = \HS(S/in_{\omega}(I)) \preceq \HS(S/J) = \mathbf{H}\]
and hence $in_{\omega}(I) = J$.
We will often make use of this remark in Section \ref{mainthmproof} when we claim what $in_{\omega}(I)$ is: for an example, see the end of Subsection \ref{firstcase}.
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}[Sufficient conditions for Koszulness] \label{suffcondkoszul}
One has that:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $R$ admits a Koszul filtration, then $R$ is Koszul.
\item if $R$ is G-quadratic, then $R$ is Koszul.
\item if there exists an integral weight $\omega \in \mathbb{N}^n$ such that $S/in_{\omega}(I)$ is Koszul, then $R$ is Koszul.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{defin}
If $R$ contains a nonzero linear form $\ell$ such that $\ell R_1 = 0$, then $R$ is called a \emph{trivial fiber extension} (of $R/{\ell}$).
\end{defin}
The concept of trivial fiber extension gives us the following useful reduction when looking for Koszulness or G-quadraticness.
\begin{prop}[\cite{BackFr}, {\cite[Lemma 4]{Conca2000}}] \label{KoszulTFE}
Assume $R$ contains a nonzero linear form $\ell$ such that $\ell R_1 = 0$. Then $R$ is Koszul (resp. G-quadratic) if and only if $R/{\ell}$ has the same property.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Apolarity pairing} \label{apolarity}
A very useful tool in what follows is the so-called \emph{apolarity} pairing, see for instance Geramita \cite[Lecture 2]{GeramitaApolarity} or Iarrobino and Kanev \cite[Chapter 1 and Appendix A]{IarrobinoKanev} for an introduction. We will recall here some results following Ehrenborg and Rota \cite[Section 3]{EhrenborgRotaApolarity} as our main reference.
Let $d$ be a positive integer and $\mathbbm{k}$ be a field of characteristic either 0 or greater than $d$. Let $S$ and $T$ be two copies of the polynomial ring over $\mathbbm{k}$ in $n$ variables ($x_1, \ldots, x_n$ and $u_1, \ldots, u_n$ respectively). We want to regard each $u_i$ as the partial derivative operator $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$; more precisely, we define a symmetric bilinear pairing \[\langle {-} \mid {-} \rangle\colon T_d \times S_d \to \mathbbm{k}\] by asking that \[\langle u_1^{i_1} \ldots u_n^{i_n} \mid x_1^{j_1} \ldots x_n^{j_n} \rangle = i_1! \ldots i_n! \delta_{i_1, j_1} \ldots \delta_{i_n, j_n}\]
(where $\delta_{ij}$ equals 1 when $i = j$ and 0 otherwise) and then extending bilinearly.
Note that, because of our hypothesis on the characteristic of $\mathbbm{k}$, this pairing is nonsingular.
It is also known (\cite[Corollary 3.1]{EhrenborgRotaApolarity}) that acting on a vector subspace $V \subseteq S_d$ by a change of coordinates $g \in \GL_n(\mathbbm{k})$ corresponds to acting on the orthogonal $V^{\perp} \subseteq T_d$ by the change of coordinates $\tilde{g}$ obtained by inverting and transposing the matrix representing $g$ (and analogously if we take a vector subspace of $T_d$ instead).
The proof of the following result is a simple computation that works for any field of characteristic either 0 or greater than $d$, see for instance \cite[Proposition 3.1]{EhrenborgRotaApolarity}. The dot stands for the usual dot product, whereas $\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{x}$ stand for $(u_1, \ldots, u_n)$ and $(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ respectively.
\begin{lemma} \label{EhrenborgRotaLemma}
Given $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbbm{k}^n$, one has that for any $f \in S_d$ \[\langle (\mathbf{c} \cdot \mathbf{u})^d \mid f(\mathbf{x}) \rangle = d! f(\mathbf{c})\] and, analogously, for any $g \in T_d$ \[\langle g(\mathbf{u}) \mid (\mathbf{c} \cdot \mathbf{x})^d \rangle = d!g(\mathbf{c}).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{notat}
Let $V \subseteq S_d$ be a vector subspace and let $I = (V)$ be the ideal generated by it. For the rest of this paper we will denote the projective variety which is the zero locus of $I$ either by $\mathcal{V}(I)$ or $\mathcal{V}(V)$.
\end{notat}
We will be interested in studying the nonzero linear forms of $S/I$ whose $d$-th power is zero, or equivalently the nonzero linear forms of $S$ whose $d$-th power lies in $V$. Because of this equivalence, we will consider the two concepts interchangeably.
\begin{defin}
Let $\ell \in (S/I)_1$, $\ell \neq 0$.
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{rank} of $\ell$ is the dimension of $\ell (S/I)_1$ as a $\mathbbm{k}$-vector space.
\item If $\ell^2 = 0$ in $S/I$, we will call $\ell$ a \emph{null-square linear form}. (Note that a null-square linear form is nonzero by definition.)
\end{itemize}
\end{defin}
Lemma \ref{EhrenborgRotaLemma} immediately implies the following very useful statement:
\begin{lemma} \label{linear_forms_and_points}
Let $V$ be a vector subspace of $S_d$. The correspondence \[\mathbb{P}(S_1) \ni [\mathbf{c} \cdot \mathbf{x}] \mapsto \mathbf{[c]} \in \mathbb{P}^{n-1}_{\mathbbm{k}}\] restricts to a bijection between the nonzero linear forms of $S$ whose $d$-th power lies in $V$ and the points of $\mathcal{V}(V^{\perp})$. Symmetrically, we also get a bijection between the nonzero linear forms of $T$ whose $d$-th power lies in $V^{\perp}$ and the points of $\mathcal{V}(V)$.
\end{lemma}
In the rest of the paper, when no confusion arises, we will use the same name for the two copies of the polynomial ring in the pairing.
We end this section by a technical remark for further reference.
\begin{rem} \label{apolarityrem}
Let $\{G_1, \ldots, G_c\}$ be a $\mathbbm{k}$-basis of $V^{\perp}$. If there exist monomials $m_1, \ldots, m_c$ such that each $m_i$ appears in the support of $G_i$ only, then:
\begin{itemize}
\item there exists a $\mathbbm{k}$-basis of $V$ (and hence a minimal generating set for $I$) made of elements of the form \[F_m = m - a_1m_1 - \ldots - a_cm_c,\] where $m$ is a monomial different from $m_1, \ldots, m_c$ and the coefficient $a_i \in \mathbbm{k}$ is nonzero if and only if $m$ appears in $G_i$;
\item the cosets of the $m_i$'s form a $\mathbbm{k}$-basis of $(S/I)_d$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\section{The main result} \label{mainresult}
We state below the main result of this paper and will devote Section \ref{mainthmproof} to proving it. For the rest of the section, when $S$ is a polynomial ring, we will denote by $\mathfrak{m}$ the maximal ideal generated by its variables.
\begin{thm} \label{mainthm}
Let $\mathbbm{k}$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from 2, let $S$ be a polynomial ring over $\mathbbm{k}$ and let $I \subseteq \mathfrak{m}^2$ be a quadratic ideal of $S$. If $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}(S/I)_2 = 3$, then $S/I$ is Koszul if and only if it is not isomorphic as a graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra (up to trivial fiber extension) to any of these:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbbm{k}[x, y, z]/(y^2+xy, xy+z^2, xz)$
\item $\mathbbm{k}[x, y, z]/(y^2, xy+z^2, xz)$
\item $\mathbbm{k}[x, y, z]/(y^2, xy+yz+z^2, xz)$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that, if the characteristic of $\mathbbm{k}$ is not 3, (ii) and (iii) are actually isomorphic as graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebras.
\end{thm}
As a byproduct of our proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm} and of previous work by Backelin and Fr\"oberg \cite[proof of Theorem 1]{BackFrPoin} and Conca \cite[Theorem 1.1]{Conca2009}, we shall also get a classification of all possible Hilbert series for standard graded quadratic $\mathbbm{k}$-algebras $R$ such that $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_2 = 3$, see Theorem \ref{hilblist} below.
\begin{rem} \label{ShortArtinian}
Backelin and Fr\"oberg \cite[proof of Theorem 1 and Appendix]{BackFrPoin} gave without proof a classification (in all characteristics) of standard graded quadratic algebras $R$ such that $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_1 = \dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_2 = 3$ and $R$ is not a complete intersection. Unfortunately, in characteristic 2 their list is incomplete, since at least one (non-Koszul) case is missing, see (b) below. However, when the characteristic is different from 2, we proved that their list is indeed correct: this will be the object of a later arXiv note.
Under these hypotheses, the only non-Koszul algebras in characteristic different from 2 are the ones denoted by (i), (ii) and (iii) in our Theorem \ref{mainthm}. Two further remarks have to be made:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] if $\fchar \mathbbm{k} \neq 3$, then (ii) and (iii) are isomorphic as graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebras: one goes from (iii) to (ii) by the change of coordinates sending $x$ into $x-y/9-z/3$ and $z$ into $-y/3+z$. On the other hand, if $\fchar \mathbbm{k} = 3$, then (ii) and (iii) are not isomorphic. For instance, consider the polynomials $P_{\text{(ii)}}$ and $P_{\text{(iii)}}$ defining the two projective hypersurfaces given by $\{[\alpha, \beta, \gamma] \in \mathbb{P}^2_{\mathbbm{k}} \mid \alpha Q_1 + \beta Q_2 + \gamma Q_3\text{ has rank} \leq 2\}$, where the $Q_i$'s are the generators of the defining ideal of respectively (ii) and (iii). Since the characteristic is $3$, the two vector spaces generated by the first partial derivatives of respectively $P_{\text{(ii)}}$ and $P_{\text{(iii)}}$ have different dimensions and thus (ii) and (iii) cannot be isomorphic.
\item[(b)] in \cite{BackFrPoin} one finds the algebra (i') $\mathbbm{k}[x, y, z]/(xz, xy+yz, x^2+z^2+xy)$, which is seen to be isomorphic to (i) as a graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra when $\fchar\mathbbm{k} \neq 2$. If $\fchar\mathbbm{k}=2$, though, (i') admits no null-square linear forms, whereas $y+z$ is a null-square linear form for (i): hence, the two algebras are not isomorphic in characteristic 2, but the algebra (i) is not featured in \cite{BackFrPoin}.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\begin{thm} \label{hilblist}
Let $\mathbbm{k}$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from 2, let $S$ the polynomial ring $\mathbbm{k}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ and $I \subseteq \mathfrak{m}^2$ a quadratic homogeneous ideal of $S$. If $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}(S/I)_2 = 3$, these are the possible Hilbert series for $S/I$:
\vspace{5pt}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.4}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| l | l | l}
\cline{1-2}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\emph{Rational form}} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\emph{Hilbert function}} & \\
\cline{1-2}
$1+nz+3z^2$ & $1~~n~~3$ & $(n \geq 4)$ \\
$1+nz+3z^2+z^3$ & $1~~n~~3~~1$ & $(n \geq 3)$ \\
$(1+(n-1)z+(3-n)z^2-2z^3)/(1-z)$ & $1~~n~~3~~1~~1~~1~~1~~1\ldots$ & $(n \geq 3)$ \\
$(1+(n-1)z+(3-n)z^2-z^3)/(1-z)$ & $1~~n~~3~~2~~2~~2~~2~~2\ldots$ & $(n \geq 3)$ \\
$(1+(n-1)z+(3-n)z^2)/(1-z)$ & $1~~n~~3~~3~~3~~3~~3~~3\ldots$ & $(n \geq 3)$ \\
$(1+(n-2)z+(4-2n)z^2+(n-2)z^3)/(1-z)^2$ & $1~~n~~3~~4~~5~~6~~7~~8\ldots$ & $(n \geq 2)$ \\
\cline{1-2}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{5pt}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Theorem \ref{hilblist} agrees with the list obtained, when $n$ equals 4 and $\fchar\mathbbm{k} = 0$, by Roos \cite[Appendix 1, Table 1]{Roos}. The Hilbert series of Theorem \ref{hilblist} are denoted by $H_7$ to $H_{12}$ there.
\end{rem}
\subsection{An outline of the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{An outline of the proof strategy for Theorem \ref{mainthm}}
\label{outline}
\begin{mdframed}
Let $\mathbbm{k}$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from 2 and let $S = \mathbbm{k}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$, where $n \geq 4$. Let $I \subseteq \mathfrak{m}^2$ be a quadratic ideal of $S$ such that $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}(S/I)_2 = 3$ and $S/I$ is not a trivial fiber extension.
\begin{itemize}
\item If the variety $\mathcal{V}(I)$ set-theoretically consists of two points, then $S/I$ is Koszul (Section \ref{twopoints}).
\item If the variety $\mathcal{V}(I)$ set-theoretically consists of a point and there exists a null-square linear form of rank 2 in $S/I$, then $S/I$ is Koszul (Section \ref{onepointrank2}).
\item If the variety $\mathcal{V}(I)$ set-theoretically consists of a point and all null-square linear forms in $S/I$ have rank 1, then $S/I$ is Koszul (Section \ref{onepointrank1}).
\end{itemize}
\end{mdframed}
\end{table}
\begin{prop}
To prove Theorem \ref{mainthm}, it is enough to prove the statements in Table \ref{outline}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $R$ be the standard graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra $S/I$. We want to investigate Koszulness when $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_2 = 3$. Conca proved in \cite{Conca2009} that, if we further ask that $R$ is Artinian, we always get a Koszul algebra (moreover, we get a G-quadratic algebra ``almost always''). He also gave a classification of the general case when $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_1 \leq 3$, showing that, at least in characteristic 0, the only non-Koszul algebras are the ones appearing in the statement of Theorem \ref{mainthm}. This last statement holds also in characteristic greater than 2: see Remark \ref{ShortArtinian} above for more details.
We are thus interested in finding out what happens for four or more variables in the non-Artinian case. By Proposition \ref{KoszulTFE}, we can further assume we are dealing with an algebra which is not a trivial fiber extension.
Let us assume $S$ contains the variables $x, y, z, t$ and let us consider $\mathcal{V}(I)$. We know that, since $R$ is not Artinian, this variety is not empty: without loss of generality and recalling Lemma \ref{linear_forms_and_points}, we can assume $x^2$ is in $V^{\perp}$. If the variety contains another point, we can further assume $y^2$ is in $V^{\perp}$. What would happen if a third point were present? If the point did not lie on the line spanned by the first two points, then we could assume $z^2$ were in $V^{\perp}$, but then $V^{\perp}$ would be generated by $x^2$, $y^2$ and $z^2$ and hence $R$ would be a trivial fiber extension, since $tR_1$ would be zero. On the other hand, if the third point were in fact on the line, then $xy$ would be in $V^{\perp}$ and $R$ would again be a trivial fiber extension. Therefore, the variety $\mathcal{V}(I)$ set-theoretically consists of either one or two points.
By \cite[Lemma 3]{Conca2000}, we know that there exists at least one null-square linear form in $R$. Since we are excluding trivial fiber extensions, we cannot find any null-square linear form in $R$ whose rank is 0. Moreover, a null-square linear form of rank 3 can exist only if $R$ is Artinian by \cite[Lemma 2]{Conca2000}.
\end{proof}
Before starting the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}, we insert here a table of algebras that will come in handy in what follows. In Table \ref{koszultable} and in the rest of the paper we will denote by $\mathbf{A}_n$ the Hilbert series
\[\frac{1+(n-1)z+(3-n)z^2-2z^3}{1-z} = 1 + nz + 3z^2 + z^3 + z^4 + \ldots\]
and by $\mathbf{B}_n$ the Hilbert series
\[\frac{1+(n-1)z + (3-n)z^2 - z^3}{1-z} = 1 + nz + 3z^2 + 2z^3 + 2z^4 + \ldots\]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Some useful algebras. All ideals are considered into the smallest polynomial ring $S$ over $\mathbbm{k}$ which contains their variables. Since all ideals in the table are unital binomial ideals (see Appendix \ref{appendixkoszul}), their Hilbert series do not depend on the characteristic of $\mathbbm{k}$. Note that (10) is not unital binomial itself but, if $\fchar\mathbbm{k} \neq 2$, it becomes so after a suitable change of coordinates.}
\label{koszultable}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|c|}
\hline
\# & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Generators of $I$} & $\HS(S/I)$ \\
\hline
(1) & $t_2^2, t_3^2, t_2t_3, xy, xt_1, xt_3, yt_1, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_1t_3, xt_2-t_1^2, yt_3-t_1^2$ & $\mathbf{B}_5$\\
(2) & $t_2^2, xt_1, t_1t_2, t_1^2-xt_2, xy, yt_1, yt_2$ & $\mathbf{B}_4$ \\
(3) & $t_1^2, t_2^2, t_1t_2, yt_1, xt_2, xy, xt_1-yt_2$ & $\mathbf{B}_4$ \\
(4) & $t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2, y_1^2, y_1y_2, y_2^2-xt$ & $\mathbf{A}_4$ \\
(5) & $t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2, y_1^2-xt, y_1y_2, y_2^2-y_1t$ & $\mathbf{A}_4$ \\
(6) & $t^2, y_2t, y_3t, xy_1, xy_2, xy_3, y_1^2-xt, y_1y_2, y_1y_3, y_2^2, y_2y_3-y_1t, y_3^2$ & $\mathbf{A}_5$ \\
(7) & $t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2, y_1^2-xt, y_1t, y_2^2$ & $\mathbf{A}_4$ \\
(8) & $t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2-y_1t, y_1^2-xt, y_1y_2, y_2^2$ & $\mathbf{A}_4$ \\
(9) & $xy, xt_1, xt_2-y^2, xt_3-t_1^2, yt_1, yt_2, yt_3, t_1t_2, t_1t_3, t_2^2, t_2t_3, t_3^2$ & $\mathbf{A}_5$ \\
(10) & $xy, xt_1, xt_2-y^2-t_1^2, yt_1, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_2^2$ & $\mathbf{A}_4$ \\
(11) & $xy-t_1^2, xt_1, xt_2-y^2, yt_1, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_2^2$ & $\mathbf{A}_4$ \\
(12) & $xy, xt_1-y^2, xt_2-t_1^2, xt_3, yt_1, yt_2, yt_3-t_1^2, t_1t_2, t_1t_3, t_2^2, t_2t_3, t_3^2$ & $\mathbf{A}_5$ \\
(13) & $xy, y^2-xt_1, yt_1, yt_2, t_1^2, t_1t_2, t_2^2$ & $\mathbf{B}_4$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1}
\begin{lemma} \label{allkoszul}
All algebras in Table \ref{koszultable} admit a Koszul filtration and hence are Koszul.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{appendixkoszul}.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to begin.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}} \label{mainthmproof}
The aim of this section is to prove the statements contained in Table \ref{outline}. Let us set the notation for the rest of the section.
Let $\mathbbm{k}$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from 2, let $S$ be a polynomial ring over $\mathbbm{k}$ in $n$ variables and let $I$ be a quadratic homogeneous ideal of $S$ not containing any linear form. Let $R$ be the quotient algebra $S/I$. We will denote by $V$ the vector subspace of $S_2$ generated by the quadrics of $I$ and by $V^{\perp}$ its orthogonal with respect to the apolarity pairing defined in Section \ref{apolarity}. Lowercase Latin letters different from $x$, $y$, $z$ and $t$ (possibly with indices) will be used to denote elements of $\mathbbm{k}$; moreover, we will use ``*'' to denote coefficients in $\mathbbm{k}$ whose value plays no role in the discussion.
\subsection{The variety $\mathcal{V}(I)$ set-theoretically consists of two points} \label{twopoints}
Let $S = \mathbbm{k}[x, y, t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2}]$. We can assume without loss of generality that \[\mathcal{V}(I) = \{[1, 0, 0, \ldots, 0], [0, 1, 0, \ldots, 0]\}\] and hence $x^2$ and $y^2$ do not appear in any generator of $I$.
Then $I \subseteq (xy) + (t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2})S_1$ and, since we also know that $I$ is generated by $n-3$ quadrics, we have that the Hilbert series of $S/I$ is coefficientwise greater than or equal to $\mathbf{B}_n$. Moreover, \[V^{\perp} = \vspan\{x^2, y^2, xL_1 + yL_2 + Q(t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2})\},\] where $L_1$ is a linear form not containing $x$, $L_2$ is a linear form not containing $y$ and $Q$ is a quadratic form in the remaining variables $t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2}$. We are going to distinguish some cases according to the rank of the quadric $Q$ (call this number $r$).
\subsubsection{The rank of $Q$ is greater than or equal to 2} \label{firstcase}
After a suitable change of coordinates we can assume $Q = 2t_1t_2 + t_3^2 + \ldots + t_r^2$.
Then, applying Remark \ref{apolarityrem}, the generators of $I$ are
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&t_1^2, t_2^2, xy-*t_1t_2,\\
&xt_i-*t_1t_2, yt_i-*t_1t_2\textrm{ for all }i \in \{1, \ldots, n-2\},\\
&t_i^2 - t_1t_2\textrm{ for all }i \in \{3, \ldots, r\},\\
&t_i^2 \textrm{ for all }i \in \{r+1, \ldots, n-2\},\\
&t_it_j\textrm{ for all }i, j \in \{1, \ldots, n-2\}\textrm{ such that }i < j, (i, j) \neq (1, 2).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Let $\tau$ be a term order such that $t_1 <_{\tau} t_2 <_{\tau} v$ for any variable $v$ different from $t_1$ and $t_2$. Then the ideal \[J := (t_3, \ldots, t_{n-2})S_1 + (t_1^2, t_2^2, xy, xt_1, xt_2, yt_1, yt_2)\] is contained in $in_{\tau}(I)$ and, since the Hilbert series of $S/J$ is $\mathbf{B}_n$, in fact $in_{\tau}(I) = J$. (Note that this is precisely the setting of Remark \ref{initialrem}.) Hence, $R$ is G-quadratic.
\subsubsection{The rank of $Q$ is 1}
After a suitable change of coordinates we can assume $Q = t_1^2$. Since we want to exclude trivial fiber extensions, at least one of $L_1$ and $L_2$ must contain $t_2$: without loss of generality, let $L_1$ contain $t_2$. Then, after a change of coordinates, we can assume $L_1 = 2t_2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Assume $S$ has more than four variables: then we can further assume $L_2 = 2t_3$. On the other hand, $S$ cannot have more than five variables, otherwise $R$ would be a trivial fiber extension: hence \[I = (t_2^2, t_3^2, t_2t_3, xy, xt_1, xt_3, yt_1, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_1t_3, xt_2-t_1^2, yt_3-t_1^2).\] Since $R$ is the algebra (1) in Table \ref{koszultable}, it is Koszul by Lemma \ref{allkoszul}.
\item If $S$ has exactly four variables, then $V^{\perp} = \vspan \{x^2, y^2, 2xt_2 + yL_2 + t_1^2\}$, hence \[I = (t_2^2, xt_1, t_1t_2, t_1^2 - xt_2, xy-*xt_2, yt_1-*xt_2, yt_2 -*xt_2).\]
Let $\omega = \begin{pmatrix} x & y & t_1 & t_2 \\ 2 & 3 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ be a weight on $S$; then \[in_{\omega}(I) = (t_2^2, xt_1, t_1t_2, t_1^2-xt_2, xy, yt_1, yt_2)\] and, since $S/in_{\omega}(I)$ is the Koszul algebra (2) in Table \ref{koszultable}, $S/I$ is Koszul as well.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{The quadric $Q$ equals zero}
Since we want to exclude trivial fiber extensions, at least one of $L_1$ and $L_2$ must contain $t_1$: without loss of generality, let $L_1$ contain $t_1$. After a suitable change of coordinates we get $L_1 = t_1$. For analogous reasons we can repeat the procedure in order to obtain $L_2 = t_2$, hence $V^{\perp} = \vspan \{x^2, y^2, xt_1+yt_2\}$. The ring $S$ must contain exactly four variables, otherwise $R$ would be a trivial fiber extension: therefore, \[I = (t_1^2, t_2^2, t_1t_2, yt_1, xt_2, xy, xt_1-yt_2).\]
This gives us the Koszul algebra (3) in Table \ref{koszultable}.
This ends the discussion of the case when $\mathcal{V}(I)$ consists of two points. \qed
\subsection{The variety $\mathcal{V}(I)$ consists of a point and $R$ has a null-square linear form of rank 2} \label{onepointrank2}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Integral weights used in Section \ref{onepointrank2}}
\label{weighttable}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $x$ & $y_1$ & $y_2$ & $y_3$ & $y_i$ (for $4 \leq i \leq n-2$) & $t$ \\ \hline
$\omega^{(1)}$ & 4 & 3 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 0 \\
$\omega^{(2)}$ & 9 & 5 & 3 & 8 & 8 & 0 \\
$\omega^{(3)}$ & 7 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 5 & 0 \\
$\omega^{(4)}$ & 4 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 0 \\
$\omega^{(5)}$ & 4 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 \\
$\omega^{(6)}$ & 5 & 3 & 0 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\
$\omega^{(7)}$ & 3 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Let $S = \mathbbm{k}[x, y_1, \ldots, y_{n-2}, t]$. After a change of coordinates we can assume $\mathcal{V}(I) = \{[1, 0, \ldots, 0]\}$ and hence, since $I \subseteq (y_1, \ldots, y_{n-2}, t)S_1$ and $I$ is generated by $n-3$ quadrics, the Hilbert series of $S/I$ is coefficientwise greater than or equal to $\mathbf{A}_n$.
Without loss of generality, let $t$ be a rank 2 null-square linear form. Then at least one of $\overline{y_1t}, \ldots, \overline{y_{n-2}t} \in R_2$ is nonzero: from now on, assume $\overline{y_1t}$ is nonzero.\\
Suppose there exists $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}\vspan\{\overline{y_1t}, \overline{y_it}\} = 2$ and let $i = 2$ without loss of generality. Then $I$ is generated by $t^2$ and $m - *y_1t - *y_2t$, where $m$ varies over the monomials of $S_2$ different from $x^2$, $y_1t$, $y_2t$ and $t^2$. Let $\tau$ be a DegRevLex term order on $S$ such that $t <_{\tau} y_1 <_{\tau} y_2 <_{\tau} v$ for all $v \in \{x, y_3, \ldots, y_{n-2}\}$; one checks that \[in_{\tau}(I) = (y_3, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, xt, xy_1, xy_2, y_1y_2, y_1^2, y_2^2)\] and hence $R$ is G-quadratic.\\
From now on, we shall assume that \begin{center}\fbox{$\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}\vspan\{\overline{y_1t}, \overline{y_it}\} = 1$ for all $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$.}\end{center} Then $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}\vspan\{\overline{y_1t}, \overline{xt}\} = 2$ and the generators of $I$ are \[\begin{split}&t^2,\\&y_it-a_iy_1t\textrm{ for all }i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\},\\&xy_j-b_jxt-*y_1t\textrm{ for all }j \in \{1, \ldots, n-2\},\\&y_ky_{\ell}-*xt-*y_1t\textrm{ for all }k, \ell \in \{1, \ldots, n-2\}\textrm{ with }k \leq \ell.\end{split}\]
By applying the change of coordinates \[\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} x & \mapsto & x \\ y_1 & \mapsto & y_1+b_1t \\ y_i & \mapsto & y_i+a_iy_1+b_it\textrm{ for all }i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\} \\ t & \mapsto & t \end{array} \right.\] one gets the ideal $I'$ generated by
\begin{equation}\tag{$\clubsuit$} \label{Iprimegens}
\begin{split}&t^2,\\&y_it\textrm{ for all }i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\},\\&xy_j-d_{0j}y_1t\textrm{ for all }j \in \{1, \ldots, n-2\},\\&y_ky_{\ell}-c_{k{\ell}}xt-d_{k{\ell}}y_1t\textrm{ for all }k, \ell \in \{1, \ldots, n-2\}\textrm{ with }k \leq \ell.\end{split}\end{equation}
Note that $R$ is Koszul (resp. G-quadratic) if and only if $S/I'$ has the same property.
If $xt$ does not appear in \eqref{Iprimegens}, then $I' \subseteq (t^2) + (y_1, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1$ and, since we also know that $I'$ is generated by $n-3$ quadrics, the Hilbert series of $S/I'$ is coefficientwise greater than or equal to $\mathbf{B}_n$. In this case, let $\tau$ be a term order on $S$ such that $t < y_1 < v$ for all $v \in \{x, y_2, \ldots, y_{n-2}\}$. Then one has that \[in_{\tau}(I') = (y_2, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, xy_1, y_1^2)\] and hence $R$ is G-quadratic.
From now on assume instead that $xt$ appears in \eqref{Iprimegens}, i.e. \begin{center}\fbox{$c_{k{\ell}}$ is nonzero for some choice of $k$ and $\ell$.}\end{center}
\begin{itemize}
\item Suppose there exists $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $c_{ii} \neq 0$. Let $i = 2$ and $c_{22} =1$ without loss of generality (one can simply rescale $y_2$ to obtain the latter). Then, using the weight $\omega^{(1)}$ (see Table \ref{weighttable}), one has that \[in_{\omega^{(1)}}(I') = (y_3, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2, y_1^2, y_1y_2, y_2^2-xt)\]
and, since $S/in_{\omega^{(1)}}(I')$ is the Koszul algebra (4) in Table \ref{koszultable}, $S/I'$ is Koszul as well.
\item Suppose $c_{ii} = 0$ for all $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ and suppose there exists $j \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $c_{1j} \neq 0$. Without loss of generality, let $c_{12} = 1$. By completing the weight $\omega^{(2)}$ to a term order $\tau$, one notes that
\[in_{\tau}(I') = (y_3, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2, y_1^2, xt, y_2^2)\]
and hence $R$ is G-quadratic.
\item Suppose $c_{ii} = c_{1i} = 0$ for all $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ and suppose there exist $k, \ell \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $k < \ell$ and $c_{k{\ell}} \neq 0$. Without loss of generality, let $c_{23} = 1$. By completing the weight $\omega^{(3)}$ to a term order $\tau$, one gets that
\[in_{\tau}(I') = (y_4, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, y_2t, y_3t, xy_1, xy_2, xy_3, y_1^2, y_1y_2, y_1y_3, y_2^2, xt, y_3^2)\]
and hence $R$ is G-quadratic.
\end{itemize}
From now on we will assume (without loss of generality) that \begin{center}\fbox{$c_{11} = 1$ and $c_{k{\ell}} = 0$ for all $k, \ell$ such that $k \leq \ell$, $(k, \ell) \neq (1, 1)$.}\end{center} Note that, in order to avoid trivial fiber extensions, for all $i \in \{2, \ldots n-2\}$ at least one of $d_{0i}, d_{1i}, \ldots, d_{{n-2,} i}$ must be nonzero.
\begin{itemize}
\item Suppose there exists $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $d_{ii} \neq 0$. Let $i = 2$ and $d_{22} =1$ without loss of generality. One has that
\[in_{\omega^{(4)}}(I') = (y_3, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2, y_1^2-xt, y_1y_2, y_2^2-y_1t)\]
and, since $S/in_{\omega^{(4)}}(I')$ is Koszul (being a trivial fiber extension of the Koszul algebra (5) in Table \ref{koszultable}), also $S/I'$ is.
\item Suppose that $d_{ii} = 0$ for all $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ and there exist $k, \ell \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $k < \ell$, $d_{k{\ell}} \neq 0$. Let $d_{23} = 1$ without loss of generality. Then
\[\begin{split}in_{\omega^{(5)}}(I') = &(y_4, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 +\\&(t^2, y_2t, y_3t, xy_1, xy_2, xy_3, y_1^2-xt, y_1y_2, y_1y_3, y_2^2, y_2y_3-y_1t, y_3^2).\end{split}\]
and, since $S/in_{\omega^{(5)}}(I')$ is Koszul (being a trivial fiber extension of the Koszul algebra (6)), $S/I'$ is too.
\item Suppose $d_{k{\ell}} = 0$ for all $k, \ell \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $k \leq \ell$ and suppose there exists $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $d_{1i} \neq 0$. Let $d_{12} = 1$ without loss of generality. Then
\[in_{\omega^{(6)}}(I') = (y_3, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2, y_1^2-xt, y_1t, y_2^2)\]
and hence, since $S/in_{\omega^{(6)}}(I')$ is a trivial fiber extension of the Koszul algebra (7), $S/I'$ is also Koszul.
\item Suppose $d_{k{\ell}} = 0$ for all $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-2\}$, $\ell \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$ such that $k \leq \ell$. Then $d_{0i} \neq 0$ for all $i \in \{2, \ldots, n-2\}$. Without loss of generality, let $d_{02} = 1$. One has that
\[in_{\omega^{(7)}}(I') = (y_3, \ldots, y_{n-2})S_1 + (t^2, y_2t, xy_1, xy_2-y_1t, y_1^2-xt, y_1y_2, y_2^2).\]
and hence, since $S/in_{\omega^{(7)}}(I')$ is a trivial fiber extension of the Koszul algebra (8), $S/I'$ is Koszul as well.
\end{itemize}
This ends the discussion of the case when $\mathcal{V}(I)$ consists of a single point and $R$ contains a null-square linear form of rank 2. \qed
\subsection{The variety $\mathcal{V}(I)$ consists of a point and all null-square linear forms in $R$ have rank 1} \label{onepointrank1}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Integral weights used in Section \ref{onepointrank1}}
\label{weighttable2}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $x$ & $y$ & $t_1$ & $t_2$ \\ \hline
$\omega^{(8)}$ & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\
$\omega^{(9)}$ & 8 & 6 & 4 & 1 \\
$\omega^{(10)}$ & 5 & 4 & 3 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Let $S = \mathbbm{k}[x, y, t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2}]$. We have proved in Section \ref{onepointrank2} that, when $\mathcal{V}(I)$ is a single point, the presence of a null-square linear form of rank 2 guarantees Koszulness. The cases left to analyse are then the ones where all null-square linear forms have rank 1. Recall that, by Lemma \ref{linear_forms_and_points}, null-square linear forms correspond to points of $\mathcal{V}(V^{\perp})$. We know that $x^2 \in V^{\perp}$, hence we can complete $x^2$ to a $\mathbbm{k}$-basis of $V^{\perp}$ \[\{G_1 := x^2, G_2, G_3\}.\] Solving the system $G_1 = G_2 = G_3 = 0$ is equivalent to solving the system $G_2|_{x=0} = G_3|_{x=0} = 0$. Note that in this process of reduction we lose both a variable and an equation, hence coming back to the case of codimension 2 (in $n-1$ variables) studied by Conca in \cite{Conca2000}. In particular, going through the proof of \cite[Proposition 6]{Conca2000}, we get that, in this restricted setting, a necessary condition for all null-square linear forms to have rank 1 is that one of $G_2|_{x=0}$ and $G_3|_{x=0}$ is a square of a linear form (see Lemma \ref{concalemma} at the end of this section). Without loss of generality, let us assume that $G_2|_{x=0} = y^2$. This means that \[G_2 = y^2+xL,\] where $L$ is a nonzero linear form not containing $x$ nor $y$ (if it contained $y$, we could perform a suitable change of coordinates to eliminate it). For the rest of this subsection, we shall use the following as a $\mathbbm{k}$-basis of $V^{\perp}$: \[\begin{split}G_1 &= x^2 \\ G_2 &= y^2+xL(t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2}) \\ G_3 &= 2axy + xL_2(t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2}) + yL_3(t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2}) + Q(t_1, \ldots, t_{n-2}),\end{split}\] where $L$, $L_2$ and $L_3$ are linear forms, $Q$ is a quadratic form and $a \in \mathbbm{k}$. We are going to analyse several subcases according to the rank of the quadric $Q$ (call this number $r$).
\subsubsection{The rank of Q is greater than or equal to 2}
In this case, after a suitable change of coordinates, we may assume that $Q = t_1t_2 + t_3^2 + \ldots + t_r^2$. Now, if $L$ contains $t_i$ where $i \in \{1, 2\}$, then $t_i$ is a null-square linear form of rank 2. Let us see this computation in detail, since we will hint at analogous ones several times in the next lines. Note first that $\overline{t_i^2}$ is zero by applying Lemma \ref{linear_forms_and_points}. As regards the rank of $t_i$, note that we are in the hypotheses of Remark \ref{apolarityrem} with $m_1 = x^2$, $m_2 = y^2$ and $m_3 = t_1t_2$. Hence, to compute the dimension of $\overline{t_i}R_1$ we just have to compute the rank of the matrix that encodes the multiplication by $\overline{t_i}$ with respect to the basis $\{\overline{x^2}, \overline{y^2}, \overline{t_1t_2}\}$, i.e. (assuming without loss of generality that $i=1$)
\[
\bordermatrix
{
~ & \overline{xt_1} & \overline{yt_1} & \overline{t_1^2} & \overline{t_1t_2} & \overline{t_1t_3} & \ldots & \overline{t_1t_{n-2}} \cr
\overline{x^2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \cr
\overline{y^2} & \neq 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \cr
\overline{t_1t_2} & * & * & 0 & 1 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \cr
}
\]
The rank of this matrix is clearly 2 and thus we are done.
If $L$ does not contain neither $t_1$ nor $t_2$, then it must contain $t_j$, where $j \in \{3, \ldots, n-2\}$: if $j \leq r$, then $t_1 - t_2 + t_j$ is a null-square linear form of rank 2, whereas if $j > r$ then $t_1 + t_j$ is such a form.
\subsubsection{The rank of Q is 1}
We can use our remaining degrees of freedom to assume that $Q = t_1^2$.
If the coefficient of $t_i$ in $L$ is nonzero for some $i \neq 1$ then, possibly after a change of coordinates, we can further assume that $L = 2t_2$; otherwise, by rescaling $y$ in a suitable way, we can assume that $L = 2t_1$. In both cases, acting on $t_1$ we can also assume that the coefficient of $xt_1$ in $G_3$ is zero, i.e. $L_2$ does not contain $t_1$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $L = 2t_2$. If $L_3$ contains $t_i$ with $i \neq 1$, then we get a null-square linear form of rank 2. More precisely, if $L_3$ contains $t_2$, then $t_2$ is such a form; otherwise, $t_2 + t_j$ is such a form for any $t_j$ (with $j \in \{3, \ldots, n-2\}$) appearing in $L_3$. Let us then assume that $L_3 = 2bt_1$. By sending $t_1$ into $t_1-by$ we may assume that $L_3$ is, in fact, zero. If we have more then five variables, then the algebra we are studying is a trivial fiber extension.
If we have exactly five variables, then $L_2$ must contain $t_3$ and after a suitable change of coordinates we get $a = 0$ and $L_2 = 2t_3$. Then \begin{equation*}I = (xy, xt_1, xt_2-y^2, xt_3-t_1^2, yt_1, yt_2, yt_3, t_1t_2, t_1t_3, t_2^2, t_2t_3, t_3^2)\end{equation*} and this gives us the Koszul algebra (9) in Table \ref{koszultable}.
If we have exactly four variables, then (recalling that $L_2$ does not contain $t_1$) \[G_3 = 2axy + 2cxt_2 + t_1^2\] and \[I = (xy - at_1^2, xt_1, xt_2 - y^2 - ct_1^2, yt_1, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_2^2).\]
Note that at least one of $a$ and $c$ must be nonzero, otherwise $\mathcal{V}(I)$ would contain two points against our assumptions.
If $c \neq 0$, then by rescaling $t_1$ we may assume $c = 1$. Using the weight $\omega^{(8)}$ (see Table \ref{weighttable2}), one gets that
\[in_{\omega^{(8)}}(I) = (xy, xt_1, xt_2-y^2-t_1^2, yt_1, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_2^2)\]
and, since $S/in_{\omega^{(8)}}(I)$ is the Koszul algebra (10) in Table \ref{koszultable}, $S/I$ is Koszul too.
If $c = 0$, then we may assume after rescaling $t_1$ that $a = 1$. Then $S/I$ is the Koszul algebra (11) in Table \ref{koszultable}.
\item $L = 2t_1$. We cannot have more than five variables, otherwise we would get a trivial fiber extension. If the variables are exactly five and our algebra is not a trivial fiber extension, then after a suitable change of coordinates we get $a = 0$, $L_2 = 2t_2$, $L_3 = 2t_3$. Then \[I = (xy, xt_1-y^2, xt_2-t_1^2, xt_3, yt_1, yt_2, yt_3-t_1^2, t_1t_2, t_1t_3, t_2^2, t_2t_3, t_3^2)\] and this gives us the Koszul algebra (12) in Table \ref{koszultable}. What if we have exactly four variables? Then the variable $t_2$ must appear in at least one of $L_2$ and $L_3$.
If $t_2$ appears in $L_3$, then $G_3 = 2axy + 2dxt_2 + 2eyt_1 + 2yt_2 + t_1^2$ (rescaling $t_2$ so that the coefficient of $yt_2$ is 2). Mapping simultaneously $t_1$ into $t_1 + dex$ and $t_2$ into $t_2 - et_1 + (-de^2 - a)x$ we find the new basis \[\{G'_1 = G_1,~G'_2 = G_2,~G'_3 = 2dxt_2 + 2yt_2 + t_1^2\}\] and hence \[I' = (xy, xt_1-y^2, xt_2-dt_1^2, yt_1, yt_2-t_1^2, t_1t_2, t_2^2).\]
One has that
\[in_{\omega^{(9)}}(I') = (xy, xt_1-y^2, xt_2, yt_1, t_1^2, t_1t_2, t_2^2).\]
We find out that, up to variable renaming, $S/in_{\omega^{(9)}}(I')$ is the Koszul algebra (7) in Table \ref{koszultable}. Hence $S/I$ is Koszul as well.
If $t_2$ does not appear in $L_3$, then it appears in $L_2$ and rescaling it suitably we get that $G_3 = 2axy + 2xt_2 + *yt_1 + t_1^2$, hence \[I = (xy-at_1^2, xt_1-y^2, xt_2-t_1^2, yt_1-*t_1^2, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_2^2).\] One has that \[in_{\omega^{(10)}}(I) = (xy, xt_1-y^2, xt_2-t_1^2, yt_1, yt_2, t_1t_2, t_2^2).\] Since $S/in_{\omega^{(10)}}(I)$ is the Koszul algebra (11) with the roles of $y$ and $t_1$ switched, $S/I$ is Koszul.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{The quadric Q equals zero}
In this case, after a change of coordinates, we may assume $L = 2t_1$ without loss of generality. If $L_3$ is nonzero, then we get a null-square linear form of rank 2. More precisely, if $t_1$ appears in $L_3$, then $t_1$ is such a form; otherwise, take $t_1 + t_j$ where $t_j$ appears in $L_3$.
Hence $L_3=0$ and we must have exactly four variables, otherwise our algebra would be a trivial fiber extension. After a change of coordinates we can assume that $a=0$ and $L_2 = t_2$. This means that \[I = (xy, y^2-xt_1, yt_1, yt_2, t_1^2, t_1t_2, t_2^2)\] and this gives us the Koszul algebra (13) in Table \ref{koszultable}.
This ends the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}. \qed
\begin{lemma}[essentially \cite{Conca2000}] \label{concalemma}
Let $\mathbbm{k}$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from 2 and let $R$ be a quadratic standard graded $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra which is not a trivial fiber extension. If $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_1 \geq 3$, $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_2 = 2$ and there is no null-square linear form $\ell \in R_1$ such that $\ell R_1 = R_2$, then $V^{\perp}$ contains the square of a linear form.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We shall refer to the division into three cases that appears in the proof of \cite[Proposition 6]{Conca2000}.
In Case 1, Conca proves that a necessary condition in order not to have any $\ell$ such that $\ell R_1 = R_2$ is that the defining ideal $I$ is contained in the ideal $(x, z-fy, t_i-b_iy \mid i \in \{3, \ldots, n-1\})$. Sending $z$ into $z+fy$ and each $t_i$ into $t_i+b_iy$ one then gets that $y^2$ does not appear in any generator of the new ideal $I'$. Hence $y^2$ lies in the orthogonal of the associated vector space $V'$ and, since going back to $V^{\perp}$ just involves a change of coordinates, we are done. In Case 2 there always exists a null-square linear form $\ell$ such that $\ell R_1 = R_2$. Finally, Case 3 is the same as Case 1 but for a single three-variable case where $I = (x^2, xy, yz, y^2-xz)$ and hence $V^{\perp}$ contains $z^2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Some Koszul algebras which are not G-quadratic}
For the rest of the section, let $S = \mathbbm{k}[x, y, z, t]$.
\begin{prop} \label{Gquadneccond}
Let $I$ be a quadratic ideal of $S$ such that the Hilbert series of $S/I$ is $\mathbf{A}_4$. If $S/I$ is G-quadratic, then there exists a change of coordinates $g \in \GL_4(\mathbbm{k})$ such that $g(I) \in \mathfrak{F}$, where $\mathfrak{F}$ is the family consisting of the quadratic ideals of the form \[(y^2, zt, xy, xz-*yt, t^2-*yt-*yz, z^2-*yt-*yz, xt-*yt-*yz).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{appendixGquad}.
\end{proof}
Let us examine some consequences of Proposition \ref{Gquadneccond}.
\begin{rem} \label{atleasttwoforms}
If $S/I$ has Hilbert series $\mathbf{A}_4$ and is G-quadratic, then it has at least two distinct null-square linear forms. One of them is trivially $y$. To find another one, recall that, by Lemma \ref{linear_forms_and_points}, the null-square linear forms of $S/I$ correspond to the points of the projective variety $\mathcal{V}(V^{\perp})$. In our case,
\[I = (y^2, zt, xy, xz-*yt, t^2+2ayz+2byt, z^2+2cyz+2dyt, xt-*yt-*yz)\]
and
\[V^{\perp} = \vspan\{x^2,~yz-at^2-cz^2-*xt,~yt-bt^2-dz^2-*xt-*xz\}.\]
If $a=b=0$ one has that, since $t^2$ does not appear in $V^{\perp}$, $t$ is a null-square linear form of $S/I$; otherwise, $(a\lambda^2 + c)y + z + \lambda t$ (where $\lambda$ is a root of $aX^3-bX^2+cX-d$) is a null-square linear form.
\end{rem}
The following corollary settles in the negative the following question asked by Conca in \cite[Section 4]{Conca2009}: if $R$ is a standard graded quadratic $\mathbbm{k}$-algebra which is not a trivial fiber extension and is such that $\dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_1 > 3 = \dim_{\mathbbm{k}}R_2$, is it true that $R$ is G-quadratic?
\begin{cor} \label{notGquad}
The algebras (5), (10), and (11) in Table \ref{koszultable} are Koszul but not G-quadratic.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The Koszulness of the algebras (5), (10), (11) was already established in Lemma \ref{allkoszul}.
Suppose now that any of those were G-quadratic. By Remark \ref{atleasttwoforms}, then, we should find at least two null-square linear forms, but it is immediate to check that there exists only one. Contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Via a subtler analysis of the family $\mathfrak{F}$ in Proposition \ref{Gquadneccond}, we are also able to prove that the Koszul algebras (4), (7), and (8) in Table \ref{koszultable} are not G-quadratic. The argument still relies on the properties of null-square linear forms for arbitrary elements of $\mathfrak{F}$.
\end{rem}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Observations of nearby molecular clouds obtained with the \textit{Herschel Space Observatory} \citep{Pilbratt+2010} have shown them to be highly filamentary, with filaments being the clear sites for star formation \citep{Andre+2010,Henning+2010,Menshchikov+2010,Hill+2011,Polychroni+2013,Andre+2014} and the intersections of filaments the sites of clustered and massive star formation \citep{Schneider+2012,Peretto+2013}. \citet{Myers2009} presents a theoretical model based on nearby star-forming complexes of star clusters forming within ``hubs'', parsec-length filaments radiating from them like spokes. Star formation on a galactic scale is very inefficient, and so efforts to understand it have focussed on the physics of molecular clouds, which are now being imaged with unprecedented resolution. Older observations see gradients along the long axis of a filament \citep[e.g.][]{Bally+1987,Schneider+2010}, while a few new observations, such as from the CARMA Large Area Star Formation Survey (CLASSy) \citep{Storm+2014}, are high enough resolution to see velocity gradients across filaments \citep{Fernandez-Lopez+2014}.
\citet{Beuther+2015} recently imaged a massive filamentary infrared dark cloud (IRDC 18223), observed in 3.2mm continuum and in molecular line data. This massive filament has a line mass of about 1000 $M_\odot$/pc. Along its length, 12 massive cores have formed with approximately even spacing. This extremely high line mass and fragmentation pattern requires additional support, either in the form of supersonic turbulence or magnetic fields.
N$_2$H$^{+}$ spectral line observations, tracing the motions of the dense filamentary gas, show significant gradients in the centroid velocity, suggesting a kinematic origin for this filament, although the authors were unable to differentiate between the potential roles played by large-scale gravitational collapse, rotation, converging magnetised gas flows, or whether the filament formed out of previously existing velocity-coherent sub-filaments.
The relevance of magnetic fields to the star formation process is already well established \citep{McKeeOstriker2007,Crutcher2012,Li+2014}, but direct measurement of magnetic fields remains difficult. Measurements of light polarization from dust grains remains the best way of mapping the plane-of-sky magnetic field orientation. Non-spherical dust grains to orient their long axis perpendicular to the ambient magnetic field \citep{Lazarian2007,HoangLazarian2008}. Starlight appears polarized parallel with the magnetic field due to absorption effects by dust \citep{Davis+Greenstein1951,Hildebrand1988}. Meanwhile, thermal emission by these dust grains produce light at far-infrared and sub-millimetre wavelengths polarized perpendicular to the magnetic field \citep{Hildebrand+1984, Novak+1997, Vaillancourt2007, Alves+2014}. This allows for the measurement of magnetic field orientations.
One of the best-studied regions of star formation is the Taurus molecular cloud. Molecular line observations of $^{12}$CO show striations aligned with the local magnetic field \citep{Heyer+2008} as traced by background starlight polarization. This observation is also confirmed by \citet{Palmeirim+2013}, who suggest that material may be accretion along these striations and onto the larger B211 filament. \citet{PlanckXXXIII} also suggest that magnetic fields affect filament formation, based on observations of polarized dust emission in the Taurus and Musca clouds.
The orientation of magnetic fields relative to the filaments in star-forming regions is of dynamical importance. One of the proposed mechanisms for the interaction between magnetic fields and filaments is that magnetic fields could channel material along the field line orientation, allowing filaments to form by gravitational contraction, as suggested by MHD simulations \citep{Nakamura+Li2008}. Low density filaments or striations should be oriented parallel to magnetic fields, channeling material onto the larger filaments \citep[cf. numerical simulation by][]{Vestuto+2003,Li+2008}.
\citet{Li+2013} examined the orientation of the filamentary giant molecular clouds of the Gould Belt ($N_H \approx 2 \times 10^{21}$--$2 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) relative to the magnetic fields of the intercloud medium (ICM) and found a bimodal distribution. Most clouds are oriented either perpendicular or parallel to ICM B-fields, with offsets typically less than 20 degrees. This strongly suggests the dynamical importance of magnetic fields in the formation of filaments. The physical scales observed in \citet{Li+2013} were generally a few parsecs to a few tens of parsecs, up to an order of magnitude larger than our clump-scale simulations, but of comparable density ($N_H \approx 5 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$). The orientation of the large-scale magnetic field relative to the large-scale structure of the cloud was studied, showing a bimodal distribution with peaks near parallel and perpendicular relative orientation.
The recent publication of the Planck polarization data \citep{PlanckXXXV} shows that magnetic fields have a strong tendency to be parallel to diffuse filamentary clouds with column densities below $N_H \approx 10^{21.7}$ cm$^{-2}$, and perpendicular to dense filaments of higher column density. The authors observe a transition in relative orientation with increasing $N_H$.
Given that the magnetic field energy dominates the gravity and thermal energy in the diffuse ISM, these results clearly point to the fact in diffuse gas, magnetic fields directs infall along them, resulting in the creation of dense, self-gravitating filaments oriented perpendicular to the field on impact \citep{Beck2016}. For field-aligned flows of the more diffuse ISM arising on galactic scales, Parker instabilities can readily create the dense molecular filaments, as material flows back towards the galactic plane \citep{GomezdeCastroPudritz1992}.
Magnetic fields may also play a role in the stability of filaments. Virial analysis by \citet{FiegePudritz2000} showed that, depending on orientation, magnetic fields may work to stabilize filaments against gravitational collapse or have the opposite effect. Toroidal fields assist gravity in squeezing filaments, while the poloidal fields threading filaments offer a magnetic pressure support against gravity. While submillimetre observations of filaments have detected helical fields in some cases \citep{MatthewsWilson2000}, turbulent MHD simulations have not yet reported such structures.
Our research has focused on comparing numerical simulations of magnetised molecular cloud clumps to observations, with the aim of better understanding the co-evolution of the magnetic fields, filamentary structure, and star formation. We have examined scales on the order of a few parsec, smaller than the Gould Belt clouds examined in \citet{Li+2013}, but on the same physical scales as the Serpens South cloud \citep[e.g.][]{Sugitani+2011,Kirk+2013} and the Taurus B211 filament \citep{Palmeirim+2013}.
In \citet*{Kirk+2015} \citep[henceforth simply][]{Kirk+2015}, we examined the structure of magnetised and unmagnetised filaments via numerical simulations, showing that simulated filaments have properties consistent with observed filaments, specifically the radial column density profiles, with similar shapes and extents to those observed. Magnetic fields can offer pressure support to filaments, and were observed to be somewhat ``puffier'' than their unmagnetised counterparts, with broader radial profiles and lower central densities \citep[for details see][]{Kirk+2015}. Turbulence was also observed to play a critical role in supporting the filament against collapse, consistent with the observations by \citet{Beuther+2015} of the massive, turbulent filament. This paper is the follow-on and extension of the investigations into simulated filaments begun in \citet{Kirk+2015}.
Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations provide an experimental laboratory for studying the evolution of the turbulent ISM within a magnetic field. \citet{Soler+2013} examined the relative orientations of density gradients and magnetic fields in 3D MHD simulations with decaying turbulence. Isodensity contours serve to trace filaments in this technique. Here too, filaments were seen to lie parallel to magnetic field lines at low densities, but switch to perpendicular in high density regions. This effect was more pronounced in simulations with high magnetisation.
Characterizing the relative energies of turbulence and magnetic fields is the turbulent Alfv\'{e}n Mach number,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:alfven_mach_number}
\mathcal{M}_A = \left(\beta/2\right)^{1/2} \mathcal{M} = \frac{\sigma}{v_A},
\end{equation}
where $\beta = 8\pi\rho \sigma^2 / \langle B^2 \rangle = 2 \sigma^2 / v_A^2$ is the plasma beta, which describes the ratio of thermal pressure to magnetic pressure. $\sigma$ and $v_A = B / \sqrt{4 \pi \rho}$ are the 1D velocity dispersion and the Alfv\'{e}n speed, respectively. The latter is the characteristic speed of a transverse magnetohydrodynamic wave. Because we are dealing with supersonic turbulence, it makes more sense to use the velocity dispersion, rather than the sound speed to characterize the gas motion. $\mathcal{M} = v / c_s$ is the thermal Mach number of the turbulence, where $v$ is the gas speed. If the turbulence is sub-Alfv\'{e}nic ($\mathcal{M}_A < 1$), turbulent pressure can elongate filaments in the direction of the magnetic field. If turbulent pressure is lacking, gravity can draw material along B-fields to form a filament with a perpendicular orientation (although perpendicular orientations can be caused by other physical processes, such as colliding flows). If the turbulence is super-Alfv\'{e}nic ($\mathcal{M}_A > 1$), then magnetic fields are not dynamically important and turbulence can compress gas in any direction to form filaments regardless of the large-scale orientation of intercloud magnetic fields. Molecular clouds are observed to possess Alfv\'{e}n Mach numbers of order unity \citep{Crutcher1999} and this is where we situate our own simulations.
\citet{Falceta-Goncalves+2008} performed MHD simulations with varying degrees of turbulence, although they do not include gravity. They examined sub-Alfv\'{e}nic ($\mathcal{M}_A = 0.7$) and super-Alfv\'{e}nic ($\mathcal{M}_A = 2.0$) cases. Field lines were ordered in the sub-Alfv\'{e}nic case, but observed to be random in the super-Alfv\'{e}nic case. They did not examine a transitional case near $\mathcal{M}_A \sim 1$. \citet{HeyerBrunt2012} looked at Alfv\'{e}nic turbulence in Taurus, and found a transition from sub-Alfv\'{e}nic turbulence in the envelope of the molecular cloud to super-Alfv\'{e}nic within the denser regions of the cloud. Additionally, the envelope showed a velocity anisotropy aligned with the local magnetic field. Our simulations of trans-Alfv\'{e}nic clouds are therefore well-situated and many molecular clouds are observed to have Alfv\'{e}n Mach number close to unity \citep{Crutcher1999}.
We perform numerical simulations of rotating, magnetised, turbulent molecular cloud clumps and the study the evolution of the resulting network of filaments. The aim is to better understand the competing influences of turbulence, magnetic fields, gravity and stellar feedback. Our two simulations are initialized as spherically symmetric in density, with magnetic fields oriented parallel to the $z$-axis, and then allowed to evolve. They differ mainly in terms of gravitational boundedness, parametrized by the virial parameter: one cloud clump is marginally bound, the other is highly bound and therefore collapses rapidly due to gravity. We explore the relationship between gravitational boundedness and the relative orientation of filaments and the magnetic field. Finally, in one simulation, we include massive star formation, which injects energy back into the densest parts of the main filament via ionizing radiation. We examine how this affects the magnetic field and accretion flows along the primary filament.
In the following sections we first describe our numerical methods (Section \ref{sec:numerical_methods}), lay out our results for filamentary and magnetic structure during early cloud evolution (Section \ref{sec:results}), analyze the effects of radiative feedback during later cloud evolution (Section \ref{sec:radiative_feedback}), and then discuss our results (Section \ref{sec:discussion}).
\section{Numerical Methods}\label{sec:numerical_methods}
\input{table_sim_params.tex}
We explore the relationship between the structure of molecular gas inside cloud clumps and the presence of magnetic fields through numerical simulation. MHD simulations, initialized with a turbulent velocity field, allow us to explore the three-dimensional structure of turbulence and filaments. Projections can then be made of this three-dimensional data to produce column density maps for closer comparison to astronomical observations.
We consider two approaches to studying the relative orientation of the magnetic field and filaments. The first, inspired by \citet{Li+2013}, considers the ``mean'' molecular cloud orientation in column density projection and the magnetic field orientation relative to this axis. The second approach we take considers the simulated volume in 3D, and maps out the 3D filamentary structure using the {\sc DisPerSE} algorithm\footnote{http://www2.iap.fr/users/sousbie/} \citep{Sousbie1,Sousbie2}, and then measures the relative angle formed by the filament and the local magnetic field at locations along each filament.
Through the application of structure-mapping algorithms, we can extract the (2D or 3D) filamentary networks evident in the simulation data (from column or volume density). Once the filamentary structure is mapped, we can compare local magnetic field orientation to study how orientation might be related filament characteristics.
The analysis of \textit{Herschel} results has seen the widespread application of image analysis algorithms for filament detection. These include the \textit{getfilaments} algorithm by \citet{getfilaments} and {\sc DisPerSE} \citep{Sousbie1,Sousbie2}.
We opted to use {\sc DisPerSE} , which maps out the topological features in an image or datacube, such as peaks, voids, or filaments. It has the advantage of being applicable also to 3D data cubes built from our simulation data. Previously, {\sc DisPerSE} had seen wide use for analysis of {\it Herschel} observations \citep[e.g.][]{Arzoumanian+2011,Peretto+2012,Hennemann+2012,Schneider+2012}, but we used it in a new way---on 3D star formation simulation data for examining the 3D structure of molecular gas filaments. This is in contrast to analyzing filaments solely in projection and is one of the first times this has been done in 3D for studies of filaments inside molecular clouds \citep[see][for another example]{Smith+2014}.
\subsection{Numerical simulations}\label{sec:numerical_simulations}
We perform numerical magnetohydrodynamic simulations using the {\sc flash} AMR code \citep{Fryxell2000} in its version 2.5. It makes use of the {\sc paramesh} library to solve the fluid equations on an adaptive Eulerian grid \citep{Olson+1999,MacNeice+2000}. The code has been expanded to include Lagrangian sink particles \citep{Banerjee2009, Federrath2010}, radiative heating and ionization feedback \citep{Rijkhorst2006, Peters2010a}, and self-consistent protostellar evolution \citep{Klassen+2012a}.
\subsection{Initial conditions}\label{sec:initial_conditions}
We performed numerical simulations, which we label {\tt MHD500} and {\tt MHD1200}, of two molecular clouds at different scales, one ({\tt MHD500}) more compact and close to virial equilibrium ($\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.95$), with approximately $500 M_\odot$ of material in a volume of side length 2.0 pc, and the second ({\tt MHD1200}) containing about $1200 M_\odot$ of material in a volume of side length 3.89 pc and considerably more subvirial ($\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.56$). These molecular clouds have column densities similar to those observed for Gould Belt clouds. The column density of the {\tt MHD500} cloud has an average value of $N_H = 7.33 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and a peak value of $N_H = 3.4 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ at the start of the simulation. The {\tt MHD1200} cloud has an average column density of $N_H = 4.66 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and a peak value of $N_H = 2.13 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ at the start of the simulation. Comparing to Figure 7 from \citet{Li+2013}, we see that the average value of the column densities and the magnetic fields correspond to Gould Belt clouds, while the peak column densities correspond to cloud cores. For comparison, the column density estimates for Gould Belt clouds in \citet{PlanckXXXV} were $N_H \approx 1$--$10 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ for average column densities, with peak values of $N_H \approx 20$--$100 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. Additionally, \textit{Herschel} observations towards Aquila and Polaris, showed column densities within star-forming filaments of around 1--2 $\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ in Aquila, with non-star-forming filaments in both clouds showing column densities up to a few $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ \citep{Andre+2010}.
The initial conditions are very similar to those we performed for \citet{Kirk+2015}, where the reader may find further details. The {\tt MHD500} simulation is the same in both papers. Previously, we examined filaments properties, comparing purely hydrodynamic simulations with MHD simulations. In this paper, we focus on magnetised molecular cloud clumps, and include a simulation ({\tt MHD1200}) that has star formation and photoionizing feedback in order to study the effect this form of radiative feedback has on filamentary structure and the magnetic field orientation. In \citet{Kirk+2015} we did not include radiative feedback as part of our study.
Our initial conditions are listed in Table \ref{table:simulation_parameters}. These types of simulations are computationally expensive to perform, and in this paper we limit ourselves to examining two simulated molecular cloud clumps with different average gas densities, but comparable magnetisation. The boundary conditions of our volume were open (outflow condition), but this does not influence the evolution in any significant way, as the clouds collapse gravitationally. Our grid resolution for the {\tt MHD500} simulation was about 50 AU, and for our {\tt MHD1200} it was about 390 AU. This was on account of the larger box size in the latter case. This resolution is sufficient to resolve filaments, which in \citet{Kirk+2015} were found to be between 0.06 pc ($\approx 12000$ AU) and 0.26 pc ($\approx 54000$ AU).
Molecular clouds are observed to have non-thermal linewidths attributed to supersonic turbulence \citep{Larson1981,Larson2003}. We initialize our simulations with a turbulent velocity field that is a mixture of compressive and solenoidal modes with a Burgers spectrum, $E_k \propto k^{-2}$ \citep{Federrath+2008,Girichidis2011}. Kolmogorov turbulence ($E_k \propto k^{-5/3}$) would be expected for incompressible fluids. The largest modes in our simulations have characteristic size scales on the order of box width (3.89 pc and 2 pc, for our {\tt MHD1200} and {\tt MHD500} simulations, respectively). See also \citet{Larson1981,Boldyrev2002,HeyerBrunt2004}. The randomly-oriented velocities sampled from the turbulent velocity distribution, represent only an initial condition and are allowed to decay. They are in no way correlated to the initial magnetic field orientation, which is uniform and parallel to the $z$-axis. We use the same turbulent initial velocity field for both simulations so that the structures arising from the turbulence will be similar. The root-mean-square (RMS) velocity and Mach number of each simulation is the same, and we initialized the simulations with root-mean-square velocities equal to 6 times the isothermal sound speed, but the mass-weighted average Mach number between our two simulations differs (see Table \ref{table:simulation_parameters}).
Observations of dense molecular cloud cores forming high-mass stars show column density profiles consistent with power laws \citep{Pirogov2009}. Hence, we initialize our simulations with density profiles of the form $\rho(r) \propto r^{-3/2}$. We simulated two different initial conditions, looking at a high mass case (1200 $M_\odot$) and a low mass case ($500 M_\odot$). The low-mass simulation was run without any radiative feedback, whereas in our high-mass simulation we allowed stars to influence their environments via ionizing feedback.
Observations of molecular cloud cores with sizes in the range of 0.3--2.1 pc and masses up to several thousand $M_\odot$ show velocity gradients consistent with a ratio of rotational to gravitational energy, $\beta_{\textrm{rot}} \lesssim 7\%$ \citep{Pirogov+2003}. Numerical simulations of molecular clouds are sometimes initialized in rigid body rotation a low $\beta_{\textrm{rot}}$ \citep[e.g.][]{Peters+2010}.
Our molecular cloud clumps are initialized in slow rigid body rotation about the $z$-axis. The rotation rate is set to $\Omega = 1.114 \times 10^{-14}$ s$^{-1}$ in both cases, which corresponds to a ratio of rotational kinetic to gravitational binding energy, $\beta_{\textrm{rot}}$ of 1\% in the {\tt MHD500} simulation and 3.2\% in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation.
The magnetic field is initially uniform and oriented parallel to the $z$-axis. We quantify magnetic field strengths via a mass-to-flux ratio, normalized against a critical mass-to-flux ratio:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:mass_to_flux}
\lambda = \frac{M/\Phi}{\left(M/\Phi\right)_{\textrm{crit}}}
\end{equation}
\citet{Crutcher2010} finds molecular clouds to typically have magnetic field strengths such that $\lambda \sim$ 2--3, so we initialize our simulations with the values in this range. The mass-to-flux ratio quantifies the dynamical importance of the magnetic field relative to gravity. The critical mass-to-flux ratio ($\lambda_{\textrm{crit}} \approx 0.13/\sqrt{G}$) is the value needed for gravitational energy to be balanced by the magnetic energy \citep{MouschoviasSpitzer1976}. The upper range for massive star forming regions is $\lambda \lesssim 5$ \citep{Falgarone+2008,Girart+2009,Beuther+2010}.
Using equation \ref{eqn:alfven_mach_number}, we calculate the RMS Alfv\'{e}n Mach number of each simulation, an important measure into whether the magnetic fields will dominate the turbulence. The {\tt MHD500} cloud has an RMS Alfv\'{e}n Mach number of 0.92, while the {\tt MHD1200} cloud has an RMS Alfv\'{e}n Mach number of 0.99, i.e.~both clouds have Alfv\'{e}n Mach number very close to unity and are essentially trans-Alfv\'{e}nic, meaning they are in the regime where turbulence threatens to destroy any orderly magnetic field structure the cloud may have inherited from the ICM. This regime is of interest because most clouds have Alfv\'{e}n Mach numbers close to unity \citet{Crutcher1999}.
Finally, we compare the kinetic energy to the gravitational energy by calculating the virial parameter \citep{BertoldiMcKee1992} for each of our clouds. The virial parameter,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:virial_parameter}
\alpha_{\textrm{vir}} = \frac{2 \mathcal{T}}{|\mathcal{W}|} \approx \frac{5 \sigma^2 R}{G M},
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the radius of the cloud, $G$ is Newton's constant, $M$ is the mass of the cloud, and $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion, usually measured from line width observations, measures the boundedness of the clouds. Most clouds have virial parameters of $\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.5$--$5$ \citep[see Figure 6,][]{Rosolowsky2007} and a cloud with $\alpha_{\textrm{vir}} < 1$ is expected to collapse gravitationally, while clouds with $\alpha_{\textrm{vir}} \approx 1$ are marginally stable against collapse. We find the one-dimensional velocity dispersion by taking the mass-weighted average velocity in our simulation,
\begin{equation}
\sigma = \left(\frac{\int \rho(\vec{r})|\vec{v}(\vec{r})|^2 dV}{3 \int \rho(\vec{r}) dV} \right)^{1/2},
\end{equation}
where the number $3$ in the denominator is the geometrical factor accounting for the number of dimensions. The virial parameter of the {\tt MHD500} simulation is 0.95, i.e.~marginally bound, while the {\tt MHD1200} is substantially sub-virial at $\alpha_{\textrm{vir}} = 0.56$.
We provide a summary of our simulation parameters in Table \ref{table:simulation_parameters}.
\subsection{Filament-finding}\label{sec:disperse}
Filamentary structure results from collisions between supersonic shocks \citep{MacLowKlessen2004,Schneider+2011,PudritzKevlahan2013}. Once the simulations are sufficiently evolved, filamentary structure is well developed. This always preceeds any star formation within the cloud clump. We took the evolved simulation output for our filaments analysis.
Identifying filamentary structure is challenging, and a variety of techniques have been developed for this task. One of the most straightforward approaches is based on structure-characterisation. \citet{Hennebelle2013} set characteristic density thresholds for molecular clumps. Filaments represented elongated clumps. In \citet{PlanckXXXII}, a Hessian matrix is defined for every pixel of the dust intensity map. By solving for the eigenvalues of this matrix, the local curvature is defined and filamentary structure can be extracted. The authors then construct a mask based on the intensity contrast relative to the background dust map, curvature, and the signal-to-noise of the polarization fraction. This selects the most significant ridge-like structures in the all-sky \textit{Planck} map.
Another approach is the ``histogram of relative orientations'' (HRO) developed by \citet{Soler+2013}, which is based on a computer vision algorithm called the Histogram of Oriented Gradients. Gradients in either the volume density or column density are used to indicate filaments, as filaments must lie perpendicular to the gradient vector. The relative angle between the gradient and the magnetic field orientation may then be used as a proxy for the relative orientation of magnetic fields and filaments. If the magnetic field is parallel to the density gradient, it thus lies perpendicular to the filament.
Applying this technique to magnetohydrodynamic simulations, they showed how there exists a threshold density above which the relative orientation switches from parallel to perpendicular. This threshold density was dependent on the magnetic field. The technique was also applied by the Planck collaboration for the analysis of Gould Belt clouds using the polarization of thermal dust emission observed by the {\it Planck} satellite at 353 GHz \citep{PlanckXXXV}. Gradients were measured in the column density maps and compared to the magnetic orientation inferred from polarimetry. They also found that magnetic fields went from having mostly parallel or random orientation at low density, to mostly perpendicular orientation at high density.
The Planck Collaboration is the current state-of-the-art in mapping the relative orientation of galactic magnetic fields around nearby clouds, and has added greatly to the available measurements and statistics of dust polarisation \citep{PlanckXXXII, PlanckXXXIII, PlanckXXXV}.
One disadvantage of the HRO method is that density gradients do not, by definition, imply the presence of filaments. Cores, sheets, and bubbles are coherent structures with density gradients that one would want to exclude from a study of filaments. {\sc DisPerSE} can be sensitive to noise, but will only select filamentary structure. The use of {\sc DisPerSE} in 3D magnetohydrodynamic calculations is also a valuable complement to extensive observational surveys.
For most of this paper, we focus on filaments and the local magnetic field structure, although Section \ref{sec:radiative_feedback} treats the subject of radiative feedback and its disruption of filamentary structure. This work also follows up on our successful use of {\sc DisPerSE} to map structure in filaments in \citet{Kirk+2015}, with one main difference being the application of {\sc DisPerSE} in 3D to volume density cubes instead of in 2D to column density projections. This allows us to avoid projections effects that could, for instance, make sheets appears as filaments in 2D.
In this paper we have borrowed from techniques used by \citet{Li+2013} for revealing large scale structure, and the {\sc DisPerSE} algorithm for identifying individual filaments. {\sc DisPerSE} has seen wide application in the analysis of {\it Herschel} results \citep[see, e.g.][]{Arzoumanian+2011,Hill+2011,Schneider+2011,Peretto+2012}, and applied to 3D hydrodynamic simulations in \citet{Smith+2014}. The analysis of 3D data is necessarily more complicated and performing ``by-eye'' assessments more complicated. There is also currently no way of ensuring that the filament skeletons extracted from the simulation grid at discrete points in the time map to the same structures in 3D. These filaments are constantly moving, shifting, and evolving. They might merge or dissipate or become disrupted by stellar feedback.
While the filament skeletons extracted by {\sc DisPerSE} are sensitive to the input parameters (lower persistence or noise thresholds tend to identify more striations), these structures are real topological features in the volumetric density maps. The properties of simulated filaments were compared to observed filaments in our earlier study \citep{Kirk+2015} and found to be in agreement.
{\sc flash} uses an adaptive mesh composed of blocks containing $8\times8\times8$ cells. The grid is refined as needed to resolve the gravitational collapse. {\sc flash} writes simulation plot files at specified intervals containing information about the state of the simulation and the values of grid variables. These represent global state of the simulation at a discrete point in time and are the primary output that we analyze. We refer to plot files often throughout this text.
Hierarchical grid structure is preserved in these plot files using the HDF5 file format. We used {\tt yt} \citep{ytpaper}, a general-purpose data analysis tool for computational astrophysics, to load the {\sc flash} output data and resample it to a uniform grid. Memory constraints meant that we mapped the density information to a $256\times256\times256$ uniform grid and wrote the output to a FITS file, a format compatible with {\sc DisPerSE} . The remapping to a uniform grid results in the loss of some information at the highest gas densities but preserves the large-scale structure throughout the simulation volume. The remapping is necessary because {\sc DisPerSE} does not currently support hierarchical grid structures. At a $256^3$ sampling, the grid resolution is approximately 1600 AU (0.008 pc) for our {\tt MHD500} simulation and 3100 AU (0.02 pc) for our {\tt MHD1200} simulation.
It is on these remapped FITS files that {\sc DisPerSE} operates, first to generate the Morse-Smale complex, then to extract the filament skeleton. The Morse-Smale complex is computed by finding all the critical points (where $\nabla \rho(x,y,z) = 0$). The maxima define a set of descending manifolds (the regions where all integral lines traveling along the gradients share the same maximum), while the minima define a dual set of ascending manifolds (the integral lines all share the same minimum). The intersection of these two manifolds defines a new set that is called the Morse-Smale complex. The simulation volume is partitioned into a natural tesselation of cells. The line segments connecting maxima and passing through saddle points are a natural way to define filaments. In cosmological studies, connecting dark matter haloes in the way allows for mapping of the cosmic web \citep{Sousbie2}. In molecular clouds, we use it to trace filaments. For visualization and analysis, we can use these filament skeletons together with the original un-resampled HDF output files from FLASH to retrieve other variables of interest along their extent (e.g.~magnetic field information).
We apply this process to several plot files from each simulation. The calculation of the Morse-Smale complex is particularly computationally intensive. To handle this, we used Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2), especially their {\tt c3.8xlarge}-type compute-optimized instances which provide 32 virtual CPUs and 60 GiBs of attached memory on demand. {\sc DisPerSE} can then be run in parallel across these cores.
In order to avoid tracing filaments in the noise of the data, and in order to select only the most prominent filaments, {\sc DisPerSE} measures the ``persistence'' of topological structures. Local maxima and minima form pairs of critical points. The absolute difference in value between these two is the persistence. A persistence cut removes pairs below a given threshold, but the topology of structures consisting of high-persistence points remains. By selecting the appropriate persistence threshold, we can avoid tracing filaments within the noise. ``Noise'' in our simulations would actually be small-scale density perturbations resulting from the high-wavenumber part of the turbulent power spectrum. These might appear as striations, lumps, or voids.
Another challenge when it comes to visualizing this data in 3D was that filaments span a large dynamic range in density. Because we simulated molecular cloud cores with a power-law density distribution, as are typically observed, and superimposed a supersonic velocity field on top of this, 3D plots of the filamentary structure require the selection of isosurfaces at particular densities. A volume rendering approach using raytracing requires a particular transfer function designed to highlight gas at particular densities. When the filament changes density along its length it can be difficult to plot the morphology using standard techniques.
To give an observer's picture, we take the output from these evolved simulations and project the density along each of the coordinate axes to produce column density maps from different perspectives. We then project the 3D filamentary skeletons onto these column density maps. Often there is clear agreement between the filament maps and the column density maps. Other times, the filamentary structure found in 3D is not obviously visible in 2D projection.
To produce a plane-of-sky magnetic field map, we perform a density-weighted projection along the same coordinate axes. We project the components of the magnetic field that lie perpendicular to the axis of projection. This gives us, at every location in our map, the integrated local magnetic field orientation. By weighting the magnetic field projection by density, we favour contributions to the magnetic field orientations local to filaments in the line of sight. This is, of course, an imperfect proxy for true polarization measures, but in the case of emission, assuming dust grains of homogeneous size and alignment efficiency, light polarization would be weighted by dust density, which traces the gas density.
To measure the orientation of the magnetic field relative to the filament, we trace the filament skeletons and interpolate $B_x$, $B_y$, and $B_z$ to find the local magnetic field orientation at the filament spine. We then measure the angle formed by the unit vectors of filament orientation and magnetic field orientation.
\section{Filament and B-Field Orientations: Early Cloud Evolution}\label{sec:results}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_density_isovolume+filaments+Bfields.pdf}
\caption{3D plot of gas density from the {\tt MHD1200} simulation at 250,000 years of evolution. Green isosurfaces indicate gas at densities of $n = 3.1 \times 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$ ($\rho = 1.1 \times 10^{-20}$ g/cm$^3$). Red lines indicate filament skeleton selected by {\sc DisPerSE} . Black lines are magnetic field lines at 8 randomly selected locations within the volume.}
\label{fig:m1200_whole_box}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we examine cloud and magnetic field properties during the first 250 kyr of cloud evolution before radiative feedback becomes important.
In Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box}, we take a representative plotfile from the {\tt MHD1200} simulation, after just over 250 kyr of evolution. We ran {\sc DisPerSE} with a persistence threshold of $10^{-17}$ g/cm$^3$, which selects some of the major-trunk filaments within the volume. Gas below a density of $10^{-22}$ g/cm$^3$ is excluded from consideration. The persistence threshold was adjusted manually until only major filaments were being selected. Small-scale turbulence can cause {\sc DisPerSE} to identify many potentially spurious short-length filaments that we did not wish to include in our analysis. A higher persistence threshold removes these from consideration.
Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box} highlights in green the $n = 3.1 \times 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$ ($\rho = 1.1 \times 10^{-20}$ g/cm$^3$) isosurface. The box enclosing the rendering depicts the entire simulation volume, with a side length of 3.89 pc.
Traced in red are the main filaments as {\sc DisPerSE} identifies them, satisfying the selection criteria described above. They align with some of the obvious filamentary structure visible in the rendering.
To visualize what is happening with the magnetic field, we draw magnetic field lines that trace the orientation of the magnetic field from 8 randomly sampled locations. Recall that the magnetic field is initially parallel to the $z$-axis of the simulation volume. Over 250 kyr, the structure of the magnetic field has evolved in response somewhat to the slow rigid body rotation of the gas about the $z$-axis, but much more to the turbulent velocity field. The Alfv\'{e}n Mach number quantifies the relative energies of the turbulence and magnetic fields. Our simulated clouds have Alfv\'{e}n Mach numbers of approximately unity, indicating an approximate equipartition in energies. By contrast the energy in rotation is only a few percent of the gravitational binding energy, which is greater even than the kinetic energy in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box} shows large deflections in the magnetic field from the initial orientation.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{2D column density maps along each of the coordinate axes with projections of the filament skeleton overplotted. Data is same as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box}}
\label{fig:coldens_projections}
\end{figure*}
While Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box} illustrates the structure of the magnetic field and filaments, we use projections to confirm whether structures seen in projection align with the filamentary structure that is traced in 3D. Studies of the filamentary nature of molecular clouds rely on some proxy of the column density (dust emission or integrated line intensity over some range of velocities). Density is seen in projection and hence may be hiding important structure inside the third dimension. Efforts to extract information about the 3D structure of molecular gas often make use spectral velocity data, with examples from simulations \citep[e.g.][]{Ward+2012} and observations \citep{Hacar+2011,Hacar+2013}. In the latter case it was found that filaments often have coherent velocity structures, with subsonic velocity dispersions, and marginal stability. In \citet{Kirk+2015} we also noted evidence of this kind of fine structure in numerical simulations.
In Figure \ref{fig:coldens_projections} we take the same data as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box}, but in order to verify that apparent structures in projection match the structures found by {\sc DisPerSE} in 3D we also project the filament skeleton into each of the three coordinate axes and plot them side-by-side. Column densities range from about 0.01 g/cm$^2$ to about 1.0 g/cm$^2$, while the mean initial column density of the simulation was 0.02 g/cm$^2$. The black lines in Figure \ref{fig:coldens_projections} indicate the projected filaments. We see that most of the major structures are captured by this technique. This confirms that at least some of the observed major structures in the column density plots are not just the result of projection effects, but correspond to true filamentary structures in 3D. \citet{Smith+2014} also found correspondence when comparing 2D and 3D {\sc DisPerSE}-mapped filaments from simulations, except that filaments seen in column density projection did not belong to a single structure, but where made up of a network of sub-filaments reminiscent of those observed by \citet{Hacar+2013}.
\subsection{Large-scale magnetic field orientation}\label{sec:large_scale_structure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_streamline_evolution.pdf}
\caption{B-field streamline evolution over the course of 325 kyr in our {\tt MHD1200} simulation. The green density contour is as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box}. Box depicts entire simulation volume with $L = 3.89$ pc on a side. Turbulence and rotation largely account for the changes in local magnetic field orientation.}
\label{fig:m1200_streamline_evolution}
\end{figure*}
In Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box}, in which the magnetic field lines show significant deformation, the structure of the magnetic field is the result of gas motions: the initial solid body rotation of the molecular cloud clump, the turbulent velocity field, and the slow gravitational collapse. In ideal MHD, a good assumption for the interstellar medium, fluid is assumed to conduct perfectly, and so magnetic field lines are dragged along with the fluid.
We show the evolution of this field line dragging through the series of panels in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_streamline_evolution} in which we have plotted the magnetic field lines at 6 different snapshots in time, with the density isocontour of $\rho = 1.1\times10^{-20}$ g/cm$^3$ ($n = 3.1 \times 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$) highlighted, as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_whole_box}. The first panel shows the state of the simulation at 8 kyr. The magnetic field lines are almost perfectly parallel with the $z$-axis, which was the initial condition. In the next panel, at 100 kyr, their state reflects some field line dragging due to the turbulent velocity field and solid body rotation. The deformation becomes more and more extreme from one panel to the next, with the last panel at 325 kyr reflecting very little of the original structure of the magnetic field.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_large_scale_orientation.pdf}
\caption{{\it Left:} Column density maps along the $y$-axis of our {\tt MHD1200} simulation at 250 kyr of evolution with density-weighted projected magnetic field orientation overplotted in red arrows. {\it Middle:} The autocorrelation of the previous column density map, which highlight self-similar structure. Contours highlight levels from 1\% to 10\% of peak correlation values. The diagonal bar represents cloud orientation and is the best fit line through the pixels contained within the outermost contour, weighted by the base-10 logarithm of the autocorrelation values. Magnetic field lines based on the values measured for the left panel are overplotted. {\it Right:} The histogram of magnetic field orientations based on the values measured for the left panel, normalized so that the total area is 1. The orientations are measured relative to ``north''. The blue histogram shows the total distribution, while red indicates only the orientations of high-density gas. The vertical grey lines indicate the angle of the best fit line to the large-scale structure (solid right line), and the angle offset by 90$^\circ$ (dashed left line).}
\label{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m500_large_scale_orientation.pdf}
\caption{The same as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation}, except using {\tt MHD500} at 150 kyr of evolution. Because of the higher average gas density, we draw contours in the middle panel from 0.1\% to 10\% of peak correlation values. The best-fit line is still calculated based on the outermost contour. The data is taken at approximately the same number of freefall times as in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation.}
\label{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Magnetic fields in 2D}
In \citet{Li+2013}, the authors took observations of molecular clouds in the Gould Belt with physical sizes of a few to a few tens of pc. Many of these clouds have large-scale elongated structure. The authors were interested in the magnetic field orientation relative to orientation of the large-scale structure of the cloud. Plotting these clouds in galactic coordinates (see their Figures 1 and 2), they then took the autocorrelation of the extinction maps. The autocorrelation map is produced by taking a copy of the image and displacing it in $x$ and $y$ coordinates, and at each such displacement calculating the sum of the product of the overlapping pixels. The map of this as one image is shifted relative to its copy highlights any self-similar structure. Any elongated structures feature prominently in the autocorrelation maps. \citet{Li+2013} then contoured various levels in the autocorrelation maps and took the best-fit linear regression to the pixel positions in the contours, giving the long-axis orientation of the molecular cloud. The angle of this could then be compared to the angles of magnetic field measurements derived from polarimetry data.
Motivated by the \citet{Li+2013} approach, we perform a similar analysis on our simulation data. In Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} we show data from our {\tt MHD1200} simulation at 250 kyr of evolution, while in Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation} we show data from our {\tt MHD500} simulation after 150 kyr of evolution. Although taken at different times, the data are at the same number of freefall times in each simulation ($t_{\textrm{ff}} \approx 0.14$). The freefall time,
\begin{equation}
t_{\textrm{ff}} = \sqrt{\frac{3 \pi}{32 G \bar{\rho}}},
\end{equation}
is a natural measure of the gravitational timescale of the simulation. The first panel from the left shows the map of projected mean density. This is very similar to a column density projection, except that each sample in the integral is itself weighted by density. We opted for this approach because it brings dense structures into stronger relief and produces clearer autocorrelation maps. We then overplot the magnetic field vectors in red. The magnetic field values are density-weighted averages computed by integrating through the simulation volume along the same projection axis. Unlike polarimetric observations, we can measure the magnetic field everywhere.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{m1200_projected_velocities.pdf}
\caption{A zoom-in of the {\tt MHD1200} cloud, in the same region as that shown in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} (left panel), centred on the highest-density gas and framing a (1.5 pc)$^2$ region. Column density is shown in colour with density-weighted projected velocity vectors overplotted, which emphasizes the motion of the higher-density gas. The initial Alfv\'{e}n Mach number is 0.99, and the initial virial parameter is $\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.56$, i.e.~the cloud is highly bound and undergoing gravitational collapse.}
\label{fig:m1200_projected_velocities}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{m500_projected_velocities.pdf}
\caption{A zoom-in of the {\tt MHD500} cloud, in the same region as that shown in Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation} (left panel), centred on the highest-density gas and framing a (1.5 pc)$^2$ region. Column density is shown in colour with density-weighted projected velocity vectors overplotted, which emphasizes the motion of the higher-density gas. The initial Alfv\'{e}n Mach number is 0.92, slightly lower than the {\tt MHD1200} case in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_projected_velocities}. However, the initial virial parameter is $\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.95$, i.e. the turbulent kinetic energy is roughly in equilibrium with the gravitational binding energy.}
\label{fig:m500_projected_velocities}
\end{figure*}
The middle panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} shows the autocorrelation of the ``column density'' plot from the left panel after downsampling to a 200x200 pixel greyscale image. The largest modes in the initial turbulent velocity field create a main filament ``trunk'' that is home to some of the highest-density gas in the simulation. In performing an autocorrelation of the column density map, the large-scale structure is also the most similar, and features prominently in the autocorrelation map. We contour several levels, from 1\% (the outermost contour) to 10\% of the peak value. We then fit a linear function to the pixel coordinates inside the 1\% contour, weighing each pixel by its base-10 logarithm value. In this way, we select the orientation of the long axis of the main structure in our molecular cloud clump. This approach is similar to that of \citet{Li+2013}, who used the pixel positions of the contour. We found better results using the pixels interior to a given contour, with a weighting based on their pixel value.
We are interested in measuring the magnetic field orientation and comparing it to the orientation of cloud clump. We overplot in blue the magnetic field lines on the autocorrelation map. The field lines are based on the magnetic field measurements taken from the left panel. We see that they are still largely oriented vertically, especially in the lower-density regions, but appear to align weakly with main trunk filament and some other high-density branches.
The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} shows two histograms and two vertical grey lines. The solid right line gives the angle of the ``trunk'' filament from the middle panel, measured relative to vertical, while the dashed left line is offset by $90^\circ$, i.e~perpendicular to the trunk. The histogram in blue is based on all the density-weighted magnetic field averages measured for the left panel. We see that most gas is still oriented vertically, with relatively little deflection ($\pm 10^\circ$) from its original orientation (vertical). However, shown in red is the distribution of magnetic field orientations for gas with a mean density $n > 3 \times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ ($\rho \gtrsim 10^{-18}$ g/cm$^3$). This relatively high density gas has somewhat a bimodal distribution, showing a preference for alignment with the main filament trunk (the right peak in the distribution). The smaller left peak in the distribution is towards a perpendicular orientation with the filament (the left vertical grey line), but not exactly perpendicular. Accretion flow onto the main trunk filament, and then along it, has dragged magnetic field lines along with it such that they are deflected towards the filament. This accretion flow is responsible for this second (left) peak in the bimodal distribution. At lower density thresholds, the twin peaks of the bimodal distribution combine in the centre, whereas at higher thresholds, the bimodal distribution persists until too few cells remain above the threshold density for good sampling.
We now compare this to Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation} (the virialized cloud simulation), which applies the same analysis to the {\tt MHD500} simulation. The analysis is done in the same way, except that for the autocorrelation map contours we plot evenly-spaced levels between 0.1\% and 10\% of the peak value. The {\tt MHD500}, being the tighter, more compact cloud with a higher overal gas density relative to the {\tt MHD1200} simulation, is actually less bound.
The measurements for Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation} are taken at the same number of freefall times as compared to the {\tt MHD1200} simulation to allow for a fair comparison.
The higher overall gas densities in {\tt MHD500} meant a more strongly peaked central value in the autocorrelation map. For this reason, we contoured down to 0.1\% of the peak value in the middle panel of Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation} to trace more of the overall structure.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_slice_dens_alfven.pdf}
\caption{{\it Left:} Volume density slice through the molecular cloud of our {\tt MHD1200} simulation after 250 kyr of evolution with arrows indicating the velocity field. The colours cover a range in volume densities from $n = 100$ cm$^{-3}$ to $n = 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$. Photoionization feedback from a cluster of stars (not shown) has begun forming an H\,{\sc ii} region at the side of the main trunk filament. {\it Right:} Local Alfv\'{e}n Mach number with arrows indicating the magnetic field. The colours are scaled logarithmically from $\mathcal{M}_A = 10^{-1}$ (blue) to $\mathcal{M}_A = 10^{1}$ (red). White regions have values for the Alfv\'{e}n Mach number of $\mathcal{M}_A \approx 1$, indicating that the turbulent energy is balancing the magnetic energy. Sub-Alfv\'{e}nic regions ($\mathcal{M}_A < 1$) have stronger magnetic fields.}
\label{fig:m1200_slice_dens_alfven}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m500_slice_dens_alfven.pdf}
\caption{The same as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_slice_dens_alfven}, except for the {\tt MHD500} simulation. As the simulation volume is smaller, the panels have been made proportionally smaller, while still centering on the densest part of the simulation. The snapshot of the simulation is taken after 150 kyr of evolution, which is earlier than in {\tt MHD1200}, but at the same number of freefall times to permit better comparison.}
\label{fig:m500_slice_dens_alfven}
\end{figure*}
The magnetic field orientations appear much more chaotic in Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}, despite the sound speed and RMS Mach number of the turbulence being the same in both simulations. The initial Alfv\'{e}n Mach number are also virtually identical, suggesting that the magnetic field structure should be similarly ordered or disordered. This is, however, not the case. The difference is entirely on account of the relative boundedness of each cloud.
The virialized cloud in {\tt MHD500} shows no strong preferred ordering of the magnetic field in 2D, as is seen in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}. Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation} also shows less obvious large-scale structure, as evinced by the autocorrelation map, which appears much more square when compared to Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation}. This is on account of {\tt MHD500} being in virial equilibrium. {\tt MHD1200}, being the more bound cloud, has undergone strong gravitational collapse onto the central filamentary structure, which appears very prominently in the autocorrelation map. The gravitational collapse has dragged the magnetic field structure with it, which accounts for the more regular structure seen in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} compared to Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}.
The lower-density gas ($n \leq 3 \times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$) forms an approximately Gaussian distribution in angle relative to ``North'', centered at 0$^\circ$. This distribution is shown in blue in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}. The higher-density gas ($n \leq 3 \times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$), shown in red, is spread over many angles, but, if anything, tends to be oriented more perpendicular to the main trunk filament, an angle indicated by the left vertical gray line. This pattern persists at other threshold densities.
In Figure \ref{fig:m1200_projected_velocities} we show the column density projection of the same region as in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} of the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. We then overplot the density-weighted average velocity vectors to show the average flows onto the main filament. We see a pattern of flow both along the long axis of the main trunk filament and accretion onto the filament radially. The flow appears to converge onto the central, densest region. Compare this to Figure \ref{fig:m500_projected_velocities}, which is the equivalent but for the {\tt MHD500} simulation, displaying the same region as in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}. The density-weighted average velocity shows a pattern of randomly-oriented flows. The difference, again, can be entirely attributed to the degree of boundedness in each case, with {\tt MHD1200} undergoing strong gravitational collapse and {\tt MHD500} exhibiting a relative balance of kinetic and gravitational energies.
To examine the relationship between magnetic field ordering and the Alfv\'{e}n Mach number more closely, we plot volume density slices through the center of our simulations showing the gas structure and compare these to slices of the local Alfv\'{e}n Mach number. We also compare the velocity and magnetic field structure. We show these in Figures \ref{fig:m1200_slice_dens_alfven} and \ref{fig:m500_slice_dens_alfven} for the {\tt MHD1200} (strongly bound) and {\tt MHD500} (virialized) models, respectively.
These two figures were taken at the same number of freefall times, $t_{\textrm{ff}} \approx 0.14$, which corresponds to about 250 kyr in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation and 150 kyr in the {\tt MHD500} simulation. In Figure \ref{fig:m1200_slice_dens_alfven}, we see that the velocity field is channeling mass both onto the main trunk filament and along it. This resembles the mass flows measured for the cluster-forming region in the Serpens South molecular cloud studied in \citet{Kirk+2013}. Material appears to be flowing along the long axis of our main trunk filament, feeding a tight cluster of stars that is driving the H\,{\sc ii} region already visible in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_slice_dens_alfven}. There is also material flowing onto the main filament radially, and this radial accretion appears stronger than the flows along the filament's long axis, as it was in \citet{Kirk+2013}. The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_slice_dens_alfven} shows the local Alfv\'{e}n Mach number. More sub-Alfv\'{e}nic regions possess stronger magnetic fields and slower accretion flows. The magnetic field is depicted with arrows in the right panel, showing how the magnetic field has been concentrated into the main trunk filament so that it lies parallel with the filament long axis.
In Figure \ref{fig:m500_slice_dens_alfven} we see the result of trans-Alfv\'{e}nic turbulence in virial balance with the gravitational forces in the {\tt MHD500} simulation. Recall that both simulations were initialized with the same turbulent velocity field, similar mass-to-flux ratios, and the same radial density profile. The {\tt MHD500} simulation is actually at higher average density---a more compact setup. However, after 150 kyr of evolution, the magnetic field has become disordered and the local Alfv\'{e}n Mach number is a patchwork of ripples, alternating islands of sub- and super-Alfv\'{e}nic regions, encircled with magnetic fields that do not possess very much coherent large-scale structure. There is some similarity with the {\tt MHD1200} simulation, however: the field is generally lying parallel to the long axis of the main filament.
The consensus so far is that turbulence plays a major role in trans-Alfv\'{e}nic molecular clouds. In the trans-Alfv\'{e}nic regime, neither turbulence nor magnetic fields have the clear upper hand. Unlike the sub-Alfv\'{e}nic regime, which dominates in the diffuse ISM and where magnetic fields clearly channel flows, filaments are more the result of turbulence and not of slow accretion flow along dominant field lines. The large-scale turbulent modes give rise to the primary filaments---the trunk---via shock compression, and magnetic field lines are dragged along with the gas, pushed together so that they lie together within the main filaments, parallel to their axes
In our case, wherein turbulence and magnetic forces are nearly in balance, we show that the discriminating factor is likely whether gravity dominates over the other energies. The {\tt MHD1200} simulation was substantially sub-virial ($\alpha_{\textrm{vir}} = 0.56$), whereas magnetic fields were chaotic in the virially-balanced case of {\tt MHD500}.
\subsection{Velocity fields in 2D}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_large_scale_velocities.pdf}
\caption{{\it Left:} Density projection along the $y$-axis of our {\tt MHD1200} simulation at 250 kyr of evolution with density-weighted projected velocity field overplotted in red arrows. {\it Middle:} The autocorrelation of the previous column density project, which highlight self-similar structure. Contours highlight levels from 1\% to 10\% of peak correlation values. The shaded diagonal bar represents cloud orientation as previously calculated for Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation}. Velocity streamlines based on the values measured for the left panel are overplotted. {\it Right:} The histogram of the velocity field orientations based on the values measured for the left panel, normalized so that the total area is 1. The orientations are measured relative to ``north''. The blue histogram shows the low-density gas distribution, while red indicates only the orientations of high-density gas. The vertical grey lines indicate the angle of the best fit line to the large-scale structure (solid right line), and the angle offset by 90$^\circ$ (dashed left line).}
\label{fig:m1200_large_scale_velocities}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m500_large_scale_velocities.pdf}
\caption{The same as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_velocities}, except using {\tt MHD500} at 150 kyr of evolution. Because of the higher average gas density, we draw contours in the middle panel from 0.1\% to 10\% of peak correlation values. The best-fit line is still calculated based on the outermost contour. The data is taken at approximately the same number of freefall times as in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation.}
\label{fig:m500_large_scale_velocities}
\end{figure*}
In Figures \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_velocities} and \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_velocities}, we show the large-scale velocity patterns in projection for the {\tt MHD1200} and {\tt MHD500} simulations, respectively. In each of these figures, the left panel shows the mean projected gas density in blue. Overplotted are velocity vectors computed by taking the density-averaged mean velocity along the line of sight. The white contour is the threshold density used in the right panel to separate ``low'' and ``high'' density gas.
The middle panels compute the autocorrelation of the mean gas density, just as we had done previously for Figures \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} and \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}. The only difference in this case is that the overplotted streamlines reflect the velocity structure instead of the magnetic field structure.
Finally, the right panels in Figures \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_velocities} and \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_velocities} show the histograms of the velocity field orientation angles, relative to ``north'' (the $z$-axis), based on the angles in every pixel of the left panel. The data is divided into ``low-density'' and ``high-density'' pixels, based on the mean gas density along the line of sight, with $\rho = 10^{-18}$ g/cm$^3$ ($n = 2.8 \times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$) as the threshold. The high-density regions are contoured in the left panel of each figure, and show a dense core region in each case.
The velocity angle histogram in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_velocities} shows a bimodal distribution for the low-density gas in blue for the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. These do not lie perfectly parallel or perpendicular to the main trunk filament angles (the right and left vertical grey lines, respectively), but do follow a general pattern: most of the low-density gas is flowing onto main trunk filament at an angle roughly perpendicular to it, with a smaller fraction of the gas also flowing along the main filament.
The high-density core region shows a high degree of flow along the main filament with another significant portion coming in laterally. This is shown by the red histogram.
In the {\tt MHD500} simulation, the histogram of gas velocities shows a different picture. The low-density gas is randomly oriented. There are no preferred accretion channels and gas appears to flow in all directions. This is in strong contrast to the high-density gas of the inner core region (shown in red), which shows extremely strong flow along the main trunk filament, and roughly perpendicular to it. This region is likely undergoing gravitational collapse and the main filament appears to set up accretion pathways, either along and perpendicular to it, to supply this central region with gas.
\subsection{Magnetic field orientation relative to filaments in 3D}\label{sec:small_scale_structure}
What is happening to the relative orientation of the filaments and the magnetic field lines at the level local to the filaments? Using the filamentary structure extracted from the 3D data cubes by {\sc DisPerSE} , we analyze the filament spines by visiting the vertices and locally measuring the tangent vector, the magnetic field vector, and other physical variables such as the mass density. This procedure allows us to construct histograms of the relative orientation of the magnetic field and the filament orientation.
We take the relative angle $\theta$ of the filament tangent vector and magnetic field vector. Some authors measure $\cos\theta$ or $\cos(2\theta)$, but trigonometric projection can cause histograms to suggest a strong trend toward $\cos\theta = \pm 1$. (Imagine a unit circle evenly sampled in the angular dimension. A histogram of the cosine of these angles will collect more samples in the bins nearest $\cos \theta = \pm 1$ unless the bin width is carefully modified as a function of $\theta$.) To avoid these problems, we produce histograms in relative angle only.
We are also careful to compare to the case of random orientation. Because of the two angular degrees of freedom in three-dimensional space, a histogram of relative orientation will have a higher proportion of vectors with angles closer to perpendicular than parallel. Any true tendency in nature towards a parallel or perpendicular orientation of filaments relative to magnetic fields should therefore be measured relative to the case of random orientation.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{m1200_rel_orientation_hist_deg.pdf}
\caption{Sequence of histograms from the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. The area under each curve has been normalized to 1. By tracing along the filaments in 3D through the simulated volume, we produce histograms of the relative orientation of the magnetic field and the filament. In each panel, we compare the relative orientation measured in the data (blue) with the histogram that would have resulted if the magnetic field had been randomly oriented (red). In addition to a standard step-shaped histogram, a kernel density estimate (KDE), with a Gaussian kernel, has been run over the data and is shown via the smooth curves, providing a continuous analog to the discretely-binned histogram data. Shaded areas indicate either an exceess relative to random (blue) or a deficit (red). Each row of panels gives the state of the simulation at the indicated time. Columns restrict the relative orientation data to the indicated density regims, as measured locally along the filament spine. The last column applies no density selection.}
\label{fig:m1200_rel_orientation_hist}
\end{figure*}
For our {\tt MHD1200} simulation, for the series of time points under consideration, which were selected to be spaced roughly evenly throughout the simulation, we partition the data into three density groups: ``low'' ($n / \textrm{cm}^{-3} < 5\times10^3$), ``medium'' ($5\times10^3 < n / \textrm{cm}^{-3} < 5\times10^4$), and ``high'' ($n / \textrm{cm}^{-3} > 5\times10^4$). These are the first three columns shown in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_rel_orientation_hist}. The final column gives the histogram for all data, making no density cuts. In this figure, the rows represent the time evolution of these histograms of relative 3D orientation. The times at which these histograms were taken are indicated the top-left corner of the first panel in each row.
In each panel, two histograms are shown. In blue is the distribution of relative angles presented by our data---the ``Actual'' case. We compare the measured relative angles to the case of random orientation, shown in red and labeled ``Random''. In this case, the local magnetic field is assigned a random orientation in 3D space and the relative orientation to the filament is measured. The sample size for the ``Random'' case therefore matches the ``Actual'' case.
In addition to performing the standard step-shaped histogram with 12 bins over 90$^\circ$ of angle, we apply a kernel density estimate (KDE) using Gaussian kernels. KDEs are a continuous analog to the traditional histogram with its discrete number of bins. Figures \ref{fig:m1200_rel_orientation_hist} and \ref{fig:m500_rel_orientation_hist} show both representations. Additionally, we shade any ``excess'' (blue) or ``deficit'' (red) relative to the ``Random''.
In studying Figure \ref{fig:m1200_rel_orientation_hist}, the {\tt MHD1200} simulation, a few trends appear. Although containing more mass overall, the volume of the {\tt MHD1200} is also much larger, causing the mean gas density in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation to be about one third the value in the {\tt MHD500} simulation. We see that in the ``All''-density column there is a deficit in the distribution of relative angles around 90$^\circ$. This pattern shows up in many of the panels where the data has been further segmented based on underlying mass density.
In the low-density column, where we measure relative angles at filaments segments situated in gas at densities $n < 5\times10^3$ cm$^{-3}$, there is neither a trend towards parallel nor perpendicular orientation. Instead, there is an excess relative to random at angles between 30$^\circ$ and 75$^\circ$. This low-density regime represents the outer regions of our simulation volume. The magnetic fields lines, initially coherent and oriented parallel to the $z$-axis, have been dragged inward during the molecular cloud clump's gravitational collapse. In the outer regions of the simulation volume, this inward dragging may account for the observed excess at ``middle'' angles.
At relatively early times, after 100 kyr of evolution (first row of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_rel_orientation_hist}), most of the gas is still at low density. It has not had time to collapse to higher density, i.e.~into the main trunk filament. In the low-density gas histogram, the peak is measured around $45^\circ$ relative orientation between filaments and B-field. This may be on account of the main filament trunk having this approximately this orientation, which may just be starting to form as a result of the largest turbulent modes. At this time, there is very little gas with densities above $5\times10^3$ cm$^{-3}$.
As the simulation progresses, we observe increased power at near-parallel orientations. See, especially, the ``intermediate'' and ``high''-density panels at 250 kyr of evolution, with corresponding deficits at near-perpendicular orientations. An interesting thing happens between 250 kyr and 325 kyr. Between these times, star formation has occurred in this simulation, and radiative feedback has injected energy into the molecular cloud clump. The measured relative orientations between the magnetic field and the filamentary structure in 3D is much closer to random than in any of the other panels. We attribute this to the energy injected through radiative feedback from high-mass stars, an effect we discuss further in section \ref{sec:radiative_feedback}. Radiative feedback is already underway by 250 kyr, but by 325 kyr has largely disrupted the main filament trunk. The radiative feedback is in the form of ionizing radiation from a tight cluster of massive stars that lead to the formation of an expanding H\,{\sc ii} region.
At 175 and 250 kyr, we see a feature indicating parallel relative orientation of the filamentary structure and the magnetic field. It is seen in the medium and high density panels, and also appears more modestly in the ``all data'' panel on the right. As the simulation progress, this feature is apparently washed out, because the alignment isn't seen in the last row. Again, this is on account of radiative feedback from star formation.
It is important to note that {\sc DisPerSE} was run on each simulation plotfile separately, and the filamentary structure extracted from each will be different. The persistence and noise thresholds were held the same for the sake of consistently, but the simulation evolves over time and central regions become denser due to gravitational infall. Therefore the skeletons that {\sc DisPerSE} extracts from the set of plot files, though they come from the same simulation, may not necessarily strongly resemble each other. This is in contrast to what was done in \citet{Kirk+2015}, wherein the filament skeletons were found in 2D column density projections and the skeletons kept consistent between time slices using by-hand adjustments as necessary. Owing to the considerably higher complexity of doing this with 3D skeletons and having sparser time sampling, we did not attempt to map out the exact same filaments at each time slice.
Nevertheless, the filament skeletons extracted from one column density projection to the next were largely similar, and \citet{Kirk+2015} demonstrated that the properties of our {\sc flash}-simulated filaments matched those of filaments observed in nature.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{m500_rel_orientation_hist_deg.pdf}
\caption{The same as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_rel_orientation_hist}, except for our {\tt MHD500} simulation.}
\label{fig:m500_rel_orientation_hist}
\end{figure*}
In Figure \ref{fig:m500_rel_orientation_hist} we show the same analysis performed on our {\tt MHD500} simulation. {\tt MHD1200} and {\tt MHD500} both have the same angular rotation rate, similar ratios of rotational kinetic energy to gravitational energy, the same initial temperature and RMS Mach number turbulence. We initialized both from the same turbulent velocity field, hence they would have developed similar initial structure. The difference is that {\tt MHD500} is tighter and more compact, with a higher average gas density ($\bar{n}_{500} \approx 1.2\times10^3$ vs $\bar{n}_{1200} \approx 3.9 \times 10^2$ cm$^{-3}$).
At early times it is difficult to discern any pattern in the relative orientations. Most of the gas has not yet collapsed to very high density, and the orientations appear relatively close to random distributed.
This changes as the simulation evolves. In the panels at 100 kyr and 125 kyr, the data shows a tendency towards a perpendicular relative orientation. This is visible even in the low-density panels where $n < 5\times10^3$ cm$^{-3}$. At late times (150 kyr, final row), however, this trend is less clear. The high-density ($n > 5\times10^4$ cm$^{-3}$) at 150 kyr appears either to have reversed the trend, or else the orientations have simply become closer to random. In Figure \ref{fig:vir_m2f_evo}, we showed how at 150 kyr the {\tt MHD500} simulation becomes magnetically critical, meaning that the magnetic flux is sufficient to support against further gravitational collapse. We also showed how the virial parameter, which measures the ratio of kinetic to graviational energy increases sharply toward 150 kyr. We interpret this as gravitational energy being converted to kinetic energy during gravitational collapse, in particular as the cloud clump becomes magnetically critical.
Whereas in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation we saw kinetic energy being injected in the form of radiative feedback from massive stars, in the {\tt MHD500} simulation, in which we did not simulate star formation, gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy, with similar results: the relative orientation of the magnetic field to the filamentary structure becomes closer to random with the injection of kinetic energy.
\subsection{Virial parameter and mass-to-flux ratio}\label{sec:virial_parameter}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=88mm]{vir_m2f_evo.pdf}
\caption{The evolution of the virial parameter and the mass-to-flux ratio of our two simulations. These parameters remain fairly steady throughout the {\tt MHD1200} simulation, but the {\tt MHD500} becomes magnetically critical during gravitational collapse. The added magnetic support causes some of the gas in the outer regions to rebound, adding kinetic energy.}
\label{fig:vir_m2f_evo}
\end{figure}
We plot the evolution of both the virial parameter and the mass-to-flux ratio in Figure \ref{fig:vir_m2f_evo}. Both are calculated as their volumetric averages with the simulation, and the mass-to-flux ratio is normalized to the critical mass-to-flux ratio (Equation \ref{eqn:mass_to_flux}).
The {\tt MHD1200} simulation begins substantially sub-virial, meaning that as an unmagnetised cloud clump, it would be highly bound and undergo gravitational collapse. Since its mass-to-flux ratio is also supercritical, it does indeed undergo gravitational collapse.
The value of the virial parameter remains relatively level throughout the simulation, decreasing slightly over time as the cloud collapses, but then beginning to increase against around 250 kyr, the time at which massive star formation has resulted in kinetic energy being injected into the simulation via radiative feedback. The mass-to-flux ratio decreases monotonically throughout the simulation as a result of magnetic field lines being dragged slowly inward, following the gravitational collapse.
The {\tt MHD500} simulation behaves rather differently. The simulation evolves quickly, and the virial parameter goes from marginally bound (0.95) to 0.55 after 100 kyr, following which it increases dramatically to 1.43 after 150 kyr. This trend is attributable to what is happening with the mass-to-flux ratio. The simulation begins slightly more magnetised than the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. Magnetic field lines are dragged inward following the gravitational collapse of the gas (which is, on average, 3 times denser than that of the {\tt MHD1200} simulation). The boundary conditions assume that the simulation volume resides in an ambient medium with the same initial magnetic flux desnity. Hence, during gravitational collapse, magnetic field lines are effectively dragged into the simulation volume during gravitational collapse.
The {\tt MHD500} simulation becomes magnetically critical after 150 kyr, meaning that magnetic support is able to prevent further collapse. Gravitational energy gets converted to kinetic energy as the collapse is halted. This increase in kinetic energy is reflected in the virial parameter.
\section{Star formation and the effect of radiative feedback}\label{sec:radiative_feedback}
How does radiative feedback from a forming massive star (which we find in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation) affect the filamentary structure of the cloud? In particular, can it destroy or alter the filamentary accretion flow so as to shut down accretion onto the massive star?
To answer these questions, we ran our {\tt MHD1200} simulation including radiative feedback from star formation. We use a characteristics-based raytracer coupled to a simplified version of the DORIC radiative cooling, heating, and ionization package \citep{FrankMellema1994,MellemaLundqvist2002,Rijkhorst2006} implemented in FLASH for the study of star formation and H\,{\sc ii} regions \citep{Peters2010a}.
The {\tt MHD1200} forms a cluster of massive stars near the center of the simulation volume, directly within the main trunk filament. \citet{Schneider+2012,Peretto+2013} observe that the intersections of filaments are the sites of clustered and massive star formation. The main trunk filament in our simulation shows various smaller branches connecting with it. The cluster of massive protostars that forms in our simulation eventually becomes luminous enough to begin ionizing the gas around it and form a H\,{\sc ii} region with the appearance of a blister on the side of main trunk filament, similar to the Cocoon nebula in IC 5416 \citep{Arzoumanian+2011}, although the Cocoon nebula is an H\,{\sc ii} region powered by only a single B star.
The formation of the H\,{\sc ii} region ultimately begins to disrupt and destroy the main filament, creating an expanding cavity of hot ($10^4$ K) gas and injecting a lot of kinetic energy. The H\,{\sc ii} region, driven mainly by a single massive star that grows to $16 M_\odot$, comes to envelope the entire star cluster and shuts off accretion onto every star.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=88mm]{m1200_sink_masses.pdf}
\caption{The evolution of the sink particles formed in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. 7 particles are formed near the center of the simulation volume inside the main trunk filament and make up a tight cluster. These accrete mass, the largest of which reaches nearly 16 $M_\odot$.}
\label{fig:m1200_sink_masses}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_sink_evolution.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the most massive star formed as part of the {\tt MHD1200} simulation, which reaches a maximum mass of 16 $M_\odot$. The top-left panel shows the history of the mass of the sink particle representing this star. The top-right panel shows the evolution of the accretion rate in units of $M_\odot$/yr. The bottom-left panel is the history of the effective (surface) temperature, as computed by our protostellar model. The bottom-right panel shows the intrinsic luminosity and the accretion luminosity of the star.}
\label{fig:m1200_sink_evolution}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:m1200_sink_masses} shows the mass evolution of the stars formed in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. A total of 7 stars are formed, although only one of them becomes a massive star, achieving about 16 $M_\odot$. Of the others, one reaches $3 M_\odot$, while the others remain below $2 M_\odot$. The luminosity of the massive star dominates all the others, achieving a total luminosity of $L_{\textrm{tot}} = 22942 L_\odot$. This star powers the formation of the H\,{\sc ii} region. The 10,000 K gas within this region supplies the thermal pressure needed to drive the outward expansion of the bubble and form the blister that eventually begins to disrupt the main filament. A star with a mass of 16 $M_\odot$, in a cluster of 7 stars with a total mass of 26.16 $M_\odot$ is at the high end---but still observed---range for embedded star clusters \citep{Weidner+2010}.
We take a closer look at the evolution of the most massive star in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_sink_evolution}, which plots the evolution of several of its properties. The top-left panel shows the mass evolution as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_sink_masses}, but only for the most massive star. After about 250 kyr of evolution, the mass of the star begins to plateau as it envelopes itself in the H\,{\sc ii} region of its own making. Less gas reaches the star and its accretion is shut off. We see this play out in the top-right panel of the figure, which shows the accretion rate reach a maximum of around 1--2 $\times 10^{-4}$ $M_\odot$/yr, but then begins to drop off. After 275 kyr, the accretion rate has shut off completely and the star ceases to grow. In this panel, we have applied a small amount of smoothing via a moving average filter.
In the bottom-left panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_sink_evolution} we plot the evolution of the effective (surface) temperature of the star. This is computed via a protostellar evolution model that we first implemented in {\sc flash} in \citet{Klassen+2012a} and used in the study of H\,{\sc ii} region variability in \citet{Klassen+2012b}. In particular, the notch seen in the surface temperature near 150 kyr is due to a change in protostellar structure as the star's radius swells and the surface cools temporarily. From 150 to 225 kyr, the surface temperature increases dramatically, which results in a high flux of ionizing photons. The H\,{\sc ii} region starts to form during this time as the massive star begins to ionize the gas in its vicinity.
The bottom-right panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_sink_evolution} shows the evolution of star's intrinsic luminosity (from nuclear burning or Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction during the earliest phases) and the accretion luminosity. Initially, accretion is the dominant luminosity, but is overtaken by the star's intrinsic luminosity after about 125 kyr of evolution, when the star is between 4 and 6 $M_\odot$. We see that the accretion luminosity shuts off completely around 275 kyr.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_large_scale_orientation_last.pdf}
\caption{The same as in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation}, except for the final state of the {\tt MHD1200} simulation at 325 kyr of evolution. Photoionization feedback from a massive star of $\approx 16 M_\odot$ has created an expanding H\,{\sc ii} region.}
\label{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation_last}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{m1200_bubble.pdf}
\caption{Volume density slices through the center of the {\tt MHD1200} simulation volume showing an expanding H\,{\sc ii} region as a result of ionizing feedback from the cluster of stars. A single massive star of nearly 16 $M_\odot$ dominates all the others and has a luminosity of nearly 23,000 $L_\odot$. This drives a bubble of hot (10,000 K) ionized gas, forming a blister on the side of the main trunk filament. The left panel shows the state of this bubble after 250 kyr of evolution, while the right panel shows the state of the bubble after 325 kyr, near the very end of the simulation. Overplotted on each are magnetic field vectors based on the magnetic field orientation in the plane of the slice.}
\label{fig:m1200_bubble}
\end{figure*}
We repeat the column density autocorrelation analysis in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation_last}, this time for the terminal plotfile at 325 kyr of evolution. We zoom in on the inner (1.2 pc)$^2$ of the simulation. The effects of the forming H\,{\sc ii} region is seen in the column density plot as a blister on the side of the main filament. Photoionizing feedback injects a large amount of kinetic energy---the gas inside the H\,{\sc ii} region is $10^4$ K. The orientation of the magnetic field vectors for the high-density gas ($n > 2.8 \times 10^{5}$ cm$^{-3}$) is almost random, being spread out fairly evenly across all angles.
The consequences for the magnetic field in a slice through the centre of the simulation volume are shown in the two panels of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_bubble}. This figure shows a volume density slice through the centre of the simulation volume at 250 kyr and 325 kyr. A (1 pc)$^2$ window is centered on the star cluster in the left panel, and this window position is kept when plotting the second panel. Volume densities are coloured from a minimum at $n = 100$ cm$^{-3}$ to $n = 10^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$. We then overplot a magnetic vector map, using the magnetic field orientations in the plane of the slice, rather than performing a density-weighted projection as was done to generate Figures \ref{fig:m1200_large_scale_orientation} and \ref{fig:m500_large_scale_orientation}.
As the H\,{\sc ii} region grows, the expanding bubble sweeps up a shell of material. The panel on the right of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_bubble} shows the magnetic field lines being swept up with this wall of material, consistent with other observations and theoretical work \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Lyutikov2006,DursiPfrommer2008,Arthur+2011,vanMarle+2015}. The magnetic field becomes compressed along the bubble wall, and its strength is enhanced by a factor of about 5--6, from around 20 Gauss to around 100--120 Gauss when comparing the B-field magnitude inside the shell versus just beyond outside it. Meanwhile, the magnetic field inside the bubbble is chaotic and disordered. We recall that in our 3D filaments analysis, Figure \ref{fig:m1200_rel_orientation_hist} showed how any coherent orientation of the magnetic field relative to the filamentary structure is largely erased by the end of the simulation (325 kyr), with the relative orientation approaching the random distribution. This is especially true for the highest-density gas, which is also where the massive stars formed and their radiative feedback injected the most kinetic energy.
\citet{Arthur+2011} also found that when an H\,{\sc ii} region expands into a turbulent medium, the magnetic field tends to become ordered, lying parallel to the ionization front. This is consistent with what we observe in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_bubble}. They also reported that the magnetic field within the ionized region tended to be oriented perpendicular to the front, whereas in our case the field nearest the star cluster has the appearance of random orientation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=88mm]{m1200_magy.pdf}
\caption{A slice through the simulation volume of the {\tt MHD1200} simulation at 325 kyr showing the line-of-sight magnetic field strength around the H\,{\sc ii} region driven by the cluster of stars in the lower-left corner of the image. Magnetic field vectors are overplotted giving the plane-of-sky magnetic field orientation.}
\label{fig:m1200_mag_los}
\end{figure}
The Rosette Nebula within the Monoceros molecular cloud is an example of an observed region with ongoing massive star formation that provided an opportunity to study the effect of an expanding H\,{\sc ii} region within a magnetised environment. \citet{PlanckXXXIV} were able to fit an analytical model to this H\,{\sc ii} region using \textit{Planck} 353 GHz dust polarisation data that was able to reproduce the observed rotation measure data. An enhancement of the line-of-sight magnetic field by about a factor of 4 was seen inside shell swept up by the H\,{\sc ii} region.
Results from the \textit{Planck} mission offer opportunities to compare numerical simulations and high-resolution observations. We plotted the line-of-sight magnetic field strength from our {\tt MHD1200} simulation at 325 kyr, when the H\,{\sc ii} region is already evolved. We show this in Figure \ref{fig:m1200_mag_los}. The plot centres on an area similar to that shown in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:m1200_bubble}. We again overplot the plane-of-sky magnetic field vectors. The enhancement of the line-of-sight magnetic field strength in the shell of the expanding H\,{\sc ii} region is roughly a factor of 4--10, depending on which part of the shell is probed. The magnetic field strength inside the H\,{\sc ii} region varies over 1--20 $\mu G$, similar to the ambient field strength in our simulation and in agreement with the ambient field estimates in \citet{PlanckXXXIV}, though the studied H\,{\sc ii} region in Rosette is much larger ($R \sim 20$ pc) than our simulated volume ($L \sim 4$ pc).
Massive stars are a possible mechanism for driving turbulence in molecular clouds. They also complicate the picture of how magnetic fields ought to orientated around filamentary clouds, randomizing it in some places, while possibly sweeping together field lines within expanding shells of material. We can expect sites of active star formation, especially massive star formation, to disturb the order of the magnetic field inherited from the ICM.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
In \citet{Kirk+2015}, we analyzed the properties of filaments resulting from hydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic simulations, finding that magnetic fields resulted in ``puffier'' filaments, i.e.~lower central densities, broader scale widths, and filaments less prone to gravitational fragmentation. The filamentary structure was extracted from column density projections, but no analysis was done on the relative orientation of the magnetic field and the filament. This was taken up by other authors \citep{SeifriedWalch2015}, who analyzed linear initial filament configurations and showed that perpendicular magnetic fields can result in filaments thinner than the proposed univeral filament width of 0.1 pc \citep{Arzoumanian+2011}. Different field configurations and turbulence will result in different fragmentation patterns.
One of the key differences between our simulations and those of \citet{SeifriedWalch2015} is the origin of the filaments. \citet{SeifriedWalch2015} starts with a single filament as an initial condition, whereas we form a network of filaments in a molecular cloud clump. In our simulations, filaments are the result of supersonic turbulence. In \citet{SeifriedWalch2015}, turbulence is present, but affects the fragmentation pattern of the gas; it is not responsible for the filament's structure.
\subsection{Magnetic fields, filament formation, and dynamics}
What is the case in nature? Do flows of gas along the magnetic fields of the intercloud medium result in filament-shaped clouds, or does supersonic turbulence help define both the filamentary structure and the magnetic field structure? Various scenarios for filament formation have been studied. In the supersonic turbulence scenario, colliding shocks create a network of filaments where dense gas can stagnate \citep[e.g.][]{Hartmann+2001,Padoan+2001,Arzoumanian+2011}. These colliding shocks may be driven by stellar feedback, supernovae, or other sources of turbulence. Our own use of a random, decaying initial supersonic velocity field with a turbulent power spectrum is motivated by this scenario. The use of driven turbulence would have continuously injected energy into the simulation, and would have been inappropriate for this type of study. The relative orientation of magnetic fields in our scenario will depend on the relative strengths of gravity, turbulence, and the magnetic field, as we have shown in this paper. For trans-Alfv\'{e}nic turbulence, gas compression can happen both perpendicular or parallel to magnetic fields.
A related scenario is colliding flows or cloud-cloud collisions \citep[see, e.g.][]{RedfieldLinsky2008,Banerjee2009,InoueFukui2013}. In the local ISM, cloud-cloud collisions may be responsible for the observed filamentary morphology \citep{RedfieldLinsky2008}. In cloud-cloud collisions, the magnetic fields may thread the massive, filamentary cloud cores perpendicular to the filaments \citep{InoueFukui2013}. Compression of Warm Neutral Medium (WNM) flows (possibly through turbulence) can trigger the condensation of cold gas structures, even filaments oriented parallel to magnetic fields as the shear of the turbulent flow stretches gas condensations into sheets and filaments \citep{AuditHennebelle2005,InoueInutsuka2009,Heitsch+2009,Saury+2014}. The ubiquity of filaments may thus be explained as generic turbulence sheers gas condensations into filaments, and magnetic fields may help keep these as coherent structures \citep{Hennebelle2013}. The orientation reported in \citet{PlanckXXXII} between matter structures in the diffuse ISM and magnetic fields could be a signature of the Cold Neutral Medium (CNM) filaments through turbulence.
Another mechanism for forming filamentary molecular clouds is B-field channeled gravitational contraction \citep[e.g.][]{Nakamura+Li2008}. Here Lorentz forces imply that gas motion along magnetic fields is unhindered, whereas gas moving perpendicular to field lines encouters a magnetic pressure. This means that gravity can channel gas along field lines, fragmenting the cloud into filaments that perendicular to the B-field, but parallel to each other.
In a related scenario, anisotropic sub-Alfv\'{e}nic turbulence has the effect of spreading gas preferentially along magnetic fields. In this case, filaments appear parallel to magnetic field lines. These latter two scenarios are considered for Gould Belt clouds by \citep{Li+2013}.
Which of these scenarios is true likely depends on the local environment: the relative strengths of turbulence and magnetic fields, the physical scales under consideration, the enclosed mass and boundedness of the region, the isotropy of the turbulence, and the star formation history of the region.
An important measure of the dynamical importance of a filament segment is the mass-per-unit-length, sometimes called the dynamical mass or line mass of a filament. An equilibrium analysis can be used to define a critical value for stability, as was done in \citet{Ostriker1964} who showed that for an isothermal cylinder, the mass per unit length is
\begin{equation}
m_{\mathrm{crit}} = \frac{2 c_s^2}{G} = \frac{2 k_B T}{\mu m_H G},
\end{equation}
where $c_s$ is the sound speed, $G$ is Newton's constant, $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant, $T$ is the temperature, $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight, and $m_H$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom \citep[see also][]{Inutsuka+1997,FiegePudritz2000}. More generally, the total velocity dispersion should be used, since filaments are the products of supersonic motions and therefore may have nonthermal support, i.e.~$m_{\mathrm{crit}} = 2 \sigma^2 / G$ \citep{FiegePudritz2000}.
Line masses in excess of this critical value will undergo gravitational collapse and fragmentation to form protostars, with the most massive stars likely to be formed at the intersection of filaments \citep{Schneider+2012,Peretto+2013}. When using column density maps with traced filaments, one way of estimating the local mass-per-unit-length along filaments is to multiply the column density value by the characteristic filament width. \citet{Arzoumanian+2011} characterized the filaments in {\it Herschel} observations of IC 5146 as having a median width of $0.10 \pm 0.03$ pc. By estimating filament line masses in the column density projections from our simulation data, and pairing it with filament maps and magnetic field information, we can investigate whether relative orientation might be a function of the underlying line masses.
\subsection{Effects of massive star formation}
In \citet{Klassen+2016}, we simulated the evolution of an isolated, massive protostellar core using a new hybrid radiative transfer code introduced in \citet{Klassen+2014}. In a core with a radius of 0.1 pc and an initial mass of $100 M_\odot$, we were able to form a star of 16 $M_\odot$ mass in around 30 kyr, which is much faster than what we see in this paper's simulations. This star then proceeded to grow to almost 30 $M_\odot$ in another 10 kyr. The accretion rates in this paper are also an order of magnitude lower than in the isolated protostellar core simulation. What limits the accretion onto massive stars in the filamentary molecular cloud clump scenario? For one, turbulence may slow accretion by reconfiguring the gas reservoir into a network of filaments. Stars form along supercritical filaments, and initially have only these from which to draw mass. Accretion flows onto and along these filaments must then supply new material in order for the stars to continue growing. Magnetic fields, depending on their configuration, limit or enable these accretion flows, and provide additional support against gravitational collapse.
We use sink particles to represent stars as a practical necessity \citep{Krumholz+2004}. The size of the sink particle is ultimately set by the grid---it needs to have a radius of at least 2 grid cells in order to resolve the Jeans length with at least 4 cells \citep[the Truelove criterion,][]{Truelove+1997}. The sink particle radius in our {\tt MHD1200} simulation was set to $R_{\mathrm{sink}} = 1.758 \times 10^{16}$ cm, which is 1175 AU, or 3 grid cells. At this radius, the sink particle completely encloses the protostellar disk, through which much of the accretion takes place \citep{Kuiper+2011}. \citet{Beuther+2009} concluded from a study of 12 protostellar disk candidates, that the disks were fed from infalling outer envelopes and their radii were less than 1000 AU.
Ultimately, the mechanism that shut off accretion in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation was photoionization feedback. We did not include ionizing radiation in \citet{Klassen+2016}, which studied protostellar core collapse and disk accretion. Here, photoionization is cutting off the gas supplied by filamentary flow, strongly limiting the gas reservoir for the star cluster.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
We performed simulations of the evolution of turbulent, magnetised molecular clouds of various mean densities and Alfv\'{e}n Mach numbers close to unity. To each we applied the same turbulent velocity field, with an RMS Mach number of 6 in both cases. The mass-to-flux ratio was between 2 and 3, consistent with observations. We measured the virial parameter of each simulated cloud. The {\tt MHD500} simulation was initialized in virial balance, whereas the {\tt MHD1200} simulation had an initial virial parameter of 0.56, meaning that the gravitational binding energy substantially exceeded the kinetic energy.
The largest filaments formed in our simulation were on the order of 1--2 pc in size, i.e.~the size of our simulated region, and in each simulation we identified the primary structure, which we refer to as the main ``trunk'' filament using autocorrelation maps of the column density projection. We then measured the distribution of magnetic field vectors relative to the orientation of this primary filament.
We then applied the {\sc DisPerSE} algorithm to extract the 3D filamentary structure from these simulations. We trace along the filaments and measure the orientation of the filament and local physical variables, such as density and the magnetic field.
In summary, we make two major conclusions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\it The gravitational binding of a cloud has a profound effect on relative orientation of B-fields and dense filaments. For strongly bound clouds, we see the magnetic fields parallel to filaments in accretion flows along filaments.} For trans-Alfv\'{e}nic molecular clouds, coherent magnetic field structure depends on coherent velocity field structure. \textit{The filaments within them are largely the result of supersonic turbulence, not of slow accretion flows along magnetic field lines.} Most clouds are observed to have Alfv\'{e}n Mach numbers near unity. Simulations tend to focus on cases where the clouds are clearly sub-Alfv\'{e}nic or super-Alfv\'{e}nic, but we must also examine transition cases. There is no reason to expect magnetic fields to have large-scale coherent structure in these cases, but in clouds undergoing strong gravitational collapse, as in our {\tt MHD1200} simulation, which has a virial parameter of $\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.56$, accretion flows onto the main filament result in a bimodal distribution of magnetic field orientation. Within the main filament, fields are aligned parallel to the long axis. Outside the main filament, magnetic fields partly show a perpendicular orientation relative to the main filament. The velocity field shows strong accretion flows perpendicular to and onto the main filament.
We compared the {\tt MHD1200} and {\tt MHD500} simulations at the same number of freefall times. The {\tt MHD1200} showed a preference for parallel orientation of the magnetic field relative to the main trunk filament, with accretion flows radially onto the filament and then along the filament axis towards the location of the star cluster. The {\tt MHD500}, which had a higher average mass density, showed a much more chaotic magnetic field, but with a trend towards a more perpendicular orientation.
\item {\it Radiation feedback from massive star formation disrupts the structure of both filaments and magnetic fields}. We looked at the effect of star formation and stellar radiative feedback in the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. Here we form a cluster of 7 massive stars, the most massive of which is about 16 $M_\odot$ and has a luminosity of almost 23,000 $L_\odot$. The other stars in the cluster have masses of about $3 M_\odot$ or below. The massive star dominates the others and drives the formation of an H\,{\sc ii} region that appears as a blister on the side of the main trunk filament and expands outwards. This expanding bubble sweeps up a shell of gas and compresses the magnetic field, leading to an enhancement by a factor of 5--6. The magnetic field lines are seen to roughly trace the outline of the expanding shell. Within the bubble and in some parts outside the shell, the magnetic fields are chaotically orientated. Ultimately, the H\,{\sc ii} region destroys the main trunk filament, cutting off the accretion flow onto the massive star. The relationship between the cumulative luminosity of the star cluster and the degree of cloud disruption would be an interesting area of future study.
\end{enumerate}
Additionally, we find that:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\it Highly bound clouds have a less random ordering of their magnetic fields than weakly bound clouds}. Our {\tt MHD500} simulation was more sub-Alfv\'{e}nic ($\mathcal{M}_A = 0.92$) than our {\tt MHD1200} simulation ($\mathcal{M}_A = 0.99$), yet it had the more disordered magnetic field structure. We attribute this to the cloud being in virial balance ($\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.95$) as opposed to the very bound case of $\alpha_{\mathrm{vir}} = 0.56$ for the {\tt MHD1200} simulation. The kinetic energy of the cloud (including both thermal and non-thermal motions) was on par with both the magnetic field energy and the gravitational binding energy.
\item {\it At small-scale sub-parsec length filaments, the relative magnetic field structure is very complex}. The filamentary and magnetic field structure are influenced by the supersonic, turbulent velocity field, and the globally rotating molecular cloud clump also drags magnetic field lines into the plane of rotation. Over the course of the simulation, and within much less than a freefall time, the distribution of magnetic field orientations spreads out from an initially uniform field parallel with the $z$-axis to a broad range of angular values.
The {\tt MHD500} simulation was more compact and had a higher average mass density. There did not appear a strong preference for orienting its filaments either parallel or perpendicular to the magnetic field as the simulation evolved. At late times and at lower density, some of the filaments did appear oriented perpendicular to the magnetic field, although this was not a strong trend.
\end{itemize}
In this trans-Alfv\'{e}nic regime, where magnetic energy balances turbulent kinetic energy, gravity's contribution to the energy budget is a determining factor in understanding how material is channeled onto filaments and the geometry of the magnetic field. We have studied an under-represented part of the parameter space and highlighted the importance of the virial parameter to be considered in tandem with the Alfv\'{e}n Mach number. Filament-aligned flow helps feed star clusters forming in dense regions within massive filaments, and their radiative feedback, especially via photoionization, may set the lifetimes of molecular cloud clumps. Magnetic fields certainly act to channel diffuse gas onto the main filament trunk and must finally be overcome by gravity if filamentary flow onto a forming cluster is to occur.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank an anonymous referee for a very useful report that helped to improve our manuscript. We also thank Henrik Beuther, Jouni Kainulainen, Thomas Henning, and Ralf Klessen for stimulating discussions. We would also like to thank Thierry Sousbie for having shared a pre-release version of the {\sc DisPerSE} code with us. M.K.~acknowledges financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. R.E.P.~is supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant. H.K.~was supported by a Banting Fellowship during the early stages of this project. R.E.P. thanks the MPIA and the Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Astrophysik (ITA) of the Zentrum f\"{u}r Astronomie Heidelberg for support of his sabbatical leave (2015/16) when this project was completed.
The {\sc flash} code was in part developed by the DOE-supported Alliances Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes (ASCI) at the University of Chicago. This work was made possible by the facilities of the Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network (SHARCNET: www.sharcnet.ca) and Compute/Calcul Canada.
Much of the analysis and data visualization was performed using the {\tt yt} toolkit\footnote{http://yt-project.org} by \citet{ytpaper}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Small concentrations of nitrogen reduce the band gap of GaAsN up to 600 meV below that of GaAs \cite{weyers1992PLdecreasebandgapGaAsN,francoeur1998PLdecreasebandgapGaAsN, toivonen2000decreasebandgapGaAsN}, despite the band gap of GaN exceeding that of GaAs by a factor of two. Strong band bowing, common for highly mismatched alloys, has been attributed to the hybridization of the localized nitrogen states with the GaAs conduction band \cite{shan1999bandanticrossingGaInNAs1,shan1999bandanticrossingGaInNAs2} or the formation of a continuum of localized states forming an impurity band \cite{zhang2000formationimpuritybandGaAsN,zhang2001spectraofstatesNinGaAs, virkkala2013spacialftcalculationNinGaAsandGaP}. At concentrations well below 1\%~(i.e. $<$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$) nitrogen induces a localized state which gives a strong narrow line in optical measurements, corresponding to an energetic feature $150-180$~meV above the conduction band edge \cite{wolford1984resonantlevelNinGaAswithPLstrain,leroux1986PLnGaAswithNcontaminations, liu1990PLNpairinGaAs, liu1990excitonsatNinGaAs, perkins1999electroreflectanceshowslevelsNinGaAs}. Thus unlike for nitrogen in GaP, the resonance level of a single nitrogen lies in the conduction band of GaAs. Additional narrow lines have been found in the photoluminescence spectra, and assigned to other states involving the nitrogen (bound excitons, N-dopant-complexes, etc.), N-N-pairs and N-clusters, several of which are situated in the band gap \cite{zhang2001spectraofstatesNinGaAs, schwabe1985PLonNinGaAsfromVPE, schwetlick19872KPLonNinGaAsfromVPE, makimoto1995sharpPLfromNlayerinGaAs, makimoto1997NpairPLatomiclayerNinGaAs, shima1997PLoniondopedNinGaAs, makimoto1997PLandabsorptionexcitonNinGaAs, saito1997PLofNatomiclayerGaAsfromMOVPE, gruning1999PLofNbandsinGaAsN, francoeur1999excitonNclustersinGaAsN, shima1999PLspectraNinGaAsbymolecularion, kita2006growthatomicNinGaAs,kita2008magnetoPLNinGaAs,harada2014PLwithmagneticfielddeltaNlayer, harada2011magnetoPLNpairs, harada2011bound}.
Several theoretical approaches have produced estimates of the energy levels of the single N impurity, N-N-pairs and N-clusters\cite{shan1999bandanticrossingGaInNAs1, shan1999bandanticrossingGaInNAs2, zhang2000formationimpuritybandGaAsN, zhang2001spectraofstatesNinGaAs, virkkala2013spacialftcalculationNinGaAsandGaP,jaros1979empericalpseudopotentialNinGaPAs, kleiman1979restrictedKosterSlaterNinGaAs,hjalmarson1980generalTBfordeeptrapsinsemiconductors, bellaiche1996supercellconcentratedNalloy, bellaiche1997supercellconcentratedNalloy2, bellaiche1997bandgapsfromsupercellconcentratedNalloy, bellaiche1998supercellconcentratedNalloyGaAs-GaInN-GaInAs, lindsay1999twobandTBonNinGaInAs, jones1999PLandsupercellDFTonNinInGaAsN, mattila1999planewavepseudopotentialsupercellondiluteGaAsNalloy, kent2001extensivedftonNinGaPandGaAs}, including tight-binding calculations, empirical pseudopotential calculations, band anticrossing models, and density functional theory.
The band anti-crossing model \cite{shan1999bandanticrossingGaInNAs1, shan1999bandanticrossingGaInNAs2} is very successful in explaining the observed trend for band gap narrowing at low nitrogen content, but is a quasi-periodic theory and thus does not address the spatial structure of individual nitrogen dopants. Several supercell calculations were performed \cite{bellaiche1996supercellconcentratedNalloy, bellaiche1997supercellconcentratedNalloy2, bellaiche1997bandgapsfromsupercellconcentratedNalloy, bellaiche1998supercellconcentratedNalloyGaAs-GaInN-GaInAs,jones1999PLandsupercellDFTonNinInGaAsN, mattila1999planewavepseudopotentialsupercellondiluteGaAsNalloy,kent2001extensivedftonNinGaPandGaAs}, of which Ref.~\onlinecite{kent2001extensivedftonNinGaPandGaAs} is the most extensive, including the energy of the single N level and N-N-pair levels, the band gap over the full nitrogen concentration range and a prediction for the spatial extent of the wave function. However, even though the supercells are almost 7~nm in linear size, significant finite size effects emerge for well hybridized states close to the conduction band or resonances within the conduction band\cite{furthmuller1992supercell}.
Here, a sample with three thin N-layers between AlGaAs marker layers grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) was analyzed at 77K using voltage dependent cross section scanning tunneling microscopy (X-STM). X-STM has been applied successfully in the past to image nitrogen atoms in GaAs as atomically sized features and determine the distribution of nitrogen in various structures such as quantum wells \cite{mckay2001NinGaAsatRTinXSTM1, mckay2001NinGaAsatRTinXSTM2, duca2005InGaAs-GaAsinXSTM, ulloa2008NinGaAsQWwithXSTM}. However, until recently \cite{ishida2015NinGaAspositiveinSTM} there has been little attention payed to the electronic structure of nitrogen. At negative sample bias three types of features are seen, and extensive analysis for two of them has not yet been reported. The studies at positive sample bias reveal bowtie like features similar to the ones known for acceptor like states in GaAs. The wave function measurements are compared to tight-binding calculations which in the past have produced good predictions of single impurity wave functions in various semiconductors \cite{tang2004TBwithspinandLDOSfromGreensfunction, yakunin2004spatialstructureofMninSTM,kitchen2006MnsubstitutionSTM, jancu2008STMonMn-GaAsassymetry, ccelebi2010surfaceassymetryacceptorWF, strandbert2009TBmagneticMninGaAs, yakunin2007warpingMn-GaAswavefunctionstrain,marczinowski2007electronicstructureMn-InAs,ccelebi2008STMTBanisotropicdeepacceptorsGaPandGaAs}.
The calculations of the single nitrogen wave function in GaAs reproduce the anisotropic shape of the features seen in X-STM and show the dependence of the nitrogen wave functions on depth.
\section{Method}
The sample was grown at 550$^o$C by MBE using a 1.1x10$^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ n$^{+}$-doped GaAs wafer as the substrate and nitrogen from a radio-frequency plasma source with ultrapure N$_2$ gas \cite{kita2006growthatomicNinGaAs,harada2014PLwithmagneticfielddeltaNlayer}. After a 400nm buffer layer of 1.0x10$^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ n-doped GaAs, 3 nm Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As marker layers and N-layers were alternately grown, starting and ending with an Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As layer, with GaAs spacer layers in between of at least 35 nm. N-layers were deposited by stopping the Ga flux and opening the N-flux for 2000 s. During the nitridation the As$_{2}$ flux was kept at the same flux as during the growth (1.0x10$^{-6}$~Torr). Growth was recommenced 120~s after stopping the N-flux. After the last marker layer a 250~nm GaAs capping layer was grown. The nitridation was monitored by reflection high-energy electron diffraction.
The X-STM measurements were performed bringing the sample in ultra high vacuum (UHV, pressure typically around 5x10$^{-11}$~Torr) and cleaving the sample there, revealing a (110) plane. The sample was then cooled to 77K. STM tips were made from electrochemically etching a tungsten wire, which was then further sharpened and cleaned by argon sputtering in vacuum. Sample bias was varied per experiment, while currents were kept between 10-50 pA. Images were taken in constant current mode. Illumination of the sample was used to create charge carriers in the regions between the AlGaAs barriers.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{newFigure1-scaled}
\caption{STM topography images showing a part of the nitrogen layer at (a) -1.90~V, (b) +0.60~V, (c) +1.00~V and (d) +1.40~V sample bias. The tunnel current was 50~pA at negative sample bias and 30~pA at positive sample bias. The contrast scales are normalized to the amplitude of the atomic corrugation (giving a scale ranging over 29~pm for the lowest contrast picture and 80~pm for the highest contrast picture). B1 and B2 indicate the features containing bright contrast at -1.90~V in (a). In (b) the features are labelled `0' to `4' corresponding to the layer below the surface in which the nitrogen is located. `d' indicates features related to nitrogen situated deeper below the cleavage surface. }
\label{voltageoverview}%
\end{figure*}
The position of the nitrogen layer is easily traceable with the help of the AlGaAs marker layers. The marker layers are not shown in the images here, since they are located 40~nm or further away. The nitrogen layer was imaged at various sample bias voltages (see Figure~\ref{voltageoverview}). At negative sample bias dark spot-like features and two types of features containing bright contrast (indicated B1 and B2) can be observed [see Figure~\ref{voltageoverview}(a)]. Dark contrast features have been observed for nitrogen in X-STM in the past with filled state imaging \cite{mckay2001NinGaAsatRTinXSTM1,mckay2001NinGaAsatRTinXSTM2,duca2005InGaAs-GaAsinXSTM,ulloa2008NinGaAsQWwithXSTM} and have been reproduced in theoretical models \cite{duan2007calculationNinGaAsSTMtopography,tilley2016calculationsNinGaAsXSTMtopography}.
The observation of dark contrast is attributed to a depression at the surface caused by the shortened bonds between the nitrogen and its neighboring Ga atoms. These dark spots show a variation in intensity due to the variation in depth at which the nitrogen atoms are positioned with respect to the surface. The nitrogen atoms located deeper below the surface give rise to less distortion at the surface and thus a weaker dark contrast.
The features B1 and B2 always occur around the nitrogen layer. Therefore we propose that these must be nitrogen related as well. Both features show a periodic pattern along the [110] direction, forming bar-like contrast in the [001] direction. The extent of both features differs, with the B1 feature extending about three rows in two directions and the B2 extending at least five rows in both directions.
In previous X-STM measurements at room temperature\cite{mckay2001NinGaAsatRTinXSTM1,mckay2001NinGaAsatRTinXSTM2,duca2005InGaAs-GaAsinXSTM,ulloa2008NinGaAsQWwithXSTM} these features were not observed. A recent publication on X-STM measurements at 77~K reports a feature similar to B2, although the structure of the feature was not well-resolved\cite{ishida2015NinGaAspositiveinSTM}.
Discussion of both B1 and B2 will be continued later.
When imaging at +0.60~V sample bias [see Figure \ref{voltageoverview}(b)] various types of bright features can be distinguished having a complex structure with a strong anisotropy between the [110] and [001] direction. At positive sample bias these features are located at the exact positions of the dark and bright features seen at -1.90~V. Similar features have been observed by Ishida~{\it et al.}~\cite{ishida2015NinGaAspositiveinSTM}. As will be discussed later these features are related to nitrogen substituting for arsenic atoms in different planes below the surface, where the labels 0 to 4 indicate the distance from the (110) cleavage surface in number of planes.
Unlike the dark features at -1.90~V, all of these bright features are caused by increased tunneling current due to an enhanced local density of states (LDOS) at a resonance energy rather than the topography.
At a higher voltage of +1.00~V [see Figure \ref{voltageoverview}(c)], the 0-feature develops a strong contrast directed along the [110] direction. The structure of the other features becomes more condensed while the anisotropy in the [001] direction is preserved.
At +1.40~V [see Figure \ref{voltageoverview}(d)] the only bright contrast is observed at the 0-feature. The other features with bright contrast at lower positive voltages now show a strong dark contrast, that unlike the localized features at negative voltage spread over multiple atomic positions. At +1.40~V the observed image deviates strongly from the observed topography at negative voltages and hence the dark contrast is attributed to an electronic origin. A reduction of LDOS to compensate for the enhancement of the LDOS at the nitrogen resonance energy is suspected. The nitrogen is an iso-electronic impurity and therefore does not introduce additional density of states when considering the integral over all energies and space. Hence a local increase of LDOS at a specific energy has to be compensated elsewhere in space and energy.
Comparing the measurements at positive voltages we see that the contrast intensity of the features varies with the applied sample bias. Features related to nitrogens closer to the cleaved surface have their maximum strength at higher voltages. This might be related to the states having an altered energy due to the vacuum-semiconductor-interface. More likely the tip induced band bending (TIBB) pulls up both the GaAs bands and the nitrogen resonance. The TIBB is strongest at the surface and decays away from the surface, hence features close to the surface align with the Fermi energy of the tip at higher voltages than do features farther away from the surface.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics{newFigure2-scaled}
\caption{(a) Five nitrogen related features found at +0.75V (upper) sample bias, organized by extent in the [110] direction, and their counterparts at -1.90 V (lower). The cross-hairs indicate the position of the feature's center with respect to the surface resonances.
(b) Slice of the surface scanned in the X-STM along a (110) plane, showing in sideview the positions a nitrogen atom can take when substituting for the arsenic atom (c) View from the top onto the
surface scanned in X-STM, and the two possible in plane positions for the nitrogen on substitutional sites indicated with a blue dot with dashed circle. The stronger lines and bigger atoms indicate the elevated zigzag rows in the surface. (d) and (e) show the relative position of these projections to the surface resonances imaged at negative and positive voltage, respectively.}
\label{layersandschematics}
\end{figure*}
In order to identify the position of the nitrogen atoms in the lattice, it is necessary to determine their position with respect to the gallium and arsenic atoms on the surface.
As can be seen from Figure \ref{voltageoverview} the corrugation on the undoped GaAs surface depends on the applied sample bias. At -1.90 V and +1.00 V a 2D atomic grid can be observed, whereas at +0.60 V stripes directed along [110] are seen and at +1.40 V stripes directed along [001] are seen.
The observed stripes are attributed to surface states that arise after the surface reconstruction and strongly correlate to the position of the surface atoms \cite{ebert1996surfresonancemodeSTM,engels1998surfrecandresmod}. The various surface states that were calculated were labeled A or C, according to whether the state was mainly related to the anion (A) or cation (C) sites. The maximum contribution of each of these surface states lies at a different energy, from which the numbering is derived. The spatial contribution of these states is schematically indicated in Fig.~\ref{layersandschematics}.
Around the bottom of the conduction band the C3 state is found to be dominant giving rise to stripes which are directed along [001] and centered on top of the dangling bonds of the surface gallium atoms. At low positive voltages we inject into the lower part of the conduction band via the C3 state, therefore at +0.60 V stripes along [001] are observed. At high positive voltages, like +1.40 V, we inject into the conduction band via the C4 surface resonance state, which is centered on the dangling bonds of gallium as well, but is now directed along [110]. Thus we see a voltage dependent corrugation.
The measurement at +1.00 V shows a 2D grid for the corrugation, because at this voltage the C3 and C4 state contribute with similar weight.
For the measurements at -1.90 V a 2D grid is observed as well. This is remarkable because at negative voltages electrons are drawn from the valence band, which lines up with the maxima of the A4 and A5 surface states. The A4 and A5 states are centered around the arsenic surface atoms and are both directed along [110]. As was reported by de Raad~{\it et al.}~\cite{deraad2002tibbinfluencingobservedsurfacestateinSTM}, due to TIBB it is possible to observe contributions from the C3 mode also at negative voltages when tunneling close to the gap. Therefore at -1.90 V a 2D grid is formed from the C3 state and the A5 state, whose maximum is located closer to the gap than that of the A4.
After taking into account the atomic corrugation for the clean GaAs surface the nitrogen features can be classified according to their position below the (110) surface. In the image Figure~\ref{voltageoverview}(b) and many other images at least five different contrast varieties can be observed. Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(a) shows these features at +0.75V. Arranging these features by the extent of the bright contrast in the [001] direction we see that their centers alternatingly fall on top or in between the imaged atomic grid [see the top row in Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(a)]. At -1.90 V the feature centers show an alteration of position with the imaged grid as well [see the bottom row in Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(a)]. Their positions with respect to the surface state along [001] are the same as observed for the features at +0.75V. However, the features that are centered on top of the maxima of the surface state along [110] at +0.75V fall in between the state directed along [110] at -1.90 V and vice versa.
The nitrogen atom normally substitutes for an arsenic atom. Nitrogen atoms positioned at even numbered layers [see Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(b)] will create a depression centered on the position of a surface arsenic atom [see Figure \ref{layersandschematics}(c)]. Hence at \hbox{-$1.90$~V} the even numbered nitrogen atoms will show up on the A5 surface resonance in the [110] direction and between the C3 resonance in the [001] direction [see Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(d)]. Nitrogen atoms on the arsenic positions in the odd numbered layers [see Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(b)] are not directly imaged, but will cause a distortion distributed over multiple arsenic atoms with the center of the contrast in between the surface arsenic atoms, hence in between the stripes due to the A5 state. From Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(d) it can also be seen that these odd numbered features fall in line with the Ga atoms along [001] and therefore will be imaged on the C3 grid.
We conclude that the states labelled with 0, 2 and 4 are indeed related to the even numbered substitutional sites and the features labeled 1 and 3 to the odd numbered substitutional sites shown in Figure~\ref{layersandschematics}(b).
The images at +0.75V have the same C3 surface state making up the rows along [001]. The center of the features hence have a similar position with respect to the [001] rows. The C4 surface states directed along [110] are not centered on the surface gallium atoms but centered on the gallium dangling bonds. This places the maximum integrated LDOS of the surface states next to the gallium atoms and between the zigzag rows\cite{ebert1996surfresonancemodeSTM, engels1998surfrecandresmod}[see Figure \ref{layersandschematics}(e)]. The odd numbered states will coincide more with the rows of the C4 states and the even numbered sites will fall between them producing the observed alternation in contrast with depth.
The regularly increasing extension of the features combined with the arguments for the intensity of the dark features at negative voltage and the positioning of the features on the grid leads to the conclusion that our labelling of `0' to `4' corresponds to the ordering in distance of the nitrogen atom from the cleavage surface.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{newFigure3-scaled}
\caption{(a) Measured contrast at +0.75~V for the features in the 0th/top layer and below. (b) The calculated wave functions for nitrogen atoms in the 0th/top layer and below, with an assumed STM tip width of 1.70~\AA. The panels for calculation and measurement are about 3.6 by 3.6~nm. (c) and (d) show the calculated isodensity surfaces at 1.68 eV for the difference between the LDOS near the dopant from the background. To view sharper features in this theoretical surface the STM tip width is made smaller, 1.13~\AA. (c) corresponds to an LDOS difference from the background of $0.12~ eV^{-1}\AA^{-3}$. (d) corresponds to an LDOS difference from the background of $0.012~eV^{-1}\AA^{-3}$.}
\label{calculations}
\end{figure*}
In order to further investigate the depth dependence of the observed features, tight-binding (TB) calculations, similar to those in Ref.~\onlinecite{tang2004TBwithspinandLDOSfromGreensfunction}, were performed for a single nitrogen atom in an effectively infinite GaAs crystal. Previous calculations of the nitrogen related states in GaAs have been performed with density functional theory \cite{kent2001extensivedftonNinGaPandGaAs, virkkala2013spacialftcalculationNinGaAsandGaP} with a reduced set of k-points and a finite supercell. Here a sp$^3$d$^5$s$^*$ Hamiltonian \cite{Jancu1998_Empericalspds*Tight-BindingCalculationsForCubicSemiconductors} is used to describe the GaAs crystal and the Koster-Slater method \cite{Koster1954_WaveFunctionsForImpurityLevels} is used to include the effect of the nitrogen. This Green's function method is computationally efficient and does not suffer from supercell size restrictions or boundary effects. The energy of the nitrogen resonance has been set by including an on-site atomic potential equal to the difference in s- and p-state energies between nitrogen and arsenic. The bonds between the nitrogen and its nearest neighbors have then effectively been shortened using Harrison's d$^{-2}$ scaling law\cite{checkmail} to place the nitrogen resonance at 1.68 eV.
Figure~\ref{calculations} shows the calculated LDOS in (110) planes at various distances from the center of the nitrogen atom. The first column is the slice through the plane containing the nitrogen atom, which would correspond with a nitrogen in the top layer of the sample surface measured in STM. The second column then shows the slice displaced one atomic plane from the nitrogen atom corresponding to the contrast
measured for the nitrogen in the first layer [label 1 in Figure \ref{layersandschematics}(b)] and so forth. The calculations show a bar-like feature extending along the [110] direction for the nitrogen in the 0th/top layer and cross-like features extending in the [001] direction for cuts away from the center with an asymmetry between the two lobes. For each layer deeper into the GaAs the enhanced LDOS cross-section expands an additional row in the [001] direction.
Comparing the TB calculations to the measured contrast shows an excellent agreement. The series of Figure \ref{layersandschematics}(a) shows the same systematic increase of one row of bright contrast in the [110] direction as the calculations show in Figure \ref{calculations}(b) for each cut one monolayer further away from the nitrogen atom. A striking resemblance between calculation and measurement is found in the direction of extension of the nitrogen-related LDOS shape which at the surface (or 0th plane) extends in the [110] direction, while the features from other planes extend in the [001] direction. The best correspondence between measurements and calculations is obtained with a tip width of 1.70~\AA.
As can be seen from Figure \ref{calculations}(c) and (d) the calculated isosurfaces of state density have highly anisotropic shapes. The tip width in the calculation has been chosen smaller, 1.13\AA, to make the finer features of the isosurface clearer. At a high value of the density of states the tetragonal symmetry close to the nitrogen center is recognizable. The isosurface at lower density further away shows somewhat of a preference for the $\langle$110$\rangle$ directions, similar to what was reported by Virkkala et al. \cite{virkkala2013spacialftcalculationNinGaAsandGaP}, but far less localized. The panels in Figure~\ref{calculations}(b) show the LDOS in parallel (110) planes that either cut through the N-atom, as is the case for the 0th plane, or at an integer number of atomic planes away from the N-atom. In the 0th plane the LDOS is mainly due to the two arms of the 12-fold symmetric wave function that lie in the (110) plane cutting through the N-atom. In a plane that is a few monolayers away from the N-atom the atomic sized LDOS is mainly due to the arm that is pointing in the [110] direction. i.e. perpendicular to arms in the 0th plane. In planes at intermediate distances away from the N-atom the LDOS consists of the perpendicular [110] arm and four others arms of the 12-fold symmetric state that cut at an angle with the (110) plane.
Strongly anisotropic shapes for the LDOS along the [001] have been reported for several acceptor impurities with levels in the band gap \cite{mahieu2005anisotropicZnBeCdinGaAswithSTM, richardella2009acceptorsinsurfaceTBandSTM} including Mn \cite{kitchen2006MnsubstitutionSTM, yakunin2004spatialstructureofMninSTM}. The anisotropy seen in acceptor states comes from the symmetry of the tetrahedral bonds in the cubic lattice and the contributing orbitals, namely the $d$-orbitals with $T_2$ symmetry and the $p$-orbitals which also have $T_2$ symmetry. Although nitrogen is an isoelectronic impurity, the same applies to the bonding of the nitrogen in which $p$-orbitals are contributing. Therefore, in opposition to Ref.~\onlinecite{virkkala2013spacialftcalculationNinGaAsandGaP}, we argue that the observed anisotropy of the nitrogen atom is mainly attributed to the symmetry of the surrounding potential and not the strain introduced into the lattice.
We note that for acceptor atoms that give rise to a localized state in the band gap, the spatial integral of the LDOS produces an integer value. The nitrogen atoms, however, form resonances within the continuum conduction band that locally increase the density of states around the resonance energy. The integral of this region of enhanced LDOS does not have to be an integer. The nitrogen atoms have the same number of valence states as arsenic atoms, so the increase in the LDOS at the resonance energy has to be compensated for through a corresponding reduction at other energies (which are far from the X-STM measurement range).
The local nature of the nitrogen is attributed to its small size and high electronegativity. Studies on iso-electronic substitutional impurities, like boron, which is also electronegative compared to gallium, as well as antimony and bismuth, which cause a strong distortion of the lattice, could provide further insights on the formation of these localized isoelectronic states. A prerequisite to observe the states related to such a center, iso-electronic or not, with X-STM is that the increase in LDOS is localized enough in energy and space to significantly change the tunneling current.
The small deviation between our calculations and measurements is due to the fact that the calculations are done for a bulk system, whereas in the experiment the nitrogen atoms are close to a semiconductor-vacuum-interface. The surface will reconstruct, deforming the layers close by and putting strain on them \cite{engels1998surfrecandresmod}. The slight additional asymmetry along the [001] direction may also be explained by surface strain, as seen for Mn acceptors\cite{ccelebi2010surfaceassymetryacceptorWF}.
Moreover the deformation of the lattice around the nitrogen is only taken into account by changing the hopping parameters to
the direct neighbors, without actually changing the lattice positions of the nearest neighbors or accounting for changed bond lengths to the next nearest neighbors. The nitrogen will, however, deform the lattice even beyond the first neighbors \cite{virkkala2013spacialftcalculationNinGaAsandGaP} and close to the surface this will happen in a spatially anisotropic way \cite{tilley2016calculationsNinGaAsXSTMtopography}. These strain arguments are very likely the cause of the observed deviations and they are consistent with the observations that the features assigned to nitrogen further away from the surface are more symmetric and match the calculations better.
The calculated wave functions do not provide an explanation for the two special bright features, B1 and B2, observed at negative voltages (see Figure~\ref{voltageoverview}). At -2.50 V the bright contrast of the mixed feature B1 disappears, while the dark contrast remains unaltered (see supplementary S1). The dark contrast is in accordance to what has been reported before for the topographic contrast of a 1st layer feature \cite{ulloa2008NinGaAsQWwithXSTM,duan2007calculationNinGaAsSTMtopography,tilley2016calculationsNinGaAsXSTMtopography}. The center is positioned around a point falling in between the A4/A5 surface states and shows a dark contrast over multiple surface arsenic atoms. This strongly suggests that the observed contrast at -1.90 V is a mix of the expected topographic contrast and a bright contrast element. Feature B2 is associated with the third layer away from the cleavage surface. The expected topographic contrast for a nitrogen in this position is less strong and falls underneath the strong central bar of the bright pattern. We suggest this as the reason why at \hbox{-1.90~V} no topographic contrast element is recognizable for this feature.
The B-features become less pronounced with more negative voltages (see supplementary S2), whereas the topography should dominate more when tunneling further from the band gap. Therefore it is likely that the bright component of the contrast stems from an electronic rather than a topographic origin.
Noticeably the bright contrast element only appears with the nitrogen atoms substituting in the odd numbered positions. Tilley et al. \cite{tilley2016calculationsNinGaAsXSTMtopography} calculated that the nitrogen atoms in those positions displace multiple arsenic atoms in the surface.
Voltage dependent measurements on the B2 feature (see supplementary S2) suggest that the visibility of the state is related to the visibility of the C3 surface state. At less negative voltages the C3 surface state as well as the B2 feature are more pronounced. At a low positive voltage of +0.45V where the C3 mode dominates, a feature very similar to the one observed at negative voltages can be observed (see supplementary S3.2).
Therefore we propose the bright contrast of the B-features might be related to a disturbance of the C3 surface state. This would be consistent with the larger spread of the B2 feature compared to the B1 feature. The disturbance of the surface due to the deeper lying nitrogen atom would be more extended and that of the shallower nitrogen atom would be more localized.
\section{Conclusions}
We performed X-STM measurements on individual nitrogen impurities in GaAs layers grown with MBE. The impurities were studied at different voltages. At negative voltages mainly topographic contrast appeared. At low positive voltages highly anisotropic bright shapes were observed which show voltage dependent brightness that we attribute to TIBB. At higher positive voltages less defined dark shapes are observed, unlike the topographic contrast observed at negative voltages. This we relate to a decrease of LDOS compensating the increase of LDOS at lower energy.
Using the difference in extent of the observed features at low positive voltages and the atomic corrugation coming from the voltage dependent surface states, the features can be assigned to nitrogen at different planes below the cleavage surface. TB calculations give similar anisotropic enhanced LDOS at (110) cuts through and next to the nitrogen center. These results show that the anisotropic shape of the LDOS is caused by the tetrahedral symmetry of the nitrogen atom substituted for arsenic in the GaAs lattice. Minor deviations between the experimental and theoretical contrast can be attributed to the deformation of the lattice, caused by surface relaxation and the small nitrogen atom, which is only partially accounted for in these bulk calculations. At negative voltages not only topographic features are observed, but for two features B1 and B2, a resonant electronic component with an alteration in the [110] direction is found as well. These features can be attributed to nitrogen in the first and third layer away from the cleavage surface. Earlier calculations and measurements show that these are the positions in which the disturbance of the surface is the most delocalized. Measurements at varying negative voltages show that a relation with the C3 resonant state is likely.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work is supported by NanoNextNL, a micro and nanotechnology consortium of the Government of the Netherlands and 130 partners. This work is supported in part by an AFOSR MURI.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
|
\subsection{GUI layout}
The GTK+ widget toolkit was used to implement the GUI. A model-view-controller architecture is used for the GUI in order to communicate with the core. Thus, the core and the GUI are clearly separated. The four \textit{Gestalt principles}~\cite{chang2002gestalt} closure, similarity, continuity and proximity are heavily used to enhance information retrieval. A modular and flexible layout is achieved by making all sidebar tabs detachable, scalable and foldable.
All the different components of the GUI can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:rafcon_gui}. The right sidebar shows the \textit{state editor} (1). It lists all details of a state, like name, descriptions, ports and connections and offers functionality to modify all of these properties. Execution states have in addition a source view to edit their \verb|execute| function.
The left sidebar features many widgets with different purposes. A \textit{Library manager} (2) organizes all library states in a clear fashion for easy reuse. The \textit{State machine tree} (3) shows the structure of the state machine in a tree and can be used to explicitly select and navigate to a certain state. (4) is the \textit{Global variable manager} managing all global variables, (5) shows the \textit{Modification history} of all changes performed to the a state machine under construction and the \textit{Execution history} (6) keeps track of all states during an execution including the context data.
The sidebar (7) at the bottom is the \textit{Logging View}. Here all output of the executed states, the core and the GUI is collected and can be filtered by their logging level.
\subsection{Graphical editor}
\label{sec:Graphical_editor}
As already mentioned, the Graphical State Machine Editor is the most sophisticated element of the GUI. A clear visualization of complex state machines with highly nested hierarchies (see Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}) is a big challenge. We implemented a mature navigation solution that is often experienced in digital maps. Zooming into the state machine (e.\,g. with the mouse wheel) reveals more of the details of lower hierarchy levels, while zooming out hides their details. The panning mechanism enables the user to translate the view to another position.
Thus, the different hierarchy levels can be shown in varying degrees of detail, depending on the states the user is interested in.
The editor can also be used for direct interaction with the state machine for e.\,g. handling states, creating connections with via-points, copying and pasting of states and moving logic and data ports along the state border.
Different view modes help the user to focus on the kind of information he is interested.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\input{introduction.tex}
\section{Core framework}
\label{sec:core_framework}
\input{core_framework.tex}
\section{Graphical user interface}
\label{sec:gui}
\input{gui.tex}
\section{Case study}
\label{sec:experiments}
\input{experiments.tex}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{conclusion.tex}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work has been funded by the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Germany as part of the project RACELab, by the Helmholtz Association, project alliance ROBEX, under contract number HA-304 and by the European Commission under contract number FP7-ICT-608849-EUROC.
\bibliographystyle{splncs03}
|
\section*{Data}
Data are from 44,224 first-class cricket matches. It is a near census of the relevant population.\footnote{Data excludes scheduled matches that were abandoned without the toss being conducted.} We have data on all types of matches: domestic and international Twenty20s---T20s and T20Is respectively, domestic and international one-dayers---List A and One-Day Internationals (ODI) respectively, and domestic and international multi-day matches --- First Class (FC) and Tests respectively.\footnote{There is a rich variety of first-class matches. In English county cricket, first-class matches last four days. Some first class matches last just a day. Others two days. Yet others three days. And till a particular point in history, a test match lasted as long as it was needed to finish a game. We elide over such differences.}
Of the 44,224 matches, 1,019 matches were abandoned without play. We exclude these matches. In another 1,376 matches, we do not have information on whether the team chose to bat or bowl after the toss. Informal inspection suggests that data are missing because no match was played. We excludes these matches as well.
In limited overs cricket, a minimum number of overs must be bowled to establish a result. In a one-day match, for instance, each side must bat at least 20 overs for a result to be declared. In 769 matches, or roughly 1.7\% of the total matches, not enough overs were bowled to get a result. We exclude these matches from our analysis. This leaves us with data from 41,060 matches. We analyze these data.
\section*{Analyses and Results}
We assume that the outcome of a toss is random. Conditional on the outcome of a toss being random, the effect of winning the toss can be attributed to the toss itself. Any decision made after the outcome of the toss is known, however, is `post-treatment.' In particular, the decision to bat or bowl first is made after accounting for the relative strengths and weaknesses vis-\`{a}-vis the competing team at that particular instance, and thus not independent of team attributes. Hence, conditioning on decision to bowl or bat first can bias estimates of advantage of winning a toss. Thus, unlike \citet{dawson2009bat}, \citet{Saad2015}, we solely rely on the assumption that the outcome of a toss is random.
But before we exploit the design, we shed some light on the validity of the assumption. In particular, we assess whether the coin toss is somehow rigged, with the home side enjoying the rub of the green more often. For this analysis, we only get to exploit international matches as establishing which of the teams is the home team in local matches is somewhat arduous. Of the 5,684 international matches for which we can match the country of the ground to the country of one of the teams, the home team won the toss in 2,892 matches, or about 50.87\%. The chance of getting as many wins by fluke after tossing 5,684 coins is about 18.91\%. The chance is low, but not eyebrow raisingly so.
However, rather than consider all home matches, we may instead want to only consider matches that are officiated only by home umpires---the norm till 1992.\footnote{For more information on move to neutral umpires, see \href{http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/511175.html}{Neutral Umpires} by S. Rajesh on ESPNcricinfo.} In matches featuring umpires from only the home country, the team with `home umpire' advantage won toss nearly 51.9\% of the times. And the chance of getting a greater percentage of wins than 51.9\% in 2,965 is a shade less than 4\%. Thus, there is some reason to worry that the tosses are rigged. Any such rigging would bias estimates of advantage of winning the coin toss to the extent that it is correlated with ability. More plainly, if stronger teams win more tosses, estimates of the advantage of the coin toss would be inflated upwards. And vice versa, if otherwise. We, however, do not have good reasons to think that there is a correlation. So for now, we proceed as if the tosses are random.
Another caveat about interpretation before we present the results. As we discuss in the introduction, we cannot estimate the actual advantage of winning a toss. We can only estimate the net observed advantage, which is the extent to which the teams capitalize on the potential advantage. With that, the results.
The team that wins the toss wins the match 2.8\% more often than the team that loses the toss. This is a reasonable sized advantage in a competitive sport --- though likely much smaller than the number that most commentators carry in their heads. This advantage, however, varies by format, by conditions, by whether or not a particular formula was used to adjust scores when it rains, and how much better the team that won the toss is vis-\`{a}-vis the competing team. Much of the variability follows expected patterns.
The conventional wisdom among lay cricket followers is that toss grants the greatest advantage in multi-day affairs like tests and first class matches, followed by day long affairs, and Twenty20s. And there is good dose of common sense behind the conventional wisdom. Pitches invariably deteriorate over multiple days and batting last in a test match is often the most challenging time to bat. The pitch deteriorates far less over the course of the day, or in case of Twenty20s, a few hours. And indeed unlimited over matches provide the greatest advantage--- the average advantage over FC and test matches is north of 2.6\% (see Figure~\ref{fig:type}). Looked in relative terms, the advantage of winning the toss is also close to the greatest in multi-day affairs. Only about 60\% of test matches end in a clear decision, the rest end in a draw. Thus, the advantage is closer to 4.5\%. The heftiest raw advantage, however, is in one-day matches (List A and ODIs), approximately 3.3\%. In T20s and T20Is, the advantage is considerably smaller, just about 1.27\%.\footnote{Splitting data by whether the match was domestic or international yields some additional insights. Like \citet{de1998winning}, who based on analysis of data from 427 international one-day matches conclude that `winning the toss at the outset of a match provides no competitive advantage' in one-day international matches, we find that in ODIs teams that win the toss win games at about the same rate as those that lose the toss. For first-class and test matches, the advantage to winning the toss is roughly the same. Meanwhile in Twenty20s, the advantage of winning the toss is greater in international than domestic matches.} And unlike the estimate of advantage for multi-day and one-day affairs, we cannot statistically reject that the possibility that there is no advantage.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\caption{Difference in Winning Percentages of Teams that Won the Toss and Teams that Lost the Toss by Type of Match.}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{winbyType.pdf}
{\footnotesize \\ Note: Means and 95\% confidence intervals. \emph{n} refers to the number of matches.\par}
\label{fig:type}
\end{figure}
Type of matches are but one source of variation and theorizing about the advantage granted by the toss. It is often claimed that the toss is more crucial in day and night matches. Due to dew---it is thought to make bowling hard, and the visibility of the white ball is thought to be lower under lights, which makes catching hard---the team that fields second is thought to be at a disadvantage. The conventional wisdom is largely vindicated for one day affairs (see Figure ~\ref{fig:dn}). In one-day matches, the advantage of winning the toss in a day and night match is 5.92\%, whereas the advantage of winning the toss in a one-dayer played during the day is less than half---2.89\%. In Twenty20s---domestic and international---, however, we cannot distinguish between the advantage granted by the toss in day and night matches and day time affairs.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Difference in Winning Percentages of Teams that Won the Toss and Teams that Lost the Toss by Day or Day and Night}
\includegraphics[scale=.95]{winbyDayNight.pdf}
{\footnotesize \\ Note: Means and 95\% confidence intervals. \emph{n} refers to the number of matches.\par}
\label{fig:dn}
\end{figure}
Weather has a large impact on the playing conditions in cricket. For instance, cool overcast weather is thought to aid swing bowling, especially on certain pitches. More generally, the advantage of winning the toss likely varies by weather. However, we do not have data on weather. But, we can proxy it with seasons. In particular, students of the game suspect that the advantage of winning the toss in early English season is especially great. We next assess whether that is so.
There is some evidence of a seasonal pattern, with advantage of winning the toss somewhat greater in spring and early summer (May and June) than in mid and late summer and early fall (July to September) ~\ref{fig:season}. However, the thing that catches attention is the large disadvantage of winning the toss in April. We don't have a good explanation for the pattern, except for teams choosing badly.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Difference in Winning Percentages of Teams that Won the Toss and Teams that Lost the Toss by Month in England}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{winbyMonthEngland.pdf}
{\footnotesize \\ Note: Means and 95\% confidence intervals. \emph{n} refers to the number of matches.\par}
\label{fig:season}
\end{figure}
Aside from affecting the playing conditions, weather affects cricket matches in other, more forceful ways---interrupting, and sometimes ending matches. When a limited over match that is already underway is interrupted by bad weather, and more than a certain amount of time is lost due to the interruption, the match is curtailed and the total that the team batting second must achieve to win is adjusted using a method invented by Duckworth and Lewis \citep[see][]{duckworth1998}.\footnote{Before the Duckworth and Lewis method was adopted, weather affected matches sometimes continued on the next day; an extra day was deliberately left in the schedule for dealing with such eventualities. In cases where the spare day proved inadequate, the match was declared a draw.}
We can use the random nature of who wins the toss to see if winning percentages of the teams that win the toss are strongly conditioned by whether or not Duckworth-Lewis is used. If the advantage of winning the toss in matches using Duckworth-Lewis is different from matches that don't use it, it suggests that the Duckworth-Lewis method is biased. (For a precise estimate of the bias, ideally, we would want to compare matches using Duckworth-Lewis method with matches held in similar conditions.)
In both one-day and Twenty20 matches, the advantage of winning the toss in a match where the target is adjusted using Duckworth-Lewis, is considerably greater (see Figure ~\ref{fig:dl}). In one-day matches, the advantage is 5.35\% in matched adjudicated by Duckworth-Lewis and 3.17\% in matches that don't use it. Statistically, the chances that the two numbers are the same is less than 10\%. (And if you make the plausible assumption that winning a toss only improves the chances of winning, the chance that the two numbers are the same is half that.) In Twenty 20s, the advantage of winning the toss shrinks from 3.9\% in matches using Duckworth-Lewis to 1.17\% in matches without it. Once again, the chance that the two numbers are the same is about 10\%.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Difference in Winning Percentages of Teams that Won the Toss and Teams that Lost the Toss by Whether or not Duckworth-Lewis was invoked}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{winbyDL.pdf}
{\footnotesize \\ Note: Means and 95\% confidence intervals. \emph{n} refers to the number of matches.\par}
\label{fig:dl}
\end{figure}
Winning the toss ought to matter the most when the difference between the quality of the teams that are playing is the least. Similarly, it is unlikely that winning the toss would change who wins the game when two ill-matched teams are playing. To study the issue, we collected data on team quality. The ICC publishes team ratings for international test and one-day teams each month.\footnote{For details about how the ICC produces these ratings, see \href{http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/media/about_docs/536b1a48c16e5-Reliance\%20ICC\%20ODI\%20Team\%20Rankings\%20FAQs\%202014.pdf}{ICC Rating FAQs}.} Ratings of the men's ODI teams have been published since 1981, and of the test teams, since 1952. Of the entire ranking dataset, that spans 1981--today and 1952--today for ODI and test teams respectively, we only have we have data till 2013.\footnote{The format in which the ICC publishes the ratings changed in 2013. And scraping the latter data posed additional hurdles. We decided that the additional effort wasn't worth the small amount of additional data.}
Team ratings range from 0 to 143 in our data. For instance, Bangladesh had a rating of 0 in tests for most of 2002 and 2003. And Australia in 2007 twice held a rating of 143. We measure how closely matched the teams by differencing the ranking points of one team from the other. Commercial considerations mean that a majority of the games are played among highly ranked and closely matched teams. Thus, the precision of our estimates is greatest for matches between closely matched teams.
The results are expected, but new. As Figure ~\ref{fig:ranks} --- which plots percentage of matches won or drawn by the team that won the toss--- illustrates, there is a sharp curve around 0. When closely matched teams win, winning the toss has a large impact on the probability of winning.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Percentage of Matches Won Minus Matches Lost After Winning the Toss by Difference in Ranks}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{winbyRank.pdf}
{\footnotesize Note: Smoothed relationship between difference in ranks and winning probability by whether or not the team won the toss.\par}
\label{fig:ranks}
\end{figure}
Lastly, we investigate how the advantage varies by country winning the toss in international matches. Are some countries better than others at capitalizing on a toss win? We investigated the question by tallying the advantage by team that wins the toss. As ~\ref{fig:country} illustrates, all of our estimates are imprecise enough that we cannot say with confidence that any of the teams capitalizes on winning the toss. Neither can we discount the possibility that the actual differences across the teams are zero. The most puzzling result is from New Zealand. Like \citet{Saad2015}, data suggest that New Zealand does more poorly in matches where it wins tosses than where it loses it. On the other hand, Sri Lanka and India appear to do especially well, winning 3.85\% and 3.09\% additional matches, respectively, when they win the toss. Australia, Pakistan, and West Indies hover around 1--1.5\%, and England is at 2.29\%.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Difference in Winning Percentages of Teams that Won the Toss and Teams that Lost the Toss by Country}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{winbyCountry.pdf}
{\footnotesize \\ Note: Means and 95\% confidence intervals. \emph{n} refers to the number of matches.\par}
\label{fig:country}
\end{figure}
Till now, we have focused on assessing the impact of winning the toss on the probability of winning, and how the impact is conditioned by playing conditions, by the type of match, and by the teams involved. Winning the toss, however, likely not only affects the probability of winning, but also the margin of victory. But before we assess the impact of winning the toss on the margin of victory, a short primer.
In limited over matches, when the team chasing the total falls short, the margin of victory is given in difference in runs. When the team is able to successfully chase the total, the margin of victory is the given by two numbers: number of balls remaining, and the number of wickets in hand. In unlimited overs matches, the metrics for margin of victory differ in two small ways. We don't tally the number of balls remaining when the winning team achieves the target (principally we could). Instead, we note whether or not the winning team had to bat twice---whether or not the team won by an `innings' and additional runs.
Teams that win the toss and the match in first-class and test matches win with more wickets in hand (Mean $= 6.91$) than winning teams that lose the toss (Mean $= 6.64$). In one-dayers and Twenty20s, the teams that win the toss and the match have about the same number of wickets in hand as the teams that lose the toss but win the match (One-Day: Mean$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 5.57$, Mean$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 5.65$; Twenty20: Mean$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 6.37$; Mean$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 6.21$).
In first-class and test matches teams that win the toss and the match also win by few more runs on average (Mean $= 136.48$; Median $=124$) than teams that lose the toss but win the match (Mean $= 133.71$; Median $=122$). Similarly, in Twenty20s, the team that wins the toss wins by a few more runs (Mean $= 37.60$; Median $=28$) than team that loses it (Mean $= 34.50$; Median $=26$). In one-dayers, however, the margin of victory is largely indistinguishable across cases where the winning team wins the toss and where it loses it (Mean$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 63.95$, Median$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 51$; Mean$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 63.15$, Median$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 51$).
Similar patterns hold for balls remaining---teams that win the toss generally win with a few more balls remaining than teams that lose the toss. In one-day matches, Mean$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 49.87$, Median$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 28$, Mean$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 53.27$, and Median$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 30$. And in Twenty20s, Mean$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 18.69$, Median$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 12$, Mean$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 16.41$, and Median$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 10$.
And lastly, on number of innings, the teams that win the toss win by an innings about as often as teams that lose the toss (Mean$_{\text{Lose Toss}} = 22.26\%$, Mean$_{\text{Win Toss}} = 22.43\%$).
\section*{Discussion}
The data suggest that winning the toss has a sizable impact on the probability of winning, especially in closely contested games. The data also suggest that the advantage varies considerably and systematically ---in expected ways---, with advantage greater in day and night matches, matches in which Duckworth-Lewis is used to adjust scores, and where the match is played between closely matched teams. In showing so, the data lend credence to, and quantify, the suspicion that many of the cricket fans have long had---that tosses matter. Besides that, the data also help quantify the bias in Duckworth-Lewis method. More generally, the analysis we do here could be replicated elsewhere to assess bias in competing methods, and used to prove that a particular method is better or worse than the Duckworth-Lewis.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{apsr}
|
\section{Introduction}
In inverse scattering theory one aims at determining an electric potential $q$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$ with $n\geq 2$ from measurements describing how this scatters certain incoming waves. {In many applications, the scatterer is so rough and vastly complicated that there is an apparent lack of systematic patterns in its micro-scale structure. In these situations, the potential is assumed to be created by a physical random process and the goal is not any more to recover the full potential but to determine some parameters or functions describing properties of its micro-structure.}
In this paper, we are interested in reconstructing statistical properties, more precisely, \textit{the local strength} of a potential $q$.
In the usual mathematical approach to the inverse scattering theory, one considers the scattering problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intro_direct}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& (\Delta - q(x) + k^2) u(x) = 0 \quad\quad\quad {\rm in}\; {\mathbb R}^n\\
&u (x) = e^{ik\theta \cdot x} + u_{sc} (x)\\
&u_{sc}(x) \;\; \textrm{satisfies the Sommerfeld radiation condition,}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the \textit{incident wave} is assumed to be the plane wave $e^{ik\theta \cdot x}$ and the \textit{scattered} and \textit{total} waves are denoted by $u_{sc}$ and $u$, respectively. The scattered wave satisfies the following asymptotic expansion
\begin{equation*}
u_{sc}(x) = c_n k^{\frac{n-1}2} |x|^{-\frac{n-1}{2}}e^{ik|x|} u^\infty\left(k, \theta, \frac{x}{|x|}\right) + o\left(|x|^{-\frac{n-1}{2}}\right),
\end{equation*}
where $u^\infty$ is known as the {\it far-field pattern} of $u_{sc}$. In this context, the inverse backscattering problem aims at answering the question:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(Q)]\sl{Given the backscattered far-field pattern $u^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta)$ for multiple values of $k>0$ and $\theta \in {\mathbb S}^{n-1}$, what kind of information of $q$ can be recovered?}
\end{itemize}
The deterministic inverse back-scattering problem---which asks whether a potential $q(x)$ can be uniquely
determined from its backscattered far-field pattern $u^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta)$---is a longstanding
open problem. At this moment, the problem has been solved only under assumptions on controlled angular regularity of the potential (see
\cite{MR3224125}). We discuss below the literature about this problem.
In this paper we consider
a related stochastic inverse problem where the statistical parameter functions of the potential $q$
are determined from the observations.
Since we are interested in the situations where the scatterer presents a random behaviour, we need to rephrase our approach to the inverse scattering theory. In order to do so, we assume the potential $\omega \in \Omega \mapsto q(x,\omega)$ to be a generalized random function in a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{H}, \mathbb{P})$. This makes the far-field pattern be random as well, which means that it changes with each realization $q(x,\omega)$. However, our approach consists of assuming the backscattering data $u^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta)$ with $k>0$ and $\theta \in {\mathbb S}^{n-1}$ to be generated by a single realization $q(x,\omega_0)$ for certain $\omega_0 \in \Omega$. Then, the inverse backscattering problem in this context asks to determine the parameters characterizing the probability law of $q$ from the backscattering data.
As we previously advanced, we reconstruct in this paper the local strength of the potential, which is one of the parameters describing the probability law of $q$. In order to provide an interpretation of this parameter, we will need to make some general assumptions on $q$. Firstly, we assume $q$ to be a generalized Gaussian field supported in a bounded domain $D$ and its expected potential $\mathbb{E} q$ to be a smooth function. Additionally, we assume the covariance function $K_q(x,y)$ to be smooth out of the diagonal, which means that the long distance interactions depends smoothly on their locations; we also assume the average roughness (or smoothness) of $q$ to remain unchanged for every sub-domain of $D$. However, we allow the size of this roughness to change in different sub-domains of $D$. The local strength of the potential measures or controls these different sizes. These assumptions\footnote{The random model is discussed in detail in the section \ref{sec:isotropic_rf}.} can be rigorously introduced, assuming that the covariance operator $C_q$ is a classical pseudodifferential operator (see for example \cite{Hor3}) of order $-m$ with $m > n-1$
and such that, $C_q$ has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intro_principal_symbol}
\sigma(x, \xi) = \frac{\mu(x)}{|\xi|^m}
\end{equation}
as a principal symbol, with $\mu$ a smooth non-negative function supported on $D$---called the \textit{the local strength} of the potential. As we will see in Definition \ref{def:ml_iso}, this is to say that $q$ is a Gaussian \textit{microlocally isotropic} random field. Eventually, assuming $q$ as above with $\mu$ unknown, our goal will be to reconstruct $\mu$ from the backscattering data. As we will see in the section \ref{sec:regularity}, $\mu$ yields valuable control on the oscillations of $q$: where $\mu$ is large, the rough oscillations of $q$ are most likely large as well.
In order to cover a broad spectrum of well-known random field models, we also include the possibility of realizations of $q$ being generalized functions almost surely (a.s. for short). In fact, whenever $n-1 < m \leq n$, we can only ensure that $q$ belongs to a Sobolev space with negative smoothness index almost surely. This consideration requires a carefully analysis\footnote{The readers who are expert on uniqueness for the Calder\'on problem for non-regular conductivities will notice the connection with the work \cite{MR2026763} of Brown and Torres.} of the forward problem with compactly supported potentials in the Sobolev spaces $L^p_{-s}({\mathbb R}^n)=W^{-s,p}({\mathbb R}^n)$
with $0 < s \leq 1/2$ and $n/s \leq p < \infty$. Inspired by the works \cite{MR0466902, MR1230709}, we provide new insights to the classical scattering theory for rough potentials.
{A {microlocally isotropic} Gaussian random field $q$ of order $-m$ in $D\subset {\mathbb R}^n$ can be written
in the form $q=(C_q)^{1/2}W$, where $W$ is a white noise. We will later see that $q \in L^p_{-s} ({\mathbb R}^n)$ almost surely for any $1 < p < \infty$ and $-s < (m - n)/2$. The local strength $\mu$
determines the roughest component of $q$ in the sense that if
$C_{\widetilde q}$ is a properly classical pseudodifferential operator of order $-m$ having the
same principal symbol (\ref{eq:intro_principal_symbol}) as the operator $C_q$, then $\widetilde q=(C_{\widetilde q})^{1/2}W$
is also a {microlocally isotropic} Gaussian random field of order $-m$ such that
$\widetilde q-q\in L^p_{-s+1} ({\mathbb R}^n)$ almost surely for any $1 < p < \infty$ and $-s < (m - n)/2$,
that is, $\widetilde q-q$ is one degree smoother than $q$.}
In applications the measurement data is often obtained as an average of signals at multiple frequencies. Also, in many standard references in the literature in applied sciences,
see e.g. \cite{ishimaru1978wave,Kong,PB,SH}, one considers the effective equations for the expectations and covariances of the scattered waves. This means that one considers the averages of waves that are
generated by many independent samples of the scatterers. This approach can be poorly justified if the scatterer changes slowly during the measurements or is independent of time.
In this paper, the data is assumed to be a weighted average of far-field patterns at a given separation $\tau>0$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intro_measurement_data}
M(\tau, \theta) = \lim_{K\to\infty} \frac{1}{K}\int_K^{2K} k^m u^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta) \overline{u^\infty(k+\tau,\theta,-\theta)} dk,
\end{equation}
where $\theta \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. As we pointed out before, the far-field pattern is random and consequently our data is random as well. Since we want to show that the data generated by a single realization of $q$ allows us to reconstruct {the local strength }$\mu$---which is non-random, we will need to prove that the randomness averages out at the limit. Actually, we will prove that, for $n=m=3$, there exists a known constant $c>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
M(\tau, \theta) = c\, \widehat{\mu} (2\tau\theta)\quad \text{almost surely}.
\label{id:linear_relation}
\end{equation}
Formula (\ref{id:linear_relation}) means that the measurement function $M(\tau, \theta)$, computed from the measured far-field patterns, does not depend (with probability one) on the realization of the random potential $q$. Such measurement functions that are independent of the realization of the random media are said to be \emph{statistically stable}, see
\cite{borcea2002,papa_book}. The study of statistically stable measurement functions have turned to be very useful in particular in the study of inverse source problems in random medium background \cite{bal2002,borcea2011,borcea2015,borcea2003,borcea2016,borcea2002,papa_book}.
Despite the non-linear terms generated by the 2nd order and multiple scattering, it is interesting to note the linear relation between the data and the local strength $\mu$ in \eqref{eq:intro_principal_symbol}. This suggests that, whenever \eqref{id:linear_relation} holds, the local strength of the Born approximation of $q$ equals the local strength of the full potential $q$.
Let us now formulate the main theorem of this paper.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} \sl
Let $q$ be a Gaussian microlocally isotropic random field of order $-3$ in $D \subset {\mathbb R}^3$. Then, the measurement data $\{ M(\tau_j,\theta_j) : j\in \N \}$, with $\{ (\tau_j,\theta_j) : j\in\N \}$ any dense subset of ${\mathbb R}_+ \times \mathbb{S}^2 $, determines the local strength $\mu$ almost surely.
\end{theorem}
{Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} can be interpreted as follows: We consider a complicated potential $q(x,\omega_0)$ that is assumed to be created, before the measurements are made, by a random process, that is, the potential $q(x,\omega_0)$ is a single realization of the Gaussian microlocally isotropic random
$q(x,\omega)$. We show
the measurement data $\{ M(\tau_j,\theta_j) : j\in \N \}$, obtained from this single realization of the process, determine with probability one the principal symbol of the covariance operator of the random process $q(x,\omega)$.}
In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous}, we explore the limit in \eqref{eq:intro_measurement_data} by separating the effects of different orders of scattering in the Born series $$u^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta) = \sum_{j=1}^\infty u_j^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta),$$ where $u_j^\infty$ describes the far field of the $j$-th order scattering. Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous}, it can be rigorously shown that the interactions coming from the simple backscattering, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
M_1(\tau, \theta) = \lim_{K\to\infty} \frac{1}{K}\int_K^{2K} k^m u_1^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta) \overline{u_1^\infty(k+\tau,\theta,-\theta)} dk
\end{equation*}
coincides with $M(\tau, \theta)$ almost surely, whereas the contribution from 2nd order and multiple backscattering becomes negligible at the limit:
\[\lim_{K\to\infty} \frac{1}{K}\int_K^{2K} k^m u_j^\infty(k,\theta,-\theta) \overline{u_l^\infty(k+\tau,\theta,-\theta)} dk = 0 \quad \text{for } j+l \geq 3.\]
In particular, there exists a known constant $c>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
M_1(\tau, \theta) = c\, \widehat{\mu} (2\tau\theta)\quad \text{almost surely}.
\end{equation*}
Our work also has direct implications to the problem in any dimension if the interaction of 2nd order and multiple backscattering can be a priori neglected.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main_theorem_born_approx} \sl
Let $q$ be a Gaussian microlocally isotropic random field of order $-m$ in $D \subset {\mathbb R}^n$ with $m > n - 1$ and $n \geq 2$. Then, the data $\{ M_1(\tau_j,\theta_j) : j\in \N \}$, with $\{ (\tau_j,\theta_j) : j\in\N \}$ any dense subset of ${\mathbb R}_+ \times \mathbb{S}^{n - 1}$, determines the local strength $\mu$ almost surely.
\end{theorem}
This second theorem suggests that for general dimensions $n \geq 2$, and $m > n - 1$, the measurement data $\{ M(\tau_j,\theta_j) : j\in \N \}$, with $\{ (\tau_j,\theta_j) : j\in\N \}$ any dense subset of ${\mathbb R}_+ \times \mathbb{S}^{n - 1}$, determines the local strength of the Born approximation of $q$ almost surely.
In the literature on scattering, one often makes use of different physical scaling regimes in order to estimate the size of relevant mathematical objects and to design effective reconstruction methods. Our hope is that the theoretical framework we set up here can produce interesting stable algorithms for the inversion of the probabilistic backscattering problem.
In this spirit, we have included a brief analysis in the appendix \ref{sec:scaling_regimes}, where we consider scaling regimes such that the analogue of Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} holds for $n=m$ with $n \geq 2$.
Our work follows the line of the previous papers \cite{LPS} by Lassas, P\"aiv\"arinta and Sakasman, and \cite{HLP} by Helin, Lassas and P\"aiv\"arinta.
In \cite{LPS}, a similar problem was solved in ${\mathbb R}^2$ for a backscattering problem with point sources in an open and bounded set, but assuming the knowledge of the full scattered wave. The present paper improves this setting by studying scattering of plane waves and assuming only knowledge of the far-field patter of the backscattered wave. Moreover, the results are generalized to arbitrary dimension. Although, our work draws inspiration of this paper, these two aspects require more sophisticated techniques in several parts. Later, in \cite{HLP} Helin \textit{et al} considered backscattering from random Robin boundary condition in half-space geometry of ${\mathbb R}^3$.
The literature on the deterministic inverse backscattering problem is considerably wide.
For uniqueness results in generic (i.e., dense and open sets) class of potentials, see \cite{MR1012864, MR1110451}.
Uniqueness of the problem for potentials with controlled angular regularity has been proved in
\cite{MR3224125}.
Earlier partial results for the inverse backscattering problem for Schr\"odinger equation has been obtained in \cite{Ike,LL,MU,Rakesh1,Ste1, MR1082237,W1}. Approximative or numerical reconstructions have been studied in \cite{Bei,Ike}.
The recovery of singularities of the potential from backscattering data is analyzed in
\cite{B1,MR1243710,OPS,MR2309667,R1, RV,Ser1,Ser3,Ser2}.
Other references on inverse backscattering for a time-harmonic Schr\"{o}dinger equation are \cite{MR2512860, MR2781141,U1}.
The backscattering problem has also been studied in the framework of acoustic scattering (see \cite{MR1466676,MR1614940,MR1607660}) and Maxwell equations (see \cite{MR1648523}). For a concise treatment of classical inverse scattering, we refer to \cite{ColtonKress}.
The wave and particle propagation in heterogeneous media has been extensively studied. Often, heterogeneous media is not known precisely and is modelled as a realization of random media with known statistics. Mathematical theory being developed typically relies on multi-scale analysis or homogenization with the aim of capturing the effective properties of the propagation. We refer to the works in \cite{bal2010kinetic, ishimaru1978wave} for various perspectives on wave propagation (whether classical or quantum) in random media.
Let us also mention the papers on random Schr\"{o}dinger models \cite{bal2011asymptotics,GuRyzhik15}, where the potential model involving slowly decaying correlations corresponds closely to the random potential model in the present paper. Notice that our work does not involve assumptions on scaling regimes nor any approximations. However, as mentioned above, we have included { Appendix A} discussing our method from the perspective of multi-scale analysis.
Recently, inverse problems related to imaging of random media have received wide attention \cite{bal2002, bal2005time,bal2007,bal2003, borcea2011, borcea2015, borcea2003, borcea2016,dehoop2012, dehoop09, fouque2007wave}. The key feature of time reversal in a randomly inhomogeneous media
is that it leads to focusing resolution that is much better than in a homogeneous media. This phenomenon is called super-resolution and appears due to multipathing caused by the random media \cite{borcea2002}. Similar to our work, the back-propagated fields are self-averaging and the imaging method is {statistically stable}, i.e., independent of the realization of the random media
This paper is organized as follows. In the section \ref{sec:random_potential}, we describe in detail our stochastic model for a random potential $q$ and the implications it has for the regularity of $q$. As discussed above, these regularity considerations require to develop the theory of the forward problem for non-regular potentials. This is studied in the section \ref{sec:direct-scattering}. The inverse problem is then covered in the section \ref{sec:inverse_problem}. The effects of first, second and higher order scattering for zero-mean potentials are studied separately in the sections \ref{subsec:single}, \ref{subsec:2nd order} and \ref{subsec:higher_order}, respectively. In the section \ref{sec:non-zero-mean} we proof Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} for non-zero-mean potentials. Finally, in Appendix \ref{sec:scaling_regimes} we consider the physical scaling regimes where our method could be numerically effective and, afterwards, in Appendix \ref{sec:gaussians} give some basic results regarding Gaussian distributions.
\section{Random potential}
\label{sec:random_potential}
\subsection{Microlocally isotropic random field}
\label{sec:isotropic_rf}
In order to provide a precise mathematical description of the random potential to be considered, let $(\Omega, \mathcal{H}, \mathbb{P})$ be a complete probability space. Since we are interested in the properties of an object with a complicated micro-structure, we start by assuming that $q$ is a \emph{generalized random function}\footnote{For properties of generalized random functions, see \cite{MR676644}.}.
{Below, the generalized function $u$ defines a linear and continuous function $u:C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})\to {\mathbb R}$. For $\phi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$ we denote $u(\phi)=\langle u, \phi \rangle$
and for the set of generalized functions (or distributions) we use the notation $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$. We also recall that any
function $u\in L^1_{loc}({\mathbb R}^n)$ defines a generalized function given by $\langle u, \phi \rangle=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} u(x)\phi(x)\,dx$.
The assumption that $q$ is a generalized random function} means that $q$ is a mapping defined on $\Omega$ such that, for every $\omega \in \Omega$, the realization $q (\omega)$ is a linear real valued functional on $C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$---the space of smooth real-valued functions with compact support in ${\mathbb R}^n$---with $n \geq 2$ and the function
\[\omega \in \Omega \longmapsto \langle q(\omega), \phi \rangle \in {\mathbb R}\]
is a random variable for all $\phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$.
Moreover we assume that, for every compact $K \subset {\mathbb R}^n$, there exists a non-negative random variable $C : (\Omega, \mathcal{H})\to {\mathbb R}_+$ with $\mathbb{E} C^2 < \infty$ and $N \in \N$ such that
for $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$ we have
\begin{equation}
|\langle q(\omega), \phi \rangle| \leq C(\omega) \sum_{|\alpha| \leq N} \sup_{x \in {\mathbb R}^n} |\partial^\alpha \phi (x)|
\label{in:def-distribution}
\end{equation}
for all $\phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$ with compact support $\supp\,\phi \subset K$.
Note that $q(\omega) \in \mathcal{D}'({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$, which denotes the space of real distributions in ${\mathbb R}^n$. Obviously, $q(\omega)$ can be extended to the space of smooth (complex-valued) functions with compact support as
\[\langle q(\omega), \phi \rangle = \langle q(\omega), \mathrm{Re}\, \phi \rangle + i \langle q(\omega), \mathrm{Im}\, \phi \rangle, \qquad \phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n).\]
A generalized random function is said to be \emph{Gaussian} if the random variable
\begin{equation}
\label{term:gaussianVECTOR}
r_1 \langle q, \phi_1 \rangle + \dots + r_l \langle q, \phi_l \rangle
\end{equation}
has a Gaussian distribution for every $r_1, \dots, r_l \in {\mathbb R}$, $\phi_1, \dots, \phi_l \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$ and $l \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{ 0 \}$. We say it is compactly supported if there exists a bounded domain $D$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$ such that
$\supp q \subset D$
almost surely.
Note that the probability law of a generalized Gaussian field $q$ is determined by
\[\mathbb{E} q : \phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R}) \longmapsto \mathbb{E}\langle q, \phi \rangle \in {\mathbb R}\]
\[\mathrm{Cov}\, q : (\phi_1, \phi_2) \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})^2 \longmapsto \mathrm{Cov}(\langle q, \phi_1 \rangle, \langle q, \phi_2 \rangle) \in {\mathbb R},\]
where $\mathbb{E}\langle q, \phi \rangle$ denotes the expected value of $\langle q, \phi \rangle$ and
\[\mathrm{Cov}(\langle q, \phi_1 \rangle, \langle q, \phi_2 \rangle) = \mathbb{E}\big((\langle q, \phi_1 \rangle - \mathbb{E}\langle q, \phi_1 \rangle) (\langle q, \phi_2 \rangle - \mathbb{E}\langle q, \phi_2 \rangle)\big)\]
denotes the covariance of $\langle q, \phi_1 \rangle$ and $\langle q, \phi_2 \rangle$. Note that $\mathbb{E}q \in \mathcal{D}'({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$. The \emph{covariance operator} $C_q : \phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R}) \longmapsto C_q \phi \in \mathcal{D}'({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R}) $ is defined as
\[\langle C_q \phi, \psi \rangle = \mathrm{Cov}(\langle q, \phi \rangle, \langle q, \psi \rangle). \]
Since $C_q$ is continuous, by the Schwartz kernel theorem, there exists a unique $K_q \in \mathcal{D}'({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$, usually called the \emph{covariance function}, such that
\[ \langle K_q, \psi \otimes \phi \rangle = \langle C_q \phi, \psi \rangle = (\mathrm{Cov}\, q) (\phi, \psi) \]
for all $\phi, \psi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$ (or more generally, for all $\phi, \psi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$). In particular,
\begin{equation}
K_q = \mathbb{E}\big((q - \mathbb{E}q) \otimes (q - \mathbb{E}q)\big).
\label{id:kernel_cov}
\end{equation}
It is often convenient to write
\[K_q(x, y) = \mathbb{E}\big((q(x) - \mathbb{E}q(x)) (q(y) - \mathbb{E}q(y))\big) \]
and
\[\langle K_q, \psi \otimes \phi \rangle = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} K_q(x,y) \psi(x) \phi(y) \,dx \, dy.\]
\begin{definition}\label{def:ml_iso} \sl
A generalized function $q$ on ${\mathbb R}^n$ is called \emph{microlocally isotropic of order $-m$ in $D$}, if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbb{E} q$ is smooth,
\item $q$ is supported in $D$ a.s.,
\item the covariance operator $C_q$ is a classical pseudo differential operator of order $-m$ with $n - 1 < m \leq n + 1$ and
\item $C_q$ has a principal symbol of the form $\mu(x) |\xi|^{-m}$ with $\mu \in C^\infty_0 ({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$, $\supp \mu \subset D$ and $\mu(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In consequence, if $q$ is microlocally isotropic, we have $\supp (\mathbb{E} q) \subset D$ and
\[C_q \phi (x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i(x - y) \cdot \xi} c_q(x, \xi) \phi(y) \,dy \,d\xi \]
for a classical symbol $c_q \in {\mathcal S}^{-m}({\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n)$. Moreover, there exists a classical symbol $a \in {\mathcal S}^{-m-1}({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n)$ such that
\begin{equation}
a(x, \xi) = c_q(x, \xi) - \mu(x) |\xi|^{-m} \text{ for } x \in {\mathbb R}^n \text{ and } |\xi| \geq 1.
\label{id:isotropic}
\end{equation}
The covariance function and the symbol of $C_q$ are connected via the following identity
\begin{equation}
K_q (x, y) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{n/2}} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( c_q(x, \centerdot) \big)(x - y),
\label{id:kernel}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ denotes the inverse Fourier transform. Here, for an integrable function $f$, we define $(\mathcal{F}f)(\xi) = (2\pi)^{-n/2} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{-i\xi\cdot x} f(x) \, dx$ and frequently abbreviate $\widehat{f} = (\mathcal{F}f)$.
In our particular case, $\supp K_q \subset D \times D$ and
\begin{align}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \Big( \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} K_q(x,y) e^{-i\xi \cdot (x - y)} \,dy \Big) \phi(x) \, dx &= \int_D c_q(x, \xi) \phi(x) \,dx
\label{id:pre-expansion} \\
& = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mu(x) |\xi|^{-m} \phi(x) \,dx + \int_D a(x, \xi) \phi(x) \,dx
\label{id:expansion}
\end{align}
for every $\phi \in C^\infty({\mathbb R}^n)$ and all $|\xi| \geq 1$.
Let us illustrate this definition with a brief example.
\begin{example} \sl
\label{example:model}
Let $W$ stand for the generalized Gaussian white noise. That is, $W$ is a generalized Gaussian field with ${\mathbb E} W = 0$ and its covariance operator satisfying
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb E} \big( \langle W, \phi\rangle \langle W, \psi\rangle \big) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \phi(x) \psi(x) \, dx
\end{equation*}
for every $\phi,\psi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$. It is well known that
$W \in H_{loc}^{-n/2-\epsilon}({\mathbb R}^n)$ a.s. for any $\epsilon>0$.
Our example of a microlocally isotropic random potential of order $-m$ in $D$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
q = \sqrt{\mu} ({\rm I}-\Delta)^{-m/4} W + q_0
\end{equation*}
with $\mu$ and $m$ as in Definition \ref{def:ml_iso}, and $q_0$ a smooth real-valued function in ${\mathbb R}^n$ with support in $D$. Thus, $q$ is a generalized Gaussian field with covariance operator
\begin{equation*}
C_q = M_{\sqrt \mu} ({\rm I}-\Delta)^{-m/2} M_{\sqrt \mu}
\end{equation*}
where $M_{\sqrt \mu} \phi(x) = \sqrt{\mu(x)} \phi(x)$. Its covariance function is
\begin{equation*}
K_q(x,y) = \sqrt{\mu(x)} \sqrt{\mu(y)} G_m(x-y)
\end{equation*}
with $G_m \in L^1({\mathbb R}^n)$ (see page 132 in \cite{MR0290095}) such that
\[\widehat{G_m}(\xi) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}} \frac{1}{(1 + |\xi|^2)^{-m/2}}.\]
Finally, since $C_q$ has a principal symbol of the form $\mu(x)|\xi|^{-m}$, we see that $q$ is a microlocally isotropic random potential of order $-m$ in $D$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\sl
\label{ex:frac_brownian}
Following the Example 1 in \cite{LPS} let us define the multidimensional fractional Brownian motion in ${\mathbb R}^n$ for the Hurst index $H$ as the centered Gaussian process $X_H(z)$ indexed by $z \in {\mathbb R}^n$ with following properties:
\begin{align*}
& {\mathbb E} | X_H(z_1) - X_H(z_2)|^2 = |z_1 - z_2|^{2H} \quad \textrm{for all } z_1, z_2 \in {\mathbb R}^n \\
& X(z_0) = 0 \quad {\rm and} \\
& \textrm{the paths } z \mapsto X_H(z) \textrm{ are a.s. continuous.}
\end{align*}
The existence and basic properties of $X_H$ are well-known \cite{Kahane}. Let us define the potential $q$ by setting
\begin{equation*}
q(z,\omega) = \sqrt{\mu}(z) X_H(z,\omega)
\end{equation*}
for some $\mu\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$ and index $H>0$. It follows that the principal symbol of $C_q$ is of the form $\mu(z) |\xi|^{-n-2H}$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{picture}(400,100)(40,10)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig1.png}}
\put(160,0){\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig3.png}}
\put(330,0){\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig2.png}}
\end{picture}
\caption{(Color in the online version of the paper) A realization of the random potential $q(x)$ in Example \ref{ex:frac_brownian} was generated on ${\mathbb R}^2$ with the Hurst index $H=0.25$ { and the local strength $\mu$. A realization $q(x) = q(x,\omega_0)$ is shown in the figure on the left and in the middle. The figure on the right is the local strength $\mu(x)$ of the random field $q$(x), i.e.,\ the principal symbol of the covariance operator $C_q$. Notice that the function $\mu$ is large on the areas where the realization of the random field $q(x,\omega_0)$ has large local fluctuations.}}
\label{fig_recon}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Regularity of the potential}\label{sec:regularity}
We will use the potential Sobolev spaces $L^p_s({\mathbb R}^n)$ to determine the regularity of the realizations of $q$. Let us recall the definition and a basic property of these spaces.
Let $\mathcal{J}_s$ denote the Bessel potential $\mathcal{J}_s = (\rm I - \Delta)^{- s/2}$, i.e., for any Schwartz function $f\in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$ it holds that
\[\widehat{\mathcal{J}_s f} (\xi) = (1 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2} \widehat{f}(\xi)\]
for all $\xi \in {\mathbb R}^n$. The Bessel potential extends to temperate distributions and, in particular, can be applied to almost every realization of $q$. The potential Sobolev space $L^p_s({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $s \in {\mathbb R}$ is defined by the set of $ f = \mathcal{J}_s g$ such that $g \in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ and it is endowed with the norm
\[\| f \|_{L^p_s} = \| g \|_{L^p}.\]
When $p = 2$, the space $L^2_s({\mathbb R}^n)$ is commonly denoted by $H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$. When $k \in \N$ and $1 < p < \infty$, the space $L^p_k({\mathbb R}^n)$ can be identified with usual Sobolev spaces $W^{k,p}({\mathbb R}^n)$.
{We also use the notation $W^{k,2}({\mathbb R}^n)=H^{k}({\mathbb R}^n)$.}
Note that, since $\mathcal{J}_t : L^p_s ({\mathbb R}^n) \longrightarrow L^p_{s+t} ({\mathbb R}^n) $ is an isometric isomorphism, $f \in L^p_s ({\mathbb R}^n) $ if and only if $\mathcal{J}_t f \in L^p_{s + t} ({\mathbb R}^n) $.
Now we can stablish the regularity of the realizations of $q$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:SobolevRegularity} \sl Let $q$ be a microlocally isotropic random potential of order $-m$ in $D$. Then, $q \in L^p_s ({\mathbb R}^n)$ almost surely for any $1 < p < \infty$ and $s < (m - n)/2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}\sl Let $q$ be a microlocally isotropic random potential of order $-m$ in $D$ with $n < m \leq n + 1$. Then, $q \in C^{0,\alpha} ({\mathbb R}^n)$ almost surely for any $0 < \alpha < (m - n)/2$.
\end{corollary}
The corollary follows from the proposition using the Sobolev embeddings and the fact that, if $ m > n$ and $0 < \alpha < (m - n) / 2$, there exist $s < (m - n)/2 $ close to $(m - n)/2$ and $ p > n$ very large such that $\alpha = s - n/p < (m - n)/2$.
Let us prove Proposition \ref{prop:SobolevRegularity} in the case $\mathbb{E} q = 0$. The general case follows by our assumption of $\mathbb{E} q$ being smooth. For $\varepsilon \in (0, 1]$, define
\begin{equation}
f_\varepsilon (\omega, x) = \langle \mathcal{J}_{-s} q(\omega), \varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot) \rangle \label{id:def_of_fepsilon}
\end{equation}
with $\varphi_\varepsilon (x) = \varepsilon^{-n} \varphi (x/\varepsilon)$, $\varphi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; [0, 1])$ and $\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \varphi(x) \, dx = 1$. Note that $f_\varepsilon (\omega)$ tends to $\mathcal{J}_{-s} q(\omega)$ in $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb R}^n)$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$ for $\mathbb{P}$-almost every $\omega \in \Omega$.
\begin{lemma} \sl For every $p \in [1, \infty)$ there exists $C = C(p)$ such that
\[(\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (x)|^p )^{1/p} \le C (\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (x)|^2 )^{1/2},\]
where $f_\varepsilon (x) = f_\varepsilon (\centerdot, x)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $p \in [1, 2)$, the lemma follows applying H\"older inequality. The case $p = 2$ is obvious. So it only remains the case $p \in (2, \infty)$. For every $p \in (2, \infty)$, there is an only $j \in \N\setminus \{ 0 \}$ such that $2j < p \leq 2(j + 1)$, and, by H\"older inequality, we see that
\begin{equation}
(\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (x)|^p )^{1/p} \le (\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (x)|^{2(j+1)} )^\frac{1}{2(j+1)}.
\label{es:fromLp}
\end{equation}
By the triangle inequality, we see that
\[ \big(\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (x)|^{2(j+1)} \big)^{1/(j+1)} \leq \Big(\mathbb{E} \big(\mathrm{Re}\,f_\varepsilon (x)\big)^{2(j+1)} \Big)^{1/(j+1)} + \Big(\mathbb{E} \big(\mathrm{Im}\,f_\varepsilon (x)\big)^{2(j+1)} \Big)^{1/(j+1)}. \]
Note that
\[\mathrm{Re}\,f_\varepsilon (\omega, x) = \langle q(\omega), \mathrm{Re}\,\mathcal{J}_{-s} \varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot) \rangle, \qquad \mathrm{Im}\,f_\varepsilon (\omega, x) = \langle q(\omega), \mathrm{Im}\,\mathcal{J}_{-s} \varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot) \rangle;\]
and
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\mathrm{Re}\,f_\varepsilon (x) = \mathbb{E}\mathrm{Im}\,f_\varepsilon (x) = 0
\label{id:vanishing_mean}
\end{equation}
since $\mathbb{E} q = 0$.
Using that $\mathrm{Re}\,f_\varepsilon (x)$ and $\mathrm{Im}\,f_\varepsilon (x)$ are Gaussian for every $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$, the identity \eqref{id:vanishing_mean} and Lemma \ref{lem:evenMOMENTUM}, we can check that
\[ \big(\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (x)|^{2(j+1)} \big)^{1/(j+1)} \leq C \Big( \mathbb{E} \big(\mathrm{Re}\,f_\varepsilon (x)\big)^2 + \mathbb{E} \big(\mathrm{Im}\,f_\varepsilon (x)\big)^2 \Big) = C \mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (x)|^2 \]
for $C=C(j)$. Finally, plugging the previous inequality into \eqref{es:fromLp}, we get the estimate in the lemma.
\end{proof}
It is an immediate consequence of the previous lemma that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} \| f_\varepsilon \|^p_{L^p(K)} = \int_K \mathbb{E} | f_\varepsilon (x) |^p \, dx \leq C \int_K \big( \mathbb{E} | f_\varepsilon (x) |^2 \big)^{p/2} \, dx \label{es:post_lemma}
\end{equation}
for every compact $K \subset {\mathbb R}^n$. On the other hand, we have the identity
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} | f_\varepsilon (x) |^2 &= \mathbb{E}\big(\langle q, \mathcal{J}_{-s}(\varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot)) \rangle \langle q, \overline{\mathcal{J}_{-s}(\varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot))} \rangle\big) \\
&= \langle C_q \mathcal{J}_{-s}(\varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot)), \overline{\mathcal{J}_{-s}(\varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot))} \rangle\\
&= \langle \mathcal{J}_{-s} C_q \mathcal{J}_{-s}(\varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot)), \varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot) \rangle.
\end{align*}
Note that $\mathcal{J}_{-s} C_q \mathcal{J}_{-s}$ is pseudo-differential operator of order $-m+2s$ with a symbol $\widetilde{c} \in {\mathcal S}^{-m+2s} ({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n)$ and Schwartz kernel
\[\widetilde{K}(y, z) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}} \mathcal{F}^{-1} \big( \widetilde{c}(y, \centerdot) \big)(y - z).\]
For $s < (m - n)/2 $, we can check that
\[\mathbb{E} | f_\varepsilon (x) |^2 = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \Big(\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i\varepsilon (z - y) \cdot \xi} \widetilde{c} (x - \varepsilon y, \xi) \,d\xi \Big) \varphi(y) \varphi(z) \, dy \, dz\]
and consequently that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} | f_\varepsilon (x) |^2 \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} (1 + |\xi|)^{-m+2s} \,d\xi.
\label{es:uniformBOUNDforEPS}
\end{equation}
Therefore, by \eqref{es:uniformBOUNDforEPS} and \eqref{es:post_lemma} we have that, for every compact $K$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$, there exists a constant $C$ independent of $\varepsilon$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} \| f_\varepsilon \|^p_{L^p(K)} \leq C,
\label{es:unformLpbound}
\end{equation}
for all $\varepsilon \in (0, 1]$.
\begin{lemma}\sl For $1\leq p < \infty $ and $s < (m - n)/2$ with $n - 1 < m \leq n + 1$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{J}_{-s} q \in L^p_\mathrm{loc} ({\mathbb R}^n)
\end{equation*}
almost surely.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The case $p = 1$ follows from the case $1 < p < \infty$ by H\"older's inequality. The case $1 < p < \infty$ is a consequence of \eqref{es:unformLpbound}. Indeed, let $K$ be an arbitrary compact set in ${\mathbb R}^n$. The bound \eqref{es:unformLpbound} implies, by the Banach-Alaoglu theorem and since $L^p (\Omega \times K)$ with $1 < p < \infty$ is reflexive, that there exist $f \in L^p (\Omega \times K)$ and a vanishing sequence $\{ \varepsilon_j \}_{j=1}^\infty$, such that, $f_{\varepsilon_j}$ converges weakly to $f$ as $j$ goes to infinity. In particular, we have
\begin{equation}
\lim_{j\to\infty} \int_\Omega \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} f_{\varepsilon_j}(\omega, x) \phi(x) \psi(\omega) \,dx \,d\mathbb{P}(\omega) = \int_\Omega \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} f(\omega, x) \phi(x) \psi(\omega) \,dx \,d\mathbb{P}(\omega)
\label{lim:weak}
\end{equation}
for every $\phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$ such that $\supp (\phi) \subset K$ and every simple function $\psi : \Omega \to {\mathbb R}$.
Next, we show that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \int_\Omega \langle f_\varepsilon (\omega), \phi \rangle \psi(\omega) \,d\mathbb{P}(\omega) = \int_\Omega \langle \mathcal{J}_{-s} q(\omega), \phi \rangle \psi(\omega) \,d\mathbb{P}(\omega)
\label{lim:distributional}
\end{equation}
for every $\phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$ such that $\supp (\phi) \subset K$ and every simple function $\psi : \Omega \to {\mathbb R}$. The limit \eqref{lim:distributional} holds by the dominate convergence theorem since $f_\varepsilon (\omega)$ tends to $\mathcal{J}_{-s} q(\omega)$ in $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb R}^n)$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$ almost surely and $|\langle f_\varepsilon (\omega), \phi \rangle |$ is bounded, for all $\varepsilon$, by an integrable function in $\Omega$. To check this last point, note that
\begin{equation*}
\langle f_\varepsilon (\omega), \phi \rangle = \Big\langle q (\omega), \chi \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \varphi_\varepsilon(x) \mathcal{J}_{-s} \phi(x + \centerdot) \, dx \Big\rangle
\end{equation*}
with $\chi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\chi(x) = 1$ for all $x \in \overline{D}$, and by \eqref{in:def-distribution},
\begin{equation*}
|\langle f_\varepsilon (\omega), \phi \rangle | \leq C(\omega) \sum_{|\alpha| \leq N} \sup_{y \in {\mathbb R}^n} \bigg| \partial^\alpha \big( \chi(y) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \varphi_\varepsilon(x) \mathcal{J}_{-s} \phi(x + y) \, dx \big) \bigg|,
\end{equation*}
where the second term on the right-hand side is bounded by a constant independent of $\varepsilon$ and $C=C(\omega)$ is integrable in $\Omega$.
Therefore, by the density of the simple functions and the limits \eqref{lim:weak} and \eqref{lim:distributional}, we have that
for $\mathbb{P}$-almost every $\omega\in\Omega$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\langle \mathcal{J}_{-s} q(\omega), \phi \rangle = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} f(\omega, x) \phi(x) \,dx
\end{equation*}
for any $\phi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n; {\mathbb R})$ such that $\supp(\phi) \subset K$.
This concludes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
In order to conclude the regularity of the realizations of $q$, choose $\chi \in C^\infty_0 ({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\chi (x) = 1$ for all $x \in \overline{D}$ and write
\[q(\omega) = \mathcal{J}_s (\chi \mathcal{J}_{-s} q(\omega)) + \mathcal{J}_s \big((1 - \chi) \mathcal{J}_{-s} q(\omega)\big). \]
The first term belongs to $L^p_s ({\mathbb R}^n)$ a.s. by the previous lemma while the second one belongs to $L^p_t ({\mathbb R}^n)$ a.s. for every $t \in {\mathbb R}$ and every $1 < p < \infty$ because the supports of $1 - \chi$ and $q(\omega)$ are disjoints. This ends the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:SobolevRegularity}.
\subsection{Covariance function}
We conclude this section providing a more detailed description of the covariance function. This will be proved in the next proposition and used at the end of the section \ref{subsec:2nd order}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:correlation_function} \sl
Let $q$ be a microlocally isotropic random potential of order $-m $ in $D$. The covariance function $K_q$ has the following form:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] If $n < m \leq n + 1$, there exists a compactly supported function $F_{1 + \alpha}\in C^{1,\alpha} ({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n)$ for $ 0< \alpha < m - n$ such that
\[K_q (x, y) = c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) |x - y|^{m - n} + F_{1+\alpha}(x,y).\]
where $c_{n,m} $ is a constant depending on $n$ and $m$.
\item[(b)] If $n - 1 < m \leq n $, there exists a compactly supported function $F_\alpha \in C^{0,\alpha} ({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n)$ for $0< \alpha < m - (n - 1)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
K_q (x, y) =
\begin{cases}
c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) |x - y|^{-(n - m)} + F_\alpha(x,y), & \text{if } n - 1 < m < n, \\
c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) \log |x - y| + F_\alpha(x,y), & \text{if } m = n.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $c_{n,m} $ is a constant depending on $n$ and $m$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As a consequence of identities \eqref{id:isotropic} and \eqref{id:kernel}, for a radially symmetric $\psi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\psi(\xi) = 1$ for $|\xi| \leq 1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
(2 \pi)^{n/2} \langle &K_q (x, x - \centerdot), \phi \rangle = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mu(x) (1 - \psi(\xi)) |\xi|^{-m} \big(\mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi\big) (\xi) \, d\xi \\
& + \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mathcal{F}^{-1} \big( (1 - \psi) a(x, \centerdot) \big)(y) \phi (y) \, dy + \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mathcal{F}^{-1} \big( \psi c_q(x, \centerdot) \big) (y) \phi (y) \, dy.
\end{aligned}
\label{id:kernel,phi}
\end{equation}
Note that the function $v(x,y)=\mathcal{F}^{-1} \big( \psi c_q(x, \centerdot) \big) (y)$ satisfies $v\in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n)$ with $\supp(v) \subset D \times {\mathbb R}^n$. On the other hand, $w(x,y) = \mathcal{F}^{-1} \big( (1 - \psi) a(x, \centerdot) \big) (y)$ is smooth and compactly supported in $D$ with respect to the variable $x$. Moreover, using the Hausdorff--Young inequality, we see that for fixed $x\in D$ we have $w(x,\centerdot)\in L^p_s({\mathbb R}^n)$ for $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $s > 0$ such that $s - n/p < m - (n - 1)$. Furthermore, for every $0 < \alpha \leq 1$ and $k = 0, 1$ such that $k + \alpha < m - (n - 1)$ there exists $s > 0$ and $p > n$ with $k + \alpha = s - n/p$. Therefore, by the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have $w(x,\centerdot) \in C^{k, \alpha}({\mathbb R}^n)$.
If $n < m \leq n + 1$, the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{id:kernel,phi} coincides with
\[ \mu(x) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( (1 - \psi) |\centerdot|^{-m} \big) (y) \phi (y) \, dy \]
where $\mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( (1 - \psi) |\centerdot|^{-m} \big) \in L^p_s({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $s > 0$ such that $s - n/p < m - n$. Again, by the Sobolev embedding theorem, we can ensure that $\mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( (1 - \psi) |\centerdot|^{-m} \big) \in C^{0, \alpha}({\mathbb R}^n)$ for $ 0 < \alpha < m - n $.
Let us now prove that
\[ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( (1 - \psi) |\centerdot|^{-m} \big)(y) = c_{n,m} \, |y|^{m - n} + g(y) \]
for some $g \in C^\infty({\mathbb R}^n)$. The previous identity follows from the identity
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( (1 - \psi) |\centerdot|^{-m} \big)(\lambda z) =& \lambda^{m - n} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( (1 - \psi) |\centerdot|^{-m} \big)(z)\\
& + \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i \lambda z \cdot \xi} |\xi|^{-m} (\psi(\lambda \xi) - \psi(\xi) ) \,d\xi
\end{aligned} \label{id:rrrr}
\end{equation}
with $z=y/|y|$, $\lambda = |y|$ and
\[c_{n,m} = \mathcal{F}^{-1}\big( (1 - \psi) |\centerdot|^{-m} \big)(y/|y|). \]
Recall that $\psi$ is radially symmetric and hence $c_{n,m}$ is independent of $y$.
The identity \eqref{id:rrrr} is, in turn, an immediate consequence of
\[(1 - \psi(\xi)) |\xi|^{-m} = (1 - \psi(\lambda \xi)) |\xi|^{-m} + (\psi(\lambda\xi)- \psi(\xi)) |\xi|^{-m}.\]
Thus, in the case $n < m \leq n + 1$ the identity \eqref{id:kernel,phi} becomes
\[(2 \pi)^{n/2} \langle K_q (x, x - y), \phi(y) \rangle = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} (c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) |y|^{m - n} + g(x,y)) \phi(y) \, dy\]
for some $g \in C^{1,\alpha}({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n)$ with compact support with respect to the variable $x$. Since $K_q$ is supported on $D \times D$, we can just introduce an appropriate compactly supported smooth function in the previous identity and write the identity
\[K_q (x, y) = c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) |x - y|^{m - n} + F_{1+\alpha}(x,y)\]
with $c_{n,m} $ and $F_{1+\alpha}$ as in the (a). This concludes the proof of statement (a).
Consider the case (b) with $n - 1 < m < n $. Let us first record two useful identities. First, we can write
\begin{equation}
|\xi|^{-m} = \frac{2^{-m/2}}{\Gamma(m/2)} \int_0^\infty t^{m/2} e^{-t |\xi|^2/ 2} \, \frac{dt}{t},
\label{id:gamma}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ stands for
\[\Gamma (\beta) = \int_0^\infty t^\beta e^{-t} \, \frac{dt}{t}. \]
Second, the basic properties of the Fourier transform yield the identity
\begin{equation}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{-t |\xi|^2/2} (1 - \psi(\xi)) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi (\xi) \, d\xi = t^{-n/2} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{- |y|^2/(2t)} \mathcal{F}\big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy.
\label{id:gaussianfourier}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{id:gamma} and \eqref{id:gaussianfourier} on the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{id:kernel,phi} we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mu(x) (1 &- \psi(\xi)) |\xi|^{-m} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi (\xi) \, d\xi \\
& = \frac{2^{-m/2}}{\Gamma(m/2)} \mu(x) \int_0^\infty t^{m/2 - n/2} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{- |y|^2/(2t)} \mathcal{F}\big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy \, \frac{dt}{t} \\
& = \frac{2^{-m + n/2}}{\Gamma(m/2)} \Gamma(n/2 - m/2) \mu(x) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} |y|^{m - n} \mathcal{F}\big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy.
\end{aligned}
\label{id:related2HLS}
\end{equation}
In the last identity we have used the definition of $\Gamma$. Since
\[\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} |y|^{m - n} \mathcal{F}\big(\psi \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \left( \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{n/2}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} |y|^{m - n} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\psi (z - y) \, dy \right) \phi(z) \, dz,\]
we can deduce from \eqref{id:related2HLS} and \eqref{id:kernel,phi}, proceeding as before, that
\[K_q (x, y) = c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) |x - y|^{m - n} + F_\alpha(x,y)\]
with $c_{n,m} $ and $F_\alpha $ as in the (b).
The case $m=n$ follows from a limit argument, making $m < n$ goes to $n$. To do so, note that
\[\Gamma(n/2 - m/2) = \frac{\Gamma(n/2 - m/2 + 1)}{n/2 - m/2},\]
which is a consequence of the definition of $\Gamma$, and rewrite \eqref{id:related2HLS} as
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mu(x) (1 &- \psi(\xi)) |\xi|^{-m} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi (\xi) \, d\xi \\
& = \frac{2^{-m + n/2}}{\Gamma(m/2)} \Gamma(n/2 - m/2 + 1) \mu(x) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \frac{|y|^{m - n} - 1}{n/2 -m/2} \mathcal{F}\big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy \\
& \quad + \frac{2^{-m + n/2}}{\Gamma(m/2)} \Gamma(n/2 - m/2) \mu(x) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mathcal{F}\big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, since $(|y|^{-(n-m)} - 1)/(n-m) \longrightarrow \log |y|^{-1}$ as $m \rightarrow n$, we can use the dominate convergence theorem to pass to the limit and obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mu(x) (1 - \psi(\xi)) |\xi|^{-n} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi (\xi) \, d\xi =& c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \log |y|^{-1} \mathcal{F}\big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy \\
& + \widetilde{c}_{n,m}\, \mu(x) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mathcal{F}\big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy
\end{align*}
for $c_{n,m}$ and $\widetilde{c}_{n,m}$ positive constants. Checking that the identities
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \log |y| \mathcal{F}\big(\psi \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy &= \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \left( \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{n/2}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \log |y| \mathcal{F}^{-1}\psi (z - y) \, dy \right) \phi(z) \, dz, \\
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mathcal{F} \big((1 - \psi) \mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi \big)(y) \, dy &= \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{n/2}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mathcal{F}^{-1}\psi (z - y) \, dy \right) \phi(z) \, dz
\end{align*}
hold and proceeding as before we have
\[K_q (x, y) = c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) \log |x - y| + F_\alpha(x,y)\]
with $c_{n,m} $ and $F_\alpha $ as in the (c), which ends the proof of this proposition.
\end{proof}
\section{Direct scattering for a rough potential}\label{sec:direct-scattering}
In the previous section we established that the realizations of our random potential field model can be rough (Proposition \ref{prop:SobolevRegularity}). Therefore, we need to show that the scattering problem in \eqref{eq:intro_direct}
is well-defined. To achieve this, we leave the randomness aside for a while and consider the deterministic scattering problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:direct_problem}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& (\Delta + k^2 - V) u = 0\\
&u (x) = e^{ik\theta \cdot x} + u_{\rm sc} (x)\\
& \frac{x}{|x|} \cdot \nabla u_{\rm sc}(x) - ik u_{\rm sc}(x) = o(|x|^{-\frac{n - 1}{2}}) \; \textrm{as} \, |x|\rightarrow \infty
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
for a rough potential $V$. Later, our plan is to apply these results to the random scattering scenario for pointwise values $q=q(\omega)$.
The condition satisfied by $u_{\rm sc}$ at infinity is usually referred as the \textit{outgoing Sommerfeld radiation condition} (SRC for short). Here we assume $V$ to be in $L^p_{-s}({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $0 < s \leq 1/2$ and $n/s \leq p < \infty$ and to have support in a bounded domain $D$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$. Note that the limiting case $V \in L^\infty({\mathbb R}^n)$ (corresponding to $s\to 0$) is classical.
We will construct the scattered wave to be $u_{\rm sc} = \sum_{j = 1}^\infty u_j$ with
\[
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& (\Delta + k^2) u_j = V u_{j - 1}\quad j \in \N \setminus \{ 0 \},\\
& u_0 (x) = e^{ik\theta \cdot x}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\]
Since the function $\xi \mapsto (-|\xi|^2 + k^2)^{-1}$ does not define a temperate distribution, we will introduce a temperate distribution $\Psi^\pm_k$ as the limit of
\[ \xi \longmapsto \frac{1}{-|\xi|^2 + k^2 \pm i \varepsilon} \]
as $\varepsilon > 0$ vanishes. This limit exists and it is given by
\[\langle \Psi^\pm_k, \phi \rangle = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \frac{\phi(\xi)}{-|\xi|^2 + k^2} \, d\xi \mp i \frac{\pi}{2k} \int_{ |\xi| = k } \phi(\xi) \, d\sigma_k(\xi) \]
where the principal value $\mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n}$ stands for $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{0<\epsilon\leq|k^2 - |\xi|^2|}$ and $d\sigma_k$ denotes the volume form on $\{ \xi\in {\mathbb R}^n : |\xi| = k \}$. Now, we let $\Phi^\pm_k$ denote the inverse Fourier transform of $\Psi^\pm_k$ and $\mathcal{R}^\pm_k$ be defined by
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{R}^\pm_k f} = \Psi^\pm_k \widehat{f}
\label{id:multiplier}
\end{equation}
for $f$ in the Schwartz class, hence,
\[\mathcal{R}^\pm_k f = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}} \Phi^\pm_k \ast f.\]
Thus, we set $u_j = \mathcal{R}^\pm_k(V u_{j - 1}) = (\mathcal{R}^\pm_k \circ V)^j u_0$, where $\mathcal{R}^\pm_k \circ V$ denotes the \textit{resolvent operator} $\mathcal{R}^\pm_k$ composed with the operator \textit{multiplication-by} $V$.
On the other hand, it is known that $\Phi_k^\pm$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{x}{|x|} \cdot \nabla \Phi_k^\pm(x) \mp ik \Phi_k^\pm(x) = o(|x|^{-\frac{n - 1}{2}}) \; \textrm{as} \, |x|\rightarrow \infty.
\label{es:SRCoutin}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the scattered wave, which has to satisfy the SRC, will be constructed with $\mathcal{R}^+_k$ as
\begin{equation}
u_{\rm sc} = \sum_{j = 1}^\infty (\mathcal{R}^+_k \circ V)^j u_0
\label{id:neumann_series}
\end{equation}
provided this infinite sum makes sense.
In the following, we prove that the construction \eqref{id:neumann_series} is well-defined,
by proving boundedness properties for the operators $\mathcal{R}^+_k $ and {multiplication-by} $V$ in the weighted spaces $H^{s,\delta}_k({\mathbb R}^n)$. The space $H^{s,\delta}_k({\mathbb R}^n)$ is constructed in the following manner. Let $L^{2, \delta} ({\mathbb R}^n)$, with $\delta \in {\mathbb R}$, denote the equivalence class of measurable functions $f$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$ such that
\[\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} (1 + |x|^2)^\delta |f(x)|^2 \, dx < \infty,\]
and be endowed with the norm
\[ \| f \|_{L^{2, \delta}} = \Big( \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} (1 + |x|^2)^\delta |f(x)|^2 \, dx \Big)^{1/2}. \]
If $\delta = 0$, the space $L^{2,0}({\mathbb R}^n)$ is just $L^2({\mathbb R}^n)$.
Let $H^{s,\delta}_k({\mathbb R}^n)$, with $\delta $ and $s $ in $ {\mathbb R}$, be the space of $f = (k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2} g$ such that $g \in L^{2,\delta} ({\mathbb R}^n)$, where $(k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2}$ is defined as the multiplier with symbol $ (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2}$. Let this space be endowed with the norm
\[\| f \|_{H^{s, \delta}_k} = \| g \|_{L^{2,\delta}}.\]
When $\delta = 0$, the space $H^{s,0}_k({\mathbb R}^n)$ will be denoted by $H^s_k({\mathbb R}^n)$.
The boundedness properties of the operators $\mathcal{R}^\pm_k $ and {multiplication-by} $V$ needed for our purposes, will be studied in the sections \ref{sec:resolvent} and \ref{sec:multiplication} respectively, and stated here as follows:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:relosvent} \sl The operator $\mathcal{R}^\pm_k $ is bounded from $H^{-s, \delta}_k ({\mathbb R}^n)$ to $H^{s, -\delta}_k ({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $0 \leq s \leq 1/2$ and $\delta > 1/2$ and satisfies the inequality
\[\| \mathcal{R}^\pm_k f \|_{H^{s, -\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-(1 - 2s)} \| f \|_{H^{-s, \delta}_k}. \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:multiplication} \sl If $V $ belong either $ L^p_{-s}({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $0 < s \leq 1/2$ and $ n/s \leq p < \infty$, then the operator {multiplication-by} $V$ is bounded from $H^{s, -\delta}_k ({\mathbb R}^n)$ to $H^{-s, \delta}_k ({\mathbb R}^n)$ and satisfies
\[\| V f \|_{H^{-s, \delta}_k} = o\Big( \| f \|_{H^{s, -\delta}_k}\Big), \]
expressed with the \emph{little o} of Landau.
\end{proposition}
As a consequence of these statements, there exists $k_0 > 0$, depending only on $\| V \|_{L^p_{-s}}$, $n$, $s$ and $\delta$, such that the operator $\mathcal{R}^\pm_k \circ V$ maps $H^{s, -\delta}_k({\mathbb R}^n)$ into itself with a norm strictly less than $1$ for $k \geq k_0$. Then, the sum \eqref{id:neumann_series} converges in $H^{s, -\delta}_k({\mathbb R}^n)$, and $u_{\rm sc}$ can be constructed by the infinite sum.
\begin{remark}
\label{re:k0}
Notice carefully that in the probabilistic problem setting the threshold wavelength $k_0 = k_0(\omega)$ becomes random due to the dependence on the term $\norm{q(\omega)}_{L^p_{-s}}$. However, we clearly have $k_0(\omega)<\infty$ almost surely and as our reconstruction method is based on a single realization of the potential, the randomness poses no problems.
\end{remark}
Finally, by construction, the scattered wave satisfies the Lippmann--Schwinger equation
\begin{equation*}
u_{\rm sc}(x) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \Phi_k^+(x-y) V(y) (e^{ik\theta\cdot y} + u_{\rm sc}(y)) dy \quad \text{in} \;
H^{s,-\delta}_k({\mathbb R}^n).
\end{equation*}
By the asymptotic behaviour of $\Phi_k^+$ and the fact that $u_{\rm sc}$ solves $(\Delta + k^2) u_{\rm sc} = 0$ in the exterior of a ball containing $D$, we have that $u_{\rm sc} (x)$ is asymptotically equivalent, as $|x|$ grows, to
\[k^{(n - 1)/2} \frac{e^{ik|x|}}{|x|^{(n - 1)/2}} u^\infty (k, \theta, x/|x|), \]
where $u^\infty (k, \theta, x/|x|)$ is the \textit{far-field pattern} and can be expressed as
\[u^\infty (k, \theta, x/|x|) = c_n\int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{-ik\frac{x}{|x|}\cdot y} V(y) (e^{ik\theta \cdot y} + u_{\rm sc}(y)) \, dy\]
with $c_n$ a constant only depending on $n$. Furthermore, we can conclude that the $u_{\rm sc}$ satisfies the SRC.
\subsection{Resolvent estimates} \label{sec:resolvent}
Start by noting that whenever $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$, the identity
\[\langle \Psi^\pm_k \widehat{f}, \phi \rangle = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \frac{\widehat{f}(\xi)\phi(\xi)}{-|\xi|^2 + k^2} \, d\xi \mp i \frac{\pi}{2k} \int_{ |\xi| = k } \widehat{f}(\xi) \phi(\xi) \, d\sigma_k(\xi) \]
holds for every bounded smooth function $\phi$. Thus, according to \eqref{id:multiplier}, we have that
\[\mathcal{R}^\pm_k f (x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}} \Big( \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \frac{e^{i x\cdot \xi}\widehat{f}(\xi)}{-|\xi|^2 + k^2} \, d\xi \mp i \frac{\pi}{2k} \int_{ |\xi| = k } e^{i x\cdot \xi} \widehat{f}(\xi) \, d\sigma_k(\xi) \Big) \]
for every $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$. For convenience, let us write
\[\mathcal{P}_k f(x) = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \frac{e^{i x\cdot \xi}\widehat{f}(\xi)}{-|\xi|^2 + k^2} \, d\xi, \qquad \mathcal{Q}_k f(x) = \frac{1}{k} \int_{ |\xi| = k } e^{i x\cdot \xi} \widehat{f}(\xi) \, d\sigma_k(\xi). \]
The main goal of this section is to prove the inequalities
\begin{align}
\| \mathcal{P}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} &\lesssim \| f \|_{L^{2, \delta}} \label{es:re_part}, \\
\| \mathcal{Q}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} &\lesssim \| f \|_{L^{2, \delta}} \label{es:im_part}
\end{align}
for every $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$, since Theorem \ref{thm:relosvent} is a consequence of them. Indeed, these inequalities imply that
\begin{align*}
\| \mathcal{R}^\pm_k f \|_{H^{1 - s, -\delta}_k} &= \| \mathcal{R}^\pm_k (k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2} f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} \\
& \lesssim \| (k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2} f \|_{L^{2, \delta}} = \| f \|_{H^{-s, \delta}_k}.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, checking that
\begin{equation}
\| \mathcal{R}^\pm_k f \|_{H^{s, -\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-(1 - 2s)} \| \mathcal{R}^\pm_k f \|_{H^{1 - s, -\delta}_k},
\label{es:gainINk}
\end{equation}
we conclude the estimate
\[\| \mathcal{R}^\pm_k f \|_{H^{s, -\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-(1 - 2s)} \| f \|_{H^{-s, \delta}_k}, \]
and consequently the theorem. Note that \eqref{es:gainINk} is a simple consequence of the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:st} \sl Let $s,t, \delta$ and $k$ be real numbers such that $s \leq t$. Then,
\[\| f \|_{H^{s,\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-(t-s)} \| f \|_{H^{t,\delta}_k} \]
for all $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Firstly note that it is enough to prove that for $s, \delta, k \in {\mathbb R}$ with $s \geq 0$ the estimate
\begin{equation}
\| f \|_{H^{-s,\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-s} \| f \|_{L^{2,\delta}}
\label{es:-s0}
\end{equation}
holds for all $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$.
In order to prove \eqref{es:-s0}, it will convenient to introduce some notation. Set
\begin{align*}
D_0 &= \{ x \in {\mathbb R}^n : |x|\leq 1 \},\\
D_j &= \{ x \in {\mathbb R}^n : 2^{j - 1} < |x| \leq 2^j \} \qquad j \in \N \setminus \{ 0 \}
\end{align*}
and consider $\chi_0$ a smooth function with values in $[0, 1]$ such that $\supp \chi_0 \subset D_0$ and $\chi_0(x) = 1$ for all $|x| \leq 1/2$. Let $\chi_j$ with $j \in \N \setminus \{ 0 \}$ denote $\chi_j (x) = \chi_0(x/2^{j+1}) - \chi_0(x/2^{j})$ and note that $\supp \chi_j \subset \{ 2^{j - 1} \leq |x| \leq 2^{j + 1}\}$ for $j \geq 1$. By construction, $\sum_{j \in \N} \chi_j(x) = 1$ for every $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$.
Using this notation, we can write
\[\| f \|_{H^{-s,\delta}_k}^2 \lesssim \sum_{j \in \N} \Big( \sum_{l \in \N} 2^{j\delta} \|(k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2}(\chi_l f)\|_{L^2(D_j)} \Big)^2.\]
The sums on the right hand side will be studied separately according to \[\sum_{j \in \N} \Big( \sum_{l \in \N} \cdots \Big)^2 \sim \sum_{j \in \N} \sum_{|l - j|\leq 2} \big( \cdots \big)^2 + \sum_{j \in \N} \Big( \sum_{|l - j|> 2} \cdots \Big)^2.\]
Start by the case where, the support of $\chi_l$ and $D_j$ intersect each other:
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j \in \N} \sum_{|l - j|\leq 2} 2^{2j\delta} \|(k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2}(\chi_l f)\|^2_{L^2(D_j)} \lesssim \sum_{l \in \N} 2^{2l\delta} \|(k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2}(\chi_l f)\|^2_{L^2}
\end{equation*}
Using now Plancherel's identity, the right hand side of the previous inequality can be bounded by
\[ k^{-2s} \sum_{l \in \N} 2^{2l\delta} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} |\chi_l(x) f(x)|^2 \, dx \lesssim k^{-2s} \| f \|_{L^{2,\delta}}^2.\]
Consider now the case where the support of $\chi_l$ and $D_j$ and far from each other. The norm $\| (k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2}(\chi_l f) \|_{L^2(D_j)}$ will be estimated by duality:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i(x - y) \cdot \xi} (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2}f_l (y) \, dy \, d\xi \, g(x) \, dx
\label{term:L2duality}
\end{equation}
where $g$ is any smooth function compactly supported in $D_j$ and $f_l$ denotes for simplicity $ \chi_l f$. Let $\phi$ be a real-valued smooth function defined on $[0, \infty)$ with compact $\{ 0 \leq t \leq 1/4 \}$ and such that $\phi (t) = 1$ for $ 0 \leq t \leq 1/8$. Then, \eqref{term:L2duality} is equal to
\[\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i(x - y) \cdot \xi} \Big[ 1 - \phi\Big( \frac{|x - y|}{|2^j - 2^l|} \Big)\Big] (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2}f_l (y) \, dy \, d\xi \, g(x) \, dx.\]
This holds because if $x \in D_j$ and $y \in \supp \chi_l$ with $|j - l|>2$, then $|x - y| \geq 2^{\max(j,l)} / 4 > |2^j - 2^l| / 4$. Furthermore, using the identity
\[- \frac{\Delta_\xi e^{i(x - y)\cdot \xi}}{|x - y|^2} = e^{i(x - y)\cdot \xi}, \qquad x \neq y\]
($N$ times) and integrating by parts ($2N$ times) in $\xi$, we see that \eqref{term:L2duality} equals
\[-\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i(x - y) \cdot \xi} \frac{1}{|x - y|^{2N}} \Big[ 1 - \phi\Big( \frac{|x - y|}{|2^j - 2^l|} \Big)\Big] \Delta_\xi^N (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2}f_l (y) \, dy \, d\xi \, g(x) \, dx.\]
For $N > n / 2$, we have that
\[\Big| \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i(x - y) \cdot \xi} \Delta_\xi^N (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2} \, d\xi \Big| \lesssim k^{-s}, \]
so we can apply Fubini to integrate first in $\xi$ and then apply the Cauchy--Schwarz. Consequently, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Big| \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i(x - y) \cdot \xi} (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2}f_l (y) \, dy \, d\xi \, g(x) \, dx \Big| \lesssim k^{-s} \| \Phi \ast f_l\|_{L^2} \| g \|_{L^2}
\end{equation*}
with
\[\Phi (x) = \frac{1}{|x|^{2N}} \Big[ 1 - \phi\Big( \frac{|x|}{|2^j - 2^l|} \Big)\Big]. \]
This implies, by duality and Young's inequality, that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j \in \N} \Big( \sum_{|l - j|> 2} 2^{j\delta} \| (k^2 - \Delta)^{-s/2}(\chi_l f) \|_{L^2(D_j)} \Big)^2 \lesssim k^{-2s} \sum_{j \in \N} \Big( \sum_{|l - j|> 2} 2^{j\delta} \| \Phi \|_{L^1} \| \chi_l f \|_{L^2} \Big)^2
\label{term:withSUM}
\end{equation}
where
\[\| \Phi \|_{L^1} = \frac{1}{|2^j - 2^l|^{2N - n}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \frac{1}{|x|^{2N}} [ 1 - \phi( |x| )] \,dx. \]
The right-hand side of \eqref{term:withSUM} can be bounded as follows
\begin{equation*}
k^{-2s} \sum_{j \in \N} \Big( \sum_{|l - j|> 2} \frac{2^{(j - l)\delta}}{|2^j - 2^l|^{2N - n}} 2^{l\delta} \| \chi_l f \|_{L^2} \Big)^2 \lesssim k^{-2s} \sum_{j \in \N} \Big( \sum_{|l - j|> 2} \frac{1}{2^{|j - l|(2N - n - |\delta|)}} 2^{l\delta} \| \chi_l f \|_{L^2} \Big)^2.
\end{equation*}
To check the previous inequality, it may be convenient to notice that $|2^j - 2^l| > 2^{\max(j,l) - 1}$ for $|l - j|>0$. By Young's inequality for convolutions, the right-hand side can be bounded by
\[k^{-2s} \Big( \sum_{j \in \N} 2^{-j(2N - n - |\delta|)} \Big)^2 \sum_{l\in \N} 2^{2l\delta} \| \chi_l f \|^2_{L^2}. \]
Choosing $N > (n + |\delta|)/2 $ we have that the right-hand side of \eqref{term:withSUM} is bounded by
\[k^{-2s} \sum_{l \in \N} 2^{2l\delta} \| \chi_l f \|^2_{L^2} \lesssim k^{-2s} \| f \|^2_{L^{2,\delta}}.\]
This ends the proof of this lemma.
\end{proof}
We turn our attention to estimates \eqref{es:re_part} and \eqref{es:im_part}:
\paragraph*{\emph{Proof of the inequality \eqref{es:re_part}}} Let $D_j$ with $j \in \N$ be as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:st} and bound
\begin{equation}
\| \mathcal{P}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} \lesssim \Big( \sum_{j \in \N} 2^{-(2\delta - 1)j} \Big)^{1/2} \sup_{j \in \N} \big( 2^{-j/2} \|(k^2 - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{P}_k f\|_{L^2(D_j)} \big).
\label{es:HdeltaFBesov}
\end{equation}
As we see below, the inequality \eqref{es:re_part} will be a consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:KPV} \sl Let $\lambda $ be a positive constant and $\mathcal{P}$ be given by
\[\mathcal{P} f(x) = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \frac{e^{i x\cdot \xi}\widehat{f}(\xi)}{1 - |\xi|^2} \, d\xi.\]
Then,
\[ \int_{|x| < R} |(1 - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{P} f(x)|^2 \, dx \lesssim R \lambda \| f \|^2_{L^2} \]
for all $R > 0$ and $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\supp f \subset \{ \lambda / 2 \leq |x| \leq 2 \lambda \}$.
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{lem:KPV} is a slight modification of Lemma 2.4 in \cite{MR1230709} due to Kenig, Ponce and Vega
Let us show that Lemma \ref{lem:KPV} implies \eqref{es:re_part}. From the inequality \eqref{es:HdeltaFBesov} we have
\begin{align}
\| \mathcal{P}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} &\lesssim \sup_{R > 0} \big( R^{-1/2} \|(k^2 - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{P}_k f\|_{L^2(|x| \leq R)} \big)
\label{es:thegoodnorm} \\
&= k^{-n/2-1/2} \sup_{R > 0} \big( R^{-1/2} \|(1 - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{P} S_k f\|_{L^2(|x| \leq R)} \big),
\label{es:withoutk}
\end{align}
where $S_k f(x) = f(x/k)$. Let $\chi$ be a smooth function with values in $[0, 1]$ such that $\supp \chi \subset D_0$ and $\chi(x) = 1$ for all $|x| \leq 1/2$. Let $\chi_j$ with $j \in {\mathbb Z} $ denote $\chi_j (x) = \chi(x/2^{j+1}) - \chi(x/2^{j})$ and note that $\supp \chi_j \subset \{ 2^{j - 1} \leq |x| \leq 2^{j + 1}\}$. By construction, $\sum_{j \in {\mathbb Z}} \chi_j(x) = 1$ for every $x \in {\mathbb R}^n \setminus \{ 0 \}$. Then, by Lemma \ref{lem:KPV}, we have that
\begin{align*}
\| \mathcal{P}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} &\lesssim k^{-n/2-1/2} \sum_{j \in {\mathbb Z}} \sup_{R > 0} \big( R^{-1/2} \|(1 - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{P} S_k (\chi_j f)\|_{L^2(|x| < R)} \big) \\
&\lesssim k^{-n/2-1/2} \sum_{j \in {\mathbb Z}} k^{1/2} 2^{j/2} \| S_k(\chi_j f) \|_{L^2}\\
&= \sum_{j \in {\mathbb Z}} 2^{j/2} \| \chi_j f \|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
This last term can be manipulate to obtain inequality \eqref{es:re_part}:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j \in {\mathbb Z}} 2^{j/2} \| \chi_j f \|_{L^2} &\leq \sum_{j < 0} 2^{j/2} \| f \|_{L^2(D_0)} + \sum_{j \in \N} 2^{j(1-2\delta)/2} 2^{j\delta} \| \chi_j f \|_{L^2} \\
& \lesssim \| f \|_{L^2(D_0)} + \Big( \sum_{j \in \N} 2^{j(1-2\delta)} \Big)^{1/2} \Big( \sum_{j\in \N} 2^{2j\delta} \| \chi_j f \|^2_{L^2} \Big)^{1/2} \\
& \lesssim \| f \|_{L^{2,\delta}}.
\end{align*}
In order to prove \eqref{es:re_part}, the only ingredient to be checked is Lemma \ref{lem:KPV}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:KPV}]
Start by writing
\[(\rm I - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{P} f = \mathcal{K}f + \mathcal{L}f, \]
where the operators $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ are given by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{K}f(x) &= \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i x\cdot \xi} \frac{\phi(1 - |\xi|^2) (1 + |\xi|^2)^{1/2}}{1 - |\xi|^2} \widehat{f}(\xi) \, d\xi, \\
\mathcal{L}f(x) &= (2\pi)^{n/2} \mathcal{J}_{1} m(D) f,
\end{align*}
where $\phi$ is a smooth function defined on ${\mathbb R}$ and taking values in $[0,1]$ such that $\supp \phi \subset [- 1/(8n), 1/(8n)]$ and $\phi(t) = 1$ for all $|t|\leq 1/(16n)$, $\mathcal{J}_{1}$ is the Bessel potential defined as in the section \ref{sec:regularity}, and $m(D)$ is the multiplier with symbol
\[m(\xi) = \frac{[1 - \phi(1 - |\xi|^2)] (1 + |\xi|^2)}{1 - |\xi|^2}.\]
By H\"older's inequality with $1/2 = 1/p + 1/(2n)$ we have
\[\| \mathcal{L}f \|^2_{L^2(|x| < R)} \lesssim R\, \| \mathcal{L}f \|^2_{L^p}.\]
By Sobolev embeddings\footnote{This is nothing but Lemma 2 in \S 3.2 of chapter V in \cite{MR0290095} with $\alpha = 1$, Young's inequality for functions convolved with finite measures and Theorem 1 in \S 1.2 of chapter V in \cite{MR0290095} with $\alpha = 1$}, the right-hand side is bounded by a multiple constant of
\begin{equation}
R\, \| m(D)f \|^2_{L^{p'}}
\label{term:multiplier}
\end{equation}
with $1/p + 1/p' = 1$. By the Mikhlin--H\"ormander multiplier theorem and H\"older's inequality with $1/p' = 1/2 + 1/(2n)$, we have that \eqref{term:multiplier} is bounded by a constant multiple of
\[R\, \| f \|^2_{L^{p'}} \lesssim R \lambda \, \| f \|^2_{L^2}. \]
Therefore, we have
\[\| \mathcal{L}f \|^2_{L^2(|x| < R)} \lesssim R \lambda \, \| f \|^2_{L^2}. \]
To finish the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:KPV}, it only remains to prove the corresponding estimate for the singular part $\mathcal{K}$. To this end, we introduce a partition of unity $\{ \psi_1, \dots, \psi_{2n} \}$ of $\Gamma = \{ \xi \in {\mathbb R}^n : 1/2 < |\xi| < 3/2 \}$ subordinated to $\{ \Gamma_1, \dots, \Gamma_{2n} \}$, where
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_{2l-1} = \{ \xi \in \Gamma: \xi_l > 1/(2\sqrt{n}) \}, \qquad \Gamma_{2l} = \{ \xi \in \Gamma : \xi_l < - 1/(2\sqrt{n}) \}.
\end{equation*}
This partition of unity can be assumed to satisfy:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\psi_2(x) = \psi_1 (I_1 x)$ with $I_1$ the reflection given by the matrix $[ - e_1 | e_2 | \dots | e_n]$ and $ e_1, \dots, e_n $ the elements of canonical base of ${\mathbb R}^n$;
\item[(ii)] for $l = 2, \dots, n$,
\[\psi_{2l-1} (x) = \psi_1 (I_l x), \qquad \psi_{2l} (x) = \psi_2 (I_l x) \]
with $I_l$ the rotation given the matrix $[- e_l | e_2 | \dots |e_{l - 1} | e_1 | e_{l + 1} | \dots | e_n]$.
\end{itemize}
Thus, $\mathcal{K}f = \sum_{j = 1}^{2n} \mathcal{K}_j f $ with
\[\mathcal{K}_j f(x) = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{i x\cdot \xi} \frac{\phi(1 - |\xi|^2) (1 + |\xi|^2)^{1/2}}{1 - |\xi|^2} \psi_j(\xi) \widehat{f}(\xi) \, d\xi,\]
and, in order to prove the lemma, it is enough to prove that
\begin{equation}
\| \mathcal{K}_1 f \|^2_{L^2(|x| < R)} \lesssim R \lambda \, \| f \|^2_{L^2}
\label{es:S1}
\end{equation}
for all $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $\supp f \subset \{ \lambda / 2 \leq |x| \leq 2 \lambda \}$.
In order to prove \eqref{es:S1}, we first write
\[\Phi (\xi) = \frac{\phi(1 - |\xi|^2) (1 + |\xi|^2)^{1/2}}{1 - |\xi|^2} \psi_1(\xi). \]
Note that $\phi$ has been chosen in such a way that it satisfies
\[\supp \Phi \subset \{ \xi = (\xi_1, \xi') \in {\mathbb R} \times {\mathbb R}^{n - 1} : 1 - |\xi'|^2 > 1/(8n) \}\]
and for what follows we write
\[\Phi(\xi) = \frac{\Psi(\xi)}{(1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2} - \xi_1} \quad \text{with} \quad \Psi(\xi) = \frac{\phi(1 - |\xi|^2) (1 + |\xi|^2)^{1/2}}{(1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2} + \xi_1} \psi_1(\xi). \]
This also allows us to use the expression
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}_1 f(x) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{0 < \epsilon < |(1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2} - \xi_1|} e^{i x\cdot \xi} \Phi(\xi) \widehat{f}(\xi) \, d\xi.
\end{equation*}
Let $\mathcal{F}'$ denote the Fourier transform on the variable $x'$ with dual variable $\xi'$. It follows that
\[ \mathcal{K}_1 f(x) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^{n - 1}} e^{i x'\cdot \xi'} \int_{\mathbb R} a(x_1, y_1, \xi') \mathcal{F}'f(y_1, \xi') \,dy_1 \,d\xi'\]
with
\[ a(x_1, y_1, \xi') = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{\mathbb R} e^{i (x_1 - y_1) \xi_1} \frac{\Psi(\xi)}{(1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2} - \xi_1} \, d\xi_1\]
where the principal value is understood as $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{0 < \epsilon < |(1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2} - \xi_1|}$.
By Plancherel's identity we obtain
\begin{align*}
\| \mathcal{K}_1 f \|^2_{L^2(|x| < R)} &\leq \int_{|x_1| < R} \int_{{\mathbb R}^{n - 1}} |\mathcal{K}_1 f(x_1, x')|^2 \,dx' \,dx_1 \\
&\sim \int_{|x_1| < R} \int_{{\mathbb R}^{n - 1}} \Big| \int_{\mathbb R} a(x_1, y_1, \xi') \mathcal{F}'f(y_1, \xi') \,dy_1 \Big|^2 \,d\xi' \,dx_1.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, since $\supp f \subset \{ \lambda / 2 \leq |x| \leq 2 \lambda \}$, we have by applying the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, and then Plancharel's identity, that
\begin{align*}
\| \mathcal{K}_1 f \|^2_{L^2(|x| < R)} &\lesssim \lambda \int_{|x_1| < R} \int_{{\mathbb R}^{n - 1}} \sup_{\lambda / 2 \leq |y_1| \leq 2 \lambda} |a(x_1, y_1, \xi')|^2 \int_{\mathbb R} |\mathcal{F}'f(y_1, \xi')|^2 \,dy_1 \,d\xi' \,dx_1 \\
&\lesssim \lambda R \sup_{|x_1| < R} \sup_{\lambda / 2 \leq |y_1| \leq 2 \lambda} |a(x_1, y_1, \xi')|^2 \| f \|^2_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, to conclude the proof of the inequality \eqref{es:S1}, it is enough to show that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{|x_1| < R} \sup_{\lambda / 2 \leq |y_1| \leq 2 \lambda} |a(x_1, y_1, \xi')| \lesssim 1.
\label{es:ax_1y_1xi'}
\end{equation}
Now recall the following identity
\[ \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{1/2}} \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{\mathbb R} \frac{e^{-ist}}{t} \varphi(t) \, dt = -i \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb R} \sign (s - t) \widehat{\varphi} (t) \,dt. \]
Consequently, $a(x_1, y_1, \xi')$ is a multiple constant of
\[e^{i(x_1 - y_1)(1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2}} \int_{\mathbb R} \sign(x_1 - y_1 - t) \int_{\mathbb R} e^{-its} \Psi((1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2} - s, \xi') \, ds \,dt,\]
which can be written as a convolution changing variables according to $\xi_1 = (1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2} - s $:
\[\int_{\mathbb R} e^{i(x_1 - y_1 - t)(1 - |\xi'|^2)^{1/2}} \sign(x_1 - y_1 - t) \int_{\mathbb R} e^{it\xi_1} \Psi(\xi) \, d\xi_1 \,dt.\]
Finally, by Young's inequality and then the non-stationary phase principle, we have
\[|a(x_1, y_1, \xi')| \lesssim \int_{\mathbb R} \Big| \int_{\mathbb R} e^{it\xi_1} \Psi(\xi) \, d\xi_1 \Big| \, dt \lesssim 1. \]
This proves \eqref{es:ax_1y_1xi'}, so that \eqref{es:S1} holds and the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:KPV} is over.
\end{proof}
\paragraph*{\emph{Proof of the inequality \eqref{es:im_part}}} In the same way we obtained \eqref{es:thegoodnorm}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\| \mathcal{Q}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} \lesssim \sup_{R > 0} \big( R^{-1/2} \|(k^2 - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{Q}_k f\|_{L^2(|x| < R)} \big).
\end{equation*}
Note that $(k^2 - \Delta)^{1/2} \mathcal{Q}_k f(x)$ is a constant multiple of
\[ \int_{ |\xi| = k } e^{i x\cdot \xi} \widehat{f}(\xi) \, d\sigma_k(\xi) = \frac{1}{k} \int_{ |\eta| = 1 } e^{i kx\cdot \eta} \widehat{S_kf}(\eta) \, d\sigma(\eta),\]
where $d\sigma$ is the volume form on $\{ |\eta| = 1 \}$ with $S_k f$ as in \eqref{es:withoutk}. Note that the previous expression is essentially the Fourier transform of the measure $\widehat{S_kf}(\eta) \, d\sigma(\eta)$ supported on $\{ |\eta| = 1 \}$. Because of the same considerations as in \eqref{es:withoutk}, we have that
\[ \| \mathcal{Q}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-n/2-1/2} \sup_{R > 0} \Big( R^{-1/2} \big|\int_{ |\eta| = 1 } e^{i x\cdot \eta} \widehat{S_kf}(\eta) \, d\sigma(\eta) \big|_{L^2(|x| < R)} \Big). \]
By Theorem 7.1.26 in \cite{MR1065993}, we can bound the right hand side of the previous inequality and obtain
\[\| \mathcal{Q}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-n/2-1/2} \Big( \int_{ |\eta| = 1 } | \widehat{S_kf}(\eta) |^2 \, d\sigma(\eta) \Big)^{1/2}. \]
By an appropriate duality argument (in the spirit of Theorem 14.1.1 in \cite{MR2108588}) applied to Theorem 7.1.26 in \cite{MR1065993} we have that
\[\Big( \int_{ |\eta| = 1 } | \widehat{S_kf}(\eta) |^2 \, d\sigma(\eta) \Big)^{1/2} \lesssim \sum_{j\in {\mathbb Z}} k^{1/2} 2^{j/2} \Big( \int_{k 2^{j-1} < |x| \leq k 2^j} | S_k f (x) |^2 \,dx \Big)^{1/2}. \]
By performing a rescaling in $k$, we have
\[ \| \mathcal{Q}_k f \|_{H^{1, -\delta}_k} \lesssim k^{-n/2-1/2} k^{1/2} k^{n/2} \sum_{j\in {\mathbb Z}} 2^{j/2} \Big( \int_{2^{j-1} < |x| \leq 2^j} | f (x) |^2 \,dx \Big)^{1/2}. \]
The right-hand side can be obviously manipulated as follows to obtain inequality \eqref{es:im_part}
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j\in {\mathbb Z}} 2^{j/2} \Big( \int_{2^{j-1} < |x| \leq 2^j} | f (x) |^2 \,dx \Big)^{1/2} &\lesssim \sum_{j \leq 0} 2^{j/2} \Big( \int_{|x| \leq 1} | f (x) |^2 \,dx \Big)^{1/2} \\
& \quad + \Big( \sum_{j\geq 1} 2^{j(1 - 2\delta)} \Big)^{1/2} \Big( \sum_{j\geq 1} 2^{2j\delta} \int_{D_j} | f (x) |^2 \,dx \Big)^{1/2}\\
&\lesssim \| f \|_{L^{2,\delta}}
\end{align*}
with $D_j$ as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:st}.
\subsection{Boundedness of the multiplication operator}\label{sec:multiplication}
Consider any two $f,g \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$, the multiplication by $V$ is defined by
\[\langle V f, g \rangle = \langle V, f g \rangle, \]
where the brackets denote the corresponding dualities. Let $\chi_D$ be a compactly supported smooth function with values in $[0,1]$ such that $\chi(x) = 1$ for all $x \in D$. Since $V \in L^p_{-s}({\mathbb R}^n)$ with support in $D$, there exists $W \in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $V = (\rm I - \Delta)^{s/2} W$, and consequently
\[\langle V f, g \rangle = \langle W, ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{s/2} (f_D g_D) \rangle\]
with $f_D = \chi_D f$ and $g_D = \chi_D g$.
Let $\phi_\varepsilon$ be as in \eqref{id:def_of_fepsilon} and set $W^\sharp = \phi_\varepsilon \ast W$ and $W^\flat = W - W^\sharp$. For $s - n/p < t < s$ we have that
\[\langle V f, g \rangle = \langle ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{t/2} W^\sharp , ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{(s - t)/2} (f_D g_D) \rangle + \langle W^\flat, ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{s/2} (f_D g_D) \rangle \]
and, by H\"older's inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:multiplication_op_holder_est}
\big| \langle V f, g \rangle \big| \leq \| ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{t/2} W^\sharp \|_{L^q} \| ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{(s - t)/2} (f_D g_D) \|_{L^{q'}} + \| W^\flat \|_{L^p} \| ({\rm I}- \Delta)^{s/2} (f_D g_D) \|_{L^{p'}}
\end{equation}
with $q = n/(s-t)$ and $q'$ and $p'$ the dual exponents of $q$ and $p$, respectively. Since $q > p$, we have by Young's inequality that
\[\| ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{t/2} W^\sharp \|_{L^q} \lesssim \varepsilon^{-t+n/q-n/p} \| W \|_{L^p}.\]
Furthermore, we will prove in Lemma \ref{lem:KP} that
\begin{align}
& \| ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{(s - t)/2} (fg) \|_{L^{q'}} \lesssim \| f_D \|_{H^{s - t}} \| g_D \|_{H^{s - t}} \label{es:KP_s-t} \\
& \| ({\rm I} - \Delta)^{s/2} (fg) \|_{L^{p'}} \lesssim \| f_D \|_{H^s} \| g_D \|_{H^s}, \label{es:KP_s}
\end{align}
hence, for $k \geq 1$, we have
\begin{align}
\big| \langle V f, g \rangle \big| &\lesssim \varepsilon^{-t+n/q-n/p} \| W \|_{L^p} \| f_D \|_{H^{s - t}_k} \| g_D \|_{H^{s - t}_k} + \| W^\flat \|_{L^p} \| f_D \|_{H^s_k} \| g_D \|_{H^s_k} \nonumber \\
& \lesssim \varepsilon^{-t+n/q-n/p} \| W \|_{L^p} \| f \|_{H^{s - t,-\delta}_k} \| g \|_{H^{s - t,-\delta}_k} + \| W^\flat \|_{L^p} \| f \|_{H^{s,-\delta}_k} \| g \|_{H^{s,-\delta}_k}. \label{es:compact}
\end{align}
The estimate \eqref{es:compact} will be justified by Lemma \ref{lem:compact}. Finally, by Proposition \ref{prop:st}, we have
\[\big| \langle V f, g \rangle \big| \lesssim \big( \varepsilon^{-t+n/q-n/p} k^{-2t} \| W \|_{L^p} + \| W^\flat \|_{L^p} \big) \| f \|_{H^{s,-\delta}_k} \| g \|_{H^{s,-\delta}_k}. \]
Choosing $\varepsilon = k^{-1/2}$, a simple duality argument show that the estimate stated in Proposition \ref{prop:multiplication} holds.
In order to end the proof of this proposition, we need to show inequalities \eqref{es:KP_s-t}, \eqref{es:KP_s} and \eqref{es:compact}. Note that they follow from the next lemmas:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:KP}\sl Let $s > 0$ and $p \in (1, \infty)$ satisfy $p \geq n/s$. Then,
\[\| fg \|_{L^{p'}_s} \lesssim \| f \|_{H^s} \| g \|_{H^s}\]
for all $f,g \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $1/p + 1/p' = 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The Kato--Ponce inequality (see \cite{MR3200091} and the original reference \cite{MR951744}) ensures that
\[\| fg \|_{L^{p'}_s} \lesssim \| f \|_{H^s} \| g \|_{L^r} + \| f \|_{L^r} \| g \|_{H^s} \]
for $1/p' = 1/2 + 1/r$, which is equivalent to $1/2 = 1/p + 1/r$. By the Sobolev embeddings, we have that
\[\| fg \|_{L^{p'}_s} \lesssim \| f \|_{H^s} \| g \|_{H^t} + \| f \|_{H^t} \| g \|_{H^s} \]
with $t - n/2 = - n/r$. Since $t = n/2 - n/r = n/p \leq s$, the estimate claimed in the statement follows immediately from the last one.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:compact}\sl Let $s$ and $\delta$ be positive constants and $\phi \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$. Then,
\[\|\phi f\|_{H^s_k} \lesssim \| f \|_{H^{s, -\delta}_k}\]
for all $f \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that it is enough to prove the lemma for $\delta = 2N$ with $N \in \N \setminus \{ 0 \}$. In this case, we just need to show that
\begin{equation}
\|T_N g\|_{H^s_k} \lesssim \| g \|_{L^2}
\label{es:test_ine}
\end{equation}
for all $g \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$, where
\[T_N g (x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{ix\cdot \xi} a_N(x, \xi) \widehat{g}(\xi) \,d\xi\]
and
\[a_N (x, \xi) = \phi(x) e^{-ix \cdot \xi} ({\rm I} - \Delta_\xi)^N \big(e^{i x\cdot \xi} (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2} \big).\]
In order to check this claim, it suffices to test the inequality \eqref{es:test_ine} for the functions
\[g = (1 + |\centerdot|^2)^{-N} (k^2 - \Delta)^{s/2} f\]
with $f$ any function in $\mathcal{S}({\mathbb R}^n)$, and note that
\[ T_N \big( (1 + |\centerdot|^2)^{-N} (k^2 - \Delta)^{s/2} f \big) = \phi f.\]
The inequality \eqref{es:test_ine} follows from two general results for pseudodifferential operators. To apply them, we first observe that $a_N$ is a smooth function in ${\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n$ and
\[|\partial^\beta_x \partial^\alpha_\xi a_N(x,\xi)| \leq A_{\alpha, \beta, N} (k + |\xi|)^{-s - |\alpha|} \]
for all multi-indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Then, by symbolic calculus for pseudodifferential operators (for example Theorem 2 of \S 3 in chapter VI of \cite{Stein}) we see that
\begin{equation}
\|T_N g\|_{H^s_k} \leq \| S_0 g \|_{L^2} + \| S_{-1} g \|_{L^2},
\label{es:symbolicCAL}
\end{equation}
where
\[S_j g (x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{ix\cdot \xi} b_j(x, \xi) \widehat{g}(\xi) \,d\xi\]
with
\[b_0 (x, \xi) = \phi(x) e^{-ix \cdot \xi} (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{s/2} (1 - \Delta_\xi)^N \big(e^{i x\cdot \xi} (k^2 + |\xi|^2)^{-s/2} \big),\]
and $|\partial^\beta_x \partial^\alpha_\xi b_{-1}(x,\xi)| \leq A_{\alpha, \beta, N} (k + |\xi|)^{-1 - |\alpha|} $. By the $L^2$ boundedness of pseudodifferential operators(for example Theorem 1 of \S 3 in chapter VI of \cite{Stein}), we have that the right-hand side of \eqref{es:symbolicCAL} can be bounded as
\[\| S_0 g \|_{L^2} + \| S_{-1}\circ (k^2-\Delta)^{1/2} ((k^2-\Delta)^{-1/2} g) \|_{L^2} \lesssim \| g \|_{L^2} + \| g \|_{H^{-1}_k} \lesssim \| g \|_{L^2}. \]
This ends the proof of this lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Reconstruction of the local strength}
\label{sec:inverse_problem}
Let us recall that our aim is to reconstruct $\mu$, the local strength of $q$, from one single realization of the measurement data
\[M(\tau,\theta) = \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m u^\infty(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk\]
given for some set of $\tau \geq 0$ and $\theta\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Recall that, by Proposition \ref{prop:SobolevRegularity}, we have $q \in L^p_s ({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $1 < p < \infty$ and $s < (m - n)/2$ almost surely. In the section \ref{sec:direct-scattering}, we have studied the direct scattering theory for a potential under slightly more general regularity assumptions, and shown that the backscattering far-field pattern
\begin{equation}
u^\infty(k, \theta, -\theta) = c_n \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{ik\theta \cdot y} q(y) (e^{ik\theta \cdot y} + u_{\rm sc}(y)) \,dy\label{term:FULLfar-filed}
\end{equation}
can be expressed with the Born series \eqref{id:neumann_series} of the scattered wave
for $k \geq k_0(\omega)$ almost surely, where $k_0$ is the threshold wavelength in Remark \ref{re:k0}. Here $c_n$ is a constant depending only on $n$.
Below, we give proofs to Theorems \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} and \ref{thm:main_theorem_born_approx}.
Notice that for the full non-linear inverse scattering problem in Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous}, we restrict to the case $n = m = 3$. This condition will be needed in sections \ref{subsec:2nd order} and \ref{subsec:higher_order}.
In a nutshell, the idea behind the reconstruction of $\mu$ consists of writing $u^\infty$ as the Born series
\[u^\infty (k, \theta, -\theta) = \sum_{j \in \N \setminus \{ 0 \}} u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta) \]
for $k\geq k_0(\omega)$ and $\theta\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$
in such a way that the higher order terms
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_l(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk
\label{term:remainder}
\end{equation}
with $j + l \geq 3$ are negligible in comparison with the realization of
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m u^\infty_1(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_1(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk.
\label{term:leading}
\end{equation}
Next, one proceeds by proving that the limit of \eqref{term:leading} as $K\to\infty$ provides enough information to reconstruct $\mu$, when given at multiple values of $\tau$ and $\theta$. Recall that according to \eqref{id:neumann_series} we have
\begin{equation}
u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta) = c_n \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} e^{ik\theta \cdot y} q(y) (\mathcal{R}^+_k \circ q)^{j - 1} u_0(y) \,dy \label{term:INDIfar-field}
\end{equation}
where $u_0(x) = e^{ik\theta \cdot x} $ and $c_n$ is the same as in \eqref{term:FULLfar-filed}. With the expression \eqref{term:INDIfar-field} the connection of measurement data and the statistics of $q$ becomes apparent.
For the sake of clarity, we first reconstruct the local strength assuming $\mathbb{E} q=0$, and then in the section \ref{sec:non-zero-mean} we consider the more general case where $\mathbb{E}q$ is smooth and supported in $D$.
\subsection{Single backscattering} \label{subsec:single}
In order to prove that the limit of \eqref{term:leading} coincides almost surely with a deterministic function, we need to apply suitable ergodicity arguments.
The following theorem (available in \cite[p. 94]{CramerLeadbetter}) provides a useful condition:
\begin{theorem}\sl
\label{thm:aux_ergodicity}
Let $X_t$ with $t\geq 0$ be a real-valued stochastic process with continuous paths and zero-mean ${\mathbb E} X_t = 0$. Assume that for some positive constants $c,\epsilon$ the condition
\begin{equation*}
|{\mathbb E} (X_t X_{t+r})| \leq c(1+r)^{-\epsilon}
\end{equation*}
holds for all $t \geq 0 $ and $r \geq 0$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{T\to\infty} \frac 1 {T} \int_{0}^T X_t \, dt = 0 \quad \text{almost surely}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
Note that under the same assumptions of this theorem,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{T\to\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_T^{2T} X_t \, dt = 0 \quad \text{almost surely}.
\end{equation*}
The single backscattering $u_1^ \infty(k, \theta, -\theta)$ in the formula \eqref{term:leading} is described by a constant multiple of
\[\langle q, e^{i2k\theta \cdot y} \rangle = U_k + i V_k, \]
where $U_k$ and $V_k$ denote the real and imaginary parts. We can rewrite the product in \eqref{term:leading} as a constant multiple of
\begin{equation}
\label{id:decompo}
\begin{aligned}
2 \langle q, e^{i2k\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle q, e^{i2(k+\tau)\theta \cdot y} \rangle} &= (1 + i) ( U_k^2 + U_{k+\tau}^2 + V_k^2 + V_{k+\tau}^2 ) - (U_k - U_{k+\tau})^2 \\
&\quad - (V_k - V_{k+\tau})^2 - i(U_k + V_{k+\tau})^2 - i(V_k - U_{k+\tau})^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $W_k$ denote any of random variables
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:list_of_random_variables}
U_k,\, U_{k+\tau},\, V_k,\, V_{k+\tau},\, U_k - U_{k+\tau},\, V_k - V_{k+\tau},\, U_k + V_{k+\tau},\, V_k - U_{k+\tau}.
\end{equation}
Using Theorem \ref{thm:aux_ergodicity}, we will prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{id:lim}
\lim_{K \to \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m (W_k^2 - \mathbb{E}W_k^2) \,dk = 0
\end{equation}
almost surely, and hence we deduce by \eqref{id:decompo} that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} & k^m u^\infty_1(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_1(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk \\ &= \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m \mathbb{E}( u^\infty_1(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_1(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} ) \, dk
\end{aligned}
\label{id:ergodicity}
\end{equation}
almost surely.
According to Theorem \ref{thm:aux_ergodicity}, identity \eqref{id:lim} holds if
there exists an $\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{es:sufCOND}
\big|\mathbb{E} \big(k^m (W_k^2 - \mathbb{E}W_k^2 ) (k + r)^m (W_{k + r}^2 - \mathbb{E}W_{k + r}^2 ) \big)\big| \lesssim (1 + r)^{-\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
for all $k \geq 1$ and $r \geq 0$. In order to verify condition \eqref{es:sufCOND}, we observe that $(W_k, W_{k + r})$ is always a centred Gaussian random vector (which holds because of \eqref{term:gaussianVECTOR} and $\mathbb{E}q = 0$), and we use the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:gaussian_pair}
\sl Let $X$ and $Y$ be two random variables such that the pair $(X, Y)$ is a Gaussian random vector. If $\mathbb{E} X = \mathbb{E} Y = 0$, then
\[\mathbb{E} ((X^2 - \mathbb{E}X^2) (Y^2 - \mathbb{E}Y^2)) = 2 (\mathbb{E}(XY))^2. \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that one can assume that the variances be $\mathbb{E}X^2 = \mathbb{E}Y^2 = 1$. Thus, one is reduced to prove
\begin{equation}
\label{id:variance1}
\mathbb{E} ((X^2 - 1) (Y^2 - 1)) = 2 (\mathbb{E}(XY))^2
\end{equation}
for $X$ and $Y$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}X^2 = \mathbb{E}Y^2 = 1$. In order to prove \eqref{id:variance1}, it is enough to show that it holds for a Gaussian vector $(X, Y')$ having the same probability law as $(X, Y)$. Indeed,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} ((X^2 - 1) (Y^2 - 1)) &= \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} (x^2 - 1) (y^2 - 1) \, d\mathbb{P}_{(X,Y)}(x,y) \\
& = \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} (x^2 - 1) (y^2 - 1) \, d\mathbb{P}_{(X,Y')}(x,y) = \mathbb{E} ((X^2 - 1) ((Y')^2 - 1))
\end{align*}
and
\[\mathbb{E}(XY) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} xy \, d\mathbb{P}_{(X,Y)}(x,y) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} xy \, d\mathbb{P}_{(X,Y')}(x,y) = \mathbb{E}(XY'). \]
Let $X'$ be a Gaussian random variable with mean $0$, variance $1$ and independent of $X$. Consider $Y' = \cos \alpha X + \sin \alpha X' $ with $\cos \alpha = \mathbb{E} (XY)$, which is possible since $|\mathbb{E} (XY)| \leq 1$. Note that $Y'$ is a Gaussian random variable and the pair $(X, Y')$ is a Gaussian random vector. Moreover, since
\[ \left( \begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{E} X \\ \mathbb{E} Y
\end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{E} X \\ \mathbb{E} Y'
\end{array} \right), \qquad \left( \begin{array}{c c}
\mathbb{E} X^2 & \mathbb{E} (XY) \\ \mathbb{E} (XY) & \mathbb{E} Y^2
\end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c c}
\mathbb{E} X^2 & \mathbb{E} (XY') \\ \mathbb{E} (XY') & \mathbb{E} (Y')^2
\end{array} \right), \]
the Gaussian vector $(X, Y)$ and $(X, Y')$ are equally distributed. Therefore, it only remains to show that \eqref{id:variance1} holds for $(X, Y')$, but this is a simple computation that can be verified using that $\mathbb{E}(X Y') = \cos \alpha$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} ((X^2 - \mathbb{E}X^2) ((Y')^2 - \mathbb{E}(Y')^2)) &= (\cos \alpha)^2 \mathbb{E}X^4 - (\cos \alpha)^2 + (\sin \alpha)^2 \mathbb{E}(X^2 (X')^2) - (\sin \alpha)^2 \\
& \quad + 2 \cos \alpha \sin \alpha \, \mathbb{E}(X^3 X')
\end{align*}
and
\[\mathbb{E}X^4 = 3, \qquad \mathbb{E}(X^2 (X')^2) = \mathbb{E}X^2 \mathbb{E}(X')^2 = 1, \qquad \mathbb{E}(X^3 X') = \mathbb{E}X^3 \mathbb{E}X' = 0. \]
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:gaussian_pair}, the identity \eqref{id:lim} holds if there exist constants $c > 0$, which may depend on $\tau$, and $\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:decay_of_Wk}
|\mathbb{E} (k^{m/2}(k+r)^{m/2}W_k W_{k + r}) | \le c (1 + r)^{-\varepsilon}.
\end{equation}
Note that the inequality \eqref{eq:decay_of_Wk} is a consequence of the following proposition and therefore \eqref{id:lim} holds and consequently \eqref{id:ergodicity}.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:first_order_decay}\sl Suppose the potential satisfies ${\mathbb E} q = 0$. Then, there exists a known constant $c_{n,m}$, depending on $n$ and $m$, such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(u_1^ \infty(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u_1^ \infty(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)}) = c_{n,m} k^{-m} \widehat{\mu} (2\tau\theta) + \mathcal{O}(k^{-m-1})
\label{id:approxCORRELATION}
\end{equation}
for $k \geq 1/2$ and $\tau \geq 0$. Moreover, for all $k_1, k_2 > 0$, we have that
\begin{align}
\label{es:correlREAL}
|\mathbb{E}(U_{k_1} U_{k_2})| &\lesssim k_1^{-m} (1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}\\
\label{es:correlIMAGINARY}
|\mathbb{E}(V_{k_1} V_{k_2})| &\lesssim k_1^{-m}(1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}\\
\label{es:correlREAL-IMAGI}
|\mathbb{E}(U_{k_1} V_{k_2})| &\lesssim k_1^{-m}(1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}
\end{align}
for all $N \in \N$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(\langle q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \Big( \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} K_q(x,y) e^{-i2 k_1 \theta \cdot(x-y)} \,dy \Big) e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \, dx.
\label{id:startingPOINT}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{id:expansion}, we have that
\[\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(\langle q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle & \overline{\langle q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) \\ &= \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mu(x) |2 k_1|^{-m} e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \,dx + \int_D a(x, 2 k_1 \theta) e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \,dx
\end{aligned}\]
for $k_1 \geq 1/2$, which implies \eqref{id:approxCORRELATION}.
On the other hand, by \eqref{id:startingPOINT} and \eqref{id:pre-expansion}, we have
\[\mathbb{E}(\langle q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} c_q(x, 2 k_1 \theta) \chi(x) e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \, dx\]
with $\chi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\chi(x) = 1$ for all $x \in D$, which implies, by the non-stationary phase principle, that
\begin{equation}
|\mathbb{E}(\langle q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle})| \lesssim (1 + k_1)^{-m} (1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}
\label{es:primera}
\end{equation}
for all $N \in \N$. By the same kind of considerations, one can proves that
\[\mathbb{E}(\langle q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \langle q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} c_q(x, 2 k_1 \theta) \chi(x) e^{i2 (k_1 + k_2) \theta \cdot x} \, dx\]
with $\chi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\chi(x) = 1$ for all $x \in D$, which implies, again by the non-stationary phase principle, that
\begin{equation}
|\mathbb{E}(\langle q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \langle q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle)| \lesssim (1 + k_1)^{-m} (1 + k_1 + k_2)^{-N}
\label{es:segunda}
\end{equation}
for all $N \in \mathbb{N}$. Finally, the estimates \eqref{es:correlREAL}, \eqref{es:correlIMAGINARY} and \eqref{es:correlREAL-IMAGI} follow from \eqref{es:primera} and \eqref{es:segunda}.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the identities \eqref{id:ergodicity} and \eqref{id:approxCORRELATION}, the information of the local strength of $q$ provided by the single backscattering can be recorded as follows.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:first_order_data} \sl Suppose ${\mathbb E} q = 0$. The Fourier transform of the local strength of $q$ can be recovered from the single backscattering as follows:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m u^\infty_1(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_1(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk = c_{n,m} \widehat{\mu} (2\tau\theta) \label{eq:first_order_integral}
\end{equation}
almost surely for any fixed $\tau \geq 0$ and $\theta \in \mathbb{S}^{n - 1}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_born_approx} in the case $\mathbb{E}q=0$.]
Corollary \ref{cor:first_order_data} connects the measurement data to the Fourier transform of $\mu$ at a point $2\tau\theta$.
We can now proceed by repeating the same measurement at a countable dense set $\{(\tau_j,\theta_j)\}_{j\in\N} \subset {\mathbb R}_+\times {\mathbb S}^2$. The almost sure convergence takes place simultaneously is this countable dense set. Since $\mu$ is smooth with compact support, it follows that $\widehat{\mu}$ is in the Schwartz class, in particular is continuous. Then, we can recover $\widehat{\mu}$ everywhere from the countable dense set extending by continuity. Finally, the inverse formula of the Fourier transform provides $\mu$.
\end{proof}
The following consequence of identity \eqref{id:decompo} and Proposition \ref{prop:first_order_decay} is not needed for Corollary \ref{cor:first_order_data}. However, it will allow us to study the convergence speed of integral \eqref{eq:first_order_integral} in appendix \ref{sec:scaling_regimes}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:covariances_in_full_first_order_integral}\sl
Suppose ${\mathbb E} q = 0$ and
let $Z : \Omega \times {\mathbb R}_+ \to \mathbb{C}$ be the random process defined by
\begin{equation*}
Z(k) = u^\infty_1(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_1(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)}.
\end{equation*}
It follows that
\begin{align}
\big| {\mathbb E} \big[ (Z(k)-{\mathbb E} Z(k)) (Z(k+r) - {\mathbb E} Z(k+r)) \big] \big|
& \lesssim (1 + \min(r, |r-\tau|))^{-N} \label{eq:2nd orderd_first_order_cov_1}\\
\big| {\mathbb E} \big[ (Z(k)-{\mathbb E} Z(k)) \overline{(Z(k+r) - {\mathbb E} Z(k+r))} \big] \big|
& \lesssim (1 + \min(r, |r-\tau|))^{-N} \label{eq:2nd orderd_first_order_cov_2}
\end{align}
for any $N$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We observe that using identity
\eqref{id:decompo} one can write the expectation in \eqref{eq:2nd orderd_first_order_cov_2} (as well as \eqref{eq:2nd orderd_first_order_cov_1}) as a product of sums of random variables appearing in formula \eqref{eq:list_of_random_variables}. Multiplying the terms and applying triangle inequality yields a bound to the right hand side of \eqref{eq:2nd orderd_first_order_cov_2} given as a sum of terms
\begin{equation*}
\big|{\mathbb E}\big[(W_k^2-{\mathbb E} W_k^2)((W'_{k+r})^2-{\mathbb E} (W'_{k+r})^2)\big]\big|
= 2 ({\mathbb E} W_k W'_{k+r})^2,
\end{equation*}
where $W_k$ and $W'_{k+r}$ represent random variables given in \eqref{eq:list_of_random_variables} and we used Lemma \ref{lemma:gaussian_pair} for the identity. Finally, the result is obtained by applying Proposition \ref{prop:first_order_decay} and the fact that the cross-covariance is computed at all pairs of frequencies $k_1 \in \{k,k+\tau\}$ and $k_2\in\{k+r,k+r+\tau\}$. Same reasoning applies to inequality \eqref{eq:2nd orderd_first_order_cov_2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{2nd order backscattering} \label{subsec:2nd order} We now consider the interactions between the single and 2nd order backscattering for the case $n = m = 3$ and show that they are negligible. Recall that in this particular case $q \in L^p_{-s} ({\mathbb R}^3)$ for $1 < p < \infty$ and $s>0$ almost surely. According to \eqref{term:INDIfar-field}, the 2nd order backscattering $u^\infty_2(k,\theta, -\theta)$ is described by a constant multiple of
\begin{equation}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{ik \theta \cdot (x + y)} q(x) q(y) \Phi^+_k (x - y) \, dx \, dy,
\label{term:2nd order}
\end{equation}
where $ \Phi^+_k $ is the fundamental solution which satisfies the outgoing Sommerfeld radiation condition. Note that the integrals in \eqref{term:2nd order} have to be understood as a distributional pairing. The interaction to be considered now correspond to the terms \eqref{term:remainder}
with $j + l = 3$ and $j = l = 2$ and the goal is to show that they are negligible, more precisely to prove the following statement:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:2nd orderscattering} \sl Let us assume that ${\mathbb E} q = 0$. We have that, for every $\tau \geq 0$ and every $\theta \in \mathbb{S}^2$,
\[ \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_l(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk = 0\]
almost surely whenever $j + l = 3$ or $j = l = 2$.
\end{proposition}
Let us prove this proposition.
By the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and changing variables, the modulus of \eqref{term:remainder} can be bounded by
\[ \bigg( \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk \bigg)^{1/2} \bigg( \frac{1}{K} \int_{K + \tau}^{2K +\tau} k^3 |u^\infty_l(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk \bigg)^{1/2}. \]
Thus, in order to study the interactions between the single and 2nd order scattering is enough to consider
\[ \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk \]
for any $K \geq 1$ with $j = 1, 2$. After identity \eqref{id:ergodicity} and \eqref{es:primera}, we know that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty_1(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk < \infty
\label{lim:|single|}
\end{equation}
almost surely. Therefore, in order to prove Proposition \ref{prop:2nd orderscattering}, it is enough to check that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk = 0
\label{lim:2nd order}
\end{equation}
almost surely or alternatively,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K - 1} \int_1^{K} k^3 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk = 0
\label{lim:2nd order'}
\end{equation}
almost surely.
Note that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{K - 1} \int_1^K k^3 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk = \int_1^\infty \frac{k \mathbf{1}_{[1, K]} (k)}{K - 1} k^2 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk,
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{1}_{[1, K]}$ denotes the characteristic function of the interval $[1, K]$. Since $k \mathbf{1}_{[1, K]} (k)/(K - 1)$ converges point-wise to zero as $K$ goes to infinity, we have by the dominate convergence theorem that, if
\begin{equation*}
\int_{1}^\infty k^2 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk < \infty,
\end{equation*}
then \eqref{lim:2nd order'} holds. Obviously, by the continuity of the function $\theta \in \mathbb{S}^2 \mapsto u^\infty_2(k,\theta, -\theta) $, it will be enough to show that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_1^\infty k^2 |u^\infty_2(k,\theta, -\theta)|^2 \, dk \, d\sigma(\theta) < \infty,
\label{es:boundedness}
\end{equation}
where $d\sigma$ denotes the volume form on $\mathbb{S}^2$. In order to prove \eqref{es:boundedness}, we will show that
\begin{equation}
\limsup_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{1}^\infty k^2 |v_\varepsilon(k,\theta)|^2 \, dk \, d\sigma(\theta) < \infty
\label{es:boundednessSUP}
\end{equation}
with
\[v_\varepsilon(k, \theta) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{ik \theta \cdot (x + y)} q_\varepsilon(x) q_\varepsilon(y) \Phi^+_k (x - y) \, dx \, dy, \]
where $q_\varepsilon (\omega, x) = \langle q(\omega), \varphi_\varepsilon (x - \centerdot) \rangle$ and $\varphi_\varepsilon $ is as in \eqref{id:def_of_fepsilon}. Then, as a consequence of Fatou's lemma, we see that \eqref{es:boundedness} holds.
Let us prove \eqref{es:boundednessSUP}. Since in dimension $n = 3$, $ \Phi^+_k (x) $ is given by a constant multiple of $e^{ i k |x|}/|x|$, the approximation of the 2nd order backscattering $v_\varepsilon (k,\theta)$ is
\begin{equation}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{ik [\theta \cdot (x + y) + |x - y|]} \frac{q_\varepsilon(x)q_\varepsilon(y)}{|x - y|} \, dx \, dy.
\label{term:2nd order-asymp}
\end{equation}
Changing variables, \eqref{term:2nd order-asymp} becomes
\[\int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_0^\infty e^{ik (\theta \cdot z + \rho)} q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) \rho \, d\rho \,d\sigma(\omega) \, dz. \]
Denoting
\begin{equation}
f_\varepsilon (z, \rho) = \rho \mathbf{1}_{[0,\infty)}(\rho) \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) \,d\sigma(\omega),
\label{def:f_eps}
\end{equation}
we have that
\[v_\varepsilon(k,\theta) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_{\mathbb R} e^{ik (\theta \cdot z + \rho)} f_\varepsilon(z, \rho) \, d\rho \, dz. \]
Note that that there exists an $R$ which depends on $D$ such that
\begin{equation}
|z| + |\rho| = \bigg| \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} + \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \bigg| + \bigg| \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} - \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \bigg| \leq | z + \rho \omega | + | z - \rho \omega | \leq R
\label{es:support_q}
\end{equation}
whenever
\[ \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2},\, \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \in \bigcup_{\varepsilon \in (0,1]} \supp q_\varepsilon. \]
Note that
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} k^2 |v_\varepsilon(k,\theta)|^2 \, d\sigma(\theta) \sim \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \Big| \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{i k \theta \cdot z} T f_\varepsilon(z, k) \, dz \Big|^2 k^2 \, d\sigma(\theta)
\label{equi:L2Sn-1}
\end{equation}
with \[ T f_\varepsilon(z, k) = \int_{\mathbb R} e^{ i k \rho} f_\varepsilon(z, \rho) \, d\rho.\]
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:fourier_restriction}\sl The right hand-side of \eqref{equi:L2Sn-1} can be bounded by above as follows:
\[\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \Big| \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{i k \theta \cdot z} T f_\varepsilon(z, k) \, dz \Big|^2 k^2 \, d\sigma(\theta) \lesssim \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} | T f_\varepsilon(z, k) |^2 \, dz \]
almost surely, where the implicit constant depends on $D$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Start by noting that the term to be estimated by above can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\int_{S_k} \Big| \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{i \theta \cdot z} T f_\varepsilon(z, k) \, dz \Big|^2 \, d\sigma_k(\theta)
\label{term:L2Sk}
\end{equation}
with $S_k = \{ x \in {\mathbb R}^3 : |x| = k \}$ and $d\sigma_k$ denoting its volume form. The term \eqref{term:L2Sk} is equivalent to the square of the $L^2$ norm of the Fourier transform of $T f_\varepsilon(\centerdot, k)$ restricted to $S_k$. We will estimate it by duality: let $g$ be a smooth function on $S_k$, then
\[\int_{S_k} g(\theta) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{i \theta \cdot z} T f_\varepsilon(z, k) \, dz \, d\sigma_k(\theta) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_{S_k} e^{i \theta \cdot z} g(\theta) \, d\sigma_k(\theta)\, T f_\varepsilon(z, k) \, dz. \]
Since $\supp T f_\varepsilon(\centerdot, k) \subset \{ |z| < R \}$ with $R$ as in \eqref{es:support_q}, we have by Cauchy-Schwarz that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Big| \int_{S_k} g(\theta) \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} &e^{i \theta \cdot z} T f_\varepsilon(z, k) \, dz \, d\sigma_k(\theta) \Big| \\
& \leq \Big\| \int_{S_k} e^{i \theta \cdot z} g(\theta) \, d\sigma_k(\theta) \Big\|_{L^2(|z|<R)} \| T f_\varepsilon(\centerdot, k) \|_{L^2}
\end{aligned}
\label{in:duality}
\end{equation}
almost surely. Consider $\{ \chi_j : j = 1, \dots, 6 \}$ a partition of unity of $S_k$ subordinated to the sets
\begin{align*}
\Gamma_{2l} = \{ x \in S_k : 2 \sqrt{3} x_{l} > k \}, & &
\Gamma_{2l - 1} = \{ x \in S_k : 2 \sqrt{3} x_{l} < -k \}
\end{align*}
for $l = 1, 2, 3$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\int_{S_k} e^{i \theta \cdot z} g(\theta) \, d\sigma_k(\theta) = \sum_{j = 1}^6 \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} e^{i \vartheta_j(y) \cdot z} g_j(\vartheta_j(y)) \frac{k}{\sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}} \, dy,
\label{id:partition}
\end{equation}
where $g_j = \chi_j g$ and
\begin{align*}
& \vartheta_1(y) = (- \sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}, y_1, y_2), & & \vartheta_2(y) = (\sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}, y_1, y_2), \\
& \vartheta_3(y) = (y_1, - \sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}, y_2),& & \vartheta_4(y) = (y_1, \sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}, y_2), \\
& \vartheta_5(y) = (y_1, y_2, - \sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}), & & \vartheta_6(y) = (y_1, y_2, \sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}).
\end{align*}
Note that every term on the sum of \eqref{id:partition} is a multiple of the two-dimensional Fourier transform of
\[y \longmapsto e^{i (-1)^{j(l)} z_l \sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}} g_{j(l)}(\vartheta_{j(l)}(y)) \frac{k}{\sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}}\]
evaluated at $\widehat{z_l}$, where $\widehat{z_1} = (z_2, z_3), \widehat{z_2} = (z_1, z_3) $ and $\widehat{z_3} = (z_1, z_2)$, and $j(l)$ stand for $2l-1$ or $2l$ with $l = 1,2,3$.
Letting $d\widehat{z_1}, d\widehat{z_2}$ and $d\widehat{z_3}$ denote $dz_2 dz_3, dz_1 dz_3 $ and $dz_1 dz_2$ respectively, we have, by the Plancherel identity in ${\mathbb R}^2$, that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \Big| \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} e^{i \vartheta_{j(l)}(y) \cdot z} g_{j(l)}(\vartheta_{j(l)}(y)) \frac{k}{\sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}} \, dy \Big|^2 \, d\widehat{z_l} & \lesssim \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} |g_{j(l)}(\vartheta_{j(l)}(y))|^2 \frac{k}{\sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}} \, dy \\
& \leq \int_{S_k} | g(\theta) |^2 \, d\sigma_k(\theta),
\end{aligned}
\label{es:plancherel}
\end{equation}
since
\[\frac{k}{\sqrt{k^2 - |y|^2}} < 2 \sqrt{3} \qquad \text{for}\, y \in \supp g_{j(l)} \circ \vartheta_{j(l)}. \]
Therefore, from \eqref{id:partition} and \eqref{es:plancherel}, we conclude that
\begin{equation}
\int_{|z| < R} \Big| \int_{S_k} e^{i \theta \cdot z} g(\theta) \, d\sigma_k(\theta) \Big|^2 \, dz \lesssim R \int_{S_k} | g(\theta) |^2 \, d\sigma_k(\theta).
\label{in:extension}
\end{equation}
Finally, by duality, we can ensure that \eqref{term:L2Sk} is almost surely bounded by
\[ \| T f_\varepsilon(\centerdot, k) \|_{L^2}^2 \]
with a constant which depends on $R$. Therefore, the lemma is proven.
\end{proof}
After \eqref{equi:L2Sn-1} and Lemma \ref{lem:fourier_restriction} we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_1^\infty k^2 |v_\varepsilon(k,\theta)|^2 \,dk \, d\sigma(\theta) \lesssim \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_1^\infty | T f_\varepsilon(z, k) |^2 \, dk\, dz
\end{equation*}
almost surely
with an implicit constant depending on the domain $D \subset {\mathbb R}^3$. Note that $T f_\varepsilon$ is a constant multiple of the inverse Fourier transform of $f_\varepsilon$ in the variable $\rho$, so we have that
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_1^\infty k^2 |v_\varepsilon(k,\theta)|^2 \,dk \, d\sigma(\theta) \lesssim \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \int_{\mathbb R} |f_\varepsilon(z, \rho) |^2 \, d\rho\, dz
\label{es:after_restriction}
\end{equation}
almost surely
by the Plancherel identity. By \eqref{es:after_restriction} and \eqref{es:support_q}, we can conclude that
\begin{equation}
\limsup_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_1^\infty k^2 |v_\varepsilon(k,\theta)|^2 \, dk \, d\sigma(\theta) \lesssim \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{|z| < R} \int_{|\rho| < R} \mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon(z, \rho) |^2 \, d\rho\, dz,
\label{es:limsup-lim}
\end{equation}
provided that the limit on the right-hand side exists. We now show that the limit exists and this equals
\begin{align*}
\int_{|z| < R} \int_{0 < \rho < R} \rho^2 \Bigg[& \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} K_q \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} , \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \bigg) K_q \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2}, \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta)\\
& +\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} K_q \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2}, \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) K_q \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2}, \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta)\\
& +\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} K_q \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2}, \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) K_q \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2}, \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta)
\Bigg]\, d\rho\, dz.
\end{align*}
Before proving this claim, note that this already ensures that \eqref{es:boundednessSUP} holds, since $K_q(x, y) = c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) \log|x - y| + F_\alpha(x, y)$, according to the Proposition \ref{prop:correlation_function}, and hence $K_q$ is integrable over $\mathbb{S}^2 \times \mathbb{S}^2$.
Finally, we show that the limit of the right-hand side of \eqref{es:limsup-lim} exists and we compute it. Start by noting that \eqref{def:f_eps} makes $\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon (z, \rho)|^2$ be equal to
\begin{equation*}
\rho^2 \mathbf{1}_{[0,\infty)}(\rho) \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \mathbb{E} \big[ q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \big) q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \big) \big] \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta).
\end{equation*}
By the Isserlis' theorem, this equals
\begin{align*}
\rho^2 \mathbf{1}_{[0,\infty)}(\rho) &\Bigg[ \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \mathbb{E} \bigg[ q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \bigg) q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \bigg) \bigg] \mathbb{E} \bigg[q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \bigg] \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta)\\
& +\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \mathbb{E} \bigg[ q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \bigg) q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \bigg] \mathbb{E} \bigg[q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \bigg) q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \bigg] \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta)\\
& +\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \mathbb{E} \bigg[ q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \bigg) q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \bigg] \mathbb{E} \bigg[q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \bigg) q_\varepsilon \bigg( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \bigg) \bigg] \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta)
\Bigg].
\end{align*}
Recalling \eqref{id:kernel_cov}, it is a simple observation to note that $ \mathbb{E} [ q_\varepsilon (x) q_\varepsilon (y) ] $ converges to $ K_q(x, y) $ point-wise as $\varepsilon$ vanishes. Moreover, using again that $K_q(x, y) = c_{n,m}\, \mu(x) \log|x - y| + F_\alpha(x, y)$, we can check that
\[\big| \mathbb{E} [ q_\varepsilon (x) q_\varepsilon (y) ] \big| \lesssim \big|\log |x - y|\big| \mathbf{1}_{\{ |x - y| < 1 \}} (x, y) + 1 \]
assuming $\supp \varphi \subset \{ |x| \leq 1/4 \}$, which can always be assumed. Hence, by applying the dominated convergence theorem to the integral we have that the limit of the right hand-side of \eqref{es:limsup-lim} exists and is the one claimed above.
To sum up, we have shown that \eqref{es:boundednessSUP} holds and consequently,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk = 0
\end{equation*}
almost surely for every $\theta \in \mathbb{S}^2$. This ends the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:2nd orderscattering}.
\subsection{Multiple backscattering}\label{subsec:higher_order}
Again, we only consider the effects of multiple scattering under the assumptions $m = n = 3$. In that case, the realizations of $q$ are almost surely in $L^p_{-s}({\mathbb R}^3)$ for $1 < p < \infty$ and $s>0$. According to the previous decomposition on single and 2nd order backscattering, we can write
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{K} & \int_K^{2K} k^3 u^\infty(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk \\
& = \sum_{1 \leq j \leq 2} \sum_{1 \leq l \leq 2} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u^\infty_l(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk \\
& \quad + \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 \Big(u^\infty(k, \theta, -\theta) - \sum_{1 \leq j \leq 2} u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta) \Big) \overline{u^\infty(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \, dk \\
& \quad + \sum_{1 \leq j \leq 2} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 u^\infty_j(k, \theta, -\theta) \Big( \overline{u^\infty(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} - \sum_{1 \leq l \leq 2} \overline{u^\infty_l(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)} \Big) \, dk.
\end{align*}
The first term on the right-hand side of the previous inequality corresponds to the single and 2nd order backscattering terms studied in the sections \ref{subsec:single} and \ref{subsec:2nd order}. The other two terms describe the multiple backscattering and will be shown here that they are negligible, that is, they vanish as $K$ grows. Applying the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and changing variable as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:2nd orderscattering}, we only need to check that
\begin{align}
& \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty(k , \theta, -\theta)|^2 \, dk < \infty, \label{term:full_scattering} \\
& \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 \Big| u^\infty(k, \theta, -\theta) - \sum_{1 \leq l \leq 2} u^\infty_l(k, \theta, -\theta) \Big|^2 \, dk = 0 \label{term:multiple_scattering}
\end{align}
hold almost surely.
Note that \eqref{term:full_scattering} follows from \eqref{term:multiple_scattering}, \eqref{lim:|single|} and \eqref{lim:2nd order}. Thus, it is enough to show that \eqref{term:multiple_scattering} holds. This is a straight consequence of the next lemma:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:residual_decay}
\sl Suppose that ${\mathbb E} q = 0$. We have that
\[ \sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{S}^2} \Big| u^\infty(k, \theta, -\theta) - \sum_{1 \leq l \leq 2} u^\infty_l(k, \theta, -\theta) \Big| = o(k^{-2(1 - 3s)})\]
almost surely.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{term:FULLfar-filed} and \eqref{term:INDIfar-field}, and then Lemma \ref{lem:KP}, we have that
\begin{align*}
\Big| u^\infty(k, \theta, -\theta) - \sum_{1 \leq l \leq 2} u^\infty_l(k, \theta, -\theta) \Big| & \lesssim \Big| \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} e^{ik\theta \cdot y} q(y) (u_{\rm sc}(y) - u_1(y)) \, dy \Big| \\
& \lesssim \| q \|_{L^p_{-s}} \| e^{i k \theta \cdot y} \chi \|_{H^s} \| \chi (u_{\rm sc} - u_1) \|_{H^s},
\end{align*}
where $\chi$ is a smooth function with compact support such that $\chi(x) = 1$ for every $x$ in a ball containing $D$. A direct computation shows that $ \| e^{i k \theta \cdot y} \chi \|_{H^s} = \mathcal{O}(k^s)$. On the other hand,
\[\| \chi (u_{\rm sc} - u_1) \|_{H^s} \leq \| \chi (u_{\rm sc} - u_1) \|_{H^s_k} \lesssim \| u_{\rm sc} - u_1 \|_{H^{s, - \delta}_k}\]
by Lemma \ref{lem:compact}. By Theorem \ref{thm:relosvent} and Proposition \ref{prop:multiplication}, we know that the operator $\mathcal{R}^+_k \circ q$ maps $H^{s,-\delta}_k({\mathbb R}^3)$ into itself, for $k \geq k_0(\omega)$ almost surely, with a norm
\[\|\mathcal{R}^+_k \circ q\|_{H^{s,-\delta}_k \rightarrow H^{s,-\delta}_k} = o(k^{-(1-2s)}).\]
Therefore, $u_{\rm sc} - u_1 = \sum_{j > 1} (\mathcal{R}^+_k \circ q)^j u_0$ can be bounded as follows:
\[\| u_{\rm sc} - u_1 \|_{H^{s, - \delta}_k} \leq \sum_{j > 1} \|\mathcal{R}^+_k \circ q\|^j_{H^{s,-\delta}_k \rightarrow H^{s,-\delta}_k} \| \chi u_0 \|_{H^{s,-\delta}_k} = o( k^s k^{-2(1 - 2s)} ) \]
almost surely.
This concludes the proof of this lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} in the case $\mathbb{E}q=0$.]
Following the discussion in the beginning of this section we notice that we finally possess all necessary tools to prove the main theorem in the case $\mathbb{E}q = 0$. Having established the well-posedness of the forward problem and the measurement in the sections \ref{sec:random_potential} and \ref{sec:direct-scattering}, we have shown in Corollary \ref{cor:first_order_data} that the first order contribution $M_1(\tau,\theta)$ coincides almost surely (and up to a multiplicative constant) with $\widehat{\mu}(2\tau \theta)$ at fixed $\tau\geq 0$ and $\theta\in{\mathbb S}^2$. In Proposition \ref{prop:2nd orderscattering} and this section, we have proven that in ${\mathbb R}^3$ the contribution from the second and higher order scattering vanishes in $M(\tau,\theta,-\theta)$. We can now proceed similarly to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_born_approx} and repeat the measurement at a countable dense set
$\{(\tau_j,\theta_j)\}_{j\in\N} \subset {\mathbb R}_+ \times \mathbb{S}^2$. Finally, continuation from a dense set yields the result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Non-zero-mean potentials}\label{sec:non-zero-mean}
This section is devoted to extend the proof in sections \ref{subsec:single}, \ref{subsec:2nd order} and \ref{subsec:higher_order} to the case of non-zero-mean potentials. We proceed pointing out the places where some changes have to be made.
\subsubsection{Single backscattering} As in the section \ref{subsec:single}, the first goal is to show that the identity \eqref{id:ergodicity} holds when $\mathbb{E} q \neq 0$. As in the zero-mean case, this will be a consequence of the fact that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{K \to \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m (W_k^2 - \mathbb{E}W_k^2) \,dk = 0
\label{lim:vanishing}
\end{equation}
almost surely for $W_k$ as in \eqref{eq:list_of_random_variables}. The difference now is that $\mathbb{E}W_k \neq 0$, so we write
\[W_k^2 - \mathbb{E}W_k^2 = Z_k^2 - \mathbb{E}Z_k^2 + 2\mathbb{E}W_k Z_k \]
with $Z_k = W_k - \mathbb{E} W_k$. We will prove that \eqref{lim:vanishing} holds showing that
\begin{align}
\lim_{K \to \infty} &\frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m (Z_k^2 - \mathbb{E}Z_k^2) \,dk = 0 \quad {\rm and}
\label{lim:vanishingZk} \\
\lim_{K \to \infty} &\frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^m \mathbb{E}W_k Z_k \,dk = 0
\label{lim:crossed}
\end{align}
almost surely. In order to check \eqref{lim:vanishingZk}, we use Theorem \ref{thm:aux_ergodicity} verifying that
there exists an $\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{es:sufCONDZ_k}
\big|\mathbb{E} \big(k^m (Z_k^2 - \mathbb{E}Z_k^2 ) (k + r)^m (Z_{k + r}^2 - \mathbb{E}Z_{k + r}^2 ) \big)\big| \lesssim (1 + r)^{-\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
for all $k \geq 1$ and $r \geq 0$. To do so, we observe that $(Z_k, Z_{k + r})$ is a centred Gaussian random vector and use Lemma \ref{lemma:gaussian_pair}. Thus, instead of condition \eqref{es:sufCONDZ_k} we just need to see that
there exists $\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:decay_of_Zk}
|\mathbb{E} (k^{m/2}(k+r)^{m/2}Z_k Z_{k + r}) | \lesssim (1 + r)^{-\varepsilon}.
\end{equation}
The inequality \eqref{eq:decay_of_Zk} follows from \eqref{es:correlUk1Uk2}, \eqref{es:correlVk1Vk2} and \eqref{es:correlUk1Vk2} in the next proposition, and therefore \eqref{lim:vanishingZk} holds.
\begin{proposition} \sl Let $q$ be the potential given by Definition \ref{def:ml_iso}. There exists a known constant $c_{n,m}$, depending on $n$ and $m$, such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(u_1^ \infty(k, \theta, -\theta) \overline{u_1^ \infty(k + \tau, \theta, -\theta)}) = c_{n,m} k^{-m} \widehat{\mu} (2\tau\theta) + \mathcal{O}(k^{-m-1})
\label{id:approxCORRELATIONnonzero}
\end{equation}
for $k \geq 1/2$ and $\tau \geq 0$. Moreover, for all $k_1, k_2 > 0$, we have that
\begin{align}
\label{es:correlUk1Uk2}
\big|\mathbb{E}\big( (U_{k_1} - \mathbb{E}U_{k_1}) (U_{k_2} - \mathbb{E}U_{k_2}) \big) \big| &\lesssim k_1^{-m} (1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}\\
\label{es:correlVk1Vk2}
\big|\mathbb{E}\big( (V_{k_1} - \mathbb{E}V_{k_1}) (V_{k_2} - \mathbb{E}V_{k_2}) \big) \big| &\lesssim k_1^{-m}(1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}\\
\label{es:correlUk1Vk2}
\big|\mathbb{E}\big( (U_{k_1} - \mathbb{E}U_{k_1}) (V_{k_2} - \mathbb{E}V_{k_2}) \big) \big| &\lesssim k_1^{-m}(1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}
\end{align}
for all $N \in \N$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle & \overline{\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) \\
& \quad = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \Big( \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} K_q(x,y) e^{-i2 k_1 \theta \cdot(x-y)} \,dy \Big) e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \, dx.
\end{aligned}
\label{id:startingPOINTnonzero}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{id:expansion}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle & \overline{\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) \\ &= \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \mu(x) |2 k_1|^{-m} e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \,dx + \int_D a(x, 2 k_1 \theta) e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \,dx
\end{aligned}\label{eq:principalSYM}
\end{equation}
for $k_1 \geq 1/2$. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(\langle q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle & \overline{\langle q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) \\
&= \mathbb{E}(\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) + \langle \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}
\end{aligned}
\label{id:q=q-Eq+Eq}
\end{equation}
with $\mathbb{E}q$ smooth and compactly supported. By \eqref{eq:principalSYM} and the non-stationary phase principle, we have that \eqref{id:approxCORRELATIONnonzero} holds.
On the other hand, by \eqref{id:startingPOINTnonzero} and \eqref{id:pre-expansion}, we have
\[\mathbb{E}(\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle}) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} c_q(x, 2 k_1 \theta) \chi(x) e^{-i2 (k_2 - k_1) \theta \cdot x} \, dx\]
with $\chi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\chi(x) = 1$ for all $x \in D$, which implies, by the non-stationary phase principle, that
\begin{equation}
|\mathbb{E}(\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \overline{\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle})| \lesssim (1 + k_1)^{-m} (1 + |k_1 - k_2|)^{-N}
\label{es:primeranonzero}
\end{equation}
for all $N \in \N$. By the same kind of considerations, one can proves that
\[\mathbb{E}(\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} c_q(x, 2 k_1 \theta) \chi(x) e^{i2 (k_1 + k_2) \theta \cdot x} \, dx\]
with $\chi \in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $\chi(x) = 1$ for all $x \in D$, which implies, again by the non-stationary phase principle, that
\begin{equation}
|\mathbb{E}(\langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_1\theta \cdot y} \rangle \langle q - \mathbb{E}q, e^{i2k_2\theta \cdot x} \rangle)| \lesssim (1 + k_1)^{-m} (1 + k_1 + k_2)^{-N}
\label{es:segundanonzero}
\end{equation}
for all $N \in \mathbb{N}$. Finally, the estimates \eqref{es:correlUk1Uk2}, \eqref{es:correlVk1Vk2} and \eqref{es:correlUk1Vk2} follow from \eqref{es:primeranonzero} and \eqref{es:segundanonzero}.
\end{proof}
Eventually, we prove that \eqref{lim:crossed} holds. To do so, we check that the quasi-orthogonality condition in Theorem \ref{thm:aux_ergodicity} holds:
there exists $\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
|\mathbb{E} (k^m \mathbb{E} W_k Z_k (k+r)^m \mathbb{E} W_{k + r} Z_{k + r}) | \lesssim (1 + r)^{-\varepsilon}.
\label{es:quasi-ortho}
\end{equation}
Indeed, by \eqref{eq:decay_of_Zk} we have
\begin{equation*}
|\mathbb{E} (k^m \mathbb{E} W_k Z_k (k+r)^m \mathbb{E} W_{k + r} Z_{k + r}) | \lesssim (1 + r)^{-\varepsilon} k^{m/2} (k+r)^{m/2} \mathbb{E} W_k \mathbb{E} W_{k + r}.
\end{equation*}
Since $\mathbb{E}q$ is smooth and compactly supported, we have by the non-stationary phase principle that
\[ k^{m/2} (k+r)^{m/2} \mathbb{E} W_k \mathbb{E} W_{k + r} \lesssim 1,\]
and consequently \eqref{es:quasi-ortho}. Then, by Theorem \ref{thm:aux_ergodicity}, we can ensure that \eqref{lim:crossed} holds.
Summarizing, \eqref{lim:vanishingZk} and \eqref{lim:crossed} imply that \eqref{lim:vanishing} holds, and so does \eqref{id:ergodicity}. On the other hand, by \eqref{id:approxCORRELATIONnonzero} we can conclude that Corollary \ref{cor:first_order_data} also holds in the case that $\mathbb{E}q$ is smooth and compactly supported in $D$. Finally, Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_born_approx} follows in the case $\mathbb{E}q \neq 0$ by the same density argument performed in the section \ref{subsec:single}.
\subsubsection{2nd order backscattering} The goal of this section is to prove that Proposition \ref{prop:2nd orderscattering} holds when $\mathbb{E}q$ is smooth and has support in $D$. As in the case $\mathbb{E}q = 0$, it is enough to show that
\begin{align}
& \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty_1(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk < \infty \quad {\rm and}
\label{lim:|single|nonzero} \\
& \lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K} \int_K^{2K} k^3 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk = 0
\label{lim:2nd order_nonzero}
\end{align}
hold almost surely. The finiteness of the limit in \eqref{lim:|single|nonzero} is a consequence of \eqref{id:q=q-Eq+Eq}, \eqref{es:primeranonzero} and the non-stationary phase principle. However, showing that \eqref{lim:2nd order_nonzero}, or alternatively
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{K \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{K - 1} \int_1^{K} k^3 |u^\infty_2(k, \theta, -\theta)|^2 \,dk = 0,
\end{equation*}
holds almost surely requires a more subtle argument. Fortunately, this is exactly the same as in the case $\mathbb{E}q = 0$, and it reduces to prove that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{|z| < R} \int_{|\rho| < R} \mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon(z, \rho) |^2 \, d\rho\, dz
\label{lim:f_eps}
\end{equation}
exists and is finite, with $f_\varepsilon(z, \rho)$ as in \eqref{def:f_eps}. It is convenient to write
\begin{align*}
f_\varepsilon (z, \rho) =& \rho \mathbf{1}_{[0,\infty)}(\rho)
\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big(
\frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) \,d\sigma(\omega) \\
&+ 2 \rho \mathbf{1}_{[0,\infty)}(\rho) \int_{\mathbb{S}^2}
(q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big( \frac{z + \rho \omega}
{2} \big) \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big)
\,d\sigma(\omega) \\
&+ \rho \mathbf{1}_{[0,\infty)}(\rho) \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) \,d\sigma(\omega).
\end{align*}
Thus,
\[\mathbb{E} |f_\varepsilon(z, \rho) |^2 = \rho^2 \mathbf{1}_{[0,\infty)}(\rho)
\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \sum_{j=1}^4 I_j (z, \rho, \omega, \theta) \,d\sigma(\omega) \,d\sigma(\theta) \]
with
\begin{align*}
I_4 =& \mathbb{E} \Big [ (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big(
\frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big(
\frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) \big( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \big) \Big],\\
I_3 =& 4 \mathbb{E} \Big [ (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big(
\frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big(
\frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \big) \Big] \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \big),\\
I_2 =& 2 \mathbb{E} \Big [ (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big(
\frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) \Big] \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \big) \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \big)\\
& + 4 \mathbb{E} \Big [ (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) \big(
\frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) \big( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \big) \Big] \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \big),\\
I_1 =& \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon \big(
\frac{z + \rho \omega}{2} \big) \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \omega}{2} \big) \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z + \rho \theta}{2} \big) \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon \big( \frac{z - \rho \theta}{2} \big).
\end{align*}
Applying Isserlis' theorem on the terms $I_3$ and $I_4$, we see that $I_3 = 0$ and $I_4$ can be studied in the same way as we did at the end of the section \ref{subsec:2nd order}. Finally, the terms with $I_2$ and $I_1$ give no problem when showing the existence and finiteness of \eqref{lim:f_eps} since $\mathbb{E} [ (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) (x) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) (y)]$ converges to $K_q (x,y)$ pointwise as $\varepsilon$ vanishes and
\[\big| \mathbb{E} [ (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E} q_\varepsilon) (x) (q_\varepsilon - \mathbb{E}
q_\varepsilon) (y)] \big| \lesssim 1 + \big|\log |x - y|\big| \mathbf{1}_{\{ |x - y| < 1 \}} (x, y). \]
\subsubsection{Multiple backscattering} As we argued in the section \ref{subsec:higher_order}, we just needed to show that \eqref{term:full_scattering} and \eqref{term:multiple_scattering} hold almost surely. Note that \eqref{term:full_scattering} follows from \eqref{term:multiple_scattering}, \eqref{lim:|single|nonzero} and \eqref{lim:2nd order_nonzero}. In turn, \eqref{term:multiple_scattering} follows from Lemma \ref{lem:residual_decay}. As discussed in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} for the case $\mathbb{E}q = 0$, we can conclude now this theorem for non-zero-mean potentials.
|
\section{Introduction}
NoSleep\footnote{\href{https://www.reddit.com/r/nosleep}{https://www.reddit.com/r/nosleep}} is an online community hosted on the social media website Reddit where people share, rate, and comment on original horror stories in an immersive environment. From its inception in May 2010 to May 2014, NoSleep grew organically to more than 240,000 subscribers. On May 7, 2014, Reddit's administrators added NoSleep to a list of communities that every new Reddit user is automatically subscribed to. Less than a month later, NoSleep's subscriber-base had doubled and it has continued to grow at this pace (see Figure \ref{fig:growth}). Although theory suggests that large influxes of newcomers will challenge, disrupt, and can even destroy online communities, NoSleep appeared to manage this growth without major negative effects.
Using a grounded theory-based analysis of interviews of NoSleep members, writers, and moderators, we suggest that NoSleep was able to survive and thrive through this massive influx of newcomers because it had created systems that ensured a high degree of adherence to the community's norms and that minimized the effect of violations.
Our findings also point to several important trade-offs and limitations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{nosleep_growth.pdf}
\caption{Plots of numbers of subscribers (in millions), and moderators over the life of the community. Data retrieved from snapshots available at archive.org}
\label{fig:growth}
\end{figure}
\section{Background}
The problem of how to attract newcomers is one of the most important challenges for builders of online communities \cite{kraut_building_2012}. A growing body of work considers how leadership, framing, competition, and membership overlap can play an important role in attracting newcomers \cite{schweik_internet_2012, zhu_selecting_2014, kraut_building_2012, zhu_impact_2014}. However, relatively little research has considered the challenges faced by communities that successfully manage to attract large numbers of new members.
The problems caused by successfully attracting large numbers of newcomers are often invoked in terms of an ``Eternal September''
\cite{grossman_net.wars_1998}. In the 1980s and early 1990s, Usenet participants frequently complained about inexperienced university students joining their communities in September, the beginning of the North American academic year. When America Online connected to Usenet in 1994 and unleashed a large and unremitting stream of new users, Usenet denizens complained of a ``September'' that never ended and irrevocably damaged their community.
Social computing research suggests that influxes of newcomers can disrupt communities in many ways including increased activity leading to information overload \cite{butler_membership_2001, jones_information_2004} and alienation among established users \cite{jeffries_systers:_2005}. Most prominently, research has suggested that newcomers cause disruptions because they do not know and do not follow community norms \cite{kraut_building_2012}. As a result, new users can disrupt conversations, contribute low quality content, and annoy existing users. For example, Gorbatai has shown that newcomers tend to make low quality edits to Wikipedia which require fixes by established editors \cite{gorbatai_aligning_2012}.
Because most social computing research treats community growth as a desirable goal, most studies of newcomer activity have focused on how newcomers can be deterred by sanctions leveled at good faith norm violations. For example, studies have shown that Wikipedia editors whose work is undone are less likely to contribute in the future \cite{halfaker_rise_2013, halfaker_dont_2011, piskorski_testing_2013}. In response, designers have created welcoming spaces within existing communities \cite{morgan_tea_2013} and tools to identify and welcome good faith contributors \cite{halfaker_snuggle:_2014}.
This work has limited relevance for communities in NoSleep's position in May 2014 whose challenge was widespread norm violation by a surge of newbies. Norm violations included linking to external content in ways that are normative elsewhere in Reddit, marking work as fiction or non-fiction, and misusing the Reddit voting system. Perhaps most importantly, many new users violated a very strong norm of suspended disbelief that requires all commenters to act as if stories are factual. For example, asking if something is true, or even complimenting the author for a ``nice story,'' is not permitted on NoSleep. Violation of this norm by newcomers is disruptive to NoSleep's immersive environment and has historically been treated as a serious threat to the community.
Although the social computing literature points to a deep toll taken by this type of widespread norm violation \cite{kraut_building_2012}, NoSleep seems to have largely survived its own Eternal September. The NoSleep participants we interviewed suggested that, ``\emph{it's gotten bigger but not necessarily worse}'' (P1) and that, ``\emph{if you went on today, you would see all the comment threads just filled with people going along with it and just enjoying the experience.}'' (P5). Our analysis asks: How did NoSleep survive, and even thrive, through its Eternal September?
\section{Methodology}
Because large influxes of newcomers are largely unstudied in the social computing literature, the phenomenon is well-suited to qualitative theory-building. Consequently, we adopted a grounded theory interview-based approach \cite{charmaz_constructing_2006}. We recruited members of NoSleep in two ways. First, we posted several messages in NoSleep-related forums on Reddit describing the study and requesting that participants contact a member of our research team with information about their individual role and experience in NoSleep. We identified a set of roles (e.g., moderator, writer) and other dimensions (e.g., gender, ex-user) as theoretically important. As is common in grounded theory, we used these dimensions to build a sample that was stratified but did not attempt to be statistically representative \cite{trost_statistically_1986}. In some cases, we reached out to individuals who we felt would have illuminating perspectives (e.g., a founding member of the community). In total, we interviewed 12 subjects as described in Table \ref{tab:subjects}. All participants were compensated with a \$10 Amazon gift card.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cllll}
\hline
ID & Gender & Role & Joined & Length\\
\hline
1 & Female & Lurker & 2013 & 46 min \\
2 & Female & Active & 2011 & 36 min \\
3 & Female & Moderator & 2010 & 41 min \\
4 & Female & Active & 2012 & 42 min \\
5 & Male & Founder / Moderator & 2010 & 52 min \\
6 & Female & Lurker & 2010 & 46 min \\
7 & Male & Ex-Active / Writer & 2013 & 77 min \\
8 & Female & Lurker & 2012 & 41 min \\
9 & Male & Moderator / Writer & 2012 & 62 min \\
10 & Female & Lurker & 2013 & 24 min \\
11 & Female & Active & 2013 & 48 min \\
12 & Male & Moderator & 2010 & 43 min \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{List of study participants with participant ID as used in this paper, gender, primary role(s) in NoSleep, year that they joined the community, and the length of our interview. The term ``active'' indicates an intense combination of reading, voting, and commenting. ``Lurker'' indicates reading and voting and was associated with less deep involvement in the community.}
\label{tab:subjects}
\end{table}
Subjects were interviewed over the phone, or via audio/video chat for an average of 47 minutes. Although interviews were semi-structured and open-ended, our protocol was designed to elicit feedback on the large influx of users in May 2014 and is provided in the supplemental materials. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Following the methodology laid out by Charmaz \cite{charmaz_constructing_2006}, the first author coded each interview using a series of both inductive codes emergent from the text and deductive codes identified by theory. Transcripts and codes were discussed by all the authors and transcripts were recoded in an iterative fashion. Ultimately, codes were grouped into themes that were elaborated in iteratively created memos.
\section{Findings}
Our analysis of coded interviews suggests that NoSleep survived and thrived during its Eternal September because it was equipped with three interconnected systems that ensured a high degree of adherence to NoSleep's norms while minimizing the effect of violations. We present these findings in terms of three propositions and suggest that these attributes could help other online communities survive and thrive in the face of large influxes of newcomers. We also describe ways in which the individuals we interviewed reflected on the trade-offs introduced by these features.
\subsection{Proposition 1. Consistent Enforcement by Leaders}
Participants attributed NoSleep's success in the face of a large influx of new users to the exceptional responsiveness and effectiveness of the community's moderators (``mods'') who wield broad authority to remove content and ban users.
Figure \ref{fig:growth} shows that there were a dozen moderators in May 2014 and that the size of the group has accelerated since then. P1 commented on the quality of moderation saying, \emph{``the NoSleep mods really do a lot as far as keeping everyone not just on track and following rules, but also like keeping everyone interested and active.''} NoSleep's moderators were described as a group of community insiders who were committed to, and effective in, keeping the community stable and sustainable.
Moderator work primarily involves rule enforcement and sanctioning. Our subjects commented on the consistency and strictness of NoSleep's moderators and described these qualities as an important component of NoSleep's success in the face of massive growth. Several NoSleep moderators active in other Reddit subcommunities explained that NoSleep had both the strictest and the most consistently enforced rules they had encountered. For example, moderator P3 described how she would enforce community norms at the expense of suppressing friendly conversation:
\emph{``If people come on and they say `that [story] was really great,' that's technically breaking the rules. But, you have to be a real jerk -- that's why you're like `nope you can't -- you cannot praise good writing.'\thinspace''}
Although moderators like P3 mentioned examples of the social and emotional challenges of enforcing NoSleep's norms, they also felt that their work was essential to maintain the
stability and immersiveness of the community. Although frequently described as inflexible, subjects also described community leadership as engaged, fair, and legitimate. Echoing the experience of several subjects, P10 described at length how a moderator's interventions helped her learn how to effectively navigate and interact within the community.
In comparison to other communities, the NoSleep moderators were described as extremely organized and engaged. Interviews with moderators revealed a large and sophisticated behind-the-scenes infrastructure including an entire private Reddit community used by moderators to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with each other to ensure that their actions were responsive and consistent. P3 described the usefulness of this private subreddit: ``\emph{We put out drafts of moderator announcements and everybody suggests additions or things that should be changed, so that when we go out and moderate the community -- we're really able to show a unified front.}''
\subsection{Proposition 2. Moderation By Community Members}
The community members we interviewed suggested that widespread engagement in norm enforcement by ``normal'' community members was critically important to handling newcomers. They also suggested that this type of community regulation was only made possible by a strong shared sense of community. For example, there was a striking degree of shared understanding across all participants on what constituted good NoSleep stories. Although subjects could reflect on their individual taste in stories, many respondents echoed P6's claims that excellent NoSleep stories should include ``\emph{a strong character voice}'' and be ``\emph{something that's almost believable}.'' Although many newcomers adopt more off-the-cuff styles, nearly every subject interviewed mentioned style and grammar as criteria that they use to judge the quality of stories on NoSleep. Some of this knowledge is made explicit in documentation on the site.
The degree to which this knowledge reflects a shared sense of community was also visible in the way community members described working together to address examples of users violating NoSleep's norms. Described as ``burying'' material, subjects described collectively rating norm-violating content and comments as low quality (i.e., ``downvoting'') so that it becomes hidden by Reddit's interface. P1 explained how she approached comments left by newcomers unaware of the suspension of disbelief norm, ``\emph{that's when you're like `All right, if we all downvote this, it will go away. It will be like it never happened}.''' Although P1 did not write content or comments herself, she expressed a feeling of empowerment to act with the community to preserve its norms that was nearly universal among our interviewees.
Although rules are rigid, P8, P9 and P10 each reflected on the way that the community's sense of purpose and shared goals made it possible to identify attempts to game its system, and on the community's ability to ``correct themselves'' in these cases. Because the number of moderators with explicit authority is limited, this sense of community made collective action among ``normal'' members possible, scaled effectively, and was able to both minimize damage from, and educate, a sustained influx of newcomers. Because users could work to ``bury'' norm-violating material, there was much less pressure on moderators to act quickly and in every case of a violated norm.
\subsection{Proposition 3. Technological Systems Maintaining Norms}
Participants suggested that the technological affordances of NoSleep were a third important factor in the community's smooth growth.
Several technologies mentioned included basic functionality of the Reddit platform that facilitates community moderation. This included Reddit's voting system giving all members the ability to quickly vote content up or down.
As P1 explained, ``\emph{in order to be an active member of the community, you just need to hit a button}.''
A related tool proved by Reddit facilitates ``peer reporting'' of problematic content which is presented to moderators who can then hide content and contact users.
Moderator P12 explained that, ``\emph{if you have individuals committed enough to ... not break immersion, just by clicking a report button on comments that do [break immersion], it brings it into the moderator queue so that we can make them disappear}.''
Building on this system, NoSleep employs a tool called ``AutoModerator'' that automatically detects rule violations and sanctions violators \cite{morris_reddit_2012}.
Although not visible to many users, several moderators we interviewed explained that the tool, also provided by Reddit, finds and flags problematic content and communicates with moderators in ways that obviates the need for action on many straightforward moderation issues.
Interviewees also credited Reddit's functionality that allows newcomers to edit and improve stories or comments after discovering they have inadvertently broken a rule or deviated from the community's norms and then to resubmit their content. They also pointed to a feature that issues reminders of norms at points of action including an HTML placeholder attribute in the comment box below stories that reminds users of rules before commenting. One moderator described a tool used by the community called ``post throttling'' which limits users to one story submission every 24 hours. P3 explained that throttling was used to reduce the threat of a newcomer disrupting the community and to provide a limit on the effect of a trend of newbies posting ``series'' of stories to garner visibility and popularity.
Of course, these technologies rely on social infrastructure to be effective in ways that highlight the interrelated nature of our propositions. Community voting and peer reporting rely on an engaged set of community members with a shared sense of the community as well as an active set of moderators who can effectively remove flagged or downvoted content and sanction repeat violators. Our interviewees suggested that NoSleep effectively combined these three features into a socio-technical system that was able to maintain community standards through a sustained influx of newcomers.
\subsection{The Cost of Strong Regulation}
All three propositions point to systems facilitating strong norm enforcement. Although described as important for managing the influx of new users, these systems were not described as universally positive or costless.
For example, a rule requiring stories to be believable was elaborated in the aftermath of the influx of new users to explicitly bar supernatural stories (e.g., stories that involve demons or vampires). Although subjects acknowledged that this pushed newcomers toward creating believable stories, it also annoyed some established users who felt they could navigate the fine line between supernatural content and believability. For example, P3 explained that, ``\emph{the rules had been made tighter because of the new subscribers, and that sometimes doesn't allow them as much freedom}.'' Similarly, P7 felt that rules were, ``\emph{corralling younger users into acting or reading in a particular way...instead of doing what they want}.'' Frustrated by this experience, P7 explained that he no longer contributes to the community as frequently.
For others, tough rule enforcement was seen as having a negative effect on commenting and discussion by making the environment feel constrained and contrived. P11 described the difference between her experiences in NoSleep and other Reddit subcommunities, commenting on the rules that forbid any kind of criticism of stories:
\emph{``Most subreddits have comment sections that are kind of stream of consciousness—people tend to share their own experiences. On NoSleep, you don't see people really sharing their own experiences; you see people commenting specifically on the story…Again, because of the rules, you don't really see trolling. Kind of nice, kind of not nice ... I think the comment section is kind of -- I don't think it's very organic.''}
Through a strong system of rules and a complex socio-technical infrastructure to ensure that they are enforced, NoSleep was able to survive and thrive despite the weight of millions of newcomers.
However, the cost of NoSleep's survival was described by some interviewees as an uncomfortably strict environment that limited creativity. The systems described as facilitating NoSleep's rapid growth were also portrayed as providing strict limits on what it could grow to become.
\section{Discussion}
In one sense, our three propositions seem to be at odds with other social computing research. For example, a body of Wikipedia research has connected stronger systems of norms with inefficient bureaucracies that may cause communities growth to slow or even stop \cite{butler_dont_2008, suh_singularity_2009, jullien_rise_2015}. For example, Halfaker et al.~\cite{halfaker_rise_2013} connect increases in social and technical systems for norm-enforcement to lower rates of newcomer retention. In another sense, our propositions should not be unfamiliar to social computing researchers. For example, all three propositions can be found in some form in among Kraut and Resnick's \cite{kraut_building_2012} ``design claims'' and our contribution lies not in the discovery of these features but in our suggestion that they play a critical role in helping groups survive and thrive through what is often traumatic or catastrophic growth. We believe that techniques that minimize the effect of norm violations by newcomers may both help prevent communities from descending into chaos \emph{and} deter newcomers. Techniques that prevent short-term disaster may be inappropriate -- and difficult to change -- when growth slows.
Of course, our work is limited in many ways. One unavoidable limitation of our inductive grounded theory approach is that findings may reflect the idiosyncrasies and biases of interviewees. For example, we were only able to recruit one user who described themselves as a former NoSleep member. As a result, our findings may reflect ``survivor bias'' where individuals less negatively affected by an event are the only people available to be interviewed. We gain some confidence in our findings by the fact that our participants did not describe any major exoduses of authors or moderators or major changes in the nature of the community. That said, we only present these findings as propositions for testing in future work.
Our findings offer several important implications for design. The first points toward the importance of emphasizing decentralized moderation. Although previous research has found this to be ``underprovisioned'' on Reddit as a whole \cite{gilbert_widespread_2013}, in NoSleep it seems to be sufficient.
A second implication is the importance of ensuring enough leadership capacity is available when an influx of newcomers is anticipated. Designers may benefit by focusing on tools to let existing leaders bring others on board and help them clearly communicate norms.
Finally, designers should support an ecosystem of accessible and appropriate moderator tools. During a widely reported Reddit uprising, a moderator of a different subcommunity complained that, ``the moderation tools we are given are severely lacking'' \cite{warzel_reddit_2015}.
Our interviews and analysis point to the importance of strong systems of norm enforcement made possible by leadership, community engagement, and technology. Although we propose that NoSleep's socio-technical infrastructure can provide a template for other communities facing similar challenges, we also suggest that they are not without trade-offs. Although not without qualification, NoSleep's example provides a model for how an Eternal September need not mean an inevitable march toward winter.
\bibliographystyle{SIGCHI-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
The existence of bright high-redshift ($z\ga 6$) quasars, powered by
supermassive black holes (SMBHs) with $\ga 10^{8-9}~M_{\odot}$, poses
questions about the formation and evolution of these SMBHs
\citep{Fan2003,Fan2006,Willott2010,Mortlock2011,Venemans2013,Wu2015}.
Several possible scenarios have been suggested for the origin of the
SMBHs \citep[][references therein]{Volonteri2010,Haiman2013,Johnson2016}. One is remnant BHs
of massive Population III (Pop III) stars with $\sim 100~M_{\odot}$
\citep{Madau_Rees2001,Haiman_Loeb2001,Schneider2002,Islam2003,Volonteri2003,Tanaka_Haiman2009}.
Second, the so-called direct collapse model
(\citealt{Loeb_Rasio1994,Oh_Haiman2002,Bromm2003,Begelman2006,Natarajan2006,
Shang2010a,Schleicher2013a,Regan2014,Inayoshi2014a,Visbal+2014,Alexander2014,
Pacucci2015,Latif2015b}; \citealt{Chon2016})
considers a more massive seed BH with $\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$, formed by the
collapse of a supermassive star \citep[e.g.,
][]{Begelman2010,Hosokawa2013, Sakurai2015b}.
Two direct-collapse BH candidates have recently been identifed in the CANDELS/GOODS-S survey based on their very red expected spectra \citep{Pacucci2016}, and may be detected in the future through stellar tidal disruption events \citep{Kashiyama2016}.
Thirdly, runaway collisions in star clusters produce massive stars which would be seeds
for the SMBHs (e.g., \citealt{Portegies_Zwart2004, Omukai2008,Devecchi_Volonteri2009,Katz2015,Yajima2016};
\citealt{Stone2016}).
How do seeds grow to SMBHs within the age of the universe at $z\ga6$?
In any of the above seed formation models, subsequent BH growth
needs to be still rapid \citep{Tanaka2014}.
When the BH is fed by sufficiently strong gas flows, and the emergent luminosity
increases, radiative feedback is likely to affect gas dynamics.
Radiation force is crucially important at the vicinity of the BH
horizon because the gas is highly opaque to electron scattering. In
particular, if the luminosity approaches the Eddington luminosity,
$L_{\rm Edd}\equiv 4\pi cGM_{\rm BH}/\kappa_{\rm es}$, the radiation
force becomes comparable to the gravity of the accreting BH and
thus the accretion rate would be limited to the Eddington rate
$\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}\equiv L_{\rm Edd}/c^2$.
Note that starting with a $100 (10^5)~M_{\odot}$ seed BH, it takes
$\simeq 0.7 (0.4)$~Gyr to form a SMBH with $10^9~M_{\odot}$,
assuming a continuous accretion at the Eddington rate with 10\%
radiative efficiency, i.e., $\dot{M}=10~\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$.
A massive seed thus eases the requirement on the duty cycle by a factor for $z\ga 6$.
However, ``photon trapping" \citep{Katz1977,Begelman1978} would help BHs grow at a higher rate
than the Eddington rate. Photon trapping occurs when radiation within
an optically thick flow is advected inwards by efficient electron
scattering faster than it can escape via radiation diffusion. This
then limits the emergent luminosity, and, in spherical symmetry,
prevents it from exceeding the Eddington limit \citep{Begelman1979}.
The characteristic ``trapping radius'' is given by
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm tr}\equiv \frac{\kappa_{\rm es}\dot{M}}{4\pi c},
\label{eq:trapping}
\end{equation}
outside which radiation escapes and contributes to the emergent luminosity.
Thus, the maximum luminosity released by gravitational energy is estimated as
$\simeq GM_{\rm BH}\dot{M}/R_{\rm tr}\sim L_{\rm Edd}$.
Numerical simulations have investigated rapid accretion with $\dot{M}\gg L_{\rm Edd}/c^2$
and found that such high accretion rates are possible in a disk-like configuration, with
radiation escaping vertically
(e.g. \citealt{Ohsuga2005,Sadowski2014,Jiang2014,Mckinney2014,Fragile2014}; \citealt{Sadowski2016}).
Semi-analytical models also suggest the possibility of such rapid growth of SMBHs in the early Universe
(e.g. \citealt{Volonteri2005,Madau2014,Alexander2014}; \citealt{Volonteri_Silk_Bubus2015}).
Analytical arguments also support rapid growth via gas accretion at a super-Eddington rate
\citep[e.g.][]{Pacucci_VF2015}.
A recent paper \citep{Pezzulli2016}
shows that a high accretion rate of $\ga 10^3~L_{\rm Edd}/c^2$ is sustained at $z>10$,
even including a BH feedback model.
On the other hand, radiation heating potentially suppresses gas inflows from larger scales where gas is not bounded by the BH gravity.
The radiation heating effect from a BH makes the accretion behavior episodic
and the averaged rate value is limited to $\la 10\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$
\citep[e.g.][]{Ciotti_2001,Milosavljevic2009b, Park_Ricotti2011,Park_Ricotti2012,Park2016}.
To address this issue, we need to consider {\it a self-consistent solution of the accretion flow
from larger scales where the gas accretion begins to small scales
where photon trapping reduces the emergent luminosity}.
Recently, \citet{Inayoshi2015a} (hereafter IHO16) has found a steady self-consistent spherically symmetric solution of
gas accreting at a rate of $\ga 5000~L_{\rm Edd}/c^2$ (hereafter ``hyper-Eddington accretion") when
\begin{equation}
\left(\dfrac{n_{\infty}}{10^5~{\rm cm}^{-3}} \right)\ga \left(\dfrac{M_{\rm BH}}{10^4~M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\dfrac{T_{\infty}}{10^4~{\rm K}}\right)^{3/2},
\label{eq:condition}
\end{equation}
where $n_{\infty}$ and $T_{\infty}$ are the density and temperature of
the ambient gas. They have shown that this condition corresponds to
the HII region, generated by the ionizing radiation emerging from the
photosphere, being smaller than the Bondi radius. For the
hyper-Eddington case, the solution then consists of a
radiation-dominated core, where photon trapping due to electron
scattering is important, and an accreting envelope which follows an
isothermal Bondi profile with $T\simeq 8000~{\rm K}$. If photon trapping
suppresses the luminosity, emerging from the photosphere, to below
$\sim L_{\rm Edd}$, radiation from the central region does not
stop the gas accretion from larger scales. In fact, the size of the HII
region remains much smaller than the Bondi radius, which results in a
high inflow rate, unimpeded by radiation feedback.
However, \citetalias{Inayoshi2015a} assumed that photon trapping is
effective, and that the luminosity at the photosphere is limited to
$L_{\rm Edd}$. This assumption is not valid when the accretion flow
with nonzero angular momentum produces a compact nuclear disk,
potentially launching outflows or jets into polar regions \citep[e.g.,
][]{Ohsuga2005,Sadowski2014,Mckinney2014}.
Photon trapping in the polar regions has also been found less
efficient than in spherically symmetric flows, with magnetic buoyancy
facilitating the vertical escape of radiation \citep{Jiang2014}. As a
result, the radiation luminosity in directions away from the disk
place can significantly exceed the Eddington luminosity.
In this paper, we investigate the impact of a high-luminosity central
source, with $L >L_{\rm Edd}$, on the spherical accretion flow at larger
radii, by performing one-dimensional radiation hydrodynamical
simulations. We show that the transition to steady hyper-Eddington
accretion still occurs, as long as the radiation luminosity from the
central bright source is as small as $L \la 10~L_{\rm Edd}$. This high-rate
steady flow is maintained because the ram pressure of the infalling
gas dominates the radiation force caused by the central nuclear
disk. We also use a toy model of a momentum-driven shell embedded in
a collapsing gas cloud, to demonstrate that the effect of the ram
pressure significantly suppresses radiation feedback, in good
agreement with our simulations.
This paper is organized as follows. In \secref{sec:method},
we describe the setup of our simulations and the numerical methodology.
We show the results of our simulations in \secref{sec:results} and give analytical arguments
to explain the results in \secref{sec:analytical}.
In \secref{sec:summary}, we discuss our results and summarize our conclusions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=7.5cm]{structure.pdf}
\caption{Schematic illustration of a spherically symmetric accretion flow
onto a massive BH at a hyper-Eddington rate. The locations of the
trapping radius $R_{\rm tr}$, the photosphere $R_{\rm ph}$ and the
Bondi radius $R_{\rm B}$ are shown. Our simulations solve for the structure of the
accretion flow between $r_{\rm min}(\simeq
10^{-3}~R_{\rm B})\lesssim r \lesssim 10~R_{\rm B}$. }
\label{fig:structure}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulation method}
\label{sec:method}
\subsection{Setup of the simulations}
\label{sec:suc}
We solve structures of spherical accretion flows onto a BH with
a mass of $M_{\rm BH}$ by performing one-dimensional hydrodynamical
simulations which include radiative processes.
Fig.~\ref{fig:structure} shows important physical scales of the gas structure.
The Bondi radius is estimated analytically by
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm B}=1.98\times10^{18}~M_{\rm BH,4}~T_{\infty,4}^{-1}~~{\rm cm},
\end{equation}
within which the BH gravity exceeds the gas pressure and accretion begins.
A photosphere forms at $R_{\rm ph}\sim 10^{14-15}$ cm (\citetalias{Inayoshi2015a})
and the trapping radius (equation \ref{eq:trapping}) is
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm tr} = 1.48\times 10^{12}~M_{\rm BH,4}~\dot{m}_3~~{\rm cm},
\end{equation}
where $M_{\rm BH,4}\equiv M_{\rm BH}/(10^4~M_{\odot})$, $T_{\infty,4}\equiv T_\infty/(10^4~{\rm K})$
and $\dot{m}_3\equiv (\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\rm Edd})/10^3$.
It is desirable to resolve all these radii in the simulations in order to determine the structure of the flow self-consistently.
However, this is computationally prohibitive, because
both $R_{\rm tr}$ and $R_{\rm ph}$ are smaller than the Bondi radius by $4-5$ orders of magnitude (see \citetalias{Inayoshi2015a}).
In the following simulations, therefore we focus on the region between
$10^{-3}~R_{\rm B}\lesssim r \lesssim10~R_{\rm B}$, and
investigate whether hyper-Eddington accretion is realized without being impeded by radiation feedback.
As a result, our simulation domain does not extend down to $R_{\rm tr}$ and $R_{\rm ph}$.
Instead, we set the emergent luminosity from the inner region by hand, using several different models of
the radiation efficiency, including allowing for super-Eddington luminosities.
Note that in our paper, we simply assume that the disc is small enough to be embedded well inside the inner-most radius of the simulation box and consider emerging radiation with $L>L_{\rm Edd}$ from it.
\subsection{Basic equations and numerical schemes}
\label{sec:basic}
We use the hydrodynamical simulation code ZEUS \citep{Stone_Norman1992} to follow gas dynamics around the BH.
For the spherically symmetric case, the continuity equation is given by
\begin{equation}
\pddt{\rho}{t}+\frac{1}{r^2}\pddt{}{r}(r^2 \rho v)=0 \label{eq:continuity},
\end{equation}
and the equation of motion is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho\left(\pddt{v}{t}+v\pddt{v}{r}\right)=-\pddt{p}{r}-\rho\pddt{\Phi}{r}+f_{\rm rad} \label{eq:motion},
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the gas density, $v$ is the velocity of the flow, $p$ is the gas pressure, $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential of the BH,
and $f_{\rm rad}$ is the radiation force per volume.
We assume the gas pressure is given by the equation of state $p=(\gamma-1)\rho e$, where $\gamma=5/3$ and
$e$ is the specific energy density.
For completeness, we adopt the general relativistic correction for the gravitational potential,
$\Phi=-GM_{\rm BH}/(r-R_{\rm Sch})$ \citep{Paczynsky1980a}, although in practice these corrections are negligible in our simulation domain.
The energy equation is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho\left(\pddt{e}{t}+v\pddt{e}{r}\right)=
-p\frac{1}{r^2}\pddt{}{r}(r^2v)-\Lambda+\Gamma \label{eq:energy},
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is the cooling rate and $\Gamma$ is the heating rate.
The cooling rate $\Lambda$ includes the effect of the collisional excitation of H, He, He$^+$ atoms and
by H free-free emission \citep{Glover2007}:
\begin{equation}
\Lambda=\Lambda_{\rm H}+\Lambda_{\rm He}+\Lambda_{\rm He^+}+\Lambda_{\rm ff}.
\end{equation}
The energy equation is solved by an implicit method, in order to stabilize the calculation.
We consider a chemical reaction network composed of the six primordial species of
H, H$^+$, He, He$^+$, He$^{++}$ and e$^-$.
The number abundance of He nuclei relative to H nuclei is set to $8.33\times10^{-2}$.
We consider the chemical reactions of photoionization, collisional ionization and radiative recombination of H, He, and He$^+$.
We adopt the on-the-spot approximation, i.e. recombination photons are quickly absorbed as ionizing photons and
the recombinations to the ground state are ignored,
and we use the case B recombination coefficient.
The chemical reactions are solved for the six species with a semi-implicit formulation \citep{Anninos1997}.
The electron fraction is derived from charge conservation.
The time step of the simulation is set to the minimum value among
the Courant time, the cooling time and the chemical time, following
\citet{Whalen2006}.
We set the Courant number to be less than $0.5$.
The cooling time and chemical time are set to the minimum value of
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm cool}\equiv 0.1~\dfrac{\rho e}{| \Lambda-\Gamma |},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm chem}\equiv 0.01~\dfrac{x_{\rm e}+0.001~x_{\rm H}}{\dot{x}_{\rm e}},
\end{equation}
on the grid, where $x_{\rm e}$ and $x_{\rm H}$ are the electron and neutral hydrogen fraction, respectively.
We solve steady and spherically symmetric radiation transfer equations to calculate
the radiation force, the heating rates and photoionization rates.
The steady assumption is valid because the cloud crossing time of photons ($\tau r/c$) is much shorter than
the simulation time step.
The transfer equation is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{r^2}\ddt{}{r}(r^2F_\nu)=4\pi \eta_\nu-\rho\kappa_\nu cE_\nu,
\end{equation}
where $F_\nu$ is the radiation flux, $\eta_\nu$ is the emissivity, $\kappa_\nu$ is the opacity and $E_\nu$ is the radiation energy density.
The gas is optically thin against photons inside the ionized region and thus in those regions we approximate $F_\nu\approx cE_\nu$.
The photoionization rates $k_i$ and the heating rates $\Gamma_i$ ($i=$ H, He, He$^+$) are
calculated with a photon-conserving scheme \citep{Whalen2006}
\begin{align}
k_i&=\int_{\nu_i} \frac{4\pi \hat{J}_\nu}{h\nu}\sigma_i{\rm d}\nu, \\
\Gamma_i&=n_i\int_{\nu_i} \frac{4\pi \hat{J}_\nu}{h\nu}\sigma_iE_{{\rm heat},i}{\rm d}\nu,
\end{align}
where $\hat{J}_\nu$ is the mean intensity calculated to conserve the number of photons at each grid,
$\sigma_i$ is the cross section for bound-free absorption of ionizing photons,
$\nu_i$ is the ionization energy, and $E_{{\rm heat},i}=h\nu-h\nu_i$ is the excess energy of the photo-electron available for heating.
The radiation force due to electron scattering and bound-free transitions is calculated by
\begin{equation}
f_{{\rm rad},i}=\frac{n_{\rm e}}{c}\int\sigma_{\rm es}F_\nu{\rm d}\nu
+\frac{\Gamma}{c}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\rm es}$ is the cross section for Thomson scattering.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm]
{L_mdot.pdf}
\caption{ The bolometric luminosity assumed to be produced in the
central regions, and enter our simulation domain at $r_{\rm min}$,
as a function of the accretion rate $\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\rm
Edd}$. Different curves correspond to the different adopted models
of the radiative efficiency, $\eta_{f_{\rm Edd}}$ with $1\leq f_{\rm Edd} \leq
30$ (solid curves) and $\eta_{\rm log}$ (dashed curves).}
\label{fig:L_mdot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The radiation flux entering the simulation domain at its inner
boundary is specified by hand as follows. The radiation spectrum is
assumed to be a single power-law of
\begin{align}
F_{\nu,{\rm in}}\propto \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_{\rm min}}\right)^{-\alpha}~~(\nu_{\rm min}\le\nu\le\nu_{\rm max}), \label{eq:power}
\end{align}
where $\nu_{\rm min}$ is the ionization threshold of neutral hydrogen, $h\nu_{\rm min}=13.6~{\rm eV}$, and
$h\nu_{\rm max}\sim30~{\rm keV}$
is the maximum cutoff frequency.
The power-law index is set to $\alpha=1.5$ (see IHO16).
The normalization of the radiation flux is determined by $L=\eta\dot{M}c^2$, where
$\dot{M}$ is the mass flux through the innermost grid, $\eta$ is the radiative efficiency, and $L$ is the bolometric luminosity.
We assume a simple model of the efficiency which mimics the effect of photon trapping for a high $\dot{m}(\gg 1)$ as
\begin{equation}
\eta_{f_{\rm Edd}}\equiv \frac{1}{10+\dot{m}/f_{\rm Edd}},
\label{eq:eta_model}
\end{equation}
where $f_{\rm Edd}\equiv L_{\rm max}/L_{\rm Edd}$ and $L_{\rm max}$ is the maximum luminosity for $\dot{m}\rightarrow \infty$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:L_mdot}).
In this model, the efficiency becomes a constant ($\eta \simeq 0.1$) for low $\dot{m}$, while $\eta \rightarrow f_{\rm Edd}/\dot{m}$ for high $\dot{m}$.
We do not consider an advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF), because the accretion rates in
our simulations do not drop below the critical value, $\dot{m}\approx 10^{-3}$ \citep{Ichimaru1977,Narayan1994},
at which a transition to ADAF would be expected (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mdot1}).
Note that \citetalias{Inayoshi2015a} considered only the case with $f_{\rm Edd}=1$, where the luminosity never exceeds the Eddington luminosity.
However, we here relax this assumption and allow super-Eddington luminosities.
In addition to this model, we also consider a model of the efficiency which asymptotically approaches a logarithmic form at high $\dot{m}$
\citep[][]{Watarai2000},
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm log}=
\begin{cases}
0.1 & (\dot{m}<20) \\
\displaystyle\frac{2}{\dot{m}}\left[1+\ln\left(\frac{\dot{m}}{20}\right)\right] & (\dot{m}>20).
\end{cases}
\label{eq:eta_log}
\end{align}
This prescription is motivated by the simulations with $\dot{m}\gg 1$, mentioned above, which find
that photon trapping do not fully suppress the luminosity emerging from the central region \citep[e.g.,][]{Jiang2014,Sadowski2014}.
We set spherical coordinates with a logarithmically-spaced grid in the radial direction as follows.
The positions of the inner and outer boundary are set to $r_{\rm min}$ and $r_{\rm max}$.
The $i$-th grid is given by $r_i=r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0(\epsilon^{i-1}-1)/(\epsilon-1)$,
where $\Delta r_0$ is the size of the inner-most grid and $\epsilon~(=\Delta r_{\rm i+1}/\Delta r_i)$ is the ratio between consecutive grids.
For a given number of the grid-cells $N$, $\Delta r_0=(r_{\rm max}-r_{\rm min})(\epsilon-1)/(\epsilon^N-1)$.
Throughout this paper, we set $N=700$, $\epsilon=1.01$,
$r_{\rm min}\sim 10^{-3}~R_{\rm B}$ and $r_{\rm max}=5000~r_{\rm min}$
so that dynamics of gas accretion from outside the Bondi radius are calculated with sufficient resolution.
We adopt the ``outflow'' boundary condition (BC) at the innermost grid \citep[e.g.][]{Stone_Norman1992}.
Under this BC, we set $v(r_{\rm min})=v(r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0)$ to avoid spurious reflection
of wave energy at the boundary.
However, when $L> L_{\rm Edd}$, this BC artificially underestimates the effect of the radiation force on the innermost shell.
This is because the velocity at $r_{\rm min}$, where the infalling gas should be significantly decelerated by radiation, is replaced by
the velocity at $r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0$, where deceleration is inefficient because radiation is partially
absorbed by the gas at $r_{\rm min}$ before reaching $r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0$.
To circumvent this underestimate, we adopt an alternative inner BC: $v(r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0)=v(r_{\rm min})$ for $L> L_{\rm Edd}$.
When we use this BC, we choose the size of the innermost grid so that the gas element
at $[r_{\rm min},~r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0]$ is optically thick to electron scattering ($\tau_{\rm es}\ga 1$).
If we chose a small grid size of $\Delta r_0$ so that $\tau_{\rm es}\ll 1$,
most of radiation should penetrate to the second grid and cause significant deceleration there.
This would be missed by the new BC of $v(r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0)=v(r_{\rm min})$, which would then again underestimate
the effect of radiation force.
We have checked that $\tau_{\rm es}\ga 1$ at $r=r_{\rm min}+\Delta r_0$ is ensured for $N=700$.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
Fig.~\ref{fig:mdot1} shows the time evolution of the accretion rate for several models of the radiative efficiency
$\eta_{f_{\rm Edd}}$ ($1\leq f_{\rm Edd}\leq 30$) (solid curves) and $\eta_{\rm log}$ (dashed curve).
We here set the BH mass to $M_{\rm BH}=2\times10^4~M_{\odot}$ and adopt an initially neutral uniform gas with
$n_\infty=10^5~{\rm cm^{-3}}$, $T_\infty=10^4~{\rm K}$ and $v=0$.
The dotted curve presents the evolution with radiation off at the inner boundary,
approaching the Bondi rate,
\begin{align}
\frac{\dot{M}_{\rm B}}{\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}}
=7.3\times10^3~M_{\rm BH,4}n_{\infty,5}T_{\infty,4}^{-3/2},
\label{eq:Bondi}
\end{align}
where we estimate the Bondi rate for the isothermal case, $\dot{M}_{\rm B}=e^{3/2}\pi\rho_\infty R_{\rm B}^2 c_\infty$.
With radiation on for $f_{\rm Edd}=1$, the accretion rate is much lower than the case without radiation.
The average rate is limited to $\sim 20~\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ at $t<10^5$ yr,
where the luminosity from the central region is $\sim 0.7~L_{\rm Edd}$.
At $t \ga 1.3\times 10^5$ yr, the accretion rate becomes episodic and increases promptly to a higher value, which we call the transition.
This result is consistent with that found in \citetalias{Inayoshi2015a} (see their Fig. 5).
After the transition, the accretion rate approaches the Bondi rate.
The hyper-Eddington accretion is realized because the H{\sc ii}~region is always confined inside the Bondi radius,
i.e. $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}\la R_{\rm B}$ (see below and \S\ref{sec:analytical}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]
{mdot1.pdf}
\caption{
Time evolution of the accretion rates for the five different models of
radiative efficiency shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:L_mdot}
(and for $M_{\rm BH}=2\times10^4~M_{\odot}$, $n_\infty=10^5~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ and
$T_\infty=10^4~$K).
The dotted curve shows the time evolution of the rate in the absence of any radiation (settling to the Bondi rate).
Circles mark five different epochs, at which we show radial profiles
for the model of $\eta_{10}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:hist1}.
}
\label{fig:mdot1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For moderately larger values of $1<f_{\rm Edd}\leq 10$, we find the same transition
to steady hyper-Eddington accretion as in $f_{\rm Edd}=1$.
Even in these cases, the luminosity before the transition is limited to $\sim L_{\rm Edd}$.
The transition time is delayed for higher $f_{\rm Edd}$ because radiation force is non-negligible,
and contributes an outward-directed force on the gas.
After the transition, the luminosity exceeds the Eddington luminosity.
However, the hyper-Eddington accretion is maintained since the ram pressure overcomes
the radiation force at the innermost region.
Note that the result in the model with $\eta_{\rm log}$ (equation \ref{eq:eta_log}) does not change qualitatively
because the luminosity after the transition ($L\la 20~L_{\rm Edd}$) is as small as in the cases
with $1<f_{\rm Edd}\leq 10$.
For the highest value of $f_{\rm Edd}=30$, the transition to a hyper-Eddington phase occurs,
but the behavior of the accretion rate is different from the other cases after the transition.
Namely, the accretion rate is unstable, and begins to oscillate
at the innermost grid.
In this case, radiation force with $L\simeq 30~L_{\rm Edd}$ from the central region
prevents a steady accretion flow from being realized.
However, the radiation force does not suppress the gas accretion in the quiescent phases.
As a result, the time-averaged accretion rate still matches the Bondi rate.
This implies that the central BH grows rapidly even for $f_{\rm Edd} \ga 30$
(see discussion in \S\ref{sec:summary}).
This critical luminosity to maintain steady hyper-Eddington accretion is determined by
a comparison of the radiation force with the ram pressure and gravity of the infalling gas (see \secref{subsec:analytical1} below).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]
{hist1.pdf}
\caption{
Radial profiles of the density, temperature and local accretion rate for the model of $\eta_{10}$
(see equation \ref{eq:eta_model})
at the five different epochs shown by circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:mdot1}.
The five curves correspond to (i) $t=1.58\times10^5~{\rm yr} $ (red), (ii) $2.35\times10^5~{\rm yr} $ (orange),
(iii) $2.371\times10^5~{\rm yr} $ (green), (iv) $2.373\times10^5~{\rm yr} $ (blue)
and (v) $3.17\times10^5~{\rm yr} $ (magenta).
In panel (b), the size of the H{\sc ii}~region $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$ and the initial Bondi radius $R_{\rm B,0}$ are shown.
In this case, the condition required for steady hyper-Eddington accretion, $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}\la R_{\rm B,0}$, is satisfied.
}
\label{fig:hist1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:hist1} shows radial profiles of the gas density, temperature, and local mass inflow rate $\dot{M}=4\pi r^2\rho |v|$
for the model with $f_{\rm Edd}=10$ at five different epochs corresponding to the filled circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:mdot1}.
As \citetalias{Inayoshi2015a} discussed, the condition required for hyper-Eddington accretion
is given by equation (\ref{eq:condition}), which is equivalent to the condition that
the size of the H{\sc ii}~region is smaller than the initial Bondi radius
(see also \S\ref{subsec:analytical1}).
Fig.~\ref{fig:hist1}(b) shows that the condition is satisfied for this case ($R_\text{H{\sc ii}}<R_{\rm B,0}$).
The physical explanation why this transition occurs are as follows.
When the accretion occurs, the H{\sc ii}~region expands to the radius of $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$,
within which radiation force and gas pressure suppress the gas accretion.
However, since $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}<R_{\rm B,0}$, the accreting gas accumulates
in the region $R_\text{H{\sc ii}} \la r \la R_{\rm B}$ (curve 1 in Fig.~\ref{fig:hist1}a).
Once this shell becomes sufficiently dense and massive, it begins to fall inward
due to the gravitational force of the central BH (curves 2 and 3 in Fig.~\ref{fig:hist1}a).
Concurrently, the H{\sc ii}~region shrinks and the accretion rate increases (curve 4 in Figs.~\ref{fig:hist1}b and c).
After the transition, the gas profile approaches a steady and isothermal Bondi profile
with $\rho \propto r^{-3/2}$ and $T\simeq 8000~{\rm K}$ (curve 5 in Fig.~\ref{fig:hist1}).
For the case with $f_{\rm Edd}=30$, radial profiles of the gas properties are almost identical to those for $f_{\rm Edd}=10$,
except inside a narrow central H{\sc ii}~region.
In this case, the strong radiation force eventually blows the ionized gas outward.
However, once the luminosity decreases due to suppression of the gas accretion,
ram pressure caused by rapid accretion from outside the H{\sc ii}~region
pushes the ejected gas inward again, resulting in episodic accretion.
This result also shows that as long as $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}<R_{\rm B,0}$ is satisfied,
the time-averaged accretion rate should match the steady hyper-Eddington Bondi rate,
even for $f_{\rm Edd}=30$.
Finally, we ran a separate, simpler suite of simulations, as an academic exercise,
to further clarify the effect of radiation force with a super-Eddington luminosity on the accretion flow.
In the above simulations, the luminosity is coupled with the accretion rate.
Instead, we here assume a steady and isothermal Bondi accretion flow as the initial condition,
and turn on the central source with a {\em constant} luminosity, independent from the the
accretion rate. This setup allows us to compare the results directly with a toy model, discussed in \S\ref{subsec:analytical2}
below.
Fig.~\ref{fig:mdot2} shows two cases for $L=10~L_{\rm Edd}$ (red solid) and $30~L_{\rm Edd}$ (blue dashed).
For $L=10~L_{\rm Edd}$, the gas accretion does not change at all after the radiation turns on at $t=0$.
On the other hand, for $L=30~L_{\rm Edd}$, the radiation force is so strong that the gas inflow is decelerated and shuts off.
This behaviour differs from the previous case with $f_{\rm Edd}=30$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mdot1}), in which
the radiation force was set to depend on the accretion rate, and accretion was episodic, rather than being shut off.
\section{Analytic arguments}
\label{sec:analytical}
As we have shown in \S\ref{sec:results}, a transition to a steady
hyper-Eddington accretion occurs for $M_{\rm BH}=2\times 10^4~M_{\odot}$
and $n_\infty=10^5~{\rm cm}^{-3}$, as long as the maximum luminosity from the
central region is $L/L_{\rm Edd}(=f_{\rm Edd})\la 20$. Although a
steady accretion is replaced by strongly fluctuating, episodic
accretion for $f_{\rm Edd} \geq 30$, the time-averaged rate remains close to
the Bondi rate. We discuss the physical interpretation of these
results with a toy model of an optically thick spherical
shell, driven by radiation force from a central source.
\subsection{Hyper-Eddington accretion conditions}
\label{subsec:analytical1}
As we explain in \S\ref{sec:results} (see also \citetalias{Inayoshi2015a}),
the transition to hyper-Eddington accretion occurs when the Bondi radius $R_{\rm B}(\propto M_{\rm BH}T_\infty^{-1})$ is
larger than the size of the H{\sc ii}~region $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$. The latter is estimated by the balance between photoionization and radiative recombination as
\begin{equation}
R_\text{H{\sc ii}}=\left(\frac{3Q_{\rm ion}}{4\pi n_\infty^2\alpha_{\rm B}}\right)^{1/3}, \label{eq:r_hii}
\end{equation}
where $Q_{\rm ion}$ is the mean number of ionizing photons emitted per unit time
and $\alpha_{\rm B}$ is the case B recombination rate.
Since we consider the power-law spectrum with the index of $-1.5$,
we obtain $Q_{\rm ion}=L/(3h\nu_{\rm min})$.
Before the transition occurs, the luminosity is limited to $\sim L_{\rm Edd}$
(see Figs.~\ref{fig:L_mdot} and \ref{fig:mdot1}).
Thus, since $R_\text{H{\sc ii}} \propto L_{\rm Edd}^{1/3}n_\infty^{-2/3}\propto M_{\rm BH}^{1/3}n_\infty^{-2/3}$,
the transition condition of $R_{\rm B}>R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$ is written as equation (\ref{eq:condition})
where we set the temperature within the H{\sc ii}~region to $6\times 10^4~{\rm K}$.
Note that for the evaluation of $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$ we here assume the constant density profile with $n_\infty$
instead of the Bondi density profile, which is actually realized just before the transition.
The resulting value of $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:r_hii} is larger by a factor of a few than the actual value
because equation (\ref{eq:r_hii}) neglects the fact that the density profile has a steep slope
($\rho \propto r^{-\beta}$; $0<\beta<3/2$).
Thus, our assumption of a constant density profile is rather conservative in terms of the conditions for hyper-Eddington accretion.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]
{mdot2.pdf}
\caption{
The effect of radiation force from a constant luminosity source on an initially steady and isothermal Bondi accretion flow.
At $t=0$, we turn on the radiation with $L=10~L_{\rm Edd}$ (red solid) or $L=30~L_{\rm Edd}$ (blue dashed).
In the former case, the accretion rate does not change from the Bondi rate,
while in the latter case, the accretion is shut off by radiation force.}
\label{fig:mdot2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
After the transition, the radiation luminosity from the central BH in certain directions
would be brighter than $\sim L_{\rm Edd}$
\citep[e.g.][]{Ohsuga2005,Sadowski2014,Jiang2014}.
In the standard picture of outflows driven by radiation force with $L>L_{\rm Edd}$,
hyper-Eddington accretion seems unlikely to occur
because radiation force due to electron scattering dominates the BH gravity.
However, in our case, all momentum of the radiation is essentially
absorbed by neutral hydrogen at the edge of the H{\sc ii}~region within a
short mean-free path. As a result, the radiation force,
exerted on the recombination shell near $R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$ is in fact {\em
larger} than that onto ionized gas by a factor of $1/\tau_{\rm e}$,
where $\tau_{\rm e}\sim n\sigma_{\rm T}R_\text{H{\sc ii}}~(\lesssim1)$. On the other
hand, the radiation has no impact outside the H{\sc ii}~region, where rapid hyper-Eddington inflow can develop.
As a result, a large ram pressure is exerted inward at the boundary of the H{\sc ii}~region, which
can significantly exceed the gravity of the BH. Furthermore, the infalling gas can accumulate near
$R_\text{H{\sc ii}}$ and increase the inward gravitational force.
Therefore, the usual calculation of the Eddington limit, which equates radiation force on electrons with the BH's gravity,
must be replaced in our case by a comparison between the (larger) radiation force on the neutral HI
and the (larger) inward ram pressure and gravity.
When the ram pressure dominates the radiation force even after the transition,
a steady hyper-Eddington accretion is maintained.
The stability condition is written as $\dot{M}_{\rm B}|v|>L/c$ at $r=r_\star$
where all radiation is absorbed.
Since the inflow velocity is set to $|v|=(2GM_{\rm BH}/r)^{1/2}$ at $r\geq r_\star$,
we obtain
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm Edd} =\frac{L}{L_{\rm Edd}}\la 11~M_{\rm BH,4}^{3/2}~n_{\infty,5}~T_{\infty,4}^{-3/2}~r_{\star,15}^{-1/2},
\label{eq:ram}
\end{equation}
where $r_{\star,15}=r_\star/(10^{15}~{\rm cm})$. As a conservative
estimate, we set $r_\star=r_{\rm min}(=8\times10^{15}~{\rm cm})$. For
the case with $M_{\rm BH,4}=2$, $n_{\infty,5}=1$ and $T_{\infty,4}=1$,
hyper-Eddington accretion remains stable as long as $f_{\rm Edd}\lesssim10$.
This estimate agrees with our simulation results shown in
\S\ref{sec:results}. In practice, the radiation should emerge from the
photosphere located at a smaller radius, $R_{\rm ph}(<r_{\rm min})$.
Although our simulations do not resolve the photosphere, if we adopt
$R_{\rm ph}\simeq 10^{14}~{\rm cm}$ (shown in Fig. 11 of
\citetalias{Inayoshi2015a}), we find the critical luminosity of
$f_{\rm Edd}\lesssim100$. We discuss this critical luminosity further, using a
simple toy model, in \S\ref{subsec:analytical2} below.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]
{condition1.pdf}
\caption{Summary of three different accretion regimes, occurring for
different values of $f_{\rm Edd}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$. Dashed and solid
lines show the conditions given by Eqs. (\ref{eq:condition}) and
(\ref{eq:ram}) for $n_\infty=10^5~{\rm cm^{-3}}$,
$T_\infty=10^4~{\rm K}$, respectively. For the solid lines, we show
two cases with the central radiation emerging from $r_\star=r_{\rm
min}$ (the inner boundary of the simulations) or from $R_{\rm ph}$
(the expected location of the photosphere). Different symbols mark
simulation runs in which steady hyper-Eddington accretion was
realized (filled circles), accretion became strongly episodic due to
radiation force (open circles), and the transition to
hyper-Eddington flow was suppressed entirely because of radiation
heating and ionization (crosses).}
\label{fig:condition1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We summarize the necessary conditions for hyper-Eddington accretion
in Figs.~\ref{fig:condition1} and \ref{fig:condition2}.
The conditions of equations (\ref{eq:ram}) (solid) and (\ref{eq:condition}) (dashed) are shown
in the $f_{\rm Edd}-M_{\rm BH}$ and $f_{\rm Edd}-n_\infty$ planes, respectively.
For the solid lines, we have set either $r_\star=r_{\rm min}$ or $r_\star=R_{\rm ph}$.
Below the dashed lines, hyper-Eddington accretion is not realized
because of radiation heating and ionization (cross; sub-Edd.).
In the region between the solid and dashed lines,
the hyper-Eddington accretion could occur but a steady state is not achieved
because of radiation force dominating ram pressure and gravity
(open circle; Rad. $>$ Ram.).
Only in the region above those lines, a steady hyper-Eddington accretion is allowed (filled circle; Hyper-Edd.).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]
{condition2.pdf}
\caption{
Same figure as Fig. \ref{fig:condition1} but for $f_{\rm Edd}$ and $n_\infty$.
We set $M_{\rm BH}=2\times10^4~M_{\odot}$ and $T_\infty=10^4~{\rm K}$.
}
\label{fig:condition2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{1D model for a momentum-driven shell}
\label{subsec:analytical2}
In order to understand the physics which allows hyper-Eddington
accretion, we consider a toy model of a geometrically thin, but
optically thick spherical shell around a point source, driven by
radiation force into a rapidly collapsing medium
\citep[e.g.][]{King2003,Kasliwal2005}. The luminosity $L$ of the central
source is assumed constant, and the equation of motion of the shell is given by
\begin{equation}
\ddt{}{t}(M_{\rm sh}\dot{R}_{\rm sh})=\frac{L}{c}-\dot{M}(|v|+\dot{R}_{\rm sh})-\frac{GM_{\rm BH}M_{\rm sh}}{R_{\rm sh}^2},
\end{equation}
where $M_{\rm sh}$ is the mass of the shell, $R_{\rm sh}$ is the distance of the shell from the center,
and $\dot{M}$ and $v$ are the accretion rate and velocity of the gas inflow just outside the shell.
The terms on the right hand side correspond to the outward force exerted on the shell by radiation force,
and the inward forces due to ram pressure of the rapid inflow and the BH's gravity.
We here assume that (i) the shell is optically thick to the UV
(ionizing) radiation and absorbs all incident radiation with
momentum of $L/c$, and that (ii) the entire cloud is effectively
optically thin to the recombination radiation. If the recombination
radiation is efficiently scattered by the neutral shell, that is, if
condition (ii) is invalid, then the radiation is trapped within the
shell (i.e. the neutral shells just outside the H{\sc ii}~region).
Multiple scattering events in this regime would increase the total
radiation pressure force to $\simeq \tau_{\rm scat} L/c$, where
$\tau_{\rm scat}$ is an effective optical depth to scattering. In
our case, HI Rayleigh scattering is negligible, but Ly$\alpha$
scattering would be important because of the high optical depth at
the line center, $\tau_{\rm Ly\alpha}\sim 10^{10}-10^{12}$.
However, before radiation pressure by Ly$\alpha$ affects motion of
the shell, the Ly$\alpha$ photons would be converted to
$2S\rightarrow 1S$ continuum photons and $\sim 1$ eV photons (H$^-$
free-bound transition), to which the shell is optically thin. We
therefore expect our condition (ii) to hold, with an effective
scattering opacity $\tau_{\rm scat}$ at most a factor of a few.
However, future work is needed to investigate the effect of the
trapping of Ly$\alpha$ radiation, its conversion to lower-energy
continuum photons, and the escape of these photons from the clouds.
The growth rate of the shell is given by
\begin{equation}
\ddt{M_{\rm sh}}{t}=\dot{M}\left(1+\frac{\dot{R}_{\rm sh}}{|v|}\right),
\end{equation}
and the initial shell mass is given by
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm sh,0}=\int^{R_{\rm sh,0}}_0 4\pi r^2\rho(r) {\rm d} r,
\end{equation}
where the subscript 0 means the initial value.
For simplicity, we consider two extreme cases for the density profile: a constant density profile
$\rho(r)=\text{const.}$ and the Bondi profile $\rho(r)\propto r^{-3/2}$, with corresponding initial
masses of
\begin{align}
M_{\rm sh,0}=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}\pi R_{\rm sh,0}^3\rho_\infty & \text{for $\rho(r)=\rho_\infty$} \vspace{2mm} ,\\
\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}\pi R_{\rm B}^{3/2}R_{\rm sh,0}^{3/2}\rho_\infty &
\displaystyle\text{for}~\rho(r)=\rho_\infty\left(\frac{r}{R_{\rm B}}\right)^{-3/2}. \label{eq:dens profile}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
We here set $\dot{M}=\dot{M}_{\rm B}$, the free-fall velocity $|v|=(2GM_{\rm BH}/r)^{1/2}$,
$\dot{R}_{\rm sh,0}=0$,
$M_{\rm BH}=2\times10^4~M_{\odot}$, $n_\infty=10^5~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ and $T_\infty=10^4~{\rm K}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm]
{shell1.pdf}
\caption{Time evolution of a geometrically thin, optically thick
shell, driven by the radiation force of a central source into a
rapidly collapsing cloud. The evolution is from a toy model that
incorporates the outward radiation force, as well as the
inward ram pressure and gravitational forces on the shell, initially
located at $R_{\rm sh,0}=R_\text{H{\sc ii}}~(\simeq 1.4\times10^{18}~{\rm
cm})$. Each curve corresponds to the case with both ram
pressure and gravity (red), and with either gravity (blue) or ram
pressure (green) artificially turned off. In each case, the initial density
profile was assumed to be either constant (solid) or to follow the Bondi
profile (dashed; Eq.~\ref{eq:dens profile}). We set
$f_{\rm Edd}=1$, $\dot{M}=\dot{M}_{\rm B}$, $M_{\rm
BH}=2\times10^4~M_{\odot}$, $n_\infty=10^5~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ and
$T_\infty=10^4~{\rm K}$. This shell corresponds to that shown in
phase (i) in Fig.~\ref{fig:hist1}(a).}
\label{fig:shell1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
First, we consider time evolution of a dense shell which initially stalls at
$R_{\rm sh,0}=R_\text{H{\sc ii}}~(\simeq 1.4\times10^{18}~{\rm cm}$)
before the transition to hyper-Eddington accretion occurs, when $L\simeq L_{\rm Edd}$ ($f_{\rm Edd} \simeq 1$).
This shell corresponds to that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hist1}(a) (phase 1).
Fig.~\ref{fig:shell1} shows three cases, in which the ram pressure of the inflowing gas and the BH's gravity on
the accumulated mass of the shell are both included (red), and in which either the gravity (blue) or the ram pressure
(green) are artificially turned off.
Solid (dashed) curves correspond to constant (Bondi) initial density profiles.
As this figure shows, when both ram pressure and gravity are included, the shell radius contracts.
On the other hand, when either of the inward forces are turned off the shell continues to expand, and
never accretes onto the center.
Note that the expansion velocity of the shell is slower for the cases with heavier masses (dashed),
but the choice of the initial shell mass is not important.
Overall, we infer that it is the combination of the ram pressure and gravity
that overwhelms radiation force and yields hyper-Eddington accretion.
The role of ram pressure is found to be somewhat more important (the shell expands faster without ram pressure [green] than without gravity [blue]).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=73mm]
{shell2.pdf}
\caption{
Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:shell1} but for different values of $R_{\rm sh,0}$ and $f_{\rm Edd}$.
The initial shell radii and $f_{\rm Edd}$ are set to (a) $R_{\rm sh,0}=r_{\rm min}~(=8\times10^{15}~{\rm cm})$ and
$f_{\rm Edd}=1$ (red), $10$ (green) and $30$ (blue) or to
(b) $R_{\rm sh,0}=R_{\rm ph}~(\simeq 10^{14}~{\rm cm})$ and $f_{\rm Edd}=100$ (red), $200$ (green) and $300$ (blue).
The initial shell mass is computed for a constant density profile, and the effects of ram pressure and gravity are both included.
}
\label{fig:shell2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Next, Fig.~\ref{fig:shell2}(a) shows the time evolution of a shell initially located at
$R_{\rm sh,0}=r_{\rm min}(=8\times10^{15}~{\rm cm})$, for $f_{\rm Edd}=1$ (red), $10$ (green) and $30$ (blue).
These correspond to the cases after hyper-Eddington accretion is realized in the simulations.
We here estimate the initial shell mass assuming a constant density profile, and
the effects of ram pressure and gravity are both included.
Fig.~\ref{fig:shell2}(a) clearly shows that for $f_{\rm Edd} \la10$, the shell contracts within $20$ yr,
resulting in hyper-Eddington accretion.
This result is in excellent agreement with our simulations and analytical arguments in \S\ref{subsec:analytical1}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:shell2}(b) also shows the case for the initial shell radius of
$R_{\rm sh,0}=R_{\rm ph}(\simeq 10^{14}~{\rm cm})$,
for $f_{\rm Edd}=100$ (red), $200$ (green) and $300$ (blue).
The shell can contract for $f_{\rm Edd}\lesssim100$, which is again in agreement with
the results shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:condition1}~and~\ref{fig:condition2}.
\section{Summary and discussions}
\label{sec:summary}
We have performed one-dimensional radiation hydrodynamical simulations
to solve spherically symmetric accretion flows onto massive BHs with a
very high rate. Our setup extends simulations in our earlier work
\citetalias{Inayoshi2015a}, by allowing the central luminosity to
exceed the Eddington luminosity ($1\la L/L_{\rm Edd} \la 100$). This is
motivated by the possibility of gas accreting with finite angular
momentum, and forming a bright nuclear disc, fed at rates well in
excess of the Eddington rate \citep[e.g.][]{Ohsuga2005,Sadowski2014,Jiang2014,Mckinney2014}.
We find that a transition to hyper-Eddington accretion phase occurs when
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}\ga 5000~\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}=5000~L_{\rm Edd}/c^2,
\label{eq:oldcond}
\end{equation}
(see also equation \ref{eq:condition}).
This condition remains identical to that found by \citetalias{Inayoshi2015a} who
assume that photon trapping effectively limits the emerging luminosity to $\la L_{\rm Edd}$.
However, we identify a new condition, which determines whether the hyper-Eddington accretion is steady,
or strongly episodic. We find that a steady state is maintained
as long as the radiation luminosity from the central source is below a critical value,
\begin{equation}
\frac{L}{L_{\rm Edd}}\la 11~\left(\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{10^4~M_{\odot}}\right)^{3/2}
\left(\frac{n_{\infty}}{10^5~{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right).
\end{equation}
This corresponds to the requirement that the ram pressure of the collapsing medium and the BH gravity on the accumulated mass of the shell
at the edge of the H{\sc ii}~region dominate over the radiation force, i.e. $\dot{M}|v|\gtrsim L/c$
(see equation \ref{eq:ram}).
If the luminosity exceeds this critical value, then a steady
hyper-Eddington phase can not exist, and the accretion instead becomes
episodic. The time-averaged rate still matches the unimpeded Bondi
rate, $\dot{M}_{\rm B}$, provided that the condition in
Eq.~\ref{eq:oldcond} is satisfied.
We summarize the three different types of accretion flows, determined by the above two conditions, in Figs.~\ref{fig:condition1} and \ref{fig:condition2}.
In this paper, we also offered a physical understanding of our simulation results: we showed that the latter can be recovered in a toy model of an optically thick spherical shell, driven by radiation into a collapsing cloud.
Throughout this paper, we have assumed a single power-law radiation spectrum with an index of $\alpha=-1.5$
over a frequency range of $13.6~{\rm eV}\leq h\nu \leq 30~{\rm keV}$ (see equation \ref{eq:power}).
In this case, all of the radiation can contribute to ionization of neutral gas.
However, a realistic spectrum of an accretion disk around a BH would
allows lower energy photons with $h\nu < 13.6~{\rm eV}$ which
can escape without ionizing the accreting gas
(e.g., \citealt{Tanaka2010}).
Thus, assuming a realistic spectrum, but with a fixed total luminosity,
the transition to hyper-Eddington accretion is more likely to occur,
compared to our case.
In our simulations, the photosphere and trapping radius, located at small radii, are not resolved directly.
When the accreting gas has a finite angular momentum, a compact accretion disk should form around the central BH.
Then, anisotropic radiation and/or outflows/jets from the center would break the spherical symmetry of the inflow,
at least in the inner regions. A fully self-consistent treatment of such an accretion flow, which has an anisotropic,
bright source with $L>L_{\rm Edd}$ at the central region, embedded in a quasi-spherical inflow at large radii,
will require multi-dimensional radiation hydrodynamical simulations.
\section{Acknowledgements}
Yuya Sakurai thanks the Columbia University Astronomy Department for
its hospitality during an extended visit, during which this work was
completed. We thank Mark Dijkstra, Jeremiah P. Ostriker and Naoki Yoshida for fruitful discussions.
This work is partially supported by Advanced Leading Graduate Course for
Photon Science (YS), by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (15H00776: YS),
by the Simons Foundation through the Simons Society of Fellows (KI),
and by NASA grants NNX11AE05G and NNX15AB19G (ZH). Numerical
computations were carried out on a PC cluster at the Center for
Computational Astrophysics of the National Astronomical Observatory of
Japan.
\small{ |
\section{Introduction}
Apart from global density and temperature radial profiles,
fundamental information on the physics of the ICM is contained in the
small-scale deviations of the ICM properties from this global
model. Understanding the nature of the perturbations is particularly
important to constrain conduction and viscosity in hot gaseous
atmospheres of galaxies, groups, and clusters and to probe physical
mechanisms driving these perturbations.
Density and temperature perturbations of the ICM are found in
simulations \citep[e.g.,][]{2007ApJ...659..257K,2013MNRAS.428.3274Z,2013MNRAS.432.3030R} and observations \citep[e.g.,][]{1996ApJ...465L...1M}. They reflect the
non-stationary nature of a cluster and can be caused by a variety of
processes, ranging from mergers to radiative cooling of the cluster
gas. Especially rich substructure is found in the cores of relaxed
clusters, where AGN feedback plays a key role
\citep[e.g.,][]{1993MNRAS.264L..25B,2000A&A...356..788C,2000MNRAS.318L..65F,2000ApJ...534L.135M,2002ApJ...567L.115J,2007ApJ...665.1057F}.
The key question is an objective characterization of these
perturbations. Properties of the perturbations not only reflect the
driving mechanisms behind them, but also depend on the microphysics of
the ICM, in particular, on the thermal conduction and viscosity \citep[e.g.,][]{2013ApJ...764...60R,2013A&A...559A..78G,2015ApJ...798...90Z}.
One possible way of revealing the nature of the perturbations is via
measuring the correlation between density and temperature
fluctuations, to construct an effective ``equation of state'' for
the perturbations. For example, a positive correlation between temperature
and density fluctuations suggests that the gas is adiabatically
compressed \citep[e.g.,][]{2004A&A...426..387S}, while a negative
correlation hints at isobaric perturbations, associated with entropy
fluctuations
\citep[e.g.,][]{1996ApJ...472L..17M,2003ApJ...590..225C,2007ApJ...665.1057F}.
Various flavours of such analysis have been done
\citep[e.g.,][]{2001ApJ...549..228S,2004A&A...426..387S,2005A&A...442..827F,2008ApJ...687..936K,2009ApJ...700.1161G,2016ApJ...818...14A,2016MNRAS.458.2902Z,2016A&A...585A.130H}.
Here we discuss a novel technique of manipulating X-ray images of
galaxy clusters to reveal the nature of small-scale
density/temperature perturbations in the ICM.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In \S\ref{sec:tmap} we
discuss a modification of the hardness-ratio technique. We factorize the
hardness ratio map into large-scale and small-scale
maps, using Chandra data on the Perseus cluster for illustration. In the rest of the paper we use
(and further modify) the small-scale component of the hardness ratio. In
\S\ref{sec:em} we predict the response in different energy bands to
linear perturbations of the ICM thermodynamic properties. In
\S\ref{sec:arith} we suggest a way to manipulate X-ray images in order to
suppress a particular type of perturbations and provide illustrative examples in \S\ref{sec:per}. The results are summarized in \S\ref{sec:dis}.
\section{Projected hardness-ratio and temperature maps}
\label{sec:tmap}
Generating projected temperature maps can be straightforwardly done by
partitioning the image into regions with a sufficient number of photon counts,
extracting spectra and then approximating them with a model of
optically thin plasma. This procedure can be much simplified if the
temperature variations are not very large. We describe below two
techniques that provide a quick replacement for an often lengthy direct fitting procedures.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.87\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=
1.0]{tmap_hr_a0426_gy.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Projected temperature and hardness ratio maps ($16'\times16'$) of the Perseus
cluster. {\bf Left:} The temperature map calculated from Chandra
data using the approach described in
\citet{1996ApJ...471..673C}. Small dark spots, e.g., in the
upper-right corner, correspond to background AGNs that were not
excised when constructing the temperature map. Bright yellow patches
near the center are due to low-energy absorption features in
the Perseus core \citep{2000MNRAS.318L..65F}. {\bf Right:} Hardness-ratio map based on
eq.~(\ref{eq:hr}) using the two energy bands 0.5-3.5~ keV and 3.5-7.5~keV.
\label{fig:tmap}
\label{fig:hr}
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.87\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=
1.0]{hr_pt.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Decomposition of hardness ratio $H$ into large-scale $H_g$ and small-scale $H_p$ components, $H=H_gH_p$ [see, eq.~(\ref{eq:hr}) and \S\ref{sec:mhr}]. {\bf Left:} Large scale radial dependence of the hardness ratio $H_g$,
calculated as the ratio of best-fitting beta models for the 0.5-3.5 and 3.5-7.5 keV bands $\displaystyle H_g=\frac{I^0_h(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)}$. {\bf Right:} Small-scale variations of the hardness ratio $\displaystyle H_p=\left(1+\frac{\delta I_h(x,y)}{I^0_h(x,y)}- \frac{\delta I_s(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)}\right)$. The value of $H_p$ characterizes temperature variations, associated with departures from symmetric smooth models. The image has been adaptively smoothed with a boxcar filter. A bright feature close to the nucleus in the right panel is caused by cold gas absorption \citep[see, e.g.,][]{2000MNRAS.318L..65F}. A boxy structure in the top-left corner corresponds to the underexposed area compared to the central region, which is covered with multiple long pointings.
\label{fig:hrpt}
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Taylor expansion of the temperature dependence}
One possible way of quickly constructing a projected temperature map of a cluster \citep{1996ApJ...471..673C} is to make a Taylor
expansion of the plasma emissivity $\epsilon(E,T)$ with respect to
small changes of temperature $T$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon(E,T)\approx \epsilon(E,T_0)+\left.\frac{\partial \epsilon(E,T)}{\partial T}\right |_{T_0}\delta T,
\label{eq:tlin}
\end{eqnarray}
where $E$ is the photon energy, $\delta T=T-T_0$ is a small deviation of temperature from a reference value. The functions of energy in the r.h.s., $\epsilon(E,T_0)$ and
$\displaystyle \frac{\partial \epsilon(E,T)}{\partial T}$, can be easily
generated using the Astrophysical Plasma Emission Code (APEC) \citep{2001ApJ...556L..91S} or the SPEX package \citep{1996uxsa.conf..411K}. In practice, it is convenient to replace $\displaystyle
\frac{\partial \epsilon(E,T)}{\partial T}$ with a ``macroscopic derivative''
$\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon(E,T_2)-\epsilon(E,T_1)}{T_2-T_1}$, where $T_1$ and
$T_2$ are the values of temperature bracketing the expected range of
temperature variations in a given cluster. Then eq.~(\ref{eq:tlin}) can
be re-written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon(E,T)\approx a_1 \epsilon(E,T_1)+a_2\epsilon(E,T_2),
\label{eq:2comp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon(E,T_1)$
and $\epsilon(E,T_2)$ are given and $a_1$ and $a_2$ are the two free
parameters of the model. Fitting the observed spectrum to eq.~\ref{eq:2comp} reduces to a trivial linear
problem that is computationally fast (based on the calculation of the scalar
product of observed counts with reference models $\epsilon(E,T_1)$ and
$\epsilon(E,T_2)$) and can be done in the highest resolution pixels, even if there are only a few
counts in these pixels. Once the maps of $a_1$ and $a_2$ are generated, they can be
(adaptively) smoothed and combined to determine the value of the temperature, which
in the simplest form is
\begin{eqnarray}
T=\frac{a_1T_1+a_2T_2}{a_1+a_2},
\end{eqnarray}
see \citet{1996ApJ...471..673C} for a more accurate version of this
expression, that ensures that the value of $T$ is recovered exactly not only at the boundaries of the $[T_1:T_2]$ interval, but also at $T=(T_1+T_2)/2$. A comparison
with the results of direct fitting has shown that despite the simplicity of the method, the derived values of
temperature are accurate and have similar statistical uncertainty. The
temperature map of the Perseus cluster obtained from Chandra
observations, in this way, is shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:tmap}.
As a caveat, we mention that this procedure assumes that all other
parameters, e.g., abundance of heavy elements or low energy photoelectric absorption,
do not affect the hardness rato. In fact, in the very core of the Perseus cluster there are clear signes of strong low-energy absorption features \citep[see, e.g.,][]{2000MNRAS.318L..65F} that do affect hardness ratio (see text and figures below). In the rest of the paper we ignore the regions that are known to be affected by the low energy absorption.
\subsection{Modified hardness ratio}
\label{sec:mhr}
An even simpler approach is to use hardness-ratio maps, based on the
images in two sufficiently different energy bands, which we designate below as $s$ and $h$, corresponding to energy intervals $[E_{s,1}:E_{s,2}]$ $[E_{h,1}:E_{h,2}]$. Once again, the
assumption that the perturbations are small allows one to rewrite the
expression for the hardness ratio $H$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
H(x,y)=\frac{I_h(x,y)}{I_s(x,y)}=\frac{I^0_h(x,y)\left (1+ \frac{\delta I_h(x,y)}{I^0_h(x,y)} \right )}{I^0_s(x,y)\left (1+\frac{\delta I_s(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)}\right )}\approx \nonumber \\
\frac{I^0_h(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)}\left(1+\frac{\delta I_h(x,y)}{I^0_h(x,y)}- \frac{\delta I_s(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)}\right),
\label{eq:hr}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_h$ and $I_s$ are the projected X-ray images in the
hard and soft band respectively:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{s,h}(x,y)=\int n^2 \Lambda_{s,h}(T) dz, \label{eq:i} \\
\Lambda_{s,h}(T)=\int_{s,h} \epsilon(E,T) dE \label{eq:lam},
\end{eqnarray}
where $n=n(x,y,z)$ is the gas density; the integration in
eq.~(\ref{eq:i}) is over the line of sight (along the $z$ axis), while in
eq.~(\ref{eq:lam}) the integration is over the energy intervals,
corresponding to the $s$ or $h$ bands respectively. $I^0_h$ and $I^0_s$ are suitable simple
models, describing global radial profiles, and $\delta I_h=I_h-I^0_h$ and
$\delta I_s=I_s-I^0_s$ are the deviations of X-ray images from these simple
models. For instance, a $\beta$-model \citep{1978A&A....70..677C}
\begin{eqnarray}
I^0(x,y)=C\left [1+ \left ( \frac{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}{r_c}\right )^2\right ]^{-3\beta+1/2}
\end{eqnarray}
can be used as $I^0_h$ and $I^0_s$. For a cluster with a radial temperature gradient, not only the normalization $C$, but also other parameters, $\beta$ and $r_c$, of the $\beta$-models describing $I^0_h$ and $I^0_s$ may be different.
One can see from eq.~(\ref{eq:hr}) that if $\displaystyle \frac{\delta
I_h(x,y)}{I^0_h(x,y)} \ll 1$ and $\displaystyle \frac{\delta
I_s(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)} \ll 1$, then the calculation of the hardness
ratio can be factorized into two terms $H=H_gH_p$ [see Fig.~\ref{fig:hrpt}), where the first term $\displaystyle H_g=\frac{I^0_h(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)}$ describes a global profile and
the second term $H_p$ [the term in parentheses in eq.~(\ref{eq:hr})]
describes the variations of the hardness ratio associated with
deviations of observed images from the global $I^0_h$ and $I^0_s$
models. This $H_p$ term can be evaluated as the difference between (adaptively) smoothed images $\displaystyle \frac{\delta I_h(x,y)}{I^0_h(x,y)}$ and $\displaystyle
\frac{\delta I_s(x,y)}{I^0_s(x,y)}$.
The resulting hardness ratio $H=H_gH_p$ is shown in the right
panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:tmap}. Of course, if one is interested in the
temperature map, these values of $H$ have to be
converted\footnote{This conversion is straightforward, since the
expected hardness ratio as a function of temperature can be easily
predicted.} to $T$, unlike in the procedure described in the previous
section, where the temperature is obtained directly.
Notice that $H_p$ involves only a division of the data by a smooth
global model. This means that a notorious problem of having noisy
data in the denominator is avoided by a suitable choice of global
models $I^0_h$ and $I^0_s$, subject to the condition that deviations
from these models are small. The implication is that we can avoid
excessive smoothing of observed images needed to suppress noise in the expression $H=I_h/I_s$.
\section{ICM emissivity and projected X-ray images}
\label{sec:em}
In the above section we have factorized the hardness ratio $H=H_gH_p$
into ``global'' and ``perturbed'' parts. Below we use a similar
approach to single out and characterize the properties of the ICM
perturbations on small scales.
As a first step, we want to calculate the variations of the plasma volume emissivity in a given band $\displaystyle f=n^2\Lambda_B(T)$, due to the density and temperature variations. Here the index $B$ corresponds to one of the bands ($s$ or $h$).
For the purposes of this paper, we assume that the gas density $n$
and temperature $T$ distributions in a cluster can be factorized into
an ``unperturbed'' spherically symmetric model ($n_0(r)$ and $T_0(r)$) and
small-amplitude perturbations with respect to this model:
\begin{eqnarray}
n(x,y,z)=n_0(r)\times [1+\delta_n(x,y,z)] \label{eq:pert}\\
T(x,y,z)=T_0(r)\times [1+\delta_T(x,y,z)], \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\displaystyle r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$. We further assume that
the relative perturbations $\delta_n$ and $\delta_T$ are not
independent, but associated with a particular type of
density/temperature perturbation characterized by the correlated changes of both quantities
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\ln T}{d\ln n}\equiv \alpha,
\label{eq:alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
so the relation
between small perturbations $\delta_n$ and $\delta_T$ has the form $\displaystyle
\delta_T=\alpha\delta_n$. Below we interpret perturbations with
different $\alpha$ as perturbations having different effective
equations of state (EoS). Note, that this is not necessarily the EoS in
the thermodynamic sense. By virtue of eq.~(\ref{eq:pert}) we probe
deviations of the gas properties from a smooth global model at a given
position in a cluster. Thus, the effective EoS characterizes the
fluctuations of gas properties for gas lumps located at the same
radial distance from the center (at least for spherically symmetric
models), rather than the changes of the thermodynamic properties of
the same gas lump.
In this language, $\alpha=\gamma-1$, where $\gamma$ is the effective adiabatic index of a perturbation when the pressure-density relation is $P\propto\rho^\gamma$.
For the purpose of this paper, we restrict the set of perturbation types to adiabatic, isobaric and isothermal:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha&= 2/3 &~~ {\rm adiabatic,} ~~\gamma=5/3 \nonumber \\
\alpha&=-1 &~~ {\rm isobaric,} ~~\gamma=0 \\
\label{eq:proc}
\alpha&=0 &~~{\rm isothermal,} ~~\gamma=1. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For example, adiabatic perturbations can be caused by sound waves
(weak shocks) going through the gas. Isobaric perturbations, associated
with entropy variations of the gas lumps in pressure equilibrium with
each other, could be due to slow displacement of fluid elements from
their equilibrium positions (e.g., gravity waves). Apparently ``isothermal''
perturbations could be due to bubbles of relativistic plasma, which
are devoid of X-ray emitting gas; if the pressure of the relativistic
plasma matches the ambient gas pressure, the bubbles will be seen as
X-ray-dim ``cavities'', suggesting a drop of thermal-gas density
without apparent changes in the gas temperature.
As in \S\ref{sec:tmap} we use the APEC model
\citep{2001ApJ...556L..91S} as implemented in XSPEC
\citep{1996ASPC..101...17A} to derive the energy dependent plasma emissivity
$\epsilon(E,T)$, fixing the abundance of heavy elements to 0.4
solar. Unlike eq.~(\ref{eq:lam}), we now specialize the emissivity
$\Lambda_{B}(T)$ in a given energy band $B$ to the \Chandra ACIS-I
instrument. Namely, we convolve $\epsilon(E,T)$ with the ACIS-I
response (including effective area) and then integrate over energy
channels. Examples of the temperature-dependent emissivity $\Lambda_B(T)$ for several representative energy bands are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:epsilon}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1.\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=1.0]{em.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1.\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=1.0]{dlnedlnt2.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{{\bf Left:} X-ray emissivity as a function of temperature. The
emissivity (in arbitrary units) is calculated in half keV wide
bands of ACIS-I (energy increases from top to bottom and is shown in
the legend), using the APEC model of optically thin plasma with the
abundance of heavy elements taken to be 0.4 solar. {\bf Right:} Logarithmic
derivative of the emissivity over temperature $\displaystyle
\frac{d\ln \epsilon_B}{d\ln T}$ for the same set of bands as in the
left panel. Energy increases from bottom to top. As expected, at
temperatures $\ga 2$ keV the emissivity in the soft band (below
$\la$2.5 keV) does not depend on temperature. For harder bands, this
is not true. The dashed horizontal line shows for each band at what
temperature $\displaystyle \frac{d\ln \epsilon_B}{d\ln T} \approx
2$. If this condition is satisfied, then pure isobaric
perturbations will not be visible in this band \citep[][; see Figs, 10 and 11]{2007ApJ...665.1057F}. Note also that for low cluster temperatures ($T\lesssim1.5$~keV), the derivative is negative in the softest (0.5-1.0~ keV) band. This effectively decreases the sensitivity of images in this band to adiabatic to adiabatic perturbations (see eq.~[\ref{eq:ib})].
\label{fig:epsilon}
\label{fig:dlnedlnt}
}
\end{figure*}
We can now predict the relative perturbation $\delta_f$ of the plasma volume emissivity (X-ray flux per cm$^{3}$) $f=n^2\Lambda_B(T)=f_0(1+\delta f)$ in a given \Chandra band $B$ for a particular type of
perturbation, characterized by the parameter $\alpha$ [see eq.~(\ref{eq:alpha})]
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_f&\approx&\left [2+ \frac{d\ln T}{d\ln n} \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}|_{T_0} \right ] \delta_n \nonumber \\
&\approx&\left [2+ \alpha \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}|_{T_0} \right ] \delta_n.
\label{eq:df}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the value $\displaystyle \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}$ is
known for each energy band (see Figs.~\ref{fig:dlnedlnt} and \ref{fig:dlnedlnt_broad}), for a given $\delta n$ the amplitude of the flux perturbations can be predicted for
each type of perturbation, i.e. for different $\alpha$. If the amplitude is
measured in two energy bands $B_1$ and $B_2$ (having different $\displaystyle \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}$) one can construct a linear
combination of the amplitudes that emphasizes (or suppresses)
a particular type of perturbation. The coefficients for such linear combinations can be derived from the expected ratio $R_f$ of fluxes in these two bands
\begin{eqnarray}
R_f= \frac{\delta_{f_2}}{\delta_{f_1}}=\frac{\left [2+ \alpha \left( \frac{d\ln
\Lambda_{B_2}}{d\ln T}\right)|_{T_0} \right ]}{\left [2+ \alpha
\left( \frac{d\ln \Lambda_{B_1}}{d\ln T}\right)|_{T_0} \right ]}.
\label{eq:fratio}
\end{eqnarray}
A particular example of expected ratios for different types of
perturbations is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio} for $B_1=$0.5-3.5~keV
and $B_2=$3.5-7.5~keV.
Of course, observations provide us projected images in different
energy bands, rather than direct measurements of volume
emissivity/flux variations as in eq.~(\ref{eq:df}). Handling projected
images is discussed in the next section.
\subsection{Projected X-ray images}
An observed X-ray image in a given energy band $B$ is the projection of
the volume emissivity along the line of sight
\begin{eqnarray}
I_B(x,y)&=&\int f dz \\
\label{eq:ib}
&=&\int n_0^2 \Lambda_B(T_0) \left (1+\left [2+ \alpha \left( \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}\right) \right ] \delta_n\right ) dz. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For an unperturbed gas distribution, i.e., when $\delta_n=0$, the above
expression provides a smooth model image in each band
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{B}^0(x,y)=\int n_0^2 \Lambda_B(T_0) dz.
\end{eqnarray}
The ratio $J_B(x,y)$ of the observed image to the model image provides the
measure of surface brightness fluctuations relative to the model in a
given band
\begin{eqnarray}
J_B(x,y)=\frac{I_B(x,y)}{I_{B}^0(x,y)}-1.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us consider a small perturbation that is located at $z=z_0$
along the line of sight, and has a small spatial extent $\Delta z$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
J_B(x,y)=\frac{n_0^2(r) \Lambda_B\left (T_0\left (r\right )\right)\delta_n \Delta z \left [2+ \alpha \left( \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}\right)|_{T_0(r)} \right ]}{I_{B}^0(x,y)},
\label{eq:j}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\displaystyle r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z_0^2}$. We now consider several
limiting cases.
If the cluster is globally isothermal, then $T_0(r)={\rm const}$,
$\Lambda_B(r)={\rm const}$ and $\left [2+ \alpha \left( \frac{d\ln
\Lambda_B}{d\ln T}\right)|_{T_0(r)} \right ]={\rm const}$. With
this assumption the ratio of amplitudes $J$ in two bands ($B_1$ and
$B_2$) at any point of the image is simply
\begin{eqnarray}
R(x,y)=R_f,
\label{eq:r}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_f$ is give by eq.~(\ref{eq:fratio}), see also Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio}.
Notice that $R(x,y)$ does not depend on the position or the amplitude of the perturbation and is therefore a direct proxy for $\alpha$ -- the type of the perturbation.
If the cluster is not isothermal, as is the case for typical cool-core
clusters, then the ratio $\displaystyle \frac{J_{B_2}}{J_{B_1}}$ will be position dependent. It is therefore useful to introduce an additional position-dependent
correction $\zeta_B(x,y)$ to eq.~(\ref{eq:j}) to at least partly mitigate the problem
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{J}_B(x,y)=J_B(x,y)\zeta_B(x,y),
\label{eq:rc}
\end{eqnarray}
so that in the ratio $\displaystyle \frac{\tilde{J}_{B_2}}{\tilde{J}_{B_1}}$ the position-dependence approximately cancels out.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1.0\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=1.0]{dlnedlnt3.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The same as in the Fig.~\ref{fig:dlnedlnt}, but for broader energy bands.
\label{fig:dlnedlnt_broad}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1.0\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=1.0]{ratio.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Ratio of fluxes (volume emissivities) for different types of perturbations as
a function of temperature for the 0.5-3.5 and 3.5-7.5 keV bands. The
top curve is for adiabatic perturbations, predicting that the
amplitude is larger in the hard band. The bottom curve is for
isobaric perturbations, in which case the amplitude in the hard
band is lower than in the soft band. In particular, the amplitude
is close to zero in the 3.5-7.5 keV gas at $T\sim2$ keV. At lower
temperatures, the hard-band amplitude even becomes negative,
i.e., increasing density causes the 3.5-7.5 keV flux to drop. The
solid horizontal line corresponds to isothermal perturbations, which produce the same
amplitude in both bands.
\label{fig:ratio}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1.0\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=1.0]{sigma3.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Expected RMS ($\sigma$) of the manipulated image [see eq.~(\ref{eq:x})] with
isothermal perturbations removed. The uncertainty is calculated as
a function of temperature for several pairs of energy bands (see
legend). The optimal choice is achieved when $\sigma$ is lowest. It is clear that for $T\la 1$,
keV the best choice is the pair of images in the 0.5-1.0 and 1.5-2.5 keV
bands. At $T\ga 1$ keV, several other pairs (e.g., 0.5-1.5 and 2.5-7.5 keV or 0.5-3.5 and 3.5-7.5 keV)
are expected to perform better. Note that only the statistical
uncertainty arising from photon counting noise has been considered here.
\label{fig:sigma}
}
\end{figure}
The simplest correction comes from the assumption that the observed
perturbation is located close to the mid-plane of the cluster, i.e.,
at $z_0=0$. In this approximation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta_B(x,y)\propto\frac{I_{B}^0(x,y)}{\Lambda_{B}(T_0(r))}.
\end{eqnarray}
From eq.~(\ref{eq:j}) it is clear that such corrections would recover the
desired property of the ratio $R(x,y)=\displaystyle
\frac{\tilde{J}_{B_2}}{\tilde{J}_{B_1}}$ to be sensitive only to the
value of $\alpha$. Since the perturbations located close to the mid-plane are favoured by the $n^2$ dependence of the gas volume
emissivity, this correction factor is expected to work well. One can
then use $R(x,y)$ as a tool to classify individual perturbations
according to their effective EoS.
Alternatively, one can assume that perturbations are small and
volume-filling (i.e., that they are quasi-uniformly distributed over
the cluster volume) and calculate an averaged correction, weighted
with the $n_0^2$ term to account for the suppression of their contributions
to the image due to projection effects \citep[see,
e.g.,][]{2012MNRAS.421.1123C}. Of course, in this case the
correction factor works only ``on average''. In practice, for
realistic temperature profiles, the two forms of the correction factor are
not very different, because $n_0^2$ term favours perturbtions located close to mid-plane.
\section{Arithmetic with X-ray images}
\label{sec:arith}
\subsection{Energy bands ``free'' from isobaric perturbations}
From eq.~(\ref{eq:df}), it is clear that, if, for a given $T$, the value of
$\displaystyle \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}$ is close
to $2$, then for isobaric perturbations (i.e., $\alpha=-1$) no flux
variations are expected. The dashed horizontal lines in the right panel of
Fig.~\ref{fig:dlnedlnt} and in Fig.~\ref{fig:dlnedlnt_broad} correspond to
$\displaystyle \left( \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}\right)=2$. For
instance, for the gas temperature $T\sim$2 keV the isobaric
perturbations should not be present in the images in the 3.5-7.5 keV
band (see Fig.~\ref{fig:dlnedlnt_broad}). This approach was used by
\citet{2007ApJ...665.1057F} for M87 ($T_0\sim 2$~keV) to avoid contamination of images by
prominent isobaric structures and to reveal quasi-spherical weak shocks
around the nucleus. In principle, for any given gas temperature one can try
to select an appropriate band, but the limited energy band accessible to Chandra makes
it difficult to handle hot clusters.
While it is possible to generate images free of isobaric
perturbations, for isothermal and adiabatic processeses this procedure
will not work\footnote{Note, however, that for $T\sim 1$ keV, the
contribution of adiabatic processes is expected to be severely attenuated in the
very soft energy band, where $\displaystyle \frac{d\ln
\Lambda_B}{d\ln T}$ is negative (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:dlnedlnt}).}. A more promising approach is to combine
two images in different energy bands, as is discussed below.
\subsection{Arithmetic with two images}
\label{sec:a2}
We now combine two flattened images $J_{B_1}$ and $J_{B_2}$ (or corrected images $\tilde{J}_{B_1}$ and $\tilde{J}_{B_2}$) in such a way that perturbations with a given effective EoS of state (i.e., given $\alpha$) are cancelled in the combined image
\begin{eqnarray}
X=c_{B_1}J_{B_1}+c_{B_2}J_{B_2},
\label{eq:x}
\end{eqnarray}
where coefficients $c_{B_1}$ and $c_{B_2}$ satisfy the condition
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{B_1}\left [2+ \alpha_0 \left( \frac{d\ln
\Lambda_{B_1}}{d\ln T}\right) \right ]+c_{B_2} \left [2+ \alpha_0 \left( \frac{d\ln
\Lambda_{B_2}}{d\ln T}\right) \right ] =0,
\label{eq:alpha0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_0$ characterizes perturbations that we wish to remove.
It is useful to impose an additional constraint on $c_{B_1}$ and $c_{B_2}$
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{B_1}\left [2+ \alpha_R \left( \frac{d\ln
\Lambda_{B_1}}{d\ln T}\right) \right ]+c_{B_2} \left [2+ \alpha_R \left( \frac{d\ln
\Lambda_{B_2}}{d\ln T}\right) \right ] =1,
\label{eq:alphar}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_R\ne\alpha_0$ can be chosen arbitrarily. Then the
amplitudes of perturbations having effective an EoS characterized by
$\alpha_R$ will reflect pure density variations associated with this particular type of
perturbation. As is wellknown (see \S\ref{sec:em} and Fig.~\ref{fig:epsilon}), in the soft band (e.g.,
0.5-2 keV) the observed perturbations are largely sensitive to
density perturbations, since the emissivity in this band weakly
depends on temperature.
From eqs.~\ref{eq:j}, \ref{eq:x},
\ref{eq:alpha0}, \ref{eq:alphar}, specializing for simplicity to the
case of an isothermal cluster, i.e., $\displaystyle \frac{n_0^2(r)
\Lambda_{B_1}\left (T_0\left (r\right )\right)}{I_{B_1}^0(x,y)}=
\frac{n_0^2(r) \Lambda_{B_2}\left (T_0\left (r\right
)\right)}{I_{B_2}^0(x,y)}$, the resulting amplitude of
perturbations, characterized by a given $\alpha$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
X=\frac{n_0^2(r) \Lambda_{B}\left (T_0\left (r\right )\right)}{I_{B}^0(x,y)} A_{\alpha} \delta_n \Delta z,
\label{eq:xr}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A_\alpha=\frac{\alpha-\alpha_0}{\alpha_R-\alpha_0}.
\end{eqnarray}
Comparison with eq.~(\ref{eq:j}) shows that in the manipulated image
$X$, the perturbations having $\alpha=\alpha_0$ are suppressed
($A_\alpha=0$), while the perturbations with $\alpha=\alpha_R$ have
$A_\alpha=1$, i.e., their amplitude reflects pure density
variations\footnote{Note, that in eq.~(\ref{eq:j}) the amplitude of flux caused by a pure density perturbation will be factor of 2 higher than in
eq.~(\ref{eq:xr}). This is because we set the r.h.s. of
eq.~(\ref{eq:alphar}) to 1, rather than 2.}. The values of the factor
$A_{\alpha}$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:xr}) for perturbations characterized by $\alpha$ (given
$\alpha_R$ and $\alpha_0$) are calculated in Table~\ref{tab:a}, using
our standard set of values $\alpha=\{2/3,0,-1\}$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Amplitudes of the perturbations in the manipulated images for our choice of $\alpha_0$ (excluded process) and $\alpha_R$ (process with unit amplitude).
\label{tab:a}
}
\begin{tabular}{r | r | r | r | r}
\hline
& & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\alpha$} \\
$\alpha_0$ & $\alpha_R$ & 2/3 & 0 & -1 \\
\hline
& & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Amplitude, $A_\alpha$} \\
2/3 & -1 & 0 & 2/5 & 1 \\
0 & -1 & -2/3& 0 & 1\\
-1 & 2/3 & 1 & 3/5 & 0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Note that the above procedure can eliminate from our images the
perturbations with any given EoS even if several perturbations with
different EoS's are projected on top of each other. On the other hand,
it does not provide an unambiguous identification of the EoS of the
remaining perturbations. One could extract the effective EoS directly from
eq.~(\ref{eq:r}), although in this case, the projection of several
overlapping perturbations makes the interpretation ambiguous.
\subsection{Selection of energy bands}
The selection of reference energy bands is driven by two competing
requirements: (i) to obtain the maximum number of counts in each energy band and
(ii) to separate the energy bands as much as possible to maximize the
difference in their response to different types of perturbations,
i.e., in the quantity $\displaystyle \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}$. Assuming that
only pure photon counting noise is important, it is straightforward to
minimize the expected RMS of the final image $X$, given by eq.~(\ref{eq:x}), for
a particular choice of $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_R$ \citep[see, e.g.,
Appendix in][]{2016MNRAS.458.2902Z} by choosing appropriate energy bands. Since the amplitude of perturbations with $\alpha=\alpha_R$ does not depend on the choice of the energy band, such choice would maximize the signal-to-noise ratio for this type of perturbation.
An example of optimal energy bands,
tuned for removal of isothermal perturbations, is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:sigma}.
\subsection{Cross-power spectra}
\label{sec:cs}
Often a spherically symmetric $\beta$-model is clearly too simple to
describe the radial surface-brightness profile of a cluster, its ellipticity or any other
large-scale asymmetry. One possible way to remove these large-scale
asymmetries is to apply a high-pass filter to the images. In practice, the
simplest recipe is to start with a spherically symmetric $\beta$-model $I_{B}^0$,
divide the image $I_{B}$ by this model, smooth the resulting image and
multiply it back by the original $\beta$-model:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{B}^1(x,y)=S\left [ \frac{I_{B}(x,y)}{I_{B}^0(x,y)}\right]I_{B}^0(x,y).
\end{eqnarray}
Here $S$ is a smoothing operator and $I_{B}^1(x,y)$ is the new global
model of the cluster that includes variations of
the cluster emission of the desired angular size (or larger). Note
that this procedure preserves the global radial trend near the center as
long as the $I_{B}^0$ captures the trend. Of course one can use a more
complicated initial model for $I_{B}^0$, e.g., a double $\beta$-model,
or ellipsoidal models.
The deviations of the surface brightness from the $I_{B}^1(x,y)$ now
contain only the perturbations on scales smaller that the width of
the smoothing filter. It is straightforward to extend this approach to
a fully scale-dependent analysis. Namely, one can calculate power
spectra, $P_1(k)$ and $P_2(k)$, and the cross-power-spectrum $P_{12}(k)$
of the images $J_1$ and $J_2$. Here $k$ is the wavenumber. Once $P_1$
and $P_2$ are corrected for the contribution of the photon counting
noise ($P_{12}$ is free from such noise, because the noise is independent in two images) one can construct two
scale-dependent quantities:
\begin{eqnarray}
C(k)&=&\frac{P_{12}(k)}{\sqrt{P_{1}(k)P_2(k)}},\\
R(k)&=&\frac{P_{12}(k)}{P_{1}(k)}.
\end{eqnarray}
The first quantity, $C(k)$, is the coherence that shows how well
perturbations in one band correlate with perturbations in another
band. $C\approx 1$ means that the perturbations in one
band are linearly related to the perturbations in the other band (with
an arbitrary, but constant proportionality coefficient across the image). In other words, perturbations with one particular effective EoS dominate. The second quantity, $R(k)$, is the
mean proportionally coefficient. If $C\approx 1$, then $R$
gives the coefficient for the dominant EoS [see eq.~(\ref{eq:r})].
If perturbations with
several different EoS's contribute significantly, then $R$ has an
intermediate value among the contributing EoS's.
We also emphasize that if we are interested only in the values of
$C(k)$ and $R(k)$, rather than the absolute normalization of the power
spectra, analysed images can be multiplied by an arbitrary large-scale
weighting function $w(x,y)$ (the same in both energy bands) before the
calculation of the power spectra. ``Large-scale'' in this context
means that we are interested in the values of $C(k)$ and $R(k)$ on
much smaller scales than those characteristic for $w(x,y)$. The use
of such a weighting function might be useful to suppress excessive noise
in the intrinsically faint or underexposed regions of the images.
Thus, by calculating $C(k)$ and $R(k)$ one learns which
type (or types) of perturbations dominate at a given spatial
scale. This approach is useful for characterizing, in an objective way,
many weak structures, unlike the direct manipulation of images that
helps reveal only the most prominent structures directly visible in
the image. Such analysis was done for M87 \citep{2016ApJ...818...14A} and Perseus \citep{2016MNRAS.458.2902Z}.
\subsection{X-ray and SZ images}
The same approaches, outlined above, can be applied to a
combination of X-ray and Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) data. An equivalent of
eq.~(\ref{eq:j}) for SZ is
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{SZ}(x,y)=\frac{\sigma_T}{m_ec^2}\frac{n_0(r)kT_0(r)\delta_n \Delta z \left [1+ \alpha\right ]}{I_{SZ}^0(x,y)},
\label{eq:jsz}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_{SZ}^0(x,y)$ is the model of the global map of the Comptonization parameter; $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson scattering cross section; $k$, $m_e$ and $c$ are the Boltzmann constant, the electron mass and the speed of light, respectively. One can use eq.~(\ref{eq:jsz}) to get an expression for $\displaystyle d_{SZ}=\delta_n \Delta z \left [1+ \alpha\right]$ and do the same for $\displaystyle d_{X}= \delta_n \Delta z \left [2+ \alpha \left( \frac{d\ln \Lambda_B}{d\ln T}\right)|_{T_0(r)} \right ]$ using eq.~(\ref{eq:j}). The relation between $d_{SZ}$ and $d_X$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{X}&=&K d_{sz},~{\rm where} \nonumber \\
K&=&\frac{n_0(r)\Lambda_B\left [T_0(r)\right ]}{\frac{\sigma_T}{m_ec^2}kT_0(r)}\frac{I_{SZ}^0(x,y)}{I_{B}^0(x,y)}.
\label{eq:K}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice, that even for an isothermal cluster the dependence on $r$ does
not cancel out because of the different dependence on $n_0$ of the
X-ray and SZ signals. If, for a prominent feature in the image, the
value of $\alpha$ is already known from X-ray analysis, then this
relation can be used to determine the location $z$, of the feature along the line of sight, since $z$ enters eq.~(\ref{eq:K}) via $r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}$ both in the
r.h.s. and l.h.s. of the equation. Alternatively, if one can make a
guess on $z$, one can generate an X-ray image free from isobaric
perturbations (see \S\ref{sec:a2}) and then directly compare SZ and
X-ray images. This approach can be used to, e.g., differentiate
between the thermal or non-thermal nature of the gas providing pressure
support for AGN-inflated bubbles, or to prove that
pressure perturbations are due to sound waves. In the latter case,
an additional manipulated X-ray image, free from sound waves, will be
useful.
\section{Illustrative examples}
\label{sec:per}
To illustrate the approaches outlined above, we use Chandra observations of the Perseus and M87/Virgo clusters. The advantage of using these data sets is two-fold: (i) these are
the X-ray-brightest clusters in the sky and (ii) many features have already been
identified by detailed analysis \citep[e.g.,][]{1993MNRAS.264L..25B,2000A&A...356..788C,2003MNRAS.344L..43F,2007ApJ...665.1057F,2016ApJ...818...14A,2016MNRAS.458.2902Z}.
The Chandra images of the Perseus cluster in the 0.5-3.5 and 3.5-7.5
keV bands, divided by their respective best-fitting $\beta$-models are
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs}. In the notation of \S\ref{sec:arith},
these are $\tilde{J}_B$ images [see eq.~(\ref{eq:rc})]. Labels in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs} mark several prominent features, which have been
tentatively identified as shocks, bubbles and isobaric structures
\citep[e.g.,][]{2003MNRAS.344L..43F,2016MNRAS.458.2902Z}. Those
identifications are based either on the comparison of X-ray and radio
images or on a detailed spectral analysis.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.99\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=
1.0]{perseus_dbs_2.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{X-ray images ($5'\times 5'$; $\sim 100\times 100$~kpc) of the Perseus cluster core divided by their
respective best-fitting beta-models. Left: 0.5-3.5 keV, right:
3.5-7.5 keV. Labels mark several prominent features, which have been
tentatively identified as shocks, bubbles and isobaric structures \citep[see, e.g.,][]{2011MNRAS.418.2154F}.
\label{fig:dbs}
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.99\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=
1.0]{perseus_xia_3.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Manipulated X-ray images, based on the two images shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs}. These two images were scaled and combined so as to exclude a
particular type of perturbation. Other types of perturbations with
different effective equations of state parametrized by
$\alpha=\frac{d\ln T}{d\ln n}$, will still be
present. In terms of our standard set of possible perturbations
$\alpha=\{3/2,0,-1\}$, the expected amplitudes $A$ are: left panel,
``no shocks'', $A=\{0.0,0.4,1.0\}$; middle panel, ``no bubbles'',
$A=\{-0.7,0.0,1.0\}$; right image, ``no isobaric structures'',
$A=\{1.0,0.6,0.0\}$. One can see that some of the features prominent
in Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs} disappear from one of the
panels, suggesting that the density and temperature fluctuations obey
a particular effective EoS. A feature to the West from the nucleus in the right panel is caused by cold gas absorption \citep[see, e.g.,][]{2000MNRAS.318L..65F}.
\label{fig:xia}
}
\end{figure*}
These images have been combined, using eq.~(\ref{eq:x}), into a new
set of images (Fig.~\ref{fig:xia}) to remove adiabatic, isothermal and
isobaric structures. As expected, proper scaling of relative weights
in a linear combination suppresses the substructures characterized by
a target EoS. The most striking is the case when isobaric structures
are removed (Fig.~\ref{fig:xia} right panel). Those structures
strongly dominate the original images (Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs}), especially
in the softer band, but are completely gone in the manipulated
image. The resulting image clearly shows a very symmetric
figure-8-like feature, which is believed to be due to compressed gas
around growing radio lobes, produced by the central AGN. The
figure-8-like shape is due to projection of two nearly circular
structures on either side of the nucleus. The ``older'' bubbles are
also clearly seen to the North-West and to the South of the
center. While most the above features have been seen before,
Fig.~\ref{fig:xia}, in addition, suggests that there is an envelope of
decreased thermal pressure in between the inner lobes (the
figure-8-like structure) and older bubbles. It likely that this
envelope is due to relativistic plasma occupying a fraction of volume
around the inner lobes.
Another way to characterize the observed fluctuations is to
correlate the amplitudes in $J_1(x,y)$ and $J_2(x,y)$ pixel by pixel directly (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:jcor}). The three lines shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:jcor}
correspond to the expected correlation between fluxes in the soft and hard bands for adiabatic, isothermal
and isobaric fluctuations, respectively. As is clear from this figure, all large
positive perturbations correspond to isobaric perturbations (blue
line). In the original images (Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs}), those perturbations
correspond to the prominent spiral-like structure. At the same time,
large negative deviations follow an isothermal EoS. These perturbations
correspond to X-ray cavities (radio bubbles), visible in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs} as dark patches.
To study smaller-amplitude perturbations that are too weak to be identified
individually (given the noise in the image), a cross-spectrum approach
(\S\ref{sec:cs}) is a better option to characterize the mean
correlation between the perturbations. Moreover, scale-dependent
nature of the cross-spectrum analysis helps avoid the impact of larger-scale asymmetries on the
resulting correlations. This approach was followed for the Perseus
cluster by \citet{2016MNRAS.458.2902Z} and for M87 by
\citet{2016ApJ...818...14A} and confirmed that isobaric perturbations
dominate the overall energy budget associated with perturbations.
Since all three manipulated images in Fig.~\ref{fig:xia} are shown in
the same color scale, one can immediately see that in terms of
variance, isobaric fluctuations clearly dominate. However, in order to
estimate the energy associated with the perturbations one has either
to assume a particular geometry, as was done for bubbles in many
studies, or to assume that the power spectrum of the
perturbations in 3D is isotropic. In the latter case, the power
spectrum analysis recovers the correct normalization of the 3D power
spectrum and can be used to estimate the total energy in the
perturbations \citep[see][for
details]{2016ApJ...818...14A,2016MNRAS.458.2902Z}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1.0\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=1.0]{jcor.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Correlation between amplitudes of perturbations in the hard
and soft bands for X-ray images of the Perseus cluster. Three lines show expected dependence for
adiabatic, isothermal and isobaric perturbations. Clearly, large
positive deviations correspond to isobaric perturbations (cool and
dense structures), while large negative deviations are almost
isothermal (bubbles). For this figure a $16'\times16'$ image was used,
i.e. larger than the images shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs}.
\label{fig:jcor}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.99\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=
1.0]{m87_dbx_2.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{X-ray images ($16'\times 16'$; $\sim 75\times 75$~kpc) of the M87 core divided by their
respective best-fitting $\beta$-models \citep[see, e.g.,][]{2005ApJ...635..894F,2007ApJ...665.1057F}. Left: 0.5-3.5 keV, right:
3.5-7.5 keV. Similar images have already been shown in \citet{2016ApJ...818...14A}. Here we present them again to facilitate comparison with manipulated imaged of M87, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xia_m87}.
\label{fig:dbs_m87}
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.99\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim= 0mm 0cm 0mm 0cm, width=1\textwidth,clip=t,angle=0.,scale=
1.0]{m87_xia_3.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Manipulated X-ray images, based on the two images shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs_m87}. The procedure used to generate the
manipulated images is the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:xia}. Since the
characteristic temperature in M87 ($T\sim 2$~keV) is lower than in
Perseus, the 3.5-7.5 keV image by itself is expected to be free from
isobaric perturbations (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio}). As the result the
manipulated image in the right panel looks similar to the original
3.5-7.5 keV image in Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs_m87}.
\label{fig:xia_m87}
}
\end{figure*}
Fig.~\ref{fig:dbs_m87} and \ref{fig:xia_m87} show a similar analysis for
M87 images. As discussed by \citet{2007ApJ...665.1057F} the 3.5-7.5
keV band image of M87 (Fig.\ref{fig:dbs_m87}, right) by itself
provides a projected thermal pressure map (more accurately, projected
square of the pressure). From Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio} it is clear that for
the characteristic gas temperature in M87, $T\sim 2$~keV, the response to
isobaric perturbations in this energy band is indeed close to zero.
It is therefore not surprising that the manipulated image free from
isobaric perturbations (Fig.\ref{fig:xia_m87}, right) look very
similar to the original 3.5-7.5 keV band image.
Inspection of Figs.~\ref{fig:xia} and \ref{fig:xia_m87} suggests that,
in terms of the density perturbation amplitude, the isobaric structures
dominate, followed by bubbles (may still be isobaric, but with a
significant contribution to pressure from either relativistic
particles or very hot gas) and weak shocks. Such a hierarchy is best explained
in a ``slow'' AGN feedback scenario, when much of the mechanical
energy output of a central black hole is captured by the bubble
enthalpy that is gradually released during buoyant rise of the bubble
\citep[e.g.,][]{2000A&A...356..788C,2000ApJ...534L.135M}.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{sec:dis}
We have presented a set of methods that help reveal the
(thermodynamic) nature of the gas perturbations, observed in relaxed
galaxy clusters. A modified hardness-ratio approach separates global
variations of the projected temperature and small-scale
substructure. As a result one can avoid excessive noise in the
hardness-ratio maps, since a division of observed images, which are
often noisy, is replaced by a subtraction of properly scaled images. An
extension of the same technique to the ``image arithmetic'' works best
for prominent structure and for datasets with excellent statistics,
visualizing the perturbations with a given effective equation of
state. For a global statistical characterization of many small
perturbations, the cross-power-spectrum approach is more appropriate
\citep[see][for details]{2016ApJ...818...14A,2016MNRAS.458.2902Z}. All
the methods that have been proposed are easy to implement and
computationally fast.
The above analysis makes two main simplifying assumptions. Firstly, we
assume that one can make a good guess about the ``unperturbed''
analytic model, since perturbations are calculated relative to this
model. If the perturbations are on small scales, then an equivalent
assumption is that the unperturbed model is very smooth on the same
scales. Secondly, it is assumed that all perturbations have small
amplitudes, so all terms of order $\displaystyle \delta_n^2$ can be
neglected. While there are always modest departures from these
assumptions, the comparison of the manipulated images with the radio
data and with the results of detailed spectral analysis suggests that
this approach successfully classifies the types of perturbations and
helps to reveal their nature.
\FloatBarrier
\section{Acknowledgements}
EC acknowledges support by grant No. 14-22-00271 from the Russian Scientific Foundation. WF and CJ acknowledge support from NASA contract NAS8-03060 and the Smithsonian Institution. PA acknowledges support from Fondecyt grant 1140304
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{s.intro}
The origins of dark matter (DM) and the large matter-antimatter asymmetry in the present universe are two of the biggest mysteries in fundamental physics.
For DM, an attractive scenario is provided by the ``thermal WIMP freeze-out'' paradigm,
where a quick estimate shows that the present-day abundance of stable particles of a weak-scale mass would roughly agree with observation if the particles were once in equilibrium with the particles of the Standard Model (SM) and then decoupled from the SM bath as they underwent annihilation into some lighter particles via an interaction of weak-force strength \cite{Lee:1977ua}.
The existence of such weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) is an attractive possibility as it only assumes a mass scale that is already known to exist and is being actively explored at the LHC, and an interaction strength that is comfortably perturbative but not unnaturally small.
Moreover, a variety of theories addressing the electroweak hierarchy problem explicitly predict WIMPs with potentially diverse lifetimes.
Much attention has also recently been drawn to the apparent coincidence of the baryon and DM abundances, $\Omega_\text{B} \sim \Omega_\text{DM}$, which may be suggesting a common origin for cosmic baryons and DM.
With all these motivations, it is quite desirable to construct a mechanism of baryogenesis in which a WIMP and its thermal freeze out play a crucial role.
The WIMP-triggered baryogenesis scenario proposed by Cui and Sundrum~\cite{Cui:2012jh} provides a robust such mechanism.
(For other baryogenesis mechanisms using thermal WIMPs, see Refs.~\cite{McDonald:2011zza, Cui:2011ab, Davidson:2012fn}.)
The idea is neat and simple.
Consider a WIMP (different from a DM WIMP) that is meta-stable and decays to SM quarks in a baryon-asymmetric manner, with a lifetime so long that the decay occurs well after its freeze-out.
Being a WIMP, the meta-stable WIMP has a freeze-out abundance similar to that of the DM WIMP
and thereby leads to $\Omega_\text{B} \sim \Omega_\text{DM}$---nicely in agreement with observation---if we assume an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ CP violation and ignore the difference between the QCD and weak scales.%
\footnote{It is fortunate that the QCD and weak scale are only a couple of orders of magnitude apart, although this proximity of the two scales is admittedly not explained.}
In addition, the simplest realization of this scenario has a structure that almost calls for the embedding of the model into a supersymmetric (SUSY) extension of the SM with an R-parity violation (RPV)~\cite{Cui:2012jh, Cui:2013bta}.
(We will also see this in \Sec{lagrangian}.)
Since the production of baryon asymmetry from the decays of meta-stable WIMPs occurs at temperatures much below the weak scale, such supersymmetric theories are safe from the washout of baryon asymmetry by RPV decays/scatterings of squarks~\cite{Cui:2012jh, Cui:2013bta}, unlike those with conventional baryogenesis mechanisms in which baryon asymmetry is generated at much higher scales.
It can also have a distinct collider phenomenology, in particular in displaced vertex search channels, offering us the opportunity to directly probe this baryogenesis mechanism at the LHC~\cite{Cui:2014twa}.
On the other hand, the growing null results from direct/indirect/collider WIMP searches make it increasingly more likely that WIMPs, if they exist, are completely devoid of SM gauge interactions.
In the context of DM only, such a ``hidden'' WIMP scenario may have no hope of being experimentally probed except through cosmological measurements such as those of the matter power spectrum and/or cosmic microwave background spectra ~\cite{Chacko:2015noa, Chacko:2016kgg}.
This would especially be the case in the absence of the ``extra'' particles provided by SUSY\@.
In this paper, however, we point out that the prospect for probing a hidden WIMP sector is quite bright in the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis scenario.
Essentially, the reason for this is that a WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism cannot be completely hidden---even if the WIMPs themselves are hidden---because it must somehow connect to baryons to make baryogenesis happen.
We thus expect some inevitable signatures at hadron colliders.
In particular, we will see that the simplest hidden-sector realization of WIMP-triggered baryogenesis contains new colored and electrically charged scalars $\phi$ in addition to WIMPs.
The baryogenesis mechanism requires $\phi$ to couple to the meta-stable WIMP and a SM quark.
Hence, $\phi$ can be pair-produced from gluons or from quarks in association with a pair of meta-stable WIMPs.
The purpose of this paper is to highlight a variety of experimental signatures involving $\phi$, the WIMPs, and a mediator $S$ responsible for setting the freeze-out abundances of the WIMPs. These particles are all integral components of the mechanism.
First, in \Sec{baryo}, we present the structure of the simplest hidden-sector realization of WIMP-triggered baryogenesis and work out constraints from the observed baryon abundance in the universe.
In \Sec{phi_pheno}, we discuss an extremely rich array of possible decay modes of $\phi$, including displaced multi-jet and displaced multi-top/bottom quark productions.
A more exotic possibility is the production of two separate sets of isolated emerging jets connected by a charged track.
We also point out that di-nucleon decay is a powerful probe into the physics of $\phi$.
In \Sec{diphoton}, we study the resonance $S$, focusing on its particularly clean decay channel to $\gamma\ga$, which is necessarily generated at 1-loop via the loop of $\phi$.
In \Sec{WIMPs}, we look at the direct production of the WIMPs. Since the WIMPs responsible for baryogenesis are not stable, they can decay within the LHC detector if their lifetimes are sufficiently short. The decay products involve $\phi$ and thus inherit the rich $\phi$ phenomenology.
These signals---some of them could appear simultaneously, some other are mutually exclusive---can provide us with nontrivial pieces of information on the structure of the theory of WIMP-triggered baryogenesis such as the mass spectrum and flavor structure.
\Sec{colliderpheno} will cover various cases where such experimental probes may be possible.
In some cases, it may even be possible to make quantitative connections between the collider measurements and the cosmic baryon abundance.
\section{The WIMP-triggered baryogenesis}
\label{s.baryo}
Here we review the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism proposed in~\cite{Cui:2012jh} and write down a concrete model that realizes the scenario.
Our model is very similar to the one in~\cite{Cui:2012jh} up to some minor modifications. However, unlike in~\cite{Cui:2012jh} where the purpose of the model is to provide an ``existence proof'' of the mechanism,
we would like to argue that the model is not merely an example that works but actually is a robust, representative realization of the scenario. Thereby, we wish to provide a strong motivation for its collider signatures as experimental probes for the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism.
\subsection{The field content and Lagrangian}
\label{s.lagrangian}
We begin by assuming the existence of a meta-stable WIMP $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ (in addition to an absolutely stable DM WIMP $\chi_0^{\phantom.}$) that is completely neutral under the SM gauge group.%
\footnote{It should be noted, however, that the mechanism does clearly allow the possibility that DM is not a WIMP so the existence of $\chi_0$ is logically optional, although our philosophy here is to provide a unified story of DM and baryogenesis.}
Since $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ is meta-stable and no longer present in the universe today,
direct or indirect WIMP detection experiments do not constrain the properties of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$. However,
the null results of those experiments so far makes it increasingly more motivated to consider the case where the DM WIMP, $\chi_0^{\phantom.}$, possesses no SM gauge interactions.
Then, it is natural to take the meta-stable WIMP, $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$, to be also a SM-gauge singlet, as the underlying philosophy of the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism is to associate a single framework with both the DM abundance and baryon asymmetry.
As we will see below, the WIMP sector also needs a third WIMP, $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$, in order to have a CP-violating interference in the $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ decay (as necessary for baryogenesis). It is amusing to note that the WIMP sector consists of three generations of matter just like the SM\@.
The possibility of such WIMP sector well shielded from the SM sector is especially robust if the WIMPs are spin-$1/2$ fermions.
If the WIMPs are scalars, the symmetries that allow a WIMP mass term, $\chi^\dag \chi$, would necessarily also allow a renormalizable quartic interaction $\chi^\dag \chi H^\dag \! H$ with the SM higgs doublet $H$.
On the other hand, if the WIMPs are spin-$1/2$ fermions,
gauge invariance allows only one renormalizable interaction $H\ell \chi$,
where $\ell$ is an SM lepton doublet.
But $H\ell \chi$ can easily be forbidden by a global symmetry
(e.g., a $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ under which all SM lepton fields ($\ell$ and $e^\mathrm{c}$) are odd),
thereby separating the WIMPs from the SM particles completely at the renormalizable level.
If the WIMPs have a spin higher than $1/2$, that could also naturally explain the separation of the WIMPs from the SM sector, but it would come with the whole baggage of a symmetry breaking sector to give mass to the WIMPs. Therefore, as in \cite{Cui:2012jh},
we consider the minimal possibility that the WIMPs are spin-$1/2$, SM-gauge neutral, Majorana fermions described by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}_\chi =
\mathrm{i} \chi_i^\dag {\bar{\sigma}} \!\cdot\! \partial \chi_i^{\phantom{\dag}}
-\fr{m_{\chi_i^{\phantom.}}}{2} (\chi_i^{\phantom.} \chi_i^{\phantom.} + \mathrm{c.c.})
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
with three SM-gauge singlet, 2-component spinors $\chi_{0,1,2}^{\phantom.}$.
Next, we need to introduce a mediator particle $S$ through which the WIMPs annihilate into lighter particles before their number density freezes out.
Since it couples to a pair of the SM-gauge singlet fermionic WIMPs, $S$ has to be a SM-gauge singlet boson. Letting $S$ carry spin-1 or higher would require an additional higgs sector to give mass to $S$, thereby significantly complicating the model for no reason.
Therefore, the simplest possibility is that $S$ is a real scalar described by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}_S = \fr12 (\partial S)^2 - \fr{m_S^2}{2} S^2
\,.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
As we will see below, $S$ automatically acquires couplings to $gg$ and $\gamma\ga$ at 1-loop,
offering a particularly clean di-photon signal to be searched for at the LHC\@.
After the annihilation process through $S$ freezes out,
$\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ must decay in a way that violates CP and baryon number.
In order to maintain the attractive assumptions behind the thermal WIMP freeze-out framework, we do not wish to introduce any mass scale other than the weak scale.
Our lagrangian should thus only contain weak-scale mass terms and dimensionless gauge/Yukawa couplings.
Hence, $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ must couple to a fermion and a boson.
This fermion has to be an SM quark to introduce the (violation of) baryon number to the story.%
\footnote{\label{ftnote:leptogenesis}%
Leptogenesis is also a possibility in principle but then the leptogenesis would have to be complete before the electroweak sphaleron ceases to be active,
which would thus require the $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ decay temperature to be above the weak scale and hence the freeze out temperature $T_{\text{\tiny F}}$ even higher.
We can prevent $m_{\chi_1}$ from being even more far away from the weak scale by
having the mediator $S$ sufficiently heavy and/or have small couplings so that $T_{\text{\tiny F}} \sim m_{\chi_1}$ \cite{Cui:2013bta}, but this would make $S$ inaccessible at the LHC\@.
In this paper, we thus focus on a ``direct'' baryogenesis scenario,
which can be realized with weak-scale $m_S$ and $m_{\chi_1}$.}
Then, since $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ is a SM-gauge singlet,
the boson has to carry the same gauge charges as the SM quark.
It thus has to be a new particle, which we call $\phi$.
The boson $\phi$ should then subsequently decay to a pair of SM quarks such that
the three SM quarks coming out at the end of the $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ decay chain have a nonzero net baryon number.
We assume $\phi$ is a scalar, again because otherwise we would need an additional higgs sector to generate its mass.
However, the existence of a new particle with a weak-scale mass that couples to a quark is dangerous as it would generically induce excessive flavor violating processes in the quark sector. As we will discuss later, the simplest symmetry solution to this problem is to have three generations of $\phi$, i.e., we have
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}_\phi = |\mathrm{D} \phi_i|^2 - m_{\phi_i}^2 \phi_i^{\dag} \phi_i^{\phantom.}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
with $i=1,2,3$ and, for definiteness, we take the gauge charges of $\phi$ to be $(\mathbf{3}^*, \mathbf{1})_{-2/3}$, i.e.,
the same as the right-handed up-type squark in a supersymmetric theory.
This choice is not unique and we will make comment on other choices later whenever it is possible to do so without too much digression.
It is interesting to note that we again have three generations of matter fields.
It is also intriguing that the existence of three generations of $\phi$ is readily compatible with a supersymmetric embedding of our model where the three $\phi$ scalars are literally the three right-handed up-type squarks. See Refs.~\cite{Cui:2012jh, Cui:2013bta} for further supersymmetric explorations of the scenario.
Now, we are ready to write down the interactions that are essential to our discussions (non-essential interactions will be discussed later):
\beqa{2}
{\mathcal L}_\text{int}
&=\,&&
-\fr12 S (y_{i}^{\phantom.} \chi_i^{\phantom.} \chi_i^{\phantom.} + \mathrm{c.c.})
-(\lambda_{i} \, \phi^\dag u^\mathrm{c} \chi_i^{\phantom.} + \mathrm{c.c.})
\\& &&
-\kappa \, S \phi^\dag \phi
-(\gamma \phi d^\mathrm{c} d^\mathrm{c} + \mathrm{c.c.})
\,,\eql{interactions}
\end{alignedat}\end{equation}
where $u^\mathrm{c}$ and $d^\mathrm{c}$ are the up- and down-type anti-quark fields of the SM\@.
The gauge and flavor indices are implicit except for the $\chi$ flavor, $\chi_i^{\phantom.}$ ($i=0,1,2$).
Without the $\lambda_i$ couplings, the Lagrangian would have three $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ symmetries, $\mathbbm{Z}_2^{(i)}$ ($i=0,1,2$) under which $\chi_i^{\phantom.}$ is odd and everything else even.
Since $\chi_0^{\phantom.}$ has to be stable to constitute DM,
we assume $\mathbbm{Z}_2^{(0)}$ is exact and hence $\lambda_0 = 0$ exactly.
On the other hand, we want $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ to be meta-stable,
so we assume that $\mathbbm{Z}_2^{(1)}$ is slightly broken by a tiny, nonzero value of $\lambda_1$.
We do not assume $\mathbbm{Z}_2^{(2)}$ at all as
there is no need for $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ to be stable or meta-stable.
The $y_{0,1}^{\phantom.}$ couplings are (partly) responsible for setting the abundances of $\chi_{0,1}^{\phantom.}$ (before $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ decays).
The decay rate of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ is given at the tree level by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}
= \fr{9 \, |\lambda_1|^2 \, m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} }{16\pi}
\!\left( 1 - \fr{m_\phi^2}{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}^2} \right)^{\!\! 2},
\eql{Gamma_chi1}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where the $9$ is due to the 3 colors and 3 generations of $u^\mathrm{c}$ and $\phi$.%
\footnote{We have evidently assumed that the flavor of $\phi$ is perfectly correlated with that of $u^\mathrm{c}$. We have also assumed that $\lambda_1$ is flavor independent. Justifications of these assumptions will be discussed around \eq{MFVrelations}.}
The mass of $u^\mathrm{c}$ has been neglected for simplicity.
In order for $\chi_1$ to decay well after its freeze-out and well before big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), we must demand that
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{g_{*\text{\tiny BBN}}} \fr{T_\text{\tiny BBN}^2}{M_*} \ll \Gamma_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} \ll \sqrt{g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}} \fr{T_{\text{\tiny F}}^2}{M_*}
\,,\eql{lambda1window}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $g_{*\text{\tiny BBN}} = 10.75$ is the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom right before BBN begins at $T = T_\text{\tiny BBN} \sim 1\>\text{MeV}$, while $g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}$ is its counterpart at the time of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ freeze-out at $T=T_{\text{\tiny F}}$. The scale $M_*$ is the combination of numbers that frequently appears in cosmology:
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
M_* \equiv \!\left( \fr{8\pi G_\text{N}}{3} \fr{\pi^2}{30} \right)^{\!\! -\frac12} \!
\simeq \fr{M_\text{P}}{1.66}
\,,\eql{M*}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $M_\text{P}$ denotes the Planck mass, $1.22 \times 10^{19}\>\text{GeV}$.
From~\eq{Gamma_chi1} and~\eq{lambda1window}, we clearly see that we must have $|\lambda_1| \ll 1$,
which we attribute to a weakly broken $\mathbbm{Z}_2$ as we discussed above.
The allowed window~\eq{lambda1window} is comfortably wide; it is about six-orders-of-magnitude wide since, as $T_{\text{\tiny F}}$ turns out to be about $1/20$ of $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} \sim 1\>\text{TeV}$ for a typical WIMP.
As mentioned above, $\lambda_2$ needs not be small and we assume $|\lambda_2| \sim {\mathcal O}(1)$.
(It is amusing to note that the three generations of $\chi$ fermions with hierarchical $\lambda_{0,1,2}$ are reminiscent of the SM fermions with hierarchical Yukawa couplings.)
Most importantly,
the phase in the product $\lambda_1^* \lambda_2^{\phantom.}$ cannot be removed by field redefinition,
thereby providing a source of CP violation necessary for baryogenesis
(which is the sole reason for the existence of $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$).
Ignoring the mass of $u^\mathrm{c}$ for simplicity,
the fraction of CP violation $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ is given at the one-loop level by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\ep_\text{\tiny CP}
&\equiv
\fr{\Gamma_{\chi_1 \to \phi+\wba{u}^\mathrm{c}} - \Gamma_{\chi_1 \to \phi^* + u^\mathrm{c}}}
{\Gamma_{\chi_1 \to \phi+\wba{u}^\mathrm{c}} + \Gamma_{\chi_1 \to \phi^* + u^\mathrm{c}}}
\\
&=
\fr{1}{8\pi}
\fr{\Im\!\bigl[ (\lambda_1^* \lambda_2^{\phantom.})^2 \bigr]}{|\lambda_1|^2}
\sqrt{x_1 x_2} \,
\bigl( f(x_1, x_2) + g(x_1, x_2) \bigr)
\,,\eql{epCP}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $x_i \equiv m_{\chi_i^{\phantom.}}^2 / m_\phi^2$ and
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
& f(x_1, x_2) = \fr{1}{2(x_1 - x_2)} \!\left( 1 - \fr{1}{x_1} \right)^{\!\! 2} ,
\\
& g(x_1, x_2)
\\
&=
\Cases{
&\fr{1}{x_1} - \fr{x_1 + x_2 - 2}{(x_1 - 1)^2} \log\fr{x_1 (x_1 + x_2 - 2)}{x_1 x_2 - 1}
&&\>\text{if $x_2 > 1$,}
\\
&\fr{x_1 x_2 - 1}{x_1 (x_1 - 1)} - \fr{x_1 + x_2 - 2}{(x_1 - 1)^2} \log x_1
&&\>\text{if $x_2 < 1$.}
}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
The function $f(x_1,x_2)$ comes from a self-energy diagram while $g(x_1,x_2)$ comes from a vertex correction diagram.
Needless to say, we have $x_1 > 1$ so that $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ can decay to $\phi$.
We have assumed that $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}$ and $m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}}$ are not similar
so that we never hit the singularity in $f(x_1,x_2)$.%
\footnote{We do not consider the fine-tuned case $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} \simeq m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}}$ that could resonantly enhance $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ as in ``resonant leptogenesis''~\cite{Pilaftsis:2003gt}.
Since $|\lambda_1| \ll |\lambda_2| \sim 1$, such degeneracy would not even be stable under renormalization group running.
Any attempt to justify $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} \simeq m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}}$ by a symmetry would have to confront the breaking of that symmetry by $|\lambda_1| \ll |\lambda_2|$.}
Notice that the small magnitude of $\lambda_1$ (required by the metastability of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$) does not affect the size of $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ at all.
Thus, with an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ phase of $\lambda_1^* \lambda_2^{\phantom.}$
and an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ magnitude of $\lambda_2$,
and with all the masses around the weak scale,
we see that a ``typical'' size of $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ is ${\mathcal O}(10^{-2})$.
The $\kappa$ coupling in~\eq{interactions} cannot be forbidden by any symmetry that allows the $y_1$ coupling. The $y_1$ coupling is necessary for mediating the annihilation of $\chi_1$.
One might think that the $\lambda_1$ coupling could also mediate the annihilation of $\chi_1$ into $u^\mathrm{c}$ via $t$-channel $\phi$ exchange, which would be more economical because it would not need $S$.
However, the condition~\eq{lambda1window} forces $\lambda_1$ to be too small to give rise to a large enough annihilation rate.
We therefore need the mediator $S$ and coupling $y_1$.
Once $y_1$ is introduced, no symmetry can forbid $\kappa$.
One annihilation channel of $\chi_1$ is then given by $\chi_1\chi_1 \to \phi\phi^*$ via an $s$-channel $S$ involving both the $y_1$ and $\kappa$ couplings.
We also see that the $\kappa$ coupling necessarily gives rise to $S \to gg$ and $S \to \gamma\ga$ via a loop of $\phi$, predicting the existence of a clean di-photon signal to be searched for at the LHC\@.
Since $\kappa$ is a relevant coupling allowed by symmetry, its significant presence does not require any further justification as its effects grow at low energies. Rather, we must make sure that it is not too large. In particular, the strong attractive force between $\phi$ particles mediated by $S$ exchange should not cause $\phi$ to condense in the vacuum and spontaneously break the $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ color and $\mathrm{U}(1)$ electromagnetism gauge symmetries. Noting that $\phi$ has 3 colors and comes in 3 generations, such strong coupling limit would correspond to $\kappa^2 / m_S^2 \lesssim 16\pi^2 / 3^2$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\fr{\kappa}{m_S} \lesssim \fr{4\pi}{3}
\,.\eql{kappa_bound}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
We adopt this as our theoretical upper bound on $\kappa$.
(Without loss of generality, we have taken $\kappa$ to be positive by absorbing its sign into $S$.)
The $\gamma$ coupling in~\eq{interactions} is responsible for $\phi$ decay,
which quickly converts the CP asymmetry~\eq{epCP} into a baryon asymmetry.
For example, the decay chain $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \to \phi + \wba{u}^\mathrm{c} \to \wba{d}^\mathrm{c} + \wba{d}^\mathrm{c} + \wba{u}^\mathrm{c}$ increases the baryon number by one.
It is important to do this in ``two steps'' with an on-shell intermediate $\phi$,
because the imaginary part in~\eq{epCP} arises from a region of the loop momentum space where the $\phi$ in the loop goes on-shell.
If we instead only have an off-shell $\phi$, a CP asymmetry could still be generated but only as an interference between tree and 1-loop diagrams for a \emph{3-body} decay.
That would lead to much smaller $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ and make baryogenesis much harder, although it is possible \cite{Cui:2013bta, Monteux:2014hua}.
We thus assume that $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ can decay to $\phi$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
m_\phi < m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}
\,.\eql{mphi:upperbound}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
For various checks ensuring the baryon asymmetry thus produced not to be washed out, see~\cite{Cui:2012jh}.
Each of $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, and $\gamma$ has implicit quark and $\phi$ flavor indices.
Since all observations of quark flavor violation so far are consistent with SM predictions, any flavor-dependent new physics at the weak scale must have a flavor structure quite akin to the flavor structure of the SM\@.
That means that the new physics must respect, to a very good approximation, the property of the SM that the $\mathrm{SU}(3)_q \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_u \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_d$ flavor symmetry is only violated by the $Y_u$ and $Y_d$ Yukawa coupling matrices.
In other words, minimal flavor violation (MFV)~\cite{Chivukula:1987py, Hall:1990ac, Buras:2000dm, D'Ambrosio:2002ex} must hold to a good approximation.
The minimal way to incorporate MFV in the $\lambda_{1,2}$ and $\gamma$ couplings is to have three generations of $\phi$ that form a flavor multiplet transforming like $u^\mathrm{c}$ under the $\mathrm{SU}(3)^3$ quark flavor symmetry of the SM\@.
MFV then dictates that the leading flavor structures should be given (at least to a good approximation) by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
m_\phi^2 \propto \mathbbm{1}
\,,\quad
\lambda_{1,2} \propto \mathbbm{1}
\,,\quad
\kappa \propto \mathbbm{1}
\,,\quad
\gamma \propto \epsilon Y_u Y_d Y_d
\,,\eql{MFVrelations}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $\mathbbm{1}$ is an identity matrix in the $\mathrm{SU}(3)_u$ flavor space,
while $\epsilon$ is a 3d Levi-Civita tensor that contracts the three $\mathrm{SU}(3)_q$ indices from $Y_u Y_d Y_d$.
So, $\gamma$ has three implicit flavor indices, i.e.,
one $\mathrm{SU}(3)_u$ index from $Y_u$ and two $\mathrm{SU}(3)_d$ indices from $Y_d Y_d$.
In the $\gamma \phi d^\mathrm{c} d^\mathrm{c}$ interaction, those indices of $\gamma$ are contracted with the one $\mathrm{SU}(3)_u$ and two $\mathrm{SU}(3)_d$ indices of $\phi$ and $d^\mathrm{c} d^\mathrm{c}$, respectively.
Writing the flavor indices explicitly, we thus have
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}_\text{int} \supset
\gamma \phi d^\mathrm{c} d^\mathrm{c}
=c \epsilon^{ijk} (Y_u)_i^{~a} (Y_d)_j^{~p} (Y_d)_k^{~q} \, \phi_a^{\phantom.} d^\mathrm{c}_p d^\mathrm{c}_q
\,,\eql{basis_free}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $c$ is an overall multiplicative free parameter, $i,j,k$ are $\mathrm{SU}(3)_q$ indices, $a$ is an $\mathrm{SU}(3)_u$ index, and $p,q$ are $\mathrm{SU}(3)_d$ indices.
Without loss of generality, we can go to a basis where
$Y_d = y_d \equiv \mathrm{diag}\,(m_d/m_b, m_s/m_b, 1)$ and
$Y_u = V^\dag y_u \equiv V^\dag \, \mathrm{diag}\,(m_u/m_t, m_c/m_t, 1)$,
where $V$ is the CKM matrix.
Then, the $\gamma$ couplings become
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\gamma \phi d^\mathrm{c} d^\mathrm{c}
=c \epsilon^{ijk} V^*_{ai} \,
(y_u)_a^{\phantom.} (y_d)_j^{\phantom.} (y_d)_k^{\phantom.} \,
\phi_a^{\phantom.} d^\mathrm{c}_j d^\mathrm{c}_k
\,.\eql{basis_fixed}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Since $c$ is a free parameter,
there is no loss of generality in our normalization conventions, $(y_u)_{33} = (y_d)_{33} = 1$.
The existence of three generations of $\phi$ and their MFV couplings%
\footnote{\label{ftnote:decoupled_phi_12} In principle, it is possible to decouple $\phi_{1,2}$ (i.e., the right-handed sup and scharm) while keeping $\phi_3$ (the right-handed stop) light
by including a formally higher order term in the MFV expansion as $m_\phi^2 \propto \mathbbm{1} - a Y_u^\dag Y_u$,
where $a$ is an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ coefficient chosen such that $(\mathbbm{1} - a Y_u^\dag Y_u)_{33} \ll 1$.
We do not consider this possibility,
not only because it is fine tuned in the absence of an underlying model that predicts the value of $a$,
but also because such decoupling is not sufficient to solve the supersymmetric flavor problem anyway~\cite{ArkaniHamed:1997ab}.}
clearly indicate that a supersymmetric extension of our model would be that of the ``R-parity violating MFV SUSY''~\cite{Csaki:2011ge} augmented by the WIMPs and $S$.
In such supersymmetric extension, the normalization convention $(y_u)_{33} = (y_d)_{33} = 1$ would actually be realized in the large $\tan\beta$ limit.
Finally, a complete list of all other renormalizable operators allowed by gauge symmetry and $\mathbbm{Z}_2^{(0)}$ is
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
& S \,,\quad
S^3 \,,\quad
S^4 \,,\quad
\chi_1^\dag \bar{\sigma} \!\cdot\! \partial \chi_2^{\phantom.} \,,\quad
\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_2^{\phantom.} \,,\quad
S \chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_2^{\phantom.} \,,
\\
& S^2 \phi^\dag \phi \,,\quad
S H^\dag H \,,\quad
S^2 H^\dag H \,,\quad
\phi^\dag \phi H^\dag H
\,.\eql{extras}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
We adjust the coefficient of the $S$ term such that $\langle S \rangle = 0$.
This does not cause any loss of generality,
because we already have all the couplings (e.g., $\chi\chi$, $S\phi^\dag \phi$) that can be redefined to absorb a nonzero $\langle S \rangle$.
The three couplings that mix $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ and $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ can be naturally tiny as they are odd under $\mathbbm{Z}_2^{(1)}$,
which is only slightly broken as required by the meta-stability of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$.
For example,
if we have none of those three couplings at tree level but have a tiny, nonzero $\lambda_1$ and an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ $\lambda_2$ (because we absolutely need them),
then the coefficient of $\chi_1^\dag \bar{\sigma} \cdot \partial \chi_2^{\phantom.}$ generated at 1-loop would be of order $\sim 9\lambda_1 \lambda_2 / 16\pi^2$, which is minuscule and leads to no consequences worthy of further consideration.
The $S H^\dag H$ coupling in~\eq{extras} leads to the mixing of $S$ with the SM higgs boson $h$ after electroweak symmetry breaking.
If this mixing is sizable, it can mediate direct annihilation of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ into SM state.
This is phenomenologically a viable possibility and it was already considered in~\cite{Cui:2012jh}.
Here, adhering to the picture of a hidden WIMP sector, we consider the case where the $S H^\dag H$ coupling is small and does not play a relevant role.
The consistency of this assumption can be seen by setting those couplings to zero at tree level and seeing how large their counter-terms need to be at loop level,
using the couplings that are already established to exist.
The largest contribution to the $S H^\dag H$ counter-term would come from a two-loop diagram
where an $S$ becomes a pair of $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ that become a pair of $t^\mathrm{c}$ by exchanging a $\phi$, and then the $t^\mathrm{c}$ pair becomes an $H$ pair by exchanging a $q_3^{\phantom.}$.
Renormalization at a scale of ${\mathcal O}(1)$ TeV thus requires an $S H^\dag H$ counter-term of order $\sim 3y_2 |\lambda_2|^2 |y_t|^2 m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} / (16\pi^2)^2 \sim 10^{-4}\>\text{TeV}$.
This then implies that a natural size of the $S$-higgs mixing angle is given by $10^{-4}\>\text{TeV} \, v / m_S^2$
where $v \simeq 246\>\text{GeV}$ is the SM higgs vacuum expectation value.
Hence, the annihilation of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ into SM particles via the $h$-$S$ mixing induced by $S H^\dag H$ is highly suppressed.
We thus ignore the $S H^\dag H$ coupling hereafter.
Such reasoning also implies that the $S^3$ coupling can naturally be loop-suppressed. The $S^4$, $S^2 \phi^\dag \phi$, $S^2 H^\dag H$, and $\phi^\dag \phi H^\dag H$ couplings are simply irrelevant for our analyses below.
\subsection{The baryon abundance}
\label{s.abundance}
Let us find the region in the parameter space that gives the observed baryon asymmetry.
We start with a general formulation without recourse to any specific annihilation channels, and then identify the range of viable parameter space of our model.
By assumption, long before the $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ particles begin to decay,
they go through a standard WIMP thermal freeze-out process, resulting in a ``would-be'' relic of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$.
Denoting the $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$-$\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ annihilation cross section by $\sigma$ and the relative speed between the annihilating $\chi_1$'s by $v$,
the freeze-out temperature $T_{\text{\tiny F}}$ can be estimated from
the instantaneous freeze-out approximation, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\text{\tiny F}} \, n_{\text{\tiny F}}
\simeq H_{\text{\tiny F}}
= \sqrt{g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}} \, \fr{T_{\text{\tiny F}}^2}{M_*}
\,,\eql{freezeout}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\text{\tiny F}} \equiv \langle \sigma v \rangle\bigr|_{T = T_{\text{\tiny F}}}$,
$H_{\text{\tiny F}} = H\bigr|_{T = T_{\text{\tiny F}}}$,
$n_{\text{\tiny F}}$ is the $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ number density at the freeze-out,
$g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}} \sim 100$ is the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom at the time of freeze out,
and $M_*$ is defined in~\eq{M*}.
Then, the $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$'s decay with the CP asymmetry $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ and generate a baryon asymmetry as described in \Sec{lagrangian}.
The mass density $\rho_\text{\tiny B}^\text{eq}$ of baryons at the time of matter-radiation equality is thus given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\rho_\text{\tiny B}^{\text{eq}} = m_\text{p} \ep_\text{\tiny CP} n_{\text{\tiny F}} \fr{a_{\text{\tiny F}}^3}{a_\text{eq}^3}
\,,
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $m_\text{p}$ is the proton mass (neglecting the tiny difference between the proton and neutron masses),
and $a_{\text{\tiny F}}$ and $a_\text{eq}$ are the scale factors of the universe at the freeze-out and the matter-radiation equality, respectively.
The ratio $a_{\text{\tiny F}}^3 / a_\text{eq}^3$ is then equal to $g_{*{\text{\tiny S}},\text{eq}} T_\text{eq}^3 / g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}} T_{\text{\tiny F}}^3$ by co-moving entropy conservation,
where $g_{*{\text{\tiny S}},\text{eq}} = 2 + \frac78 \cdot 3 \cdot 2 \cdot \frac{4}{11}$.
Then, since the sum of baryon and DM mass densities at the matter-radiation equality must by definition be equal to the photon+neutrino energy density, we obtain
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
(1 + R) m_\text{p} \ep_\text{\tiny CP} n_{\text{\tiny F}}
\fr{g_{*{\text{\tiny S}},\text{eq}} T_\text{eq}^3}{g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}} T_{\text{\tiny F}}^3}
= \fr{\pi^2}{30} g_{*\text{eq}} T_\text{eq}^4
\,,\eql{matter=radiation}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $R \simeq 5.4$ is the observed mass density ratio of DM to baryon abundance,
$g_{*\text{eq}} = 2 + \frac78 \cdot 3 \cdot 2 \cdot \!\left( \frac{4}{11} \right)^{\! 4/3}$.
Combining the condition~\eq{matter=radiation} with~\eq{freezeout} to eliminate $n_{\text{\tiny F}}$, we find
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\text{\tiny F}}
\simeq
(1+R) \ep_\text{\tiny CP}
\fr{m_\text{p}}{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}}
\cdot
\fr{30}{\pi^2}
\fr{g_{*\text{\tiny S},\text{eq}}}{g_{*\text{eq}} \sqrt{g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}}}
\fr{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}}{T_{\text{\tiny F}}}
\fr{1}{M_*T_\text{eq}}
\,,\eql{xsec}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where we see that, compared to the standard thermal WIMP DM cross section (i.e., the expression after the ``$\,\cdot\,$'' in \eq{xsec}),
we need a smaller cross section by the factor of $\ep_\text{\tiny CP} m_\text{p} / m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}$
so that we get an over-abundance of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ to counter the suppressions due to $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ and $m_\text{p} / m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}$.
The above expression still contains one unknown ratio, $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} / T_{\text{\tiny F}}$.
To obtain this ratio, we substitute the thermal equilibrium density for $n_{\text{\tiny F}}$ in~\eq{matter=radiation}, which gives
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\fr{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}}{T_{\text{\tiny F}}}
&\simeq
\log r + \fr32 \log(\log r)
\,,\\
r
&\equiv \fr{2}{(2\pi)^{3/2}} \fr{30}{\pi^2}
\fr{g_{*{\text{\tiny S}},\text{eq}}}{g_{*\text{eq}} g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}}
(1+R) \ep_\text{\tiny CP} \fr{m_\text{p}}{T_\text{eq}}
\,,\eql{TF}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where higher order terms involving more logarithms have been neglected.
The required over-abundance of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ compared to a thermal WIMP DM abundance should mean a higher freeze-out temperature than the DM case.
Indeed, using $R=5.4$ and $T_\text{eq} = 0.79\>\text{eV}$ from observations~\cite{Ade:2015xua},
the expression~\eq{TF} gives $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} / T_{\text{\tiny F}} \simeq 17$ for $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}=10^{-2}$ and $g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}} = 100$, which should be compared to $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} / T_{\text{\tiny F}} \sim 27$ for a thermal WIMP DM\@.
Combining~\eq{xsec} and~\eq{TF}, we get
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\text{\tiny F}}
&\simeq
6 \times 10^{-8} \>\text{TeV}^{-2} \cdot \fr{\ep_\text{\tiny CP}}{10^{-2}} \fr{\>\text{TeV}}{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}} \fr{10}{\sqrt{g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}}}
\,,\eql{sigmav:goal}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where we have neglected the logarithmic dependences on the ratios of the parameters to their ``benchmark'' values, such as $\log(\ep_\text{\tiny CP} / 10^{-2})$.
This is the cross section we need in order to obtain the observed amount of baryon asymmetry.
Now, let us calculate $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ in our model.
We have the following three possible annihilation channels, excluding those via higgs-$S$ mixing as it is assumed to be small in our model as we discussed in \Sec{lagrangian}.
Possibility (i) is $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_1^{\phantom.} \to \phi\phi^*$ via an $s$-channel $S$ exchange, which is always allowed kinematically because of \eq{mphi:upperbound}.
We can also have
(ii-a) $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_1^{\phantom.} \to SS$ with a $t$-channel $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$
and (ii-b) $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_1^{\phantom.} \to SS$ with an $s$-channel $S$,
if kinematically allowed.
Finally, we have (iii) $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_1^{\phantom.} \to \chi_{0,2}^{\phantom.} \chi_{0,2}^{\phantom.}$ via an $s$-channel $S$ if kinematically allowed.
The amplitude for (i) is $\propto y_1 \kappa$,
those for (ii-a) and (ii-b) are $\propto y_1^2$ and $\propto y_1 \times \text{(the $S^3$ coupling)}$, respectively,
and that for (iii) goes as $\propto y_1 y_{0,2}$.
All channels can lead to a successful WIMP-triggered baryogenesis.
However, since the purpose of this paper is to explore collider probes of the WIMP baryogenesis mechanism, we focus on the case where channel (i) dominates.
Since $S$ acquires couplings to $gg$ and $\gamma\ga$ via $\phi$ loops,
the coupling $\kappa$ involved in channel (I) can be independently measured at the LHC from $gg \to S \to \gamma\ga$. We can also use the process $gg \to S \to \chi_1 \chi_1$ to extract the coupling $y_1$. Then, we will be able to test whether these couplings are indeed responsible for generating the correct freeze-out abundance of $\chi_1$.
It is easy to see that channel (i) is realized in a significant portion of the parameter space.
First, we can simply have $m_{\chi_1} < m_S$ so that (ii-a) and (ii-b) are kinematically forbidden for non-relativistic $\chi_1$.
Even if they are kinematically allowed, (ii-b) can easily be subdominant to (i) since the $S^3$ coupling can be loop-suppressed as we have discussed in \Sec{lagrangian}.
Since the amplitudes for (i) and (ii-a) are proportional to $y_1 \kappa$ and $y_1^2$, respectively, (i) can also dominate over (ii-a) if, for example, $\kappa \sim m_S \sim m_{\chi_1} \sim {\mathcal O}(1)\>\text{TeV}$ and $|y_1| \ll 1$.
For (iii),
the annihilation into $\chi_2^{\phantom.} \chi_2^{\phantom.}$ can be made subdominant by having $y_2$ small or can simply be kinematically forbidden by assuming $m_{\chi_2} > m_{\chi_1}$.
Similarly, the $\chi_0\chi_0$ channel can be removed if we just assume $m_{\chi_0} > m_{\chi_1}$.
(Or, $\chi_0$ simply does not exist and DM is unrelated to WIMP-triggered baryogenesis.)
Thus, there certainly exists a large region where the $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_1^{\phantom.} \to \phi\phi^*$ channel dominates, which is the region we focus on hereafter.%
\footnote{\label{ftnote:decoupling}We do not consider the the fine-tuned possibility that $m_\phi$ is so close to $m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}$ that the phase space for $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_1^{\phantom.} \to \phi\phi^*$ is almost closed.
Not only is it highly tuned but such a case would also generate a highly suppressed $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ (see~\eq{epCP}), which would in turn require a much larger over-abundance of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$, rendering the whole story less plausible.}
The spin-averaged cross section of $\chi_1^{\phantom.} \chi_1^{\phantom.} \to \phi\phi^*$ in the nonrelativistic limit of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$,
away from the resonance region $m_S \approx 2m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}$,
is given by:
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\sigma
= \sigma_0 \!\left( \fr{\sin^{2\!}\delta_1}{v_\chi} + v_\chi \cos^{2\!} \delta_1 \right)
,\eql{xsec:chichi->phiphi}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $v_\chi$ is the speed of $\chi_1{\phantom.}$ in the center-of-momentum (CM) frame
and the $\delta_1$ is the phase in the coupling $y_1$ defined through $y_1 =|y_1| \mathrm{e}^{i\delta_1}$.
The first and second terms above describe the $s$-wave (from the pseudo-scalar coupling) and $p$-wave (from the scalar coupling) contributions, respectively, as evident from their $v_\chi$ dependences.
The overall scale $\sigma_0$ of the cross section is given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\sigma_0 =
\fr{9 |y_1|^2\kappa^2}{512\pi m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}^4} \,
\fr{\sqrt{1 - m_{\phi}^2 / m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}^2}}
{\!\left(1 - m_S^2 / 4m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}^2 \right)^{\! 2}}.
\eql{sg0}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where the origin of the $9$ is the same as in~\eq{Gamma_chi1}.
Thermally averaging the cross section~\eq{xsec:chichi->phiphi} then gives
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\text{\tiny F}}
= 2\sigma_0 \!\left( \sin^{2\!}\delta_1 + \fr{3T_{\text{\tiny F}}}{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}} \cos^{2\!} \delta_1 \right).\eql{sigmav}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Here $3 T_{\text{\tiny F}} / m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}} \simeq 3/17 \approx 1/6$, so the $p$-wave contribution is not as suppressed as it would be for a thermal WIMP DM\@.
Putting the numbers in, we get
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\langle \sigma v \rangle_{\text{\tiny F}}
\sim \sigma_0
\simeq
5 \times 10^{-8} \>\text{TeV}^{-2}
\!\left( \fr{|y_1| \kappa}{3 \!\times\! 10^{-3} \>\text{TeV}} \right)^{\!\! 2} \!
\fr{\>\text{TeV}^4}{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}^4}
\,,\eql{sigmav:ourprediction}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where we have assumed a generic ${\mathcal O}(1)$ $\delta_1$ and also dropped $m_\phi^2$ and $m_S^2$ in~\eq{sg0} for the purpose of estimation.
Equating~the required cross section~\eq{sigmav:goal} and our model's prediction~\eq{sigmav:ourprediction}, we find that the right baryon abundance is generated if
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\!\left( \fr{|y_1| \kappa}{3 \times 10^{-3} \>\text{TeV}} \right)^{\!\! 2}
\!\left( \fr{1 \>\text{TeV}}{m_{\chi_1^{\phantom.}}} \right)^{\!\! 3}
\sim \fr{\ep_\text{\tiny CP}}{10^{-2}} \fr{10}{\sqrt{g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}}}
\,,\eql{right-abundance}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $\ep_\text{\tiny CP}$ is given by~\eq{epCP} and $g_{*{\text{\tiny F}}}$ can be calculated once we determine $T_{\text{\tiny F}}$ from~\eq{TF}.
\section{Collider probes of WIMP-triggered baryogenesis}
\label{s.colliderpheno}
\subsection{The $\phi$}
\label{s.phi_pheno}
As we have seen, the scalar $\phi$ plays an essential role in the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism.
Being colored and electrically charged, $\phi$ can be copiously produced at both hadron and lepton colliders,
providing us with experimental probes into the mechanism.
\subsubsection{Di-nucleon decay constraints/signals}
As we mentioned earlier, the $\phi$ scalars can be regarded as the right-handed up-type squarks in the R-parity violating MFV SUSY model~\cite{Csaki:2011ge}.
Ref.~\cite{Csaki:2011ge} performs a comprehensive analysis of constraints on the couplings~\eq{basis_fixed}
from indirect measurements, i.e., those without relying on direct production of $\phi$.
The study concludes that the strongest such constraint comes from di-nucleon decay,
which requires the masses of the right-handed up-type squarks to be $\gtrsim 400\>\text{GeV}$ for $\tan\beta \sim 40$,
where the bound depends sensitively on the precise value of poorly known hadronic matrix elements appearing in the di-nucleon decay process.
Therefore, for $c \sim 1$, the region $m_\phi \gtrsim 400\>\text{GeV}$ is not excluded.
But this indicates that di-nucleon decay can offer a powerful probe on our scenario in the future if the uncertainties on the hadronic matrix elements are reduced significantly.
\subsubsection{Collider constraints/signals}
To analyze the collider phenomenology of $\phi$,
we need to know the dominant interaction in~\eq{basis_fixed} for each of $\phi_{1,2,3}$.
Since $m_d / m_b$ is smaller than the severest suppression $\sim \lambda^3$ from CKM mixing (where $\lambda \simeq 0.225$ is the Cabibbo angle),
it is always better in~\eq{basis_fixed} to have $i=1$ and pay a Cabibbo suppression than having $j=1$ or $k=1$, no matter what $a$ is.
Thus, the dominant terms in the right-hand side of~\eq{basis_fixed} are
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
& 2c \fr{m_s}{m_b} \Bigl(
V^*_{11} \fr{m_u}{m_t} \, \phi_1^{\phantom.}
+ V^*_{21} \fr{m_c}{m_t} \, \phi_2^{\phantom.}
+ V^*_{31} \, \phi_3^{\phantom.}
\Bigr) b^\mathrm{c} s^\mathrm{c}
\\
&= c \bigl(
6 \times 10^{-7} \phi_1^{\phantom.}
+ 8 \times 10^{-5} \phi_2^{\phantom.}
+ 4 \times 10^{-4} \phi_3^{\phantom.}
\bigr) b^\mathrm{c} s^\mathrm{c}
\,,\eql{phi-bs}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where we have extracted relevant measurements from \cite{Agashe:2014kda}.
At hadron colliders, $\phi$ can easily be pair produced from $gg$ at tree level via QCD interactions.
The couplings~\eq{phi-bs} show that we can also resonantly produce a $\phi$ from $bs$.
This indeed does occur at the LHC and can lead to an interesting phenomenology~\cite{Kilic:2011sr, Monteux:2016gag}, although
it is suppressed by the small $\phi b^\mathrm{c} s^\mathrm{c}$ couplings and
the small $b$-quark PDF\@.
Once (pair-)produced, the subsequent decay chain
of $\phi$ crucially depends on whether it is lighter or heavier than $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$.
(Recall that $\chi_1$ is heavier than $\phi$ (see Eq.~\eq{mphi:upperbound}).
So, let's look at those two cases separately:
\underline{{\bf Case 1:} $m_\phi < m_{\chi_2}$}\\
In this case, $\phi$ can only decay to down-type SM quarks through the $\phi d^\mathrm{c} d^\mathrm{c}$ interaction. Then,
the expression~\eq{phi-bs} tells us that all species of $\phi$ dominantly decay to a $b$-jet and a light jet without any $\slashed{E}_\T$.
For $c \sim 1$ and $m_\phi \sim 400\>\text{GeV}$, $\phi_2$ and $\phi_3$ clearly decay promptly at collider time scales,
while the $\phi_1$ decay is barely prompt with a lifetime of $\sim 10^{-13}$~s.
Then, there are two sub-cases of Case 1 depending on whether $\phi$ decays promptly or not:
\textit{\underline{{Case 1-a:} Prompt $\phi$ decay}}\\
Since $\phi$ carries an electric charge,
it would have been pair-produced at the LEP experiment if sufficiently light, and
the ALEPH collaboration has placed a limit $m_\phi > 82.5\>\text{GeV}$~\cite{Heister:2002jc}.
At the Tevatron, the CDF collaboration has excluded the region $50\>\text{GeV} < m_\phi < 125\>\text{GeV}$~\cite{Aaltonen:2013hya}.
At the LHC,
the regions $100\>\text{GeV} < m_\phi < 315\>\text{GeV}$ and $200\>\text{GeV} < m_\phi < 385\>\text{GeV}$ have been excluded by the ATLAS~\cite{Aad:2016kww} and CMS~\cite{Khachatryan:2014lpa} collaborations, respectively.
The most recent ATLAS study~\cite{ATLAS:2016sfd} excludes the regions $250\>\text{GeV} < m_\phi < 405\>\text{GeV}$ and $445 \>\text{GeV} < m_\phi < 510\>\text{GeV}$.
We therefore conclude that, if $m_\phi < m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}}$ and $\phi$ decays promptly,
the regions $405\>\text{GeV} < m_\phi < 445 \>\text{GeV}$ and $m_\phi > 510\>\text{GeV}$ are currently allowed.
\textit{\underline{{Case 1-b:} Displaced $\phi$ decay}}\\
The bounds are much severer in this case, due to the generally lower SM background for long-lived particle searches.
Ref.~\cite{Liu:2015bma} shows that for the decay length of a few $100\>\mu\mathrm{m}$,
the bound is $m_\phi \gtrsim 500\>\text{GeV}$. For the decay lengths of order 1~mm to 10~cm,
the lower bound exceeds $900\>\text{GeV}$.
The bound drops to about $600\>\text{GeV}$ around the decay length of a few m,
and then again rises to $\sim 900\>\text{GeV}$ once the decay length exceeds the size of the LHC detectors, $\sim 10$~m.
\underline{{\bf Case 2:} $m_\phi > m_{\chi_2}$}\\
In this case, since $\lambda_2 \sim {\mathcal O}(1)$ to generate a sizeable CP asymmetry,
$\phi_{1,2}$ promptly decay as $\phi_{1,2} \to \bar{u}_{1,2} \chi_2^{\phantom.}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1} \to \bar{u} \chi_2^{\phantom.}
\,,\quad
\phi_{2} \to \bar{c} \chi_2^{\phantom.}
\,.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
On the other hand, $\phi_3$ promptly decays as
\beqa{3}
\phi_3 &\to \bar{t} \chi_2^{\phantom.}
&&\quad\text{if~}
m_\phi > m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!+ m_t
\,,\\
\phi_3 &\to \bar{b} W^- \chi_2^{\phantom.}
&&\quad\text{if~}
m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!< m_\phi < m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!+ m_t
\,,
\end{alignedat}\end{equation}
where the second case proceeds through an off-shell $\bar{t}$.
Since $\lambda_2 \sim {\mathcal O}(1)$, all of these decays occur promptly.
Subsequently,
the $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ decays as
\beqa{3}
\chi_2^{\phantom.}
&\to
tbs \text{~or~} \bar{t} \bar{b} \bar{s}
&&\quad\text{if~}
m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!> m_t
\,,\\
\chi_2^{\phantom.}
&\to
cbs \text{~or~} \bar{c} \bar{b} \bar{s}
&&\quad\text{if~}
m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!< m_t
\,,
\end{alignedat}\end{equation}
where the first case proceeds through an off-shell $\phi_3^{\phantom.}$ or $\phi^*_3$
while the second through an off-shell $\phi_2^{\phantom.}$ or $\phi_2^*$.
Due to its small coupling~\eq{phi-bs}, $\phi_1$ does not come into play here.
The $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ decay rate is given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \simeq
\fr{|\lambda_2|^2 \xi^2}{512\pi^3} \fr{m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}}^5}{m_\phi^4}
\,,
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $\xi = 4\times 10^{-4} c$ if the decay proceeds through an off-shell $\phi_3$,
or $\xi = 8\times 10^{-5} c$ if through an off-shell $\phi_2$.
For simplicity,
the masses of the final-state fermions as well as higher order terms in $m_{\chi_2} / m_\phi$ have been neglected.
Numerically, the above expression yields
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}}^{-1} \sim
10^{-13}~\mathrm{s} \cdot
\fr{10^{-8}}{|\lambda_2|^2 \xi^2}
\!\left( \fr{m_\phi}{400\>\text{GeV}} \right)^{\! 4}
\!\left( \fr{200\>\text{GeV}}{m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}}} \right)^{\!\! 5}
.\eql{chi2-decay}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
We thus see that whether $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ is prompt or displaced depends very sensitively on the masses of $\phi$ and $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$,
so both cases must be considered:
\textit{\underline{Case 2-a: $m_\phi > m_{\chi_2}$ with well separated $m_\phi$ and $m_{\chi_2}$}}\\
This is the generic case within Case 2.
At colliders, $\phi$ is dominantly pair produced.
Resonant production of a single $\phi$ does occur and is interesting~\cite{Kilic:2011sr, Monteux:2016gag}, but it is suppressed by the small $\phi b^\mathrm{c} s^\mathrm{c}$ couplings~\eq{phi-bs} and
the small $b$-quark parton distribution function (PDF\@).
Based on the above discussion on the decay modes of $\phi_i$ and $\chi_2$,
we find the following full event topology for collider searches:
\begin{itemize}
\item{
From $\phi_{1,2}$ pair production we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A)]{$jj (jbt) (jb\bar{t})$ or $\ldots t \ldots t$ or $\ldots \bar{t} \ldots \bar{t}$
~if $m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!> m_t$,%
}
\item[(B)]{$jj (jbc) (jbc)$
~if $m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!< m_t$,%
}
\end{itemize}
where $j$ stands for a light jet, $b$ stands for a $b$- or $\bar{b}$-jet, and in light of the recent significant improvement in charm tagging \cite {ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-001}, we
single out a light charm jet as $c$; the ellipses are used to avoid repetitions.
Each pair of parentheses indicates a displaced vertex if the $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ decay is non-prompt.
So, for example, in the very first case above, the $jj$ is from a primary vertex
and, if $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ is long-lived,
the $(jbt)$ is from a displaced vertex and the $(jb\bar{t})$ is from another displaced vertex.
}
\item{
From $\phi_{3}$ pair production we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C)]{$t\bar{t} (jbt) (jb\bar{t})$ or $\ldots t \ldots t$ or $\ldots \bar{t} \ldots \bar{t}$
~if $m_\phi > m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!+ m_t$ and $m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!> m_t$,%
}
\item[(D)]{$t\bar{t} (jbc) (jbc)$
~if $m_\phi > m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!+ m_t$ and $m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!< m_t$,%
}
\item[(E)]{$bbW^+W^- (jbt) (jb\bar{t})$ or $\ldots t \ldots t$ or $\ldots \bar{t} \ldots \bar{t}$
~if $m_\phi < m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!+ m_t$ and $m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!> m_t$,%
}
\item[(F)]{$bbW^+W^- (jbc) (jbc)$
~if $m_\phi < m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!+ m_t$ and $m_{\chi_2^{\phantom.}} \!< m_t$.%
}
\end{itemize}
}
\end{itemize}
Notice that the above event topologies are identical to pair productions of up-type squarks
followed by each squark decaying to a quark and a neutralino,
and then the neutralino subsequently decaying to three quarks via an R-parity violating effective 4-fermion interaction.
The bounds clearly depend on the lifetime of $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ (``neutralino'')
that can be prompt, displaced, or collider stable, as well as the Lorentz boost of $\chi_2$ produced from the cascade decay.
Drawing a detailed map of exclusion limits covering all of (A)--(F) clearly requires
a dedicated work of its own and we leave it for future work.
We can, however, already draw some conclusions by noticing that (A)--(F) are similar to the final states considered in various existing SUSY searches.
For example, if $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ is collider stable,
(A) and (B) are identical to the standard jets$+\slashed{E}_\T$ production from two degenerate squark species.
If $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ decays within the LHC detectors (prompt or displaced), (A) and (B) are similar to gluino pair production followed by the decay of each gluino into quarks and a neutralino that subsequently decays to three quarks via an R-parity violating vertex.
Recasting the limits by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations \cite{CMS:2013jea, Aad:2015lea} for our cases is not straightforward, but there appears no room for $m_\phi$ as light as $\sim 400\>\text{GeV}$. Rather, in many cases, the lower bounds seems well above $\sim 500\>\text{GeV}$ and sometimes reaches $\sim 1\>\text{TeV}$.
\textit{\underline{Case 2-b: $m_\phi > m_{\chi_2}$ with $m_{\phi}\approx m_{\chi_2}$}}\\
This is a special parameter region of Case 2, where $\phi_{1,2}$ barely, but still dominantly and promptly, decay to $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ and $u, c$ quark, while $\phi_3$ decays to $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ and $jjb$ or $\ell \nu b$ via an off-shell $W$ (which itself comes from an off-shell $t$).
If the subsequent decay of $\chi_2$ is prompt or displaced but still well within the LHC detectors, Case 2-a applies.
However, if $\chi_2$ is collider stable,
the LHC sensitivity can drop significantly as it relies on hard jets+$\slashed{E}_\T$ trigger,
whereas the jets emitted from $\phi$ decays here would be too soft due to the compressed phase space.
Indeed, as demonstrated in the SUSY stop searches for such a spectrum~\cite{Aad:2015pfx, CMS:stop2016, ATLAS:stop2016},
there are some unconstrained blind-spot regions for $m_\phi\gtrsim200$ GeV when $m_{\phi}\approx m_{\chi_2}$.
\subsection{The $S$}
\label{s.diphoton}
Another essential ingredient of the simplest hidden-sector implementation of WIMP-triggered baryogenesis is the neutral scalar mediator $S$.
As we will discuss in this section, the detection of $S$ at the LHC will provide us with nontrivial pieces of information on the structure of the theory.
The connection of $S$ to the SM sector inevitably arises from the coupling $S\phi^\dag \phi$,
which cannot be forbidden by any symmetry in the theory.
At 1-loop level, this coupling generates couplings of $S$ to $gg$ and $\gamma\ga$ through a loop of $\phi$.
It also necessarily generates couplings to $Z\gamma$ and $ZZ$, but these are suppressed by the weak mixing angle. Compared to $S \to \gamma\ga$, the rates for $S \to ZZ$ and $S \to Z\gamma$ must be suppressed by $\tan^{4\!}\theta_w \simeq 9\%$ and $2\tan^{2\!}\theta_w \simeq 60\%$, respectively.
In this paper, we focus on the most dominant and cleanest channel, $gg \to S \to \gamma\ga$, which could thus be the discovery channel of WIMP-triggered baryogenesis at the future LHC\@.
Before we proceed, let us comment on the variations of our model where $\phi$ has the gauge quantum numbers of $q$ or $d^\mathrm{c}$ instead of $u^\mathrm{c}$.
If $\phi$ is $q$-like, $S$ would also acquire a coupling to $WW$.
However, such a case would correspond to a leptogenesis scenario and, as we noted in footnote~\ref{ftnote:leptogenesis}, that would require higher mass scales, pushing $S$ out of the LHC reach.
If $\phi$ is $d^\mathrm{c}$-like, the loop-induced coupling of $S$ to $\gamma\ga$, $\gamma Z$, and $ZZ$ would be suppressed by a factor of $1/4$ because the hypercharge of $d^\mathrm{c}$ is half of that of $u^\mathrm{c}$. This would mean a suppression by a factor of $16$ in the $S$ production rate, again pushing $S$ out of the LHC reach.
Note that the vacuum stability constraint~\eq{kappa_bound} prohibits us from undoing this suppression by increasing $\kappa$.
Therefore,
since this section is about the LHC phenomenology of $S$, we do not consider the possibilities of $q$-like or $d^\mathrm{c}$-like $\phi$.
Turning this around, if the $S$ is detected at the LHC, that will be a strong indication that $\phi$ is $u^\mathrm{c}$-like, not $q$- or $d^\mathrm{c}$-like,
which is quite a nontrivial piece of information on the structure of the baryogenesis sector.
The detection of $S$ can also provide another interesting piece of information. Notice that the existence of 3 generations of $\phi$ to avoid excessive quark flavor violations leads to an enhancement by a factor of $3$ in the $gg \to S$ amplitude, and thus a factor of $9$ enhancement in the $S$ production rate, compared to the case with only one species of $\phi$, or the case with two generations of $\phi$ being much heavier as discussed in footnote~\ref{ftnote:decoupled_phi_12}.
Therefore, the detection of $S$ at the LHC will constitute a strong evidence that $\phi$ comes in a degenerate flavor multiplet and the flavor structure beyond the SM respects MFV\@.
Now, let ${\mathcal M}_{Sgg}$ be the amplitude for $gg \to S$. This $S$ may be off-shell if this process is part of a larger diagram.
At the 1-loop level, this amplitude is insensitive to the CP violations,
so the gauge, Lorentz, and CP invariances dictate that ${\mathcal M}_{Sgg}$ have the following structure at 1-loop:
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal M}_{Sgg} =
\fr{\al_\mathrm{s}}{4\pi \Lambda_{g} (p_S^2)}
\!\left[ (\epsilon_1 \!\cdot\! q_2) (\epsilon_2 \!\cdot\! q_1) -(\epsilon_1 \!\cdot\! \epsilon_2) (q_1 \!\cdot\! q_2) \right]
\,,\eql{MSgg}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $q_i$ and $\epsilon_i$ ($i=1,2$) are the 4-momentum and polarization of the gluon $i$,
and it is understood that the colors of the two gluons are the same.
From an explicit calculation, the function $\Lambda_g (p_S^2)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\fr{1}{\Lambda_g (p_S^2)}
= \fr{\kappa}{m_\phi^2} \cdot \fr12 \cdot 3 \cdot
\fr13 F\biggl( \fr{p_S^2}{4m_\phi^2} \biggr)
\,,\eql{1/La_g}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where
the factor of $1/2$ is from $\mathrm{tr}\,[T^a T^b] = \delta^{ab}/2$,
the factor of $3$ is due to the three generations of $\phi$,
and the factor of $1/3$ is introduced such that $F(0) = 1$,
where $F(r)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
F(r)
&\equiv
4! \int_0^1 \!\! \mathrm{d} x \int_0^{1-x} \!\! \mathrm{d} y \,
\fr{xy}{1- 4rxy - \mathrm{i} 0^\text{\tiny +}}
\,.\eql{F(r)}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
In the range $0 < r < 1$, $F(r)$ is real and increases monotonically, starting from $F(0)=1$ and reaching $F(1) = 3(\pi^2-4) / 4 \simeq 4.4022$.
Above $r=1$, $F(r)$ acquires an imaginary part since the intermediate $\phi$ can be on-shell, with the magnitude $|F(r)|$ decreasing monotonically as $r$ increases.
(See \Fig{F(r)}.)
The analogous amplitude for $S \to \gamma\ga$ is described by the amplitude
of the same form as~\eq{MSgg} except that $\al_\mathrm{s}$ and $\Lambda_g$ are replaced
by $\alpha$ and $\Lambda_\gamma$, respectively, where
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\fr{1}{\Lambda_\gamma (p_S^2)}
= \fr{\kappa}{m_\phi^2} \cdot \fr49 \cdot
3 \cdot 3 \cdot \fr13
F\biggl( \fr{p_S^2}{4m_\phi^2} \biggr)
\,,\eql{1/La_ga}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where the factor of $4/9$ is the square of the electric charge of $\phi$
and the two factors of $3$ are from the 3 colors and 3 generations of $\phi$.
From the amplitudes given above, we can immediately obtain the ratio of partial widths for $S \to \gamma\ga$ and $S \to gg$:
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\fr{\Gamma_{S \to \gamma\ga}}{\Gamma_{S \to gg}}
=
\fr{\alpha^2}{8\al_\mathrm{s}^2} \, \fr{\Lambda_g^2 (m_S^2)}{\Lambda_\gamma^2 (m_S^2)} \ll 1
\,.\eql{gaga/gg}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Therefore, if $m_S < 2m_\phi$, the width of $S$ is dominated by $S \to gg$ and given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_S \simeq \fr{m_S}{8\pi} \!\left( \fr{\al_\mathrm{s} m_S}{4\pi \Lambda_g} \right)^{\!\! 2}
\,,
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
which is very narrow.
If we instead have $m_S > 2m_\phi$, the $S$ can also decay to $\phi\phi$ with the partial width given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{S \to \phi\phi}
= \fr{3^2}{16\pi} \fr{\kappa^2}{m_S} \sqrt{1 - \fr{4m_\phi^2}{m_S^2} }
\,.\eql{S-to-phiphi}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Unless the phase space is nearly closed, this easily dominates over $S \to gg$ in the region of parameter space where $S \to \gamma\ga$ may be observable in the first place, because $\kappa$ must be large (i.e., $\sim \>\text{TeV}$ and hence $\sim m_S$) in such region.
Therefore, we expect that the chance of detecting $S$ in the $\gamma\ga$ channel would significantly go down if $m_S > 2 m_\phi$.
In other words, the detection of $S$ in the $\gamma\ga$ sample will strongly indicate the lower-bound on the $\phi$ mass, $m_\phi > m_S / 2$.
\Fig{diphoton_xsec} shows the cross sections for diphoton production via $S$ at the 13-TeV LHC\@, using the MMHT2014 LO PDF \cite{Harland-Lang:2014zoa} evaluated at
the factorization scale equal to $m_S$, for various benchmarks values of $\kappa$ and $m_\phi$. All benchmarks have $m_S < 2 m_\phi$ so that the diphoton branching fraction is not diluted any further by $S \to \phi\phi$ than it already is by $S \to gg$, since the purpose of this section is to study the prospect of the diphoton signal.
All values of $\kappa$ and $m_S$ in the plot satisfy the vacuum stability condition~\eq{kappa_bound}, which in particular is the reason why the black dashed line in \Fig{diphoton_xsec} ends at about $m_S = 760\>\text{GeV}$.
The curves begin to go up toward larger values of $m_S$ because the values of $r$($=m_S^2 / 4m_\phi^2$) going into the function $F(r)$ are approaching 1 (see \Fig{F(r)}).
The cusp of $F(r)$ at $r=1$ is an artifact of ignoring the width of $\phi$ in the calculation of $F(r)$.
In other words, the expression~\eq{F(r)} becomes invalid if $r$ is too close to 1 to ignore the $\phi$ width.
However, the values of $r$ in \Fig{diphoton_xsec} never exceed $0.8$, which is safely far away from $1$ because the $\phi$ width is extremely small.
(Recall that $\phi$ decays barely promptly and is generically long-lived.)
The fact that $r < 0.8$ also justifies treating the intermediate $S$ on-shell and using the expression~\eq{gaga/gg} for the diphoton branching fraction,
which in particular ignores the $S \to \phi_3 \bar{b} \bar{s}$ decay channel via an off-shell $\phi_3$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{F_r.pdf}
\caption{\label{f.F(r)}%
The function $F(r)$ defined in~\eq{F(r)}, which comes from the loop of $\phi$ in $S \to gg$ and $S \to \gamma\ga$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Diphoton_xsection.pdf}
\caption{\label{f.diphoton_xsec}%
The diphoton production cross section via an $s$-channel $S$ as a function of $S$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s} = 13\>\text{TeV}$.
See text for the reason why the black dashed line ends at $m_S = 760\>\text{GeV}$.
}
\end{figure}
Finally, although we have focused on $S \to \gamma\ga$, there are other decay channels of $S$ induced by $\phi$ loop, i.e., $jj$ (from $gg$), $\gamma Z$, and $ZZ$.
The $WW$ mode is unlikely as we already discussed earlier in this subsection.
Compared to $\gamma\ga$, however,
the $jj$ channel has much larger SM background and thus is much less clean,
while the $Z\gamma$ and $ZZ$ have smaller production rates as we pointed out at the beginning of the subsection.
Therefore,
we expect that the diphoton channel is the primary search channel.
All the curves in \Fig{diphoton_xsec} are below the 95\% CL upper bounds reported by the ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS:2016eeo} and CMS~\cite{Khachatryan:2016yec} collaborations
but all within factors of a few at most. These are all benchmark curves, but it shows that the diphoton channel may well turn out to be the first collider signal of WIMP triggered baryogenesis.
\subsection{The WIMPs}
\label{s.WIMPs}
The WIMPs $\chi_{1,2}$ are, by definition, the central ingredients of the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism. The WIMP $\chi_1$ is meta-stable and decays to an SM quark and a $\phi$ with a large CP violation. The large CP violation is a consequence with the interference with a 1-loop diagram with virtual $\chi_2$ that has an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ coupling to the same SM quark and $\phi$.
Therefore, at colliders, $\chi_1$ is either stable or long-lived, while $\chi_2$ decays promptly. Both decay to a jet and a $\phi$, so their decays are subsequently followed by the rich decay patterns of $\phi$ described in \Sec{phi_pheno}.
We thus see huge potential opportunities to probe the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis scenario at colliders through the productions of $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$.
\subsubsection{Pair-production of $\chi_1$}
The meta-stable WIMP $\chi_1$ can be pair produced through $gg\rightarrow S\rightarrow \chi_1\chi_1$.
If $m_{\chi_1} > m_S / 2$, the $s$-channel $S$ has to be off-shell
and the $gg\rightarrow S\rightarrow \chi_1\chi_1$ cross section is proportional to $|y_1|^2\kappa^2$.
This case is in principle very interesting because
the combination $|y_1|^2\kappa^2$ is fixed by the baryon abundance for any given $m_{\chi_1}$ as in~\eq{right-abundance}.
Therefore, we \emph{predict} the $pp \rightarrow S^* \rightarrow \chi_1\chi_1$ production cross section as a function of $m_{\chi_1}$.
Unfortunately, the predicted cross sections falls far below an ab at the 13-TeV LHC, too small to be captured even by the high-luminosity LHC runs.
It can be within the reach of the proposed next generation high luminosity 100 TeV $pp$ collider~\cite{Hinchliffe:2015qma}.
On the other hand, if $m_{\chi_1} < m_S / 2$,
the $s$-channel $S$ in $gg\rightarrow S\rightarrow \chi_1\chi_1$ becomes on-shell.
Then, recalling the condition~\eq{mphi:upperbound},
the dominant $S$ decay channels should generically be $\chi_1 \chi_1$ and $\phi\phi$,
since these processes occur at tree level while $S \to gg$ is 1-loop suppressed.
(We will discuss how the $\chi_1$ decays shortly.)
The $S$ production cross section is determined by $\kappa$ and $m_\phi$,
while the branching fractions of $S$ into $\chi_1 \chi_1$ and $\phi\phi$ tell us about $y_1$ and $\kappa$.
Then, we can test if the values of these parameters are consistent with baryogenesis
using the results of~\Sec{abundance}.
The partial width for $S \to \phi\phi$ is given already in~\eq{S-to-phiphi},
while that for $S \to \chi_1 \chi_1$ is given by
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{S \to \chi_1 \chi_1}
= \frac{|y_1|^2 m_S}{16\pi} \,
v_{\chi_1} (\sin^{2\!} \delta_1 + v_{\chi_1}^2 \!\cos^{2\!} \delta_1 )
\,,\eql{S-to-chi1chi1}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $v_{\chi_1} \equiv \sqrt{1 - 4m_{\chi_1}^2 / m_S^2}$ is the speed of $\chi_1$ in the rest frame of the $S$.
In \Fig{S_onshell}, the on-shell $S$ production cross sections are shown for various benchmark values of $\kappa$ and $m_\phi$.
The very mild dependence on $m_\phi$ is due to an approximate accidental cancellation in Eq.~\eq{1/La_g} between $1/m_\phi^2$ and $F(m_S^2 / 4m_\phi^2)$ as we change $m_\phi$.
One sees in \Fig{F(r)} that increasing $m_\phi$ (thus decreasing $r$) increases $F(r)$ rather rapidly in the $r>1$ region.
\Fig{S_onshell} shows that the observation of $gg \to S \to \chi_1 \chi_1$ can be within the LHC reach if it has an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ branching fraction.
This will provide quite direct probes of our baryogenesis scenario, if $\chi_1$ can decay to a jet and a $\phi$ within the detectors.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ppS_xsection.pdf}
\caption{\label{f.S_onshell}%
The resonant $S$ production cross section as a function of $m_S$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s} = 13\>\text{TeV}$.
The red solid line begins at $m_S = 1.4\>\text{TeV}$ because this plot is for the $m_S > 2m_{\chi_1}$ case and we also have the condition $m_{\chi_1} > m_\phi$ (Eq.~\eq{mphi:upperbound}).
Since $m_S > 2 m_{\chi_1, \phi}$, the leading $S$ decay channels are expected to be $\chi_1 \chi_1$ and $\phi\phi$, as discussed in text. See Eqs.~\eq{S-to-chi1chi1} and~\eq{S-to-phiphi} for the branching fractions of those modes.
}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to note that the diphoton signal of \Sec{diphoton} and the $\chi_1$ pair production are complementary to each other in many ways.
If the diphoton signal of \Sec{diphoton} is observed, \Fig{diphoton_xsec} will tell us that $\kappa \sim \>\text{TeV}$.
Combining this with the baryon abundance condition~\eq{right-abundance} will then imply that $|y_1|$ is small, making the branching fraction of $S$ to $\chi_1\chi_1$ is even smaller than that to $\gamma\ga$.
On the other hand, if the $\chi_1$ production is observed, the condition~\eq{right-abundance} will imply a small $\kappa$, making the observation of the diphoton signal unlikely.
Now, once $\chi_1$ is produced, the subsequent collider phenomenology crucially depends on how it decays because $\chi_1$ is meta-stable.
If $m_{\chi_1} < m_S / 2$ and $m_S \lesssim 800\>\text{GeV}$, our analysis in \Sec{phi_pheno} points to Case 2-b,
because we have $m_\phi < m_{\chi_1} \lesssim 400\>\text{GeV}$ and the only case that allows such a light $\phi$ is Case 2-b.
Furthermore, the cosmologically determined range of $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ lifetime~\eq{lambda1window} generically leads to a collider stable $\chi_1$ or a displaced $\chi_1^{\phantom.}$ decay.
The former would just appear as $\slashed{E}_\T$.
The latter would appear as the production of two displaced vertices, each of which gives a $\phi$ plus a jet, or a $\phi$ plus a top.
The $\phi$ then decays to $\slashed{E}_\T$ and practically unobservable soft jets, as discussed in Case 2-b of \Sec{phi_pheno}.
On the other hand, if $m_{\chi_1} > m_S / 2$ and/or $m_S \gtrsim 800\>\text{GeV}$, then
the variety of $\phi$ decay channels discussed in \Sec{phi_pheno} begins to open up.
After each of the pair produced $\chi_1$ decays with a (very) displaced vertex into an up-type quark (possibly a top) and a $\phi$,
the $\phi$ can subsequently decay to two down-type quarks or an up-type quark plus a lighter $\chi_2$, promptly or displaced.
Although the existing displaced vertex searches at ATLAS and CMS can cover most of the event topologies from cascade decays of displaced $\chi_1$, we would like to point out in some cases
a new dedicated trigger/analysis may be in demand. One specific example is where $\chi_1$ undergoes a displaced decay to a light jet (or a boosted top jet such that the muon trigger may not be efficient) and a $\phi$, then the $\phi$ subsequently decays to a invisible $\chi_2$ plus a soft jet (as in Case 2-b) at a secondary vertex that is further displaced relatively to the $\chi_1$ decay vertex.
Assisted by a possibly sizable Lorentz boost from $\chi_1$ decay, the jet associated with the $\chi_2$ vertex may not be as soft as in typical Case 2-b.
The full event would thus consists of two sets of displaced and isolated ``emerging jets''~\cite{Schwaller:2015gea} macroscopically apart from each other (one from $\chi_1$ decay and the other from $\chi_2$ decay) yet connected by a track of $\phi$ (or rather, an R-hadron of $\phi$). Each $\chi_1$ decay also comes with $\slashed{E}_\T$ from $\chi_2$ decay. The jet from $\chi_2$ decay may not be visible if $\chi_2$ does not have sufficient boost, in which case the (charged) R-hadron track would appear as a disappearing track.
Finally, we would like to make a brief remark that the recently proposed ``lifetime frontier'' detector MATHUSLA~\cite{Chou:2016lxi} (MAssive Timing Hodoscope for Ultra Stable neutraL pArticles) can greatly enhance sensitivity to long-lived particles such as $\chi_1$ at the high luminosity LHC\@.
Ref.~\cite{Chou:2016lxi} also proposes a dedicated detector for a future 100 TeV collider, which can cover lifetimes as large as the limit allowed by BBN, $c\tau \sim 10^7$--$10^8$~m.
\subsubsection{Pair-production of $\chi_2$}
Although $\chi_2$ in our model does not directly trigger baryogenesis, it is in fact indispensable for generating a CP asymmetry necessary for baryogenesis.
Recall that $\chi_2$ has an ${\mathcal O}(1)$ coupling to an up-type quark and a $\phi$.
This enables an appreciable tree-level pair production of $\chi_2$ from $u\bar{u}$ or $c\bar{c}$ through a $t$-channel $\phi$ exchange.
($\chi_2$ can also be pair produced from $gg$ via an $s$-channel $S$, but the coupling of $gg$ to $S$ is loop suppressed, although the loop suppression may be partly countered by the large gluon PDF.\@)
Numerical examples of $\chi_2$ pair-production rates are listed in TABLE \ref{table} .
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{table} Pair production rates of $\chi_2$ from $t$-channel $\phi$ exchange with $\lambda_2 = 1$ for different values of $m_\phi$ and $m_{\chi_2}$ at the 13 TeV LHC\@ (simulated using the {\tt FeynRules 2.3}~\cite{Alloul:2013bka} and {\tt MadGraph 5}~\cite{Alwall:2014hca} packages).}
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{|X|X|X|}
\hline
$m_\phi ~(\>\text{GeV})$ & $m_{\chi_2}~ (\>\text{GeV})$ & $\sigma_{pp\to\chi_2\chi_2}~(\>\mathrm{fb})$\\ \hline
600 & 400 & 32.7 \\ \hline
700 & 500 & 12.8 \\ \hline
700 & 900 & 1.2 \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
If the diphoton signal of \Sec{diphoton} is observed with $m_S \lesssim 800\>\text{GeV}$,
there are two possible scenarios corresponding to Case 1-a and Case 2-b of \Sec{phi_pheno}. In Case-1a, $\chi_2$ is heavier than $\phi$ so the pair-produced $\chi_2$'s promptly decay to a $\phi$ and an up-type quark,
where the up-type quark may be a top quark if the phase space is open.
Note that the two $\phi$'s from the two $\chi_2$'s can be of different flavors,
and their charges do not have to be opposite.
So, the $\chi_2$ pair production serves as a mechanism to produce two $\phi$'s with all possible combinations of charges and flavors together with additional $jj$, $tj$, $\bar{t}j$, $tt$, $t\bar{t}$, or $\bar{t}^{}\bar{t}$.
The $\phi$'s then subsequently decays to $bbjj$ promptly.
Alternatively, in Case 2-b, $\phi$ is slightly heavier than $\chi_2$ and $\chi_2$ is collider stable. In this case, $\chi_2^{\phantom.}$ undergoes 3-body decay mediated by a barely off-shell $\phi$ as described in more detail in \Sec{phi_pheno}.
On the other hand,
if the diphoton signal is not observed for $m_S \lesssim 800\>\text{GeV}$,
the very rich $\phi$ decay modes discussed in \Sec{phi_pheno} can be realized, including possibly displaced multi-top/multi-bottom productions.
\begin{center}
*\hspace{3em}*\hspace{3em}*
\end{center}
To conclude the whole article,
the WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism not only provides a unified thermal WIMP origin of baryonic and dark components of matter
but can also exhibit a rich collider phenomenology that allows us to probe the mechanism at the LHC,
even in the most pessimistic scenario that the WIMPs are completely neutral under the SM gauge group as it may be hinted by the null results of WIMP searches thus far.
The LHC signals we have discussed include a clean diphoton resonance at the weak scale
and an array of other rich signatures that emerge from this WIMP-triggered baryogenesis mechanism, possibly displaced multi-bottom/multi-top productions, emerging jets, and (disappearing tracks of) R-hadrons.
We have also pointed out that di-nucleon decay provides us with a powerful probe of the mechanism.
Therefore, if this mechanism is indeed realized in nature, it is quite possible that we will be able to shed a bright, and first, light on one of the most fundamental questions in physics.\\
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Christian Reuschle, Brian Shuve and Daniel Stolarski for helpful discussions. AY is grateful to MadGraph and FeynRules teams for their technical support on MG5 and FeynRules 2.3. YC is supported by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, which is supported by the Government of Canada through
Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of
Research and Innovation. YC is also supported in part by the Maryland
Center for Fundamental Physics.
TO and AY are supported by the US Department of Energy under grant DE-SC0010102.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Clarifying a correspondence between core-collapse
supernova (CCSN) dynamics and the gravitational wave
(GW) signals is a time-honored attempt since the 1980s
\citep{EMuller82}. Very recently
the observational horizon of GW astronomy extends
far enough to allow the first detection coined
by LIGO for the black hole merger event
\citep{gw2016}.
Extensive research over the decades
has strengthened our confidence
that CCSNe, next to compact binary mergers, could also be
one of the most promising astrophysical sources
of GWs
(see \cite{Ott09,Kotake13} for reviews).
Traditionally most of the theoretical predictions have
focused on the GW signals
from rotational core collapse and bounce (see, e.g., \citet{Dimmelmeier02B,Scheidegger10,Ott12,KurodaT14,Yokozawa15}).
In the post bounce phase, a variety of GW emission
processes have been proposed,
including convection inside
the proto-neutron star (PNS) and in the postshock region
\citep{burohey},
the Standing-Accretion-Shock-Instability (SASI, \citet{Marek09,Kotake07,Kotake09,Murphy09}), and
nonaxisymmetric instabilities \citep{Ott05,Scheidegger10,KurodaT14}.
In the non-rotating core, \citet{Murphy09} firstly
showed in their two-dimensional (2D) models
that the evolution of convective activities
in the PNS surface regions can be
imprinted in the GW spectrogram.
The characteristic GW frequency is considered
as a result of the $g$-mode oscillation excited
by the downflows to the PNS
\citep{marek09gw} and by the deceleration of convection
plumes hitting the surface \citep{Murphy09}.
These features have also been identified in
more recent 2D models
with best available neutrino transport scheme
\citep{Yakunin10,BMuller13,Yakunin15}.
Furthermore \cite{BMuller13} showed
in their self-consistent 2D models that the
SASI motions become generally more violent for
more massive progenitors, which tends to make
the GW amplitudes and frequencies higher.
Not to mention the explosion dynamics (e.g.,
\citet{janka16,Takiwaki14,couch13a,Hanke12}),
the GW signatures are very sensitive to the spatial
dimension employed in the numerical modeling
(e.g., \citet{Kotake09,EMuller12}).
Due to the high numerical cost, however, only a few
full three-dimensional
(3D) models have been reported so far to study
the postbounce GW features \citep[without
any symmetry constraints and excision of the PNS, e.g.,]
[]{Scheidegger10,Ott12,KurodaT14}.
Using a prescribed boundary condition of the PNS contraction, \cite{Hanke13} showed in their
3D models that a rapid shrinking of the PNS fosters the
development of the SASI. General relativity (GR)
should play a crucial role because the SASI is favored
by smaller shock radii due to the short SASI's growth rate
\citep{Foglizzo06}. To have a final word
on recent hot debates about the impacts of
neutrino-driven convection vs. the SASI on the
supernova mechanism (e.g., \citet{burrows13}),
full 3D-GR models are needed, which is also the case
for clarifying the GW emission processes.
In this {\it Letter}, we
study the GW emission from a non-rotating
$15 M_{\odot}$ star by performing
3D-GR hydrodynamic simulations with an approximate
neutrino transport. Using three modern nuclear EoSs,
we investigate its impacts on both the postbounce dynamics
and the GW emission. Our results reveal a new GW signature
where the SASI activity is imprinted.
We discuss the detectability of the signals, if detected,
could provide the {\it live broadcast}
that pictures how the supernova shock is dancing
in the core.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=70mm,angle=-90.]{f4.eps}
\includegraphics[width=70mm,angle=-90.]{f3.eps}
\caption{In each set of panels, we plot, top; gravitational wave amplitude of plus mode $A_+$ [cm],
bottom; the characteristic wave strain in frequency-time domain $\tilde h$ in a logarithmic scale
which is over plotted by the expected peak frequency $F_{\rm peak}$ (black line denoted by ``A'').
``B'' indicates the low frequency component.
The component ``A'' is originated from the PNS $g$-mode oscillation \citep{Marek09,BMuller13}.
The component ``B'' is considered to be associated with the SASI activities (see Sec. \ref{sec:Results}).
Left and right panels are for TM1 and SFHx, respectively.
We mention that SFHx (left) and TM1 (right) are softer and stiffer EoS models, respectively.
\label{GWs}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Numerical Methods}
\label{sec:Numerical Methods}
In our full GR radiation-hydrodynamics simulations, we solve
the evolution equations of metric, hydrodynamics,
and neutrino radiation.
Each of them is solved in an operator-splitting manner, but the system evolves self-consistently
as a whole satisfying the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints \citep{KurodaT12,KurodaT14}.
Regarding the metric evolution, we evolve the standard BSSN variables $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$, $\phi$, $\tilde A_{ij}$, $K$ and
$\tilde\Gamma^{i}$ \citep{Shibata95,Baumgarte99}.
The gauge is specified by the ``1+log'' lapse and by the Gamma-driver-shift condition.
In the radiation-hydrodynamic part, the total stress-energy tensor $T^{\alpha\beta}_{\rm (total)}$ is expressed as
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm (total)}^{\alpha\beta} = T_{\rm (fluid)}^{\alpha\beta} + \sum_{\nu\in\nu_e,\bar\nu_e,\nu_x}T_{(\nu)}^{\alpha\beta},
\label{TotalSETensor}
\end{equation}
where $T_{\rm (fluid)}^{\alpha\beta}$ and $T_{(\nu)}^{\alpha\beta}$ are the
stress-energy tensor of fluid and neutrino radiation field, respectively.
All radiation and hydrodynamical variables are evolved in conservative ways.
We consider all three flavors of neutrinos ($\nu_e,\bar\nu_e,\nu_x$) with $\nu_x$
representing heavy-lepton neutrinos (i.e. $\nu_{\mu}, \nu_{\tau}$ and their anti-particles).
To follow the 3D hydrodynamics up to $\lesssim 400$ ms
postbounce, we shall omit the energy dependence of the
radiation in this work (see, however, \cite{KurodaT16}).
We use three EoSs based on the
relativistic-mean-field theory with different
nuclear interaction treatments, which are DD2 and TM1 of \cite{HS}
and SFHx of \cite{SFH}.
For SFHx, DD2, and TM1\footnote{The symmetry energy $S$ at nuclear saturation density
is $S=28.67$, 31.67, and 36.95 MeV, respectively. \citep[e.g.,][]{Fischer14}},
the maximum gravitational mass $M_{\rm max}$ and
the radius of cold NS $R$ in the vertical part of the mass-radius relationship are
$M_{\rm max}=2.13$, 2.42, and, 2.21 $M_\odot$
and $R\sim12$, 13, and, 14.5 km, respectively \citep{Fischer14}.
SFHx is thus softest followed in order by DD2, and TM1.
Among these threes, while DD2 is consistent with nuclear experiments, such as, for its symmetry energy \citep{Lattimer13},
SFHx is the best fit model with the observational mass-radius relationship.
All EoSs are compatible with NS mass measurement $\sim2.04$ $M_\odot$ \citep{Demorest10}.
Our 3D-GR models are named as DD2, TM1 and SFHx, which simply reflects the EoS used.
We study a frequently used 15 $M_{\odot}$ star
of \cite{WW95}.
The 3D computational domain is a cubic box with 15000 km width
and nested boxes with 8 refinement levels are embedded.
Each box contains $128^3$ cells and the minimum grid size near the origin is $\Delta x=458$m.
In the vicinity of the stalled shock front $R\sim100$ km, our resolution
achieves $\Delta x\sim 1.9$ km, i.e., the effective angular resolution becomes $\sim1^\circ$.
Extraction of GWs from our simulations is done by the conventional quadrupole formula
in which the transverse and the trace-free gravitational field $h_{ij}$ is expressed by \citep{Misner73}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:hij}
h_{ij}(\theta,\phi)=\frac{A_+(\theta,\phi)e_++A_\times(\theta,\phi) e_\times}{D}
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq.(\ref{eq:hij}), $A_{+/\times}(\theta,\phi)$ represent amplitude of orthogonally polarized wave components
with emission angle $(\theta,\phi)$ dependence \citep{Scheidegger10,KurodaT14},
$e_{+/\times}$ denote unit polarization tensors and $D$ is the source distance where we set $D=10$ kpc in this paper.
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm,angle=0.]{f1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Snapshots of the entropy distribution ($k_{\rm B}$ baryon$^{-1}$) for models SFHx and TM1
(top left; $T_{\rm pb}=150$ ms of SFHx, top right; $T_{\rm pb}=237$ ms of SFHx, bottom left; $T_{\rm pb}=358$ ms of SFHx, bottom right; $T_{\rm pb}=358$ ms of TM1).
The contours on the cross sections in the $x$ = 0 (back right), $y$ = 0 (back left), and $z$ = 0 (bottom) planes are, respectively projected on the sidewalls of the graphs.
The 90$^\circ$ wedge on the near side is excised to see the internal structure.
Note that to see the entropy structure clearly in each dynamical phase, we change the maximum entropy
in the colour bar as $s_{\rm max}=16$, 20 and 22 $k_{\rm B}$ baryon$^{-1}$ for $T_{\rm pb}=150$, 237 and 358 ms, respectively.}
\label{3Dimages}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:Results}
We start by describing the hydrodynamics at bounce.
The central rest mass density $\rho_c$
reaches $\rho_c=3.69,$ 3.75 and 4.50 $\times10^{14}$ g cm$^{-3}$
for TM1, DD2 and SFHx, which is higher as expected
for the softer EOS (e.g., \citet{Fischer14}).
After bounce, the non-spherical matter motion develops and starts GW emission.
In Fig. \ref{GWs}, we plot time evolution of the angle dependent
GW amplitude (only plus mode $A_+(\theta,\phi)$, black line) in upper panel and the characteristic wave strain
in frequency-time domain $\tilde h(\theta,\phi,F)$\citep[see Eq.(44) in][]{KurodaT14} in lower one.
Here $F$ denotes the GW frequency.
We extract GWs along the north pole $(\theta,\phi)=(0,0)$.
The post bounce hydrodynamics evolutions in DD2 are rather similar to TM1 and
we mainly focus on the comparison between SFHx and TM1 in the following.
The GW amplitude ($A_+$, upper two-panels) shows a consistent behavior as reported in \cite{BMuller13,Ott13,Yakunin15}.
It shows initial low frequency and slightly larger amplitude till $T_{\rm pb}\sim60$ ms,
which is followed by a quiescent phase with higher frequency till $T_{\rm pb}\sim150$ ms.
Afterward the amplitude and frequency become larger with time.
From spectrograms (lower panels), we see a narrow band spectrum (labeled as ``A'' in both models)
which shows an increasing trend in its peak frequency.
\cite{BMuller13,Murphy09} showed that this peak shift can be explained by properties of PNS, such as its compactness and surface temperature.
By following Eq.(17) in \cite{BMuller13}, we overplot $F_{\rm peak}$ in lower panels (black line).
In both models $F_{\rm peak}$ indeed tracks spectral peak quite well,
although there is some exception in late phase of SFHx ($T_{\rm pb}\ga200$ ms)
when the other strong component appears at $100\la F\la200$ Hz (labeled as ``B'').
The component ``A'' is thus actually originated from the $g$-mode oscillation of the PNS surface.
Before going into detail to explain the origin of the low frequency
component ``B'', we briefly focus on several key differences in the
hydrodynamcs evolution between SHFx and TM1.
In Fig.\ref{3Dimages}, SFHx experiences violent sloshing (top-left)
and spiral motions of the SASI (top-right), before neutrino-driven
convection dominates over the SASI (bottom-left), whereas
the SASI activities are less developed in TM1.
For SFHx, the clear SASI motions are observed after
the prompt convection phase ceases at $T_{\rm pb} \sim 50$ ms.
In Fig. \ref{Rshock.eps}, we plot time evolutions of maximum, average, minimum shock radii $R_{\rm shock}$ (top, solid)
and normalized mode amplitudes $|A_{lm}|\equiv |c_{lm}|/|c_{00}|$ (see \cite{Burrows12} for $c_{lm}$)
of spherical polar expansion of the shock surface $R_{\rm shock}(\theta,\phi)$.
For $A_{lm}$, we plot models SFHx(middle) and TM1(bottom) with focusing a period of $120\le T_{\rm pb}\le300$ ms which corresponds to
the appearance of component ``B''.
We also plot spherically averaged gain radius $R_{\rm gain}$ (dashed) in top panel.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm,angle=-90.]{f2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Top; Time evolution of maximum, average and minimum shock radii (solid)
and spherically averaged gain radius (dashed) for models SFHx(red) and TM1(black).
Two vertical dotted lines represent the period when the low frequency component ``B'' appears (Fig. \ref{GWs}).
Lower twos; Time evolution of normalized mode amplitudes $|A_{lm}|$ for several representative modes $(l,m)$ of SFHx(upper) and TM1(lower).
We show the period bounded by two vertical dotted lines in top panel.
\label{Rshock.eps}}
\end{figure}
The characteristic SASI motions seen in Fig.\ref{3Dimages} are reflected in the evolution of $|A_{lm}|$.
For SFHx, the most dominant mode during the first phase of the SASI (50 ms $\la T_{\rm pb}\la150$ ms)
is the sloshing mode, i.e. $(l,m)=(1,0)$, which is in accord with
the clear one sided shock heated region (top-left in Fig.\ref{3Dimages}).
Regarding the EoS dependence, although we do not see any qualitative differences between stiffest EoS model TM1
and the softest EoS one SFHx, TM1 shows less SASI development, i.e., smaller values of $|A_{lm}|$, during the SASI development phase.
DD2 also shows less SASI development compared to SFHx.
Such a quantitative difference can be explained by the shock radius.
In top panel of Fig. \ref{Rshock.eps}, TM1 shows more extended shock radii till $T_{\rm pb}\sim150$ ms.
This is because, depending on the stiffness of nuclear EoS, the bounce shock can be formed at larger radius
which can sometime amount to $\sim 0.1M_\odot$ difference in mass coordinate \citep{suwa13,Fischer14}.
Consequently the prompt shock has to plunge into more material and stalls at smaller radius in our softest EoS model SFHx.
The smaller shock radius is a favorable condition for the SASI development
due to the shorter advective-acoustic cycle \citep{Foglizzo02,Scheck08}.
Initial SASI activities reach their maxima when the shock expansion occurs due to sudden drop
of mass accretion rate at $T_{\rm pb}\sim150$ ms.
Afterward the spiral mode becomes dominant as seen in $A_{1\pm1}$ (see also top-right in Fig.\ref{3Dimages})
which lasts another $\sim150/200$ ms (SFHx/TM1).
In the final phase, the core experiences neutrino-driven convection
till the end of our calculation time $T_{\rm pb}\sim350$ ms.
During this phase, matters in the gain region are exposed intensively to neutrino radiations and form high entropy
$(s_{k_{\rm B}}\sim20)$ smaller scale convection plumes (bottom twos in Fig.\ref{3Dimages}).
Following \cite{Foglizzo06}, we check the parameter $\chi$.
Although $\chi\ga3$ is expected to be satisfied for convection to develop,
we find that $\chi$ stays $\sim0.5$ till $T_{\rm pb}\la350$ ms in both models
despite the appearance of convection plumes.
As already pointed out in \cite{Ott13,Hanke13}, this is because the initial perturbations in the gain region
are already not small when the neutrino convection phase initiates.
The gain radius ($R_{\rm gain}$ in Fig.\ref{Rshock.eps}) appears more inward
in SFHx which leads to higher entropic convection plumes compared to those in TM1
(compare bottom two panels in Fig. \ref{3Dimages}).
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm,angle=-90.]{f5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Rough measurement of contribution from each spherical shell to (a) the GW amplitude and
(b1-4) their spectrogram $\tilde h$ in a logarithmic scale. We show the contributions from four spherical shells
with interval of [0,10], [10,20], [20,30] and [30,100] km.
Black contours overplotted on spectrograms for $\tilde h$ represent half maximum of spectrograms for mass accretion rate
measured at $R=17$(b2), 23(b3), and 48(b4) km.
\label{GwaveRadial}}
\end{figure}
Now, we discuss how these hydrodynamical evolutions affect on the GW emission ``B'' in Fig. \ref{GWs}.
By spatially decomposing the quadrupole moment of matters into several spherical shells,
we roughly localize this emission at $10\la R\la20$ km (Fig.\ref{GwaveRadial}).
Before going to further discussion, we present a back-of-the-envelope estimation of the GW amplitude as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
D|h|&\sim& 2\epsilon MR^2/T_{\rm dyn}^2\sim 2\epsilon M^2/R\sim 2\epsilon R^2\dot M^2/M,
\label{eq:Dh}
\end{eqnarray}}
where $M$, $R$ and $T_{\rm dyn}$ represent the mass, size and dynamical time scale of the system, respectively, in geometrized unit.
Here we have used the following reasonable assumptions
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Tdyn1}
T_{\rm dyn}\sim M/\dot
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Tdyn2}
T_{\rm dyn}\sim R/V\sim\sqrt{R^3/M},
\end{eqnarray}
with $V\sim \sqrt{M/R}$ being the velocity derived by the energy conservation.
From the last relation in Eq.(\ref{eq:Dh}), we expect that significant time variation in the mass accumulation onto the PNS
can potentially lead to the GW emission.
In Fig.\ref{GwaveRadial}, we superimpose spectrogram of the mass accretion rate ${\dot M}(R)$
(the black contour at half maximum) measured at $R=17$, 23, and 48 km on top of the GW spectrogram.
While ${\dot M}(R=48{\rm km})$ starts quasi-periodic oscillation at $F\sim100-200$Hz around $T_{\rm pb}\sim120$ ms,
we find a time delay of $\sim60$ ms for their appearance at deeper region ($R=17$ and 23 km).
Since the density averaged mean radial velocity between the lepton driven ($10\la R\la 20$ km)
and the entropy driven ($R\ga 40$ km) convection layers is $\sim5\times10^7$ cm s$^{-1}$, the time delay is consistent
with the advection time scale over the stable layer ($20\la R\la 40$ km).
Furthermore, coincidence of time modulation in ${\dot M}(R)$ and the GW component ``B'' is obvious from panel (b2).
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=65mm,angle=-90.]{f6.eps}
\caption{Spectrograms of; (a) Fourier decomposed normalized mode amplitude $|\tilde A_{10}|$ of the shock surface
for the sloshing-SASI mode, (b) the mass accretion rate $\tilde {\dot M}$ (with a dimension of $M_\odot$), through surface of a sphere
with radius of $R=20$ km, (c) deformation of the isodensity surface $\tilde \epsilon_{l}$ for $l=2$ mode and
(d) a rough measurement of the GW energy spectrum which is proportional to $\sim\epsilon R^2 {\dot{M}}^2M^{-1}$ (see text).
Top and bottom rows are for SFHx and TM1, respectively.
\label{SASIfrequency}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Finally, to connect the SASI activities with the GW component B,
we plot spectrograms of normalized mode amplitude of the sloshing-SASI mode $|\tilde A_{10}|$,
the mass accretion rate $|\tilde {\dot M}|$ measured at $R=17$ km,
normalised quadrupole deformation of the isodensity surface $\tilde \epsilon_{l}$ for $l=2$,
and a rough measurement of the GW energy spectrum in Fig. \ref{SASIfrequency}.
$\tilde \epsilon_{l}$ denotes a Fourier component of normalised mode amplitude $\epsilon_l$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:epsilon}
\epsilon_{l}\equiv \sqrt{\sum_{m=-l,l} \left( R^{14}_{l,m}\right)^2}\left/ R^{14}_{0,0}\right.,
\end{eqnarray}
where $R^{14}_{l,m}$ is evaluated by the spherical polar expansion of the isodensity surface $R^{14}$ extracted at $\rho=10^{14}$ g cm$^{-1}$
as the same way as for the shock surface.
Although several other modes are excited at the surface,
only the leading contribution ($l = 2$ mode) to the GW emission is shown in the panel.
As a reference, the isodensity surface $R^{14}$ locates $\sim13.5$ km during $150\la T_{\rm pb}\la300$ ms in SFHx.
From the last relation in Eq.(\ref{eq:Dh}), we plot $\log_{10}{|h|}\sim \log_{10}{\epsilon \dot M^2}+\rm{const.}$
in panels (d) of Fig. \ref{SASIfrequency} with assuming $M=0.5M_\odot$, a mass contained in $10\la R\la20$ km, and $R^{14}=13.5$ km
stay nearly constant.
During $140\la T_{\rm pb}\la180$ ms in SFHx, we see a strong sloshing motion which has its peak frequency
at $100\la F\la200$ Hz (a1).
With some time delay ($\sim50$ ms) from the appearance of it,
the mass accretion rate ${\dot M}$ starts showing a quasi-periodic oscillation at the same frequency range
$100\la F\la200$ Hz (b1) and it excites oscillation on the isodensity surface (c1).
A combination of large ${\dot M}$ and $\epsilon_2$ expect GW emissions appearing in panel (d1)
and it can well explain Fig. \ref{GWs}.
During $200\la T_{\rm pb}\la300$ ms, $\epsilon_{2}$ stays $\sim3\times10^{-4}$ in SFHx.
A rough measurement of the GW amplitude due to this deformation, $A\sim2\epsilon_2 M^2R^{-1}$,
deduces $A\sim2$ cm which is consistent with the actual amplitude (Fig.\ref{GwaveRadial}).
\section{Summary and Discussion}
We have presented relativistic 3D SN simulations with three different nuclear EoSs.
The overall pictures of SN dynamics are qualitatively the same among all three models,
although the development of the SASI differs quantitatively.
The softer the EoS is, the more the SASI develops, since the prompt shock stalls at smaller radii.
The evolution shows the first prompt convection phase, the sloshing-SASI phase
which shifts to the spiral mode and finally to the neutrino-driven convection phase.
Regarding the GWs, we have also confirmed
previously reported emissions originated from
the PNS surface $g$-mode oscillation \citep{BMuller13,Murphy09}.
Additionally in the softest EoS model SFHx, in which the most vigorous SASI motion was observed,
we have found another low frequency ($100\la F\la200$Hz) quasi-periodic emission.
This emission was spatially localized at $10\la R\la20$ km.
Through a spectrogram analysis of the SASI modes,
of the mass accretion rate at $R=20$ km and of the quadrupole mode of the central core deformation,
we consider that the temporally perturbed mass accretion in association with the SASI downflows
penetrate into the PNS surface and excite the oscillation at $10\la R\la20$ km, which then leads to the GW emission.
Just recently, \cite{Andresen16} has also reported a similar result that the low frequency GW emission
occurs due to the SASI.
As another remarkable feature, these down flows also deform the neutrino spheres and cause time oscillation in the neutrino signals
\citep{Tamborra13}.
We will report the coherency between neutrinos and GW signals originated from the SASI activity in our upcoming paper.
At the end, we briefly discuss the detectability by the next generation of GW detectors, LIGO \citep{Harry10} and KAGRA \citep{Aso13}.
As for the PNS surface $g$-mode oscillation, we found a dependence on the nuclear EoS.
The peak frequency appears at $F=635$, 671, and 681 Hz in TM1, DD2, and SFHx, respectively,
which is in order of the stiffness of nuclear EoS.
At this frequency range, the signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$), a simple comparison between the energy spectra and
sensitivity curves with assuming the source distance of $D=10$ kpc, reaches $\sim10$ for all the models.
Regarding the SASI-origin emission ``B'', which is observed only in SFHx,
the peak value of GW energy spectrum appears at $F=129$ Hz
and reaches almost a comparable amplitude to that from $g$-mode oscillation.
The $S/N$ reaches relatively high value of $\sim50$
because of that both detectors have their highest sensitivity at $\sim100-200$ Hz.
From these two spectral peak values, we expect that GWs from Galactic SNe,
even if their progenitors are non-rotating, are likely observable.
Following \cite{Hayama15}, we plan to perform a coherent
network analysis for clarifying the detectability of these signals more in detail.
\acknowledgements{
This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC; FP7) under ERC
Advanced Grant Agreement N$^\circ$ 321263 - FISH.
TK acknowledges valuable comments and fruitful discussions with F.-K. Thielemann and M. Hempel.
Numerical computations were carried out on Cray XC30 at Center for Computational Astrophysics, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
This study was supported by JSPS (Nos.
24103006, 24244036, 26707013 and 26870823) and by
MEXT (Nos. 15H00789 and 15H01039) and
JICFuS as a priority issue to be tackled by using Post `K' Computer.
}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well-known which closed 2-dimensional manifolds admit minimal homeomorphism, but not for closed surfaces which are punctered. The case of the sphere was solved 1997:
\begin{satz}
(Le Calvez and Yoccoz) Given a finite set $F \subset S^{2}$. There is no minimal homeomorphism on $S^{2} - F$.
\end{satz}
Proof: (see [CY]) {\hfill $\Box$ \vspace{2mm}} \\ One can ask further are there counterexamples for other surfaces. We show that for two surfaces the answer is yes:
\begin{satz}
For any given non empty finite set $F$ of an orientable closed surface $X$ of genus equal $0$ or $1$, there is a minimal $C^{\infty}$ diffeomorphism on $X - F$.
\end{satz}
\section{Construction Of Quasi-Minimal Systems \\ By Minimal Flows}
\begin{defin}
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space and $G$ a topological group. A dynamical system $\Phi : G \times X \to X$ is called quasi-minimal if the union of its dense orbits is open. We call the non dense orbits the exceptional set.
\end{defin}
\begin{satz}
There exists a quasi-minimal flow on an orientable surface $X$ of genus $g = 1$ whose exceptional set is a point.
\end{satz}
Proof: See section 14.4.b and section 14.6 in [KH] {\hfill $\Box$ \vspace{2mm}} \\ It is not clear if theorem [2.2] holds for surfaces of higher genus. The fixed point set for other quasi-minimal flows in [KH] corresponds the genus. For our examples we need an application of the following theorem:
\begin{satz}
Given a real topologically transitive flow $\Phi : \mathbb{R} \times X \to X$ on a separable metric space and suppose there is no "isolated streamline". For all values of $t \in \mathbb{R}$, except a set of first category, the homeomorphisms $f = \Phi_t: X \to X$ are topologically transitive.
\end{satz}
Proof: See [OU] {\hfill $\Box$ \vspace{2mm}}
\begin{ko}
Let $X$ be a manifold of dimension $n > 1$ and $\Phi : \mathbb{R} \times X \to X$ a $C^r$ quasi-minimal flow where $r > 0$. If its induced vectorfield is bounded, then for all values of $t \in \mathbb{R}$, except a set of first category, the $C^1$ diffeomorphisms $f = \Phi_t: X \to X$ are quasi-minimal and their exceptional sets coincide with the exceptional set of the flow $\Phi$.
\end{ko} Proof: Take a generic $t$ such that $f = \Phi_t: X \to X$ is transitive. Choose a $x_0$ such that $O_{f,+}(x_0)$ and $O_{f,-}(x_0)$ is dense. This is a well-known fact and follows from Baire's theorem. We show if any orbit $O_{\Phi,+}(x)$ is dense then $O_{f,+}(x)$ is dense too. Since the induced vectorfield is bounded, the orbit $O_{f,+}(x)$ must have an accumulation point on a segment of the orbit $O_{\Phi,+}(x_0)$. The accumulation point is dense, since $O_{f,+}(x_0)$ is dense and for any number $s$ we have $O_{f,+}(\Phi(s,x_0)) = \Phi(s,O_{f,+}(x_0))$, hence $O_{f,+}(x)$ is dense. The same argument works for the negative orbits. {\hfill $\Box$ \vspace{2mm}}
Proof of theorem [1.2]: Due to thereoem [2.2] we know that $X$ admits at least a quasi-minimal flow with only one exceptional point. Given a finite set $F \subset X$. We can assume that all elements of $F$ belongs to distinct orbits which are dense on both directions and the exceptional point belongs to $F$, otherwise we take a conjugation of the flow. We multiply the induced vector field $V$ of the flow with a function $ 0\le f$ that is exactly zero on $F$. The flow of $fV$ is quasi-minimal and the exceptional set is $X - F$. Now apply corollary [2.4] {\hfill $\Box$ \vspace{2mm}}
\section{The Fast-Conjugation-Method}
Fayad and Herman showed in [FH] that any compact manifold $M$ that admits a smooth free $S^1$ action must admit minimal diffeomorphisms. They used the fast-conjuagtion-method and the theorem of Baires to proof that in the closure of the set $\{ g\Phi_tg^{-1} | g\in $Diff($M$)$, t\in S^1 \}$ with respect to the $C^r$ topology the minimal diffeomorphisms are generic. We can not extended this generic result to non compact manifolds or manifolds with a semi-free smooth $S^1$ action:
\begin{bem}
Given a continous $S^1$ action on a manifold $M$. For any subset $C \subset S^1$ and $G \subset$Diff($M$) the closure of $F_{C,G} = \{ g\Phi_tg^{-1} | g\in G, t\in C \}$ contain a generic subset $D_{C,G}$ such that for each element in $D_{C,G}$ every orbit is postive recurrent,
hence any quasi-minimal homeomorphism in $D_{C,G}$ is minimal.
\end{bem}
Proof: Take two bases $\{ U_i \}$ and $\{ V_i \}$ of the topology of $M$ such that $\overline U_i \subset V_i$ and set $R_i = \{ f \in$ Diff($M$) $ |$ $ \forall$ $ x \in \overline U_i$ $ \exists$ $ n_x > 0 : f^{n_x} \in V_i \}$. Notice that since the $S^1$ action is continous, we have $F_{C,G} \subset R_i$. Since the space Diff($M$) is a Baire space and the sets $R_i$ are open, the set $$D:= \overline F_{C,G} \cap \bigcap_{i} R_i $$ is generic in the closure of $\overline F_{C,G}$. We have that every point $x \in M$ is positive recurrent for any $f \in D$. Indeed, take a sequence of neighbourhoods $V_{j(i)}$ such that $\overline V_{j(i)} \to x$. If $x$ is not a periodic point, we can build at least a squence $n_i \to \infty$ such that $f^{n_i}(x) \to x$, so every point is positive recurrent. If $f \in D$ is quasi-minimal, then for every dense orbit we have $\overline O_{f,+}(x) = \overline O_{f}(x)$, since each orbit is positive recurrent, thus $f$ is a forward minimal homeomorphism on a dense open set. Due to theorem B of [G], there is no forward minimal homeomorphism on any non compact locally compact space, thus the open set of dense orbits is compact, so the homeomorphism is forward minimal. {\hfill $\Box$ \vspace{2mm}}
On the even-dimensional spheres $S^{2n}$ we can find semi-free smooth $S^1$ actions that are free except on two fixed points. Because of the last remark and the fact that $S^{2n}$ admits no minimal homeomorphism, we can not find a set $F_{C,G}$ with a generic subset of quasi-minimal diffeomorphism.
|
\section{Introduction}
Stochastic order of random variables is particularly well-studied for random variables with values in the totally ordered space $\R$.
There are extensions to the partially ordered space $\R^d$, see \cite{shaked2007stochastic}.
Since recently the interest on random variables with values in metric spaces and metric measure spaces has grown (see \cite{EPW06} or \cite{gpw_mp}) we propose to study an order structure on metric (measure) spaces.
Thus, consider two metric spaces $(X,r_X)$ and $(Y,r_Y)$.
Is there a notion which can tell us that $(X,r_X)$ is \emph{smaller} than $(Y,r_Y)$?
We define such a notion; not on the set of metric spaces but on the set of metric measure spaces.
\footnote{For the ordering of metric spaces consider the introduction of \cite{EM14} which contains a perfect list of references.}
A metric measure space $(X,r,\mu)$ is a complete and separable metric space $(X,r)$ and a finite measure $\mu$ on (the Borel $\sigma$-field of) $X$. It is convenient to go to equivalence classes
$[X,r,\mu]$ of such metric measure spaces:
we say that a metric measure space $(X,r_X,\mu_X)$ is equivalent to a metric measure space $(Y,r_Y,\mu_Y)$
if we find a measure-preserving isometry $\supp(\mu_Y) \to \supp(\mu_X)$. We denote the set of such equivalence classes by $\bbM$ and write
$\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X]$ and $\mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]$ for typical elements $\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM$.
Metric measure spaces were studied in great detail in \cite{gromov} and \cite{sturm} as classical references and \cite{GPW09} and \cite{ALW14a} as probability theory related references.
One of the main reasons to prefer metric measure spaces to purely metric spaces for the ordering question are the powerful analytical tools of the former. \par
In order to define a partial order $\legen$ on $\bbM$ we use the following two ideas: Compare masses and compare distances. I.e.\ we say
$\mfx\legen \mfy$ if there is a Borel-measure $\mu_Y'$ on $Y$ such that $\mfx\lemetric [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y'] =:\mfy' \lemeasure \mfy$.
Here we say
$\mfx \lemetric \mfy'$ if there is a measure-preserving sub-isometry (i.e.\ $1-$Lipschitz map) $\supp(\mu_Y')\to \supp(\mu_X)$ and we say
$\mfy' \lemeasure \mfy$ if $\mu_Y' \le \mu_Y$ (if one writes $[Y',r_Y',\mu_Y'] = \mfy'$ then this is equivalent to finding a sub-measure-preserving isometry
$\supp(\mu_Y) \to Y'$).
In easy words and leaving away details we say that a pony is smaller than a horse:
a pony is a contracted version of a horse with less weight. \par
Partial orders on metric measure spaces were already considered before.
In Section~3.$\frac{1}{2}$.15 of Gromov's book \cite{gromov} the Lipschitz order $\succ$ is defined.
There are some other articles who studied $\succ$ and we mention \cite{shioya} for a comprehensive overview.
This relation $\succ$ is identical to $\lemetric$.
So the relation $\legen$ is an \emph{extension} to $\succ$.
Moreover, we can prove the important facts for the relation $\legen$:
We show that $\legen$ is a \emph{partial order} on $\bbM$ and that $\legen$ is \emph{closed}, i.e.\ $\{(\mfx,\mfy) \in \bbM\times \bbM:\ \mfx \legen \mfy\}$ is closed in the product topology, where $\bbM$ is equipped with the Gromov-weak topology (see Definition~2.5 in \cite{ALW14a}).
Considering the partial order $\lemetric$ we provide an analytical characterization with distance matrix measures, see \eqref{rg6}.
In some cases partial orders on metric spaces $(E,r)$ are ``natural'' in the sense that the distance $r(x,y)$ for two elements $x,y \in E$ with $x \leq y$ can be expressed in a simple way.
An example of that phenomenon is the metric induced by the $1$-norm on the partially ordered space $\R^n$, $n\in \N$ with coordinate-wise ordering.
For the partial order $\legen$ we will find that it is natural if we endow $\bbM$ with the generalized Eurandom metric which is defined in \cite{MG}.
\smallskip
There are two main applications of the partial order $\legen$.
The first is the \emph{Cartesian semigroup} defined in \cite{EM14} and the second one is the \emph{concatenation semigroup} given in \cite{infdiv}.
In the Cartesian semigroup any (normalized) metric measure space can be uniquely decomposed into prime factors.
Defining that an element dominates another if its prime factors (counting multiplicity) are contained in the other we have a special instance of the $\lemetric$ situation.
In the concatenation semigroup ultrametric measure spaces with a given upper bound for the diameter can be uniquely decomposed into prime factors.
Defining that an element dominates another if its prime factors (counting multiplicity) are contained in the other we have a special instance of the $\lemeasure$ situation.
This article will treat in particular probabilistic applications of the partial orders $\legen$, $\lemeasure$ and $\lemetric$ on $\bbM$.
Lately representing the genealogy of a randomly evolving population by (ultra-) metric measure spaces has received growing interest, see \cite{gpw_mp} and descendant articles.
The domination of genealogies (in some of the senses we defined) is a particularly interesting question as there are several situations where this is expected to occur in some way.
The most popular among these cases is the tree-valued Fleming-Viot process with and without selection, see Theorem~5 of \cite{DGP12}.
Here we give two main examples for a probabilistic application: the tree-valued Feller diffusion (Section~\ref{s.feller}) and in great more detail the tree-valued Fleming-Viot process (Section~\ref{sec.CompFV}).
In particular it turns out that for two Fleming-Viot processes with different diffusivity $\gamma' > \gamma >0$ the Wasserstein distance of their Eurandom distance is given by $\frac{1}{\gamma} - \frac{1}{\gamma'}$.
But that is the difference of the expected genealogical distance of two individuals.
We note that the coupling-results for Fleming-Viot processes are not new and can be proven using coalescent models. But on the level of trees, that have in general much more complexity than only pairwise-distances, the coupling result and the result on the distances of the random trees are new, as far as we know
\smallskip
{\bf Outline:} In Section~\ref{s.mmspace} we give the definition of metric measure spaces and the Gromov-weak topology.
In Section~\ref{ss.legen} we present our main results on the relation $\legen$. \par
In Section~\ref{s.further} we study the definition of $\legen$ in more details: In Section~\ref{ss.lemeasure}, the concept of smaller masses is defined and in subsection~\ref{ss.lemetric} we describe the concept of comparing distances. For the latter we characterize in Section~\ref{s.constr.lub} a set of ``least upper bounds''. Just before that we give the connections of the partial order $\legen$ to the generalized Eurandom distance. \par
We use the above concepts to prove in Section~\ref{s.proofs} the main results. Finally we give in Section~\ref{s.applications} several probabilistic applications: The connection of the partial order to the Cartesian semigroup in~\ref{ss.EM14}, some consequences for the stochastic dominance and Wasserstein distance of random metric measure spaces (see Section~\ref{ss.stoch.dom}), an example concerning tree-valued Feller diffusions (see Section~\ref{s.feller}) and finally a result for tree-valued Fleming-Viot processes (see Section~\ref{ss.TVMM} and \ref{sec.CompFV}).
\section{Metric measure spaces}\label{s.mmspace}
\begin{defn}[Metric measure spaces]\label{d.mm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We call $(X,r,\mu)$ a \emph{metric measure space} \emph{(mm space)} if
\begin{itemize}
\item $(X,r)$ is a complete separable metric space, where we assume that $X \subset \mathbb R$,
\item $\mu$ is a finite measure on the Borel subsets of $X$.
\end{itemize}
\item We define an equivalence relation on the collection of mm spaces as follows: Two mm spaces $(X,r_X,\mu_X)$ and $(Y,r_Y,\mu_Y)$ are \emph{equivalent} if and only if there exists a measurable map $\varphi:X\to Y$ such that
\begin{align}
\mu_Y & = \mu_X\circ \varphi^{-1} \text{ and }\\
r_X(x_1,x_2) &= r_Y(\varphi(x_1),\varphi(x_2))\quad \forall x_1,x_2\in \supp(\mu_X)
\, ,
\end{align}
i.e.~$\varphi$ restricted to $\supp(\mu_X)$ is an isometry onto its image and $\varphi$ is measure preserving.
We denote the equivalence class of a mm space $(X,r_X,\mu)$ by $[X,r_X,\mu]$.
\item We denote the collection of equivalence classes of mm spaces by
\begin{equation}
\bbM:=\left\{[X,r,\mu]:(X,r,\mu)\text{ is mm space} \right\}
\end{equation}
The subset $\bbM_1 = \{ \mfx = [X,r,\mu] \in \bbM:\, \mu(X) = 1\}$ is the set of those mm spaces where $\mu$ is a probability measure.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}\label{r.semigroup}
The semigroup $([0,\infty),\cdot)$ of real multiplication \emph{acts} on $\bbM$ in two ways: for $a \in [0,\infty)$ and $\mfx =[X,r,\mu] \in \bbM$ we define
\begin{align}
a \ast [X,r,\mu] &:= [X,ar,\mu] ,\\
a\cdot [X,r,\mu] &:= [X,r,a\mu] .
\end{align}
So, by $\ast$ we denote a multiplication of the \emph{metric} and by $\cdot$ we denote a multiplication of the \emph{measure}.
It is clear that $\ast$ can be restricted to $\bbM_1$ (to be precise: $\ast([0,\infty),\bbM_1) \subset \bbM_1$), whereas $\cdot$ cannot be restricted.
\end{rem}
\begin{defn}[Distance matrix measure]
For an mm space $\mfx=[X,r,\mu]\in\bbM$ and $m\geq2$ we define the \emph{distance matrix map of order $m$}
\begin{equation}\label{rg5}
R^{m,(X,r)}:X^m\to\R^{\binom{m}{2}}\,,\quad (x_i)_{i=1,\dotsc,m}\mapsto (r(x_i,x_j))_{1\leq i<j\leq m}
\end{equation}
and the \emph{distance matrix measure of order $m$}
\begin{align} \label{rg6}
\nu^{m,\mfx}(\dx \underline{\underline{r}}) &:=\mu^{\otimes m}\circ (R^{m,(X,r)})^{-1}(d\underline{\underline{r}})\\
&=\mu^{\otimes m}(\{(x_1,\dotsc,x_m)\in X^m:(r(x_i,x_j))_{1\leq i<j\leq m}\in\dx \underline{\underline{r}}\})\,. \nonumber
\end{align}
For $m=1$ we set $\nu^{1,\mfx} := \bar{\mfx} := \mu(X)$ the \emph{total mass}.
\end{defn}
The finite subtrees with $m$ leaves can be described by the following test functions.
\begin{defn}[Monomials]
\label{d.poly}
For $m\geq1$ and $\phi\in C_b(\R^{\binom{m}{2}})$ (the space of bounded continuous functions $\R^{\binom{m}{2}} \rightarrow \mathbb R$), define the \emph{monomial}
\begin{equation}\label{rg8}
\Phi=\Phi^{m,\phi}:\bbM\to\bbR\,,\quad \mfu\mapsto \langle\phi,\nu^{m,\mfx}\rangle = \int_{\R^{\binom{m}{2}}} \nu^{m,\mfx}(\dx \dr)\, \phi(\dr)\,
\end{equation}
and write $\Pi$ for the set of monomials.
For convenience, we abbreviate the nonnegative monomials $ \Pi_+ := \{\Phi^{m,\phi} \in \Pi:\, \phi \geq 0\} $.
The algebra generated by $\Pi$ is denoted by $\mcA(\Pi)$ and called the set of \emph{polynomials}.
\end{defn}
We next recall the topology given in Definition 2.5 of \cite{ALW14a}.
\begin{defn}[Gromov-weak-topology]\label{D.gromov}
We say that a sequence $(\mfx_n)_{n\in\bbN}$ of elements from $\bbM$ converges to $\mfx\in\bbM$ in the \emph{Gromov-weak topology} if and only if
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\mfx_n) \to \Phi(\mfx)
\end{equation}
for any $\Phi \in \Pi$, defined in \eqref{rg8}.
The topology is denoted by $\mcO_{\text{Gweak}}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
The topology of Gromov-weak convergence is equivalent to the convergence of the distance measures and can be metricized by the Gromov-Prohorov metric $d_{\text{GPr}}$.
The metric space $(\bbM, d_{\text{GPr}})$ is complete and separable, see Proposition~4.8 in \cite{ALW14a}.
\end{rem}
\section{The partial order \texorpdfstring{$\legen$}{le.general} on metric measure spaces}\label{ss.legen}
We define a relation $\legen$ on the set $\bbM$ of metric measure spaces.
It will turn out that $\legen$ is a partial order with some additional properties.
\begin{defn}[The relation $\legen$]\label{d.legen}
For $\mfx, \mfy \in \bbM$ we define $\mfx \legen \mfy$ if for $\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X]$ and $\mfy =[Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]$
there is a Borel-measure $\mu_Y' \le \mu_Y$ on $Y$ and a map $\tau : \supp(\mu_Y') \rightarrow \supp(\mu_X)$
such that
\begin{align}
\mu_X &= \mu_Y' \circ \tau^{-1} ,\\
r_X(\tau(y_1),\tau(y_2)) &\le r_Y(y_1,y_2) \ \text{ for all } y_1,y_2 \in \supp(\mu_Y) .
\end{align}
We say that $\tau$ is a \emph{measure-preserving} mapping and a \emph{sub-isometry}.
\end{defn}
Of course one needs to verify that this definition does not depend on the particular representation of $\mfx$ and $\mfy$. But this can be easily seen
by definition - any other representative is measure-preserving isometric to the first one.
Besides it is worth comparing the previous definition to Definition~\ref{d.mm}.
Before we give an example we note that the above definition
consists of two ideas, namely:
\begin{defn}[The relation $\lemeasure$]\label{d.lemeasure}
Let $\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X]$, $\mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]\in \bbM$.
We say that $\mfx \lemeasure \mfy$ if there is an isometry $\tau : \supp(\mu_Y) \rightarrow X$
such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e.legen.mu} \mu_X \le \mu_Y\circ \tau^{-1}.
\end{equation}
We say that $\tau$ is a \emph{sub-measure preserving} isometry.
\end{defn}
And
\begin{defn}[The relation $\lemetric$]\label{d.lemetric}
Let $\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X], \mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y],\in \bbM_1$.
We say that $\mfx \lemetric \mfy$ if there is a map $\tau : \supp(\mu_Y) \rightarrow \supp(\mu_X)$
such that $\mu_Y\circ \tau^{-1} = \mu_X$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{e.legen.r} r_Y(y_1,y_2) \geq r_X(\tau(y_1),\tau(y_2)) \ \text{ for all } y_1,y_2 \in \supp(\mu_Y) .
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
As above these definitions do not depend on the representatives and we remark:
\begin{rem}\label{r.equi.def}
$\mfx \legen \mfy$ iff there is an mm space $\mfy'$ such that $\mfx \lemetric \mfy'$ $\lemeasure \mfy$, where we can extend the definition of $\lemetric$
to mm-spaces with the same mass.
\end{rem}
Let us now apply the definition in an example.
Even though it is trivial it illustrates the two important concepts: larger in distance and larger in mass.
\begin{example}\label{ex.1}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{ex.1.a} $\mfx_1 = [X,r_X,\mu_X]= [\{a,b\},r(a,b)=1,(\delta_a+\delta_b)/2]$ and $\mfy_1 = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]= [\{c,d\},r(c,d)=2,(\delta_c+\delta_d)/2]$.
Define $\tau_1: Y \to X$ via $\tau_1(c)=a$ and $\tau_1(d)=b$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
r_X(\tau_1(c),\tau_1(d)) = r_X(a,b) = 1 \leq 2 =r_Y(c,d) .
\end{equation}
So \eqref{e.legen.r} holds, i.e.\ $\mfx_1 \lemetric \mfy_1$. By Remark~\ref{r.equi.def} this implies $\mfx_1 \legen \mfy_1$.
\item\label{ex.1.b} $\mfx_2 = [X,r_X,\mu_X]= [\{e\},0,\delta_e]$ and $\mfy_2 = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]= [\{f\},0,2\delta_f]$. Then
Then $\tau_2: Y \to X$ via $\tau_2(f) =e$ satisfies $r_X(\tau_2(f),\tau_2(f)) = r_X(e,e) = 0 = r_Y(f,f)$ is an isometry and
$\delta_e = \delta_f \circ \tau_2^{-1} \le 2 \delta_f\circ \tau_2^{-1} $. Thus $\mfx_2 \lemeasure \mfy_2$. Again, by Remark~\ref{r.equi.def}
this implies $\mfx_2 \legen \mfy_2$.
\end{enumerate}
${}$ \\[-0.3cm]
\noindent If we use the semigroup actions $\cdot$ and $\ast$ defined in Definition~\ref{d.mm} we can also write the two examples as
$\mfx_1 \legen 2 \ast \mfx_1 = \mfy_1$ and $\mfx_2 \legen 2 \cdot\mfx_2=\mfy_2$.
\end{example}
We include another example.
\begin{example}\label{ex.pol.gen}
Let $\mfx = [\{1,2,4\},r(i,j)=|i-j|, \delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_4 ]$ and $\mfy = [\{1,2,3,4\},r(i,j)=|i-j|,\sum_{i=1}^4 \delta_i ]$.
Then we can not find a map $\tilde \tau: \{1,2,3,4\} \to \{1,2,4\}$ that is a sub-measure preserving sub-isometry. But we still have $\mfx \legen \mfy$.
\end{example}
We will now present some results for $\legen$. The first point is that $\legen$ defines a \emph{partial order} on $\bbM$,
i.e.\ a reflexive, transitive and antisymmetric relation. The second point is, that $\legen$ is \emph{closed},
i.e.\ for $\mfx_n,\mfy_n,\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM$ with $\mfx_n \to \mfx$ and $\mfy_n \to \mfy$ as $n\to \infty$ the following holds: $\mfx_n \legen \mfy_n$ for
all $n \in \N$ implies that $\mfx \legen \mfy$.
\begin{thm}\label{t.legen.pots}
$\legen$ is a closed partial order on $\bbM$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
We could also define a partial order $\le'$ on $\bbM$, where we say $\mfx \le' \mfy$ if there is a sub-measure preserving sub-isometry $\supp(\mu_Y) \to \supp(\mu_X)$.
It is easy to see that $\mfx \le' \mfy$ implies $\mfx \legen \mfy$ but a slight modification of Example~\ref{ex.pol.gen} shows that this partial order is not closed.
\end{rem}
The following result will be important for applications:
\begin{prop}\label{p.legen.compact}
Let $A \subset \bbM$ be compact. Then the set $\bigcup_{\mfy \in A} \{\mfx \in \bbM:\, \mfx \legen \mfy\}$ is compact.
\end{prop}
In some cases partially ordered sets have a deeper algebraic structure underlying which may come from a lattice.
In our case, however, there is no such structure, since $(\bbM,\legen)$ is neither a join-semilattice nor a meet-semilattice in general (the point is that we can not expect uniqueness of a ``greatest lower bound'' or ``least upper bound''). \par
But we have the following properties with respect to the semigroup actions given in Definition \ref{d.mm}. Namely we get that the partial order is compatible with the semigroup actions:
\begin{prop}\label{p.legen.easy}
Let $\mfx, \mfy \in \bbM$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p.legen.easy.1} $a\cdot \mfx \legen \mfx$ for $a \in [0,1]$ and $\mfx \legen b \cdot \mfx$ for $b \in [1,\infty)$.
\item\label{p.legen.easy.2} $a \ast \mfx \legen \mfx$ for $a \in [0,1]$ and $\mfx \legen b \ast \mfx$ for $b \in [1,\infty)$.
\item\label{p.legen.easy.3} $\mfx \legen \mfy$ implies that $c \cdot \mfx \legen c \cdot \mfy$ and $c \ast \mfx \leq c \ast \mfy$ for any $c \in [0,\infty)$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, the first statement states that $0 = [\{a\},r,0] \legen \mfx$ for all $\mfx \in \bbM$.
\end{prop}
\section{Further results}\label{s.further}
Here we study the two special cases of the $\legen$ order, given in Definition~\ref{d.lemeasure} and Definition~\ref{d.lemetric}, in more details. Moreover we prove a connection to the Eurandom distance and define a set of least upper bounds.
\subsection{The partial order \texorpdfstring{$\lemeasure$}{le.measure}}\label{ss.lemeasure}
In this section, we will describe the relation $\lemeasure$ given in Definition~\ref{d.lemeasure} in more details. We start with the following observation:
\begin{prop} \label{p.lemeasure.pots}
The relation $\lemeasure$ of Definition~\ref{d.lemeasure} is a closed partial order on $\bbM$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\mfx \lemeasure \mfy \lemeasure \mfz = [Z,r_Z,\mu_Z] \in \bbM$ iff there are Borel-measures $\mu_X,\mu_Y$ on the Borel subsets of $Z$
such that $\mfx = [Z,r_Z,\mu_X]$, $\mfy = [Z,r_Z,\mu_Y]$ and $\mu_X \le \mu_Y \le \mu_Z$ (with the classical partial order on measures). This implies that $\lemeasure$ is a partial order. \par
If we take $\mfx_n,\mfy_n,\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM$, $n \in \mathbb N$ with $\mfx_n \rightarrow \mfx$, $\mfy_n \rightarrow \mfy$ and
$\mfx_n \lemeasure \mfy_n$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$, then we need to show $\mfx \lemeasure \mfy$. Note that, as before, we find measures
$\mu_X^n \le \mu_Y^n$ such that $\mfx_n = [Y^n,r_Y^n,\mu_X^n]$ and $\mfy_n = [Y^n,r_Y^n,\mu_Y^n]$, $n \in \mathbb N$. \par
By Lemma 5.8 in \cite{GPW09}, there is a complete separable metric space $(Z,r_Z)$ and
isometric embeddings $\varphi,\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\ldots$ from $Y,Y^1,Y^2,\ldots $ into $(Z,r_Z)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{e.Pr.1}
d_{Pr}(\mu_Y^n \circ\varphi_n^{-1},\mu_Y\circ \varphi^{-1}) \rightarrow 0,
\end{equation}
where the Prohorov metric is defined on the set of Borel-measures on $(Z,r_Z)$. By the continuous mapping theorem we also know that
\begin{equation}\label{e.Pr.2}
d_{Pr}(\mu_X^n \circ\varphi_n^{-1},\mu_X\circ \varphi^{-1}) \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Since $\mu_X^n \circ\varphi_n^{-1} \le \mu_Y^n \circ\varphi_n^{-1}$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$ we can combine that with \eqref{e.Pr.1} and \eqref{e.Pr.2} to
$\mu_X\circ \varphi^{-1} \le \mu_Y\circ \varphi^{-1}$, and hence $\mfx = [Z,r_Z,\mu_X\circ \varphi^{-1}] \lemeasure [Z,r_Z,\mu_Y\circ \varphi^{-1}] = \mfy$.
\end{proof}
Let us relate the partially ordered set to a semigroup.
\begin{rem}\label{r.concat}
The semigroup of concatenation is defined in \cite{infdiv}.
Fix $h>0$ and define $\bbU(h)^\sqcup := \{\mfu \in \bbU: \, \nu^{2,\mfu}((h,\infty)) = 0\}$ as the space of $h$-forests.
Those are the ultrametric measure spaces with distance at most $h$; they correspond to trees with height at most $h/2$, see the above reference for details.
This space can be made a semigroup via the binary operation $\sqcup: \bbU(h)^\sqcup \times \bbU(h)^\sqcup \to \bbU(h)^\sqcup$, called $h$-concatenation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq.con.1}
[U_1,r_1,\mu_1] \sqcup [U_2,r_2,\mu_2] = [U_1 \uplus U_2, r_1 \sqcup r_2, \mu_1+\mu_2] \, ,
\end{equation}
with $\uplus$ is the disjoint union and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
r_1 \sqcup r_2 (x,y) = r_1(x,y) &\1(x,y \in U_1) + r_2(x,y) \1(x,y\in U_2) \\
&+ h \1(x\in U_1,y \in U_2) + h \1(x\in U_2, y \in U_1)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $[U_1,r_1,\mu_1],[U_2,r_2,\mu_2] \in \U(h)^\sqcup$.
As this turns out to be a cancellative operation, the induced relation $\leq_\sqcup$
($\mfu \leq_\sqcup \mfv :\Leftrightarrow \exists \mfw: \mfu \sqcup \mfw = \mfv$) defines a partial order. \par
If now $\mfu= [U,r_U,\mu_U] \leq_\sqcup \mfv= [V,r_V,\mu_V] $ then $V$ is of the form (\ref{eq.con.1}), i.e.\ there is a $\mfw = [W,r_W,\mu_W]$ such that
$[V,r_V,\mu_V] = [U \uplus W, r_U \sqcup r_W, \mu_U+\mu_W]$. Since $\mu_U + \mu_W \ge \mu_U$ (as measures on $U \uplus W$) and $\mfu = [U \uplus W, r_U \sqcup r_W, \mu_U]$ we get $\mfu \lemeasure\mfv$.
\end{rem}
We close this section with the following properties of $\lemeasure$:
\begin{prop}\label{p.prop.measure}
Let $\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p.prop.measure.a} If $\mfx \lemeasure \mfy$ and $\overline{\mfx} = \overline{\mfy}$, then $\mfx = \mfy$.
\item\label{p.lemeasure.compact} Let $A \subset \bbM$ be compact. Then the set $\bigcup_{\mfy \in A} \{\mfx \in \bbM:\, \mfx \lemeasure \mfy\}$ is compact.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
(\ref{p.prop.measure.a}) Note that if two measures $\mu,\nu$ on a set $Y$ satisfy $\mu \le \nu$ and $ \mu(Y) = \nu(Y)$, this is enough
to get $\mu = \nu$. \par
(\ref{p.lemeasure.compact}) Take a sequence $(\mfx_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}$ in $\bigcup_{\mfy \in A} \{\mfx \in \bbM:\, \mfx \lemeasure \mfy\}$. Then there is a sequence
$(\mfy_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}$ in $A$ such that $\mfx_n \lemeasure \mfy_n = [Y^n,r_Y^n,\mu_Y^n]$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$. Since $A$ is compact we get $\mfy_n \rightarrow \mfy \in A$ along
some subsequence, where we suppress the dependence. Following the proof of Proposition~\ref{p.lemeasure.pots}, we find a complete separable metric space $(Z,r_Z)$
and isometric embeddings $\varphi,\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\ldots$ from $Y,Y^1,Y^2,\ldots $ into $(Z,r_Z)$ such that $\mu_Y^n \circ \varphi_n^{-1} \Rightarrow \mu_Y \circ
\varphi^{-1}$. Since $\mu_X^n \circ \varphi_n^{-1} \le \mu_Y^n \circ \varphi_n^{-1} $ for all $n \in \mathbb N$, Prohorov's theorem implies
$\mu_X^n \circ \varphi_n^{-1} \Rightarrow \mu_X$ along some subsequence, where we again suppress the dependence. With the same argument as after \eqref{e.Pr.2} we get $\mu_X \le \mu_Y \circ \varphi^{-1}$ and by Lemma~5.8 in \cite{GPW09}, this
is enough to prove $\mfx_n \rightarrow [Z,r_Z,\mu_X] =:\mfx$. Since $\mfx \lemeasure [Z,r_Z,\mu_Y \circ \varphi^{-1}] = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The partial order \texorpdfstring{$\lemetric$}{le.metric}}\label{ss.lemetric}
In this section, we describe the relation $\lemetric$ given in Definition~\ref{d.lemetric} in more details.
It will turn out that it is a closed partial order. Before we start we note that although $\lemetric$ is a relation on $\bbM_1$,
it can be extended without any problems to compare mm-spaces with the same mass. \\
Our first result on the relation $\lemetric$ is a characterization in terms of monomials introduced in Definition~\ref{d.poly}.
Let $m \in \{2,3,\dotsc\} $ and define a partial order on $\R^{\binom{m}{2}}$: for the two elements $\dr , \dr' \in \R^{\binom{m}{2}}$
set $\dr \leq \dr'$ iff $\dr_{ij} \leq \dr_{ij}'$ for $1\leq i < j \leq m$.
Then we call a function $\phi \in C(\R^{\binom{m}{2}})$ \emph{increasing} if $\phi(\dr) \leq \phi(\dr')$ for all $\dr,\dr' \in\R^{\binom{m}{2}}$
with $\dr \leq \dr'$.
A set $A \subset \R^{\binom{m}{2}}$ is called \emph{increasing} if its indicator function $\1_A$ is increasing, i.e.~if $\dr \in A$ then $\dr' \in A$
for all $\dr' \in \R^{\binom{m}{2}}$ with $\dr \leq \dr'$.
A monomial $\Phi^{m,\phi} \in \Pi$ is called \emph{increasing} if $\phi$ is increasing.
\begin{thm}\label{p.lemetric.char}
Let $\mfx= [X,r_X,\mu_X], \mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y] \in \bbM_1$.
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{t.lemetric.char.1} $\mfx \lemetric \mfy$.
\item\label{t.lemetric.char.3} $\Phi(\mfx) \leq \Phi(\mfy)$ for all increasing $\Phi$.
\item\label{t.lemetric.char.4} $\nu^{m,\mfx} (A) \leq \nu^{m,\mfy}(A)$ for all increasing $A \in \mathcal B(\R^{\binom{m}{2}})$, $m\in \N_{\ge 2}$.
\item\label{t.lemetric.char.5} $\nu^{\infty,\mfx} (A) \leq \nu^{\infty,\mfy}(A)$ for all increasing
$A \in \mathcal B(\R^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}})$, where $\nu^{\infty,\mfx}$ is defined as in (\ref{rg6}) with $m$ replaced by $\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Theorem may be seen as an extension of Lemma~4.2 (b) of \cite{EM14}. Their work also defines a partial order and we will see later in Section~\ref{ss.EM14} that their partial order is a special case of our order.
\item We think that this theorem is also true for the general order $\legen$, where one has to use positive increasing functions.
But this is still open.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
``(\ref{t.lemetric.char.1}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{t.lemetric.char.3})'' is straight forward and
``(\ref{t.lemetric.char.3}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{t.lemetric.char.4})'' follows by a standard approximation argument. \par
For ``(\ref{t.lemetric.char.4}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{t.lemetric.char.5})'' we note that
$\mathbb R^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}} \supset A = \bigcap_m \pi_m^{-1}(\pi_m(A))$, where
$\pi_m:\mathbb R^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}} \to \mathbb R^{\binom{m}{2}} $ is the projection, and that
$\nu^{\infty,\mfx}(\pi_m^{-1}(\pi_m(A))) = \nu^{m,\mfx}(\pi_m(A))$. \par
The proof of ``(\ref{t.lemetric.char.5}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{t.lemetric.char.1})'' is based on the proof of the mm-reconstruction Theorem (see for example \cite{Kondo}
and \cite{Vershik}).
We can assume w.l.o.g.~that $X = \supp(\mu_X)$ and $Y = \supp(\mu_Y)$. Let $E_X \subset X^\N$ be the set of all sequences $(x_i)_{i \in \N}$ with
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n f(x_i) = \int_X f(x) \mu_X(dx),\qquad \forall f \in C_b(X).
\end{equation}
Note that $\mu_X^{\otimes N}(E_X) = 1$ (by the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem, e.g.~in \cite{parthasarathy}) and that $\{x_i: \ i \in \N\}$ is dense in $X$
for all $x \in E_X$ (we assumed $X = \supp(\mu_X)$). We denote by $E_Y$ the analogue set of sequences in $Y$, where we replace $\mu_X$ by $\mu_Y$.
Define
\begin{align}
A&:= \left\{\dr \in \R_+^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}}:\ \exists (x_i)_{i \in \N} \in E_X : r_X(x_i,x_j) \leq r_{i,j} ,\ \forall 1 \le i \le j \right\},\\
B&:= \left\{\dr \in \R_+^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}}:\ \exists (y_i)_{i \in \N}\in E_Y: \ r_Y(y_i,y_j) \geq r_{i,j},\ \forall 1 \le i \le j \right\}.
\end{align}
Clearly
\begin{equation}
\nu^{\infty,\mfx}(A) = \nu^{\infty,\mfy}(B) = 1.
\end{equation}
Observe that $\R_+^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}} \backslash B$ is an increasing set and we have
\begin{equation}
\nu^{\infty,\mfx}\left(\R_+^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}} \backslash B\right) \le \nu^{\infty,\mfy}\left(\R_+^{\binom{\mathbb N}{2}} \backslash B\right) = 0.
\end{equation}
It follows that $\nu^{\infty,\mfx}(A \cap B) = 1$ and hence $A \cap B$ is not empty. Now, by definition, we find a sequence $(x_i)_{i\in \N}\in E_X$ and $(y_i)_{i \in \N} \in E_Y$ with the property that $r_X(x_i,x_j) \leq \dr_{ij} \leq r_Y(y_i,y_j)$ for all $i,j \in \N$.
Fix these two sequences.
Define the map $\tilde\tau: \{y_i: i \in \N\} \rightarrow X$, $y_i \mapsto x_i$, then $\tilde\tau$ is a sub-isometry defined on a dense subset of $Y$ and therefore extends to a sub-isometry $\tau: Y \rightarrow X$.
Finally observe that by definition of the sequences $(x_i)_{i \in \N}$ and $(y_i)_{i \in \N}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\int f \ d\mu_Y\circ \tau^{-1} &= \int f\circ \tau d \mu_Y = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n f(\tau(y_i)) \\
&= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n f(x_i) = \int f \ d \mu_X.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for all functions $f \in C_b(X)$, i.e.\ $\mu_Y\circ \tau^{-1} = \mu_X$ and therefore $\tau$ is a measure-preserving sub-isometry as required.
\end{proof}
As a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{p.lemetric.char}, we can deduce the following known statement (see 3.$\frac{1}{2}$.15 (a) and (b) in \cite{gromov}).
\begin{prop}\label{p.lemetric.pots}
The relation $\lemetric$ of Definition~\ref{d.lemetric} is a closed partial order on $\bbM_1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This proof follows directly from Proposition~\ref{p.lemetric.char}: While the reflexivity and transitivity are obvious, the antisymmetry follows
by the fact that $\Phi(\mfx) = \Phi(\mfy)$ for all increasing $\Phi \in \Pi_+$ implies $\mfx = \mfy$. This follows since the algebra generated by
increasing $\Phi$ is dense in the set of all polynomials and this suffices to deduce $\mfx = \mfy$ (see Proposition~2.6 in \cite{GPW09}). \par
The closedness follows since the monomials generate the Gromov-weak topology.
\end{proof}
One may think that for ``small'' spaces (with few points) one only needs to look at low order polynomials.
The next example shows that this is not the case. Nevertheless we think that the characterization result, Theorem \ref{p.lemetric.char},
might be helpful algorithmically to determine whether $\mfx \lemetric \mfy$ holds.
\begin{example}
We consider $\mfx = (\{a,b\},r(a,b)=1,(\delta_a + \delta_b)/2)$ and $\mfy = (\{c,d,e\},r(c,d)=1,r(c,e)=r(d,e)=2,(\delta_c+\delta_d + \delta_e)/3)$. Then, on the one hand, one can not find a measure preserving sub-isometry but on the other hand it is not obvious that the distance matrix distributions do not dominate each other. In particular one needs to consider the distance matrix distribution of order $m = 10$ to see that $\nu^{m,\mfx}\not \leq \nu^{m,\mfy}$: If we look at the sequence of points
\begin{equation}
\underline{x} := \left(\underbrace{a,\ldots,a }_{m},\underbrace{b,\ldots,b }_{m}\right)
\end{equation}
and denote by $R:= R^{m,\mfx}(\underline{x})$ the corresponding distance matrix, then
\begin{equation}
\nu^{m,\mfx}\left(\bigtimes_{1 \le i < j \le m}[R_{i,j},\infty) \right) = \frac{2}{2^{2m}}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand:
\begin{equation}
\nu^{m,\mfy}\left(\bigtimes_{1 \le i < j \le m}[R_{i,j},\infty) \right) = \frac{3 \cdot 2^{m}+3\cdot (2^m-2)}{3^{2m}}.
\end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\nu^{m,\mfy}&\left(\bigtimes_{1 \le i < j \le m}[R_{i,j},\infty) \right) \le \nu^{m,\mfx}\left(\bigtimes_{1 \le i < j \le m}[R_{i,j},\infty) \right) \\
& \Longleftrightarrow \qquad 2^{m+1}-2 \le \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2m - 1}\\
& \Longleftrightarrow \qquad m \ge 10.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
So in this example to distinguish if a space of two points is dominated by one of three points one needs to consider the distance matrix distribution of order 10.
We do not know if one may formulate an upper bound on the necessary order depending on the number of points.
\end{example}
We close this section with some properties of $\lemetric$.
\begin{prop}\label{p.prop.metric}
Let $\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM_1$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p.prop.metric.a} If $\mfx \lemetric \mfy$ and $\nu^{2,\mfx} = \nu^{2,\mfy}$, then $\mfx = \mfy$
\item\label{p.lemetric.compact} Let $A \subset \bbM_1$ be compact. Then the set $\bigcup_{\mfy \in A} \{\mfx \in \bbM_1:\, \mfx \lemetric \mfy\}$ is compact.
\item\label{p.prop.metric.c} There is a set $\LUB(\mfx_1,\mfx_2) \subset \bbM_1$, with the property: If $ \mfw \in \bbM_1$ with $\mfw \legen \mfx_1$ and $\mfw \legen \mfx_2$ then $\bar \mfz \le \mfw$ for some $\bar \mfz \in \LUB(\mfx_1,\mfx_2) $ implies $\bar \mfz = \mfw$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
We note that (\ref{p.prop.metric.c}) can be deduced by Zorn's Lemma. But in contrast to the other partial orders, we can characterize $\LUB(\mfx_1,\mfx_2)$ in this situation explicitly using optimal couplings for the involved measures. We will study the set $\LUB$ in Section~\ref{s.constr.lub}.
\begin{proof}
(\ref{p.prop.metric.a}) is Lemma 2.6 in \cite{shioya}. But we note that \eqref{p.prop.measure.a} is also a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{t.gen.Eur.order}. \par
(\ref{p.lemetric.compact}) This is 3.$\frac{1}{2}$.15(c) in \cite{gromov}, but for completeness we will give a proof. Set
\begin{equation}
L(A) = \bigcup_{\mfy \in A} \{\mfx \in \bbM_1:\, \mfx \lemetric \mfy\}.
\end{equation}
According to Proposition~7.1 in \cite{GPW09}, the set $L(A)$ is compact (note that it is closed) if:
\begin{align}
\label{e.nu2} &\left\{ \nu^{2,\mfy};\, \mfy \in L(A) \right\} \subset \mcM_1([0,\infty))\text{ is tight}\\
\label{e.tr54}&\sup_{\mfx \in L(A)} v_\delta(\mfx) \xrightarrow{\delta \to 0} \, 0,
\end{align}
where for $\mfx = [X,r,\mu]$, $\delta, \eps >0$ and $B_{\eps}^r(y) := \{x \in X: \, r(x,y)<\eps\}$
\begin{equation} \label{modul}
v_{\delta}(\mfx) = \inf \left\{ \eps:\, \mu\left\{x\in X:\, \mu(B_{\eps}^r(x))\leq \delta \right\} < \eps \right\} \, .
\end{equation}
By Theorem~\ref{p.lemetric.char}, (\ref{e.nu2}) is straight forward, since $A$ is compact (see again Proposition 7.1 in \cite{GPW09}). \par
To prove (\ref{e.tr54}) we take $\mfx \in L(A)$. Then we find a $\mfy \in A$ such that $\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X]$ $\lemetric \mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]$.
This implies the existence of a measure-preserving sub-isometry $\tau: \supp(\mu_Y) \to \supp(\mu_X)$. It follows that
$B^{r_Y}_\eps(y) \subset \tau^{-1}\big(B^{r_X}_\eps(\tau(y))\big)$, for $y \in \supp(\mu_Y)$ and hence
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
v_{\delta}(\mfx)&= \inf \left\{ \eps:\, \mu_X\left\{x\in X:\, \mu_X(B_{\eps}^{r_X}(x))\leq \delta \right\} < \eps \right\} \\
&= \inf \left\{ \eps:\, \mu_Y\left\{x\in X:\, \tau^{-1}B^{r_X}_\eps(\tau(y))\leq \delta \right\} < \eps \right\} \\
&\le v_{\delta}(\mfy).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining this with the fact that $A$ is compact, (\ref{e.tr54}) follows again by Proposition~7.1 in \cite{GPW09}.\par
For (\ref{p.prop.metric.c}) see Section~\ref{s.constr.lub}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The generalized Eurandom distance}\label{s.gen.Eur}
The Eurandom-distance was introduced in \cite{GPW09}, Section~10 and is generalized in \cite{MG}. We recall the definition and
some of the results. For details we refer to the mentioned papers. \par
Let $\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X], \mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y] \in \mathbb M_1$ and $\lambda > 0$ then the (modified) Eurandom-metric is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{e.def.Eurandom}
\begin{split}
\dEur^\lambda &(\mfx,\mfy):= \\
&\inf_{\tilde \mu \in \Pi(\mu_X,\mu_Y)} \int_{(X\times Y)^2} \left|e^{-\lambda r_Y(y,y')}-e^{-\lambda r_X(x,x')}\right| \tilde \mu(d(x,y))\tilde \mu(d(x',y')),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all couplings $\Pi(\mu_X,\mu_Y) = \{\tilde \mu \in \mcM_1(X \times Y):\, \tilde{\mu} ( \cdot \times Y) = \mu_X \text{ and } \tilde{\mu}(X \times \cdot) =\mu_Y\}$. \par
It is straight forward to generalize the above to finite metric measure spaces with $\overline{\mfx} = \overline{\mfy}$.
\begin{defn}\label{d.gen.Eur}
Let $\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM$, $\lambda > 0$. The {\it generalized Eurandom metric} is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq.gen.Eurandom}
\dgEur^\lambda(\mfx,\mfy) := \inf_{\substack{\mfx',\mfy' \in \bbM,\ \overline{\mfx'} = \overline{\mfy'} \\ \mfx' \lemeasure \mfx, \ \mfy' \lemeasure \mfy}} \left(D^\lambda(\mfx',\mfy'; \mfx,\mfy) + \dEur^\lambda(\mfx',\mfy') \right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
D^\lambda(\mfx',\mfy'; \mfx,\mfy) = \int (1 - &e^{-\lambda r}) \nu^{2, \mfx }(dr) - \int (1 - e^{-\lambda r}) \nu^{2, \mfx'}(dr) \\
&+ \int (1 - e^{-\lambda r}) \nu^{2, \mfy}(dr) - \int (1 - e^{-\lambda r}) \nu^{2, \mfy'}(dr).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
Before we give the connection to $\legen$, we note that the generalized Eurandom distance is really a generalization of the
Eurandom distance in the sense that $\overline{\mfx} = \overline{\mfy}$ implies $\dgEur^\lambda(\mfx,\mfy) = \dEur(\mfx,\mfy)$.
Moreover one can prove that it metricizes the Gromov-weak topology on $\bbM$ (see \cite{MG} for details). \par
We are now ready to give the main result of this section:
\begin{thm}\label{t.gen.Eur.order}
Let $\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM$ with $\mfx \legen \mfy$, then
\begin{equation}
\dgEur^\lambda(\mfx,\mfy) = \int (1- e^{-\lambda r} )\nu^{2,\mfy}(dr) - \int (1-e^{-\lambda r} ) \nu^{2,\mfx}(dr).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
In order to prove this, we start by proving the analogue for the (non-generalized) Eurandom distance:
\begin{lem}\label{Eur.metric.dom}
Let $\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM_1$. Assume that $\mfx \lemetric \mfy$. Then the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\dEur(\mfx,\mfy) = \int 1- e^{-\lambda r} d\nu^{2,\mfy} - \int 1- e^{-\lambda r} d\nu^{2,\mfx}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\tau:\supp(\mu_Y) \rightarrow \supp(\mu_X)$ be a measure-preserving sub-isometry and define the measure $\tilde \mu$
on $\supp(\mu_X) \times \supp(\mu_Y)$ by setting $\tilde \mu(dx,dy) = \delta_{\tau(y)}(dx) \mu_Y(dy)$. Then $\tilde \mu$ is a coupling of $\mu_X$ and $\mu_Y$ and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dEur^\lambda (\mfx,\mfy) &\le \int |e^{-\lambda r_Y(y,y')}-e^{-\lambda r_X(x,x')}| \tilde \mu(d(x,y))\tilde \mu(d(x',y')) \\
&= \int e^{-\lambda r_X(\tau(y),\tau(y'))} - e^{-\lambda r_Y(y,y')} \tilde \mu(d(x,y))\tilde \mu(d(x',y')) \\
&= \int 1- e^{-\lambda r} d\nu^{2,\mfy} - \int 1- e^{-\lambda r} d\nu^{2,\mfx}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and ``$\le$'' follows. If $\tilde \mu$ is an arbitrary coupling of $\mu_X$ and $\mu_Y$, then
\begin{equation}\label{e.mg22}
\begin{split}
\int 1- e^{-\lambda r} \nu^{2,\mfy}&(dr) - \int 1-e^{-\lambda r} \nu^{2,\mfx}(dr) \\
&\le \int |e^{-\lambda r_Y(y,y')}-e^{-\lambda r_X(x,x')}| \tilde \mu(d(x,y)) \tilde\mu(d(x',y')).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove Theorem \ref{t.gen.Eur.order}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t.gen.Eur.order}]
By definition there is a $\mfy' \in \bbM$ such that $\mfx \lemetric \mfy' \lemeasure \mfy$. First,
``$\le$'' follows if we choose $\mfx' = \mfx,\ \mfy' = \mfy'$ in the definition of $\dgEur^\lambda$
and apply Lemma~\ref{Eur.metric.dom} to this situation. \par
For the ``$\ge$'' direction, let $\mfx'=[X',r_X',\mu_X']$, $\mfy' =[Y',r_Y',\mu_Y'] \in \bbM$,
$\overline{\mfx'} = \overline{\mfy'}$ be minimizers of $\dgEur^\lambda(\mfx,\mfy)$. Such minimizers do always exist (see \cite{MG}).
By \eqref{e.mg22} we have
\begin{equation}
\dEur^\lambda(\mfx',\mfy') \ge \left|\int 1- e^{-\lambda r} \nu^{2,\mfy'}(dr) - \int 1-e^{-\lambda r} \nu^{2,\mfx'}(dr)\right|
\end{equation}
If we set $f(r):= 1-e^{-\lambda r}$ and write $\nu^\mfx(f):= \int f d\nu^{2,\mfx}$, then this implies:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dgEur^\lambda(\mfx,\mfy) &\ge \nu^{\mfy}(f) +\nu^{\mfx}(f) - \nu^{\mfy'}(f) - \nu^{\mfx'}(f) + \left|\nu^{\mfy'}(f) - \nu^{\mfx'}(f) \right| \\
&= \nu^{\mfy}(f) +\nu^{\mfx}(f) - \nu^{\mfy'}(f) - \nu^{\mfx'}(f) \\
&{}\hspace{3cm}+ \nu^{\mfy'}(f) + \nu^{\mfx'}(f) - 2 \nu^{\mfx'}(f) \wedge\nu^{\mfy'}(f) \\
&= \nu^{\mfy}(f) +\nu^{\mfx}(f) - 2 \nu^{\mfx}(f) \wedge\nu^{\mfy}(f) \\
&= \nu^{\mfy}(f) +\nu^{\mfx}(f) - 2 \nu^{\mfx}(f) \\
&= \int (1- e^{-\lambda r}) \nu^{2,\mfy}(dr) - \int (1- e^{-\lambda r}) \nu^{2,\mfx}(dr).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\subsection{``Least upper bounds'' for \texorpdfstring{$\lemetric$}{le.dist}}\label{s.constr.lub}
We will now construct explicitly the set of ``least upper bounds'' for $\lemetric$ using the properties of the Eurandom distance. Let $\mfx_1 = [X_1,r_1,\mu_1]$ and $\mfx_2 = [X_2,r_2,\mu_2]$ be both in $\bbM_1$. Consider an optimal coupling $Q := Q_{\mfx_1,\mfx_2}^\lambda \in \mcM_1(X_1\times X_2)$ s.t. the Eurandom distance
\begin{equation}\label{eq.minim.Eurandom}
\dEur^{\lambda}(\mfx_1,\mfx_2) = \int \, |e^{-\lambda r_1(x_1,x_1')} - e^{-\lambda r_2(x_2,x_2')} |Q(\dx(x_1',x_2')) Q(\dx(x_1,x_2))
\end{equation}
is minimized for a $\lambda > 0$. Such a coupling always exists (this is Lemma 1.7 in \cite{sturm} or alternatively Theorem 4.1 in \cite{Vil09}). We define
\begin{equation}
\bar{r}((x_1,x_2),(x_1',x_2')) := r_1(x_1,x_1') \vee r_2(x_2,x_2'), \quad x_1,x_1' \in X_1,\, x_2,x_2' \in X_2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bar{\mfz} = [X_1 \times X_2, \bar{r}, Q] .
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}\label{prop.lub} Let $\mfx_1$, $\mfx_2,\bar{\mfz}$, $\lambda > 0$ be as above, then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{i.lub.1} It is true that $\mfx_i \lemetric \bar{\mfz}$, $i=1,2$.
\item\label{i.lub.2} We have the following identity:
\begin{equation}
\dEur^\lambda(\mfx_1,\mfx_2) = \dEur^\lambda(\mfx_1,\bar{\mfz}) + \dEur^\lambda(\bar{\mfz},\mfx_2).
\end{equation}
\item\label{i.lub.3} Let $\mfw = [X_3,r_3,\mu_3] \in \bbM_1$ with $ \mfx_i \lemetric \mfw$, $i=1,2$. If $\mfw \lemetric \bar{\mfz}$, then we have $\mfw = \bar{\mfz}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\eqref{i.lub.1} Consider the mapping $\pi_i : X_1 \times X_2 \to X_i$, $ (x_1,x_2) \mapsto x_i$, $i=1,2$. This mapping is measure-preserving on the correponding image set and a sub-isometry.
\eqref{i.lub.2} We use Theorem \ref{t.gen.Eur.order} to calculate:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dEur^\lambda (\mfx_1,\mfx_2) &= \int \left|e^{-\lambda r_1(x,y)} - e^{-\lambda r_2(x,y)} \right| Q(d(x,x')) Q(d(y,y')) \\
&= \int e^{-\lambda r_1(x,y)} + e^{-\lambda r_2(x,y)} - 2 e^{-\lambda r_1(x,y)}\wedge e^{-\lambda r_2(x,y)} Q(d(x,x')) Q(d(y,y')) \\
&= \int e^{-\lambda r_1(x,y)} + e^{-\lambda r_2(x,y)} - 2 e^{-\lambda r_1(x,y) \vee r_2(x,y)} Q(d(x,x')) Q(d(y,y')) \\
&= \dEur^\lambda(\mfx_1,\bar{\mfz}) + \dEur^\lambda(\bar{\mfz},\mfx_2).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\eqref{i.lub.3} Note that Theorem \ref{t.gen.Eur.order} gives
\begin{align}
\dEur^\lambda (\bar{\mfz},\mfw) &= \dEur^\lambda (\mfx_1,\bar{\mfz})-\dEur^\lambda (\mfx_1,\mfw),\\
\dEur^\lambda (\bar{\mfz},\mfw) &= \dEur^\lambda (\mfx_2,\bar{\mfz})-\dEur^\lambda (\mfx_2,\mfw).
\end{align}
This implies
\begin{equation}
\dEur^\lambda (\bar{\mfz},\mfw) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\dEur^\lambda (\mfx_1,\bar{\mfz}) + \dEur^\lambda (\mfx_2,\bar{\mfz})\right)
-\frac{1}{2}\left(\dEur^\lambda (\mfx_1,\mfw) + \dEur^\lambda (\mfx_2,\mfw)\right) .
\end{equation}
Now we can use the result in \eqref{i.lub.2} and the triangle inequality to get
\begin{equation}
\dEur^\lambda (\bar{\mfz},\mfw) \le \frac{1}{2} \dEur^\lambda (\mfx_1,\mfx_2) - \frac{1}{2} \dEur^\lambda (\mfx_1,\mfx_2) = 0.
\end{equation}
And therefore $\mfw = \bar{\mfz}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of the main results}\label{s.proofs}
This section contains the proofs of Section~\ref{ss.legen}.
We start the proofs with a result which states that the definition of $\legen$ is a consequence of a similar statement where the roles of $\lemeasure$ and $\lemetric$ are reversed.
\begin{lem}\label{l.equi.def}
Let $\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X],\mfy= [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y],\mfx'= [X',r_X',\mu_X'] \in \bbM$ such that $\mfx = [X',r_X',\mu_X]$$\lemeasure [X',r_X',\mu_X'] $$\lemetric \mfy$. Then there is a Borel-measure $\mu_Y'$ on $Y$ such that $\mfx \lemetric [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y'] \lemeasure \mfy$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\tau:\supp(\mu_Y) \to \supp(\mu_X')$ be a measure-preserving sub-isometry and take w.l.o.g. $Y = \supp(\mu_Y)$, $X' = \supp(\mu_X')$. We note that since $\mu_Y$ is tight, there is a sequence
of compact sets $(K_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}$ such that $\mu_Y(K_n) \rightarrow \mu_Y(Y)$ and, since $\tau$ is measure-preserving:
\begin{equation}
\mu_Y(Y) = \mu_X'(X') \ge \mu_X'(\tau(K_n)) = \mu_Y(\tau^{-1}(\tau(K_n))) \ge \mu_Y(K_n),
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that $\tau(K_n)$ as the continuous image of a compact set is compact hence Borel. This implies $\mu_X'(\tau(K_n)) \rightarrow \mu_X'(X')$ and $\tilde \mu_X^{n}(A):= \mu_X'(A\cap\tau(K_n))\rightarrow \mu_X'(A)$ for all measurable $A \subset X'$. \par
Fix a $n \in \mathbb N$ and recall that $\tau :K_n \to \tau(K_n)$ surjective Borel implies that the push-forward operator $\tau_\ast: \mathcal M_f(K_n) \to \mathcal M_f(\tau(K_n))$ is surjective Borel (see \cite{doberkat}, Proposition 1.101) and therefore we find a Borel-measure $\rho^n$ on $K_n$ (and hence on $Y$) such that $\rho^n \circ \tau^{-1} = \tilde \mu_X^n - \mu_X^n$, where $\mu_X^n := \mu_X(\cdot \cap \tau(K_n))$. Define
\begin{equation}
\nu_Y^n(A) := \mu_Y(A \cap K_n) - \rho^n(A),\qquad \forall A \in \sigma(\tau),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(\tau) \subset \mathcal B(Y)$ is the sigma-field generated by $\tau$. We note that $\sigma(\tau)$ is countable generated
and hence we can apply Lubin's Theorem (see \cite{lubin}) that gives an (not necessary unique) extension $\tilde \mu^n_Y$ of $\nu_Y^n$ to $\mathcal B(Y)$. Following the proof it is easy to see that $\tilde \mu^n_Y$ is a finite measure with $\tilde \mu^n_Y \le \mu_Y(\cdot \cap \tau(K_n))\le \mu_Y(\cdot)$ and in addition:
\begin{equation}\label{eq.trans.2}
\begin{split}
\tilde \mu^n_Y(\tau^{-1}(A)) &= \mu_Y(\tau^{-1}(A) \cap K_n) - (\tilde \mu_X^n(A) - \mu_X^n(A)) \\
&\stackrel{n \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} \mu_Y(\tau^{-1}(A)) - (\mu_X'(A) - \mu_X(A)) \\
&= \mu_X(A).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here we used that $\tilde \mu_X^n(A) \rightarrow \mu_X'(A)$ implies $\mu_X^n(A) \rightarrow \mu_X(A)$, since $\mu_X \le \mu_X'$. \par
Finally observe that $\tilde \mu^n_Y \le \mu_Y$ implies relative compactness of $\{\tilde \mu_Y^{n}:\ n \in \mathbb N\}$ and if we take a limit point $\mu_Y'$ (along any subsequence) we get $\mu_Y'\le \mu_Y$. In addition by (\ref{eq.trans.2}) and the continuous mapping theorem, we find that $\mu_Y' \circ \tau^{-1} = \mu_X$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t.legen.pots}]
Reflexivity is clear and the transitivity is a consequence of Remark \ref{r.equi.def} and Lemma \ref{l.equi.def}. \par
For the antisymmetry observe that $\mfx \legen \mfy$ and $\mfy \legen \mfx$ implies that $\overline{\mfx} = \overline{\mfy}$ and hence we get
$\mfx \lemetric \mfy$ and $\mfy \lemetric \mfx$. Since $\lemetric$ is a partial order, the result follows. \par
Now let $\mfx_n,\mfy_n,\mfx,\mfy \in \bbM$, $n \in \mathbb N$ with $\mfx_n \rightarrow \mfx$, $\mfy_n \rightarrow \mfy$ and $\mfx_n \legen \mfy_n$
for all $n \in \mathbb N$. By Remark \ref{r.equi.def} we find a sequence $(\mfy_n')_{n \in \mathbb N}$ in $\bbM$ with $\mfx_n \lemetric \mfy_n' \lemeasure \mfy_n$
for all $n \in \mathbb N$. By Proposition \ref{p.prop.measure} (\ref{p.lemeasure.compact}) we find $\mfy' \in \bbM$ such that $\mfy_n' \rightarrow \mfy'$ along some
subsequence, where we suppress the dependence. Now, since both partial orders are closed, we get that $\mfx\lemetric \mfy'$ $\lemeasure \mfy$ and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p.legen.compact}]
Let $L(A):= \bigcup_{\mfy \in A} \{\mfx \in \bbM:\, \mfx \legen \mfy\}$ and $(\mfx_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}$ be a sequence in $L(A)$. Then there is a sequence
$(\mfy_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}$ in $A$ and $(\mfy_n')_{n \in \mathbb N}$ in $\bbM$ such that $\mfx_n \lemetric \mfy_n' \lemeasure \mfy_n$ for all
$n \in \mathbb N$ (see Remark \ref{r.equi.def}). Combining now Proposition \ref{p.prop.measure} (\ref{p.lemeasure.compact}) and Proposition \ref{p.prop.metric}
(\ref{p.lemetric.compact}) gives the result.
\end{proof}
We finally prove:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p.legen.easy}]
Let $\mfx = [X,r_X,\mu_X]$ and $\mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y]$.
We only verify the first statement for $a\in [0,1]$.
Let $a\cdot \mfx = [X,r_X,a\mu_X]$.
Use the mapping $\tau:X \to X$ with $\tau(x) = x$.
Then $\tau$ is an isometry and $a \mu_X \circ \tau^{-1} = a \mu_X \leq \mu_X$.
All other statements may be verified similarly.
\end{proof}
\section{Applications}\label{s.applications}
We will now consider some applications for the partial orders.
\subsection{The Cartesian semigroup by Evans and Molchanov}\label{ss.EM14}
In \cite{EM14} a semigroup operation on $\bbM_1$ was introduced.
For $\mfx=[X,r_X,\mu_X], \mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y] \in \bbM_1$ they defined
\begin{equation}
\mfx \boxplus \mfy = [X\times Y, r_X \oplus r_Y, \mu_X \otimes \mu_Y],
\end{equation}
where $r_X \oplus r_Y((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)) = r_X(x_1,x_2) + r_Y(y_1,y_2)$ for $x_1,x_2 \in X$ and $y_1,y_2 \in X$.
Since the semigroup $(\bbM_1, \boxplus)$ is cancellative (see their Proposition~3.6) it is clear that there is also a partial order on $\bbM_1$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\mfx \leq_{\boxplus} \mfy \ :\Leftrightarrow \ \exists z\in \bbM_1 \text{ s.t. } \mfx \boxplus \mfz = \mfy \,.
\end{equation}
This partial order is a special case of our order $\lemetric$ in the following sense.
\begin{prop}
Let $\mfx, \mfy \in \bbM_1$ with $\mfx \leq_\boxplus \mfy$.
Then $\mfx \lemetric \mfy$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mfz \in \bbM_1$ such that $\mfx \boxplus \mfz = \mfy$.
We may write $\mfy = [Y,r_Y,\mu_Y] = [X \times Z, r_X \oplus r_Z, \mu_X \otimes \mu_Z]$.
Define the map $\tau: X \times Z \to X$ via $\tau(x,z) = x$.
Then it is true that $\mu_Y \circ \tau^{-1} = \mu_X$, so $\tau$ is measure preserving and moreover for $y_1 =(x_1,z_1),y_2=(x_2,z_2) \in Y$
\begin{equation}
r_Y(y_1,y_2) = r_X(x_1,x_2) + r_Z(z_1,z_2) \geq r_X(x_1,x_2) = r_X(\tau(y_1),\tau(y_2)) \, .
\end{equation}
Thus, $\mfx \lemetric \mfy$.
\end{proof}
An alternative proof via polynomials is the use of Lemma 3.2(b) in \cite{EM14} and Proposition \ref{p.lemetric.char} here.
\begin{rem}
As Evans and Molchanov mention in the introduction they also could have chosen a different form of defining the metric $r_X \oplus r_Y$.
They chose the $l_1$-addition, but also an $l_p$ addition of the form $r_X \oplus_p r_Y((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)) = (r_X(x_1,x_2)^p + r_Y(y_1,y_2)^p)^{1/p}$ for $p \geq 1$ had led to a cancellative semigroup.
For the order related to such a semigroup the previous proposition still holds.
\end{rem}
\subsection{General facts on stochastic dominance}\label{ss.stoch.dom}
Consider two random variables taking values in a partially ordered space $E$.
In which sense can the former be smaller than the latter? Even for $E = \R$ there are various concepts of a stochastic order.
We refer to the book of \cite{shaked2007stochastic} for a recent overview and collect some of the important results for us.
Let $\mathcal X,\mathcal Y$ be two random variable with values in $\bbM$ and $\lambda > 0$. We define the Wasserstein distance (recall the definition of $\dgEur^\lambda$ in Section~\ref{s.gen.Eur}):
\begin{equation}
d_W^\lambda (\mathcal L(\mathcal X),\mathcal L(\mathcal Y)) := \inf_{Q} E_Q[\dgEur^\lambda (\mathcal X,\mathcal Y)],
\end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all couplings of $\mathcal L(\mathcal X) $ and $\mathcal L(\mathcal Y) $.
\begin{rem}
Since $\dgEur^\lambda$ generates the Gromov-weak topology, convergence in $d_W^\lambda$ implies convergence in the weak topology on $\mathcal M_1(\bbM)$ (for all $\lambda > 0$). If we consider the space $\bbM_{\le K}$, i.e.\ mm-spaces with total mass bounded by some $K \ge 0$, then $\mathbb M_{\le K}$ is bounded (with respect to $\dgEur^\lambda$) and therefore $d_W^\lambda$ metricizes the weak topology on $\mathcal M_1(\bbM_{\mathbb K})$ (for all $\lambda > 0$) (see \cite{GS} for details).
\end{rem}
\begin{defn}\label{d.stochastic.order}
Let $(E,\prec)$ be a partially ordered set. For two random variables $\mathcal X$ and $\mathcal Y$ with values in $E$ we say that $\mathcal X \prec_{st} \mathcal Y$ ($\mathcal X$ is stochastically $\prec$-smaller) iff $\E[f(\mathcal X)] \leq \E[f(\mathcal Y)]$ for all bounded continuous increasing functions $f$.
\end{defn}
We recall the following result of Strassen \cite{Strassen}:
\begin{prop}\label{p.Strassen.1}
Let $E$ be polish, $\prec$ be a closed partial order on $E$ and $\pi_1, \pi_2$ be two Borel probability measures on $E$. Then the following is equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a Borel probability measure $\tilde \pi$ on $E \times E$, with marginals $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ such that $\tilde \pi(\{(x,y) \in E \times E: x \prec y\}) = 1$,
\item For all real-valued bounded continuous increasing functions $f$ on $E$, $\int f d \pi_1 \le \int f d \pi_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cite{Strassen} or \cite{L99}.
\end{proof}
As a direct consequence of this proposition together with Theorem~\ref{t.gen.Eur.order}, we get:
\begin{prop}\label{c.Eurandom}
Let $\mathcal X,\mathcal Y$ be two random variable with values in $\bbM$ and $\lambda > 0$. If $\mathcal X \legen_{st} \mathcal Y$, then
for all $\lambda > 0$:
\begin{equation}
d_W^\lambda (\mathcal X,\mathcal Y) = E\left[\int (1- e^{-\lambda r} )\nu^{2,\mathcal Y}(dr) \right] - E \left[\int (1-e^{-\lambda r} ) \nu^{2,\mathcal X}(dr)\right].
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
Let
\begin{align}\label{e.tr163}
\Pi_{\nearrow} := \{ \Phi \in \Pi \mid \Phi \text{ increasing}\} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \Pi_{+,\nearrow} := \Pi_+ \cap \Pi_{\nearrow}.
\end{align}
Although it would be nice, we can not expect that increasing nonnegative polynomials $\Pi_{+,\nearrow}$ is enough to determine the stochastic order induced by $\legen$.
This is not even true for polynomials in $\R$.
Nevertheless we may study the situation in which the stochastic order induced by $\Pi_{+,\nearrow}$ or $\Pi_{+}$ is just the right thing to look at.
\begin{defn}
Let $(E,\prec)$ be a partially ordered set.
For a cone $F \subset \{f: E \to \R \mid \text{increasing, bounded and measurable}\}$ define the stochastic order $\leq_\mcF$ on $\mcM_1(E)$ via
\begin{equation}
\mu \leq_\mcF \nu :\Leftrightarrow \int \mu(\dx x) \, f(x) \leq \int \nu(\dx x) \, f(x) \ \quad \forall f\in F.
\end{equation}
This definition extends to random variables in the obvious way.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}
The relations $\leq_{\Pi_{+,\nearrow}}$, $\leq_{\Pi_+}$ and $\leq_{\Pi_{\nearrow}}$ on $\mcM_1(\bbM)$ are partial orders.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We only provide the proof for $\leq_{\Pi_{+,\nearrow}}$.
It is clear that $\leq_{\Pi_{+,\nearrow}}$ is transitive and reflexive.
For anti-symmetry let $\mu, \nu \in \mcM_1(\bbM)$ with $\mu(\Phi) \leq \nu(\Phi) \leq \mu(\Phi)$ for all $\Phi \in \Pi_{+,\nearrow}$.
Then $\mu(\Phi) = \nu(\Phi)$ for all $\Phi \in \Pi_{+,\nearrow}$ and thus this equality holds for all $\Phi$ in the algebra generated by $\Pi_{+,\nearrow}$.
One may check that this algebra coincides with $\Pi$ and so Theorem 1 in \cite{GPW09} allows to deduce that $\mu = \nu$.
\end{proof}
We close this section with the following observation. For a random variable $\mathcal X \in \bbM_1$ we define the real-valued random variable $R_{12}^{\mathcal X}$ (on a different probability space) with law
\begin{equation}
P(R_{12}^{\mathcal X} \in A) = \E[\nu^{2,{\mathcal X}}(A)], \ A \in \mcB([0,\infty)).
\end{equation}
$R_{12}$ models the random distance which we obtain by randomly picking two points the space.
\begin{prop}\label{p.polynom.order}
Suppose ${\mathcal X} \leq_{\Pi_{+,\nearrow}} {\mathcal Y}$ for random variables ${\mathcal X}, {\mathcal Y} \in \bbM_1$. Then $R_{12}^{\mathcal X}\leq R_{12}^{\mathcal Y}$ stochastically.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
This means that the stochastic order induced by $\Pi_{+,\nearrow}$ allows to state dominance of the (expected) sampled distance between two chosen individuals.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
By definition, ${\mathcal X} \leq_{\Pi_{+,\nearrow}} {\mathcal Y}$ implies
\begin{equation}
E[ \phi( R_{12}^\mfX) ] \leq E [ \phi(R_{12}^\mfY) ] \ \text{ for all increasing } \phi \ge 0.
\end{equation}
By Proposition \ref{p.Strassen.1} the result follows.
\end{proof}
Of course in the previous proof it had sufficed only to know things for the second order increasing monomials.
\subsection{Random graphs}
Consider the Erd\"os-Renyi random graph with parameters $(n,p)$, $n \in \N$ and $p \in [0,1]$.
That is the random graph consisting of $n$ vertices and a random collection of the possible $\binom{n}{2}$ edges between these points; edges are undirected.
Each of the possible edges is present with probability $p$ and is not present with probability $1-p$ and those choices are made independently of the other edges.
One possible way to construct such an object is to have $\binom{n}{2}$ independent Bernoulli($p$)-variables $(X_{ij})_{i<j \in E_n}$ if $E_n= \{1,\dotsc,n\}$ is the vertex set of the graph.
If $X_{ij}=1$, then the edge between vertices $i$ and $j$ is present, otherwise it is not present.
Define the random metric measure space
\begin{equation}
\ER(n,p) = \left[E_n, r_n, n^{-1} \sum_{i\in E_n} \delta_i \right] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $r_n$ is the minimal graph distance of the random graph with the convention that $r_n(i,j) := n$ if $i$ and $j$ are not connected by a path.
Then we may establish the following result.
\begin{thm}
For $p>p'$ and $n\in \N$ it is true that
\begin{equation}
\ER(n,p) \lemetric \ER(n,p') .
\end{equation}
Moreover, the process $(\ER(n,p))_{p\in [0,1]}$ is an increasing Markov process taking values in $\bbM_1$.
\end{thm}
The proof can be obtained via coupling of the $X_{ij}$; we leave it out.
\subsection{Feller diffusion with drift}\label{s.feller}
The tree-valued Feller diffusion is the ultra-metric measure space valued process related to the Feller diffusion.
It can be seen as a many particle limit of Galton-Watson processes.
It is presented in \cite{ggr_tvF14} which considers the process $\mfU^{a,b} = (\mfU^{a,b}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ taking values in ultrametric measure spaces, denoted by $\mathbb U$; it is related to the total mass process $(X^{a,b}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ which solves the SDE $\dx X_t = bX_t \dx t + \sqrt{aX_t}\dx B_t$.
Here $a>0$ is the diffusivity and $b \in \R$ is the criticality of the offspring distribution.
The infinitesimal generator of $\mfU^{a,b}$ is given as in \cite{ggr_tvF14}:
\begin{align}
L^{a,b} \Phi^{m,\phi}(\mfu) = \Phi^{m,2 \bar{\nabla}\phi}(\mfu) + bm\Phi^{m,\phi} + \frac{a}{\bar{\mfu}} \sum_{1\leq k \leq l \leq m} \Phi^{m,\phi\circ \theta_{k,l}}(\mfu) \, .
\end{align}
The notation for $\bar{\nabla} \phi = \sum_{1\leq k < l \leq m} \frac{\partial}{\partial{r_{kl}}} \phi$ and
$\left( \theta_{k,l} (\underline{\underline{r}}) \right)_{i,j} := r_{i,j}\1_{\{i\neq l, j\neq l\}} + r_{k,j} \1_{\{i=l\}} + r_{i,k} \1_{\{j=l\}} $
is taken from \cite{gpw_mp}.
\smallskip
It is well-known that for the total mass process one may couple two processes with different criticality and same initial condition.
More precisely, when $a>0$ and $b_1 < b_2 \in \R$, then we may define $X^{a,b_1}$ and $X^{a,b_2}$ on a joint probability space such that almost surely for all
$t\geq 0$ we have $X_t^{a,b_1} \leq X_t^{a,b_2}$.
One way to prove that result is the classical comparison theorem for SDEs.
The following analogue for the tree-valued Feller diffusion holds true.
\begin{prop}\label{p.GaltonWatson}
Let $\mfu \in \U$.
For $a>0$ and $b_1 < b_2 \in \R$ let $\mfU^{a,b_i}$ be a solution of the $(L^{a,b_i},\delta_\mfu)$-martingale problem, $i=1,2$.
We have for all $t>0$ almost surely,
\begin{equation}
\mfU_t^{a,b_1} \lemeasure \mfU_t^{a,b_2} \, .
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
This result tells that the tree for $\mfU^{a,b_1}_t$ is really a subtree of $\mfU^{a,b_2}_t$ for any $t\geq 0$.
\begin{proof}
Recall from \cite{Gl12} that there are Galton-Watson processes such that rescaling them leads to the processes $\mfU^{a,b_1}$ and $\mfU^{a,b_2}$.
For example one may choose offspring distribution $\Poiss(1+b_1/N)$ and $\Poiss(1+b_2/N)$, respectively.
It is well-known that $\Poiss(1+b_1/N) \leq \Poiss(1+b_2/N)$ stochastically, so we may couple the two processes such that the offspring distribution of the
$b_1$ process is always at most that of the $b_2$ process.
Now, Proposition 3 in \cite{kamae1977} tells us that this coupling persists in the limit.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Of course the drift term $bX_t \dx t$ which appears in the last proposition may be changed to more general terms.
For example one may also compare a process with linear drift and that with an additional quadratic death rate.
This process is known as the logistic Feller diffusion.
The same proof strategy allows to show that the process with the quadratic death rate can be coupled and be embedded in the process without that rate.
This tells us that the genealogy of the logistic Feller diffusion can really be obtained by leaving out some individuals in the genealogical tree of the population without the death rate.
This is suggested in \cite{le2013trees}.
The right way to do remove individuals in a symmetric model, however, still remains unclear.
\end{rem}
Besides the proof of Proposition \ref{p.GaltonWatson} there is more indication for the result to hold.
In \cite{ruschendorf2008comparison}'s Remark~2.3~(b) it is mentioned that for
solutions of martingale problems in
partially ordered state spaces there is a generator criterion to deduce stochastic order with respect to a cone of functions.
R\"uschendorf provides a generator criterion for the cone $F$ of increasing functions (in our case $F = \Pi_+$) which allows to deduce $\leq_F$ stochastic dominance.
Even though $\leq_F$ is weaker than stochastic $\lemeasure$ dominance, we find it instructive to present the easy calculation for the generator:
\begin{align} L^{a,b_1} \Phi^{m,\phi}(\mfu) & = L^{a,b_2} \Phi^{m,\phi}(\mfu) + (b_1-b_2)m\Phi^{m,\phi} \leq L^{a,b_2} \Phi^{m,\phi}(\mfu) ,
\end{align}
for all $\Phi^{m,\phi} \in \Pi$ with $\phi \geq 0$.
\subsection{Tree-valued Moran models}\label{ss.TVMM}
In this section we will prove a comparison result for two neural Moran models with different resampling rates.
The proof depends on a comparison result of two Kingman-coalescents with different coalescing rates. Even though this
comparison result is not new (on the coalescing level) it is new in the tree-valued setting.
We start with the (graphical) construction of the tree-valued Moran model as in \cite{gpw_mp}. Let $I_N:= \{1,\ldots,N\},\ N \in \mathbb N$ and
\begin{equation}\label{ppp}
\{\eta^{i,j}:\ i,j \in I_N,\ i \not=j\}
\end{equation}
be a realization of a family of independent rate $\gamma$ Poisson point processes, where we call $\gamma > 0$ the resampling rate.
If $\eta^{i,j}(\{t\}) = 1$, we draw an arrow from $(i,t)$ to $(j,t)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[] For $i,i' \in I_N$, $0\le s< t < \infty$ we say that there is a path from $(i,s)$ to $(i',t)$ if there is a $n \in \N$,
$s \le u_1 < u_2 < \cdots < u_n \le t$ and
$j_1,\ldots,j_n \in I_N$ such that for all $k \in \{1,\ldots,n+1\}$ ($j_0:= i, j_{n+1}:=i'$)
$\eta^{j_{k-1},j_k}\{u_k\} = 1$, $\eta^{x,j_{k-1}}((u_{k-1},u_k))= 0$ for all $x \in I_N$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent Note that for all $i \in I_N$ and $0 \le s \le t$ there exists an unique element
\begin{equation}
A_s(i,t) \in I_N
\end{equation}
with the property that there is a path from $(A_s(i,t),s)$ to $(i,t)$. We call $A_s(i,t)$ the {\it ancestor of $(i,t)$ at time $s$}. \par
Let $r_0$ be a pseudo-ultrametric on $I_N$. We define the pseudo-ultrametric ($i,j \in I_N$):
\begin{equation}\label{eq.ultrametric}
r_t(i,j):=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2(t-\sup\{s \in [0,t]:A_s(i,t)=A_s(j,t)\}),&\quad \textrm{if } A_0(i,t) = A_0(j,t),\\[0.2cm]
2t + r_0(A_0(i,t), A_0(j,t)) ,&\quad \textrm{if } A_0(i,t) \not= A_0(j,t).
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Define $\mu^N\in \mathcal M_1(I_N)$ by
\begin{equation}
\mu^N= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k \in I_N} \delta_k.
\end{equation}
Now, since $r_t$ is only a pseudo-metric, we consider the following equivalence relation $\approx_t$ on $I_N$:
$x \approx_t y \Leftrightarrow r_t(x,y) = 0$.
We denote by $\tilde I_N^t:= I_N\! /\!\!\approx_t$ the set of equivalence classes and note that we can find a set of representatives $\bar I_N^t$
such that $\bar I_N^t \rightarrow \tilde I_N^t,\ x \to [x]_{\approx_t}$ is a bijection. We define
\begin{align}
\bar r_t(\bar i,\bar j) = r_t(\bar i,\bar j),\quad \bar \mu^N_t(\{\bar i\}) &=\mu^N(\{[\bar i]_{\approx_t}\}),\qquad \bar i,\bar j \in \bar I_N^t.
\end{align}
Then the {\it tree-valued Moran model (TVMM)}, of size $N$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal U_t^{\gamma,N} := [\bar I_N^t,\bar r_t,\bar \mu^N_t].
\end{equation}
For the proof of the result below, it is better to construct the Moran model in a slightly different way:
\begin{rem}\label{r.alt.Def} Instead of a familiy of Poisson point processes as in (\ref{ppp}) we can also use a
rate $\gamma \cdot N(N-1)$ Poisson point process $\eta^\gamma $ and an i.i.d. sequence $(U_n)_{n \in \N} = (U_n^1,U_n^2)_{n \in \N}$ of $I_N \times I_N$-valued random variables with
\begin{equation}
P(U_1 = (i,j)) = \frac{1}{N \cdot (N-1)} 1(i \neq j).
\end{equation}
We assume that both are defined on the same probability space and are independent and set
\begin{equation}
\tau_k^\gamma = \inf\{t > \tau^\gamma_{k-1}:\ \eta^\gamma(\{t\}) = 1\},\qquad k \in \N.
\end{equation}
Then we can construct the tree-valued Moran model as follows: At times $\tau_k^\gamma = t$ we draw an arrow from $U^1_k = i$ to $U^2_k = j$, i.e.\ we sample two individuals $(i,j)$ independent and uniformly without replacement of the population $I_N$ and then draw an arrow from $(i,t)$ to $(j,t)$ (see figure \ref{f.graph}).
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale = 0.55]
\draw (1.,4.)-- (1.,-4.);
\draw (3.,4.)-- (3.,-4.);
\draw (5.,4.)-- (5.,-4.);
\draw (7.,4.)-- (7.,-4.);
\draw [->] (-2.,-5.) -- (-2.,5.);
\draw (1.0031720553104262,-3.7817153291833736) node[anchor=north] {$\mathbf{1}$};
\draw (3.0079033207116694,-3.7817153291833736) node[anchor=north] {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw (4.994893601463344,-3.7817153291833736) node[anchor=north] {$\mathbf{3}$};
\draw (6.999624866864588,-3.7817153291833736) node[anchor=north] {$\mathbf{4}$};
\draw (10.,2.)-- (15.,-3.);
\draw (15.,-3.)-- (20.,2.);
\draw (19.,1.)-- (18.,2.);
\draw (13.,-1.)-- (16.,2.);
\draw (9.997851272641668,2.214737482370784) node[anchor=south] {$\mathbf{1}$};
\draw (15.99430408419583,2.214737482370784) node[anchor=south] {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw (17.999035349597072,2.214737482370784) node[anchor=south] {$\mathbf{3}$};
\draw (20.003766614998316,2.214737482370784) node[anchor=south] {$\mathbf{4}$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 4pt off 4pt] (7.,1.)-- (19.,1.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 4pt off 4pt] (15.,-3.)-- (5.,-3.);
\draw [->] (5.,1.) -- (7.,1.);
\draw (-1.9950543504666547,-2.788220188807537) node[anchor=east] {$\mathbf{t_1}$};
\draw (-1.9950543504666547,-0.7834889234062947) node[anchor=east] {$\mathbf{t_2}$};
\draw (-1.9950543504666547,1.2212423419949474) node[anchor=east] {$\mathbf{t_3}$};
\draw (-1.9950543504666547,4.2194687477720265) node[anchor=east] {${time}$};
\draw [->] (3.,-1.) -- (1.,-1.);
\draw [->] (3.,-3.) -- (5.,-3.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 4pt off 4pt] (3.,-1.)-- (13.,-1.);
\draw (-1.0015592100908173,1.2212423419949474) node {${(3,4)}$};
\draw (-1.0015592100908173,-0.7834889234062947) node {${(2,1)}$};
\draw (-1.0015592100908173,-2.788220188807537) node {${(2,3)}$};
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [color=black] (-2.,1.)-- ++(-2.5pt,-2.5pt) -- ++(5.0pt,5.0pt) ++(-5.0pt,0) -- ++(5.0pt,-5.0pt);
\draw[color=black] (-1.8708674579196751,1.3276882498923586) node {};
\draw [color=black] (-2.,-1.)-- ++(-2.5pt,-2.5pt) -- ++(5.0pt,5.0pt) ++(-5.0pt,0) -- ++(5.0pt,-5.0pt);
\draw[color=black] (-1.8708674579196751,-0.6770430155088837) node {};
\draw [color=black] (-2.,-3.)-- ++(-2.5pt,-2.5pt) -- ++(5.0pt,5.0pt) ++(-5.0pt,0) -- ++(5.0pt,-5.0pt);
\draw[color=black] (-1.8708674579196751,-2.6817742809101257) node {};
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{f.graph} \footnotesize Graphical construction of the TVMM (i.e.\ the tree on the right side): At times $t_1, t_2, t_3$ we sample to individuals $(x_1^1,x_2^1)$, $(x_1^2,x_2^2)$, $(x_1^3,x_2^3)$ and draw an arrow from $x_1^j$ to $x_2^j$.}
\end{figure}
In the following we will assume that $r_0 \equiv 0$, i.e.\ we start the process in $[\{1\},0,\delta_1]$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop.neutral}
Let $0 \le \gamma,\gamma'$. For all $N \in \N$ and $t \ge 0$, there is a coupling such that
\begin{equation}
P(\mathcal U^{\gamma + \gamma',N}_t\lemetric \mathcal U^{\gamma,N}_t ) = 1.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We will only sketch the proof. For details about Kingman-coalescents see for example \cite{Ber}.
\begin{proofsteps}
\step In this step we give the connection of $\mathcal U^{\gamma,N}$ and a Kingman $N$-coalescent with coalescing rate $\gamma$. \par
For fixed $t \ge 0$, we set $A_h(i):=A_{t-h}(i,t)$, $0 \le h \le t$ and $[N]:= \{1,\ldots,N\}$. Then $\{A_h(i):\ i \in [N]\}$ can be described as a family of processes in $[N]^N$ that starts in $A_0(i) = i$ and has the following dynamic: Whenever $\eta^\gamma(\{t-h\}) = 1$ (see Remark~\ref{r.alt.Def}), we pick independent
and uniformly without replacement two individuals $i\neq j$ and have the following transition:
\begin{equation}
A_{h-}(k) \rightarrow A_{h}(k) = i, \qquad \forall k \in \{l \in [n]: A_{h-}(l) = j\}.
\end{equation}
It is now straightforward to see that the time it takes to decrease the number of different labels by $1$, given there are $k$ different labels, is exponential distributed with parameter $\gamma\cdot \binom{k}{2}$ and that the two labels (the one that replaces and the one that is replaced) are sampled uniformly without replacement under all existing labels. If we define
\begin{equation}
\kappa_i(h) = \{j\in [N]:\ A_{h}(j) = A_{h}(i)\},
\end{equation}
this implies $\kappa = (\{\kappa_1(h),\ldots,\kappa_N(h)\})_{0\le h \le t}$ is a Kingman $N$-coalescent (up to time $t$).
If we know define
\begin{equation}
\mathcal V_t^N = [\{1,\ldots,N\},r^\kappa_t,\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k = 1}^N \delta_k],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
r^\kappa_t(i,j) = 2\inf\{h \ge 0:\ i,j \in \kappa_k(h) \textrm{ for some }k\} \wedge 2t.
\end{equation}
then the above implies $\mathcal L(\mathcal V_t^N) = \mathcal L(\mathcal U_t^{\gamma,N})$.
\step Let $\kappa^{\gamma,N}$ and $\kappa^{\gamma + \gamma',N}$ be two Kingman $N$-coalescents with coalescing rate
$\gamma$ and $\gamma+\gamma'$. Then one can couple this processes such that the coalescing times $\tau_i'$, $i = 1,\ldots,N-1$ of $\kappa^{\gamma+\gamma',N}$ are dominated by the times $\tau_i$, $i = 1,\ldots,N-1$ of $\kappa^{\gamma,N}$, i.e.\ $\tau_i' \le \tau_{i}$ for all $i = 1,\ldots,N-1$ almost surely. In addition to this property it is also possible to get a coupling such that $\kappa^{\gamma,N}(\tau_i) = \kappa^{\gamma+\gamma',N}(\tau_i')$ for all $i = 1,\ldots,N-1$.
\step Using the two steps above, we get the result with the identity as measure-preserving sub-isometry.
\end{proofsteps}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Tree-valued Fleming-Viot processes}\label{sec.CompFV}
Let $(\mathcal U^{\gamma,N}_t)_{t \ge 0}$ be the TVMM with $\mathcal U^{\gamma,N}_0 = [\{1\},0,\delta_1]$. In this situation it is known that the TVMM converges for $N \rightarrow \infty$, where the limit $(\mathcal U^{^\gamma}_t)_{t \ge 0}$ can be characterized as a
solution of a well-posed martingale problem. $(\mathcal U^{\gamma}_t)_{t \ge 0}$ is called the tree-valued Fleming-Viot process, TVFV, (see \cite{gpw_mp} or \cite{DGP12} for Details). As a consequence of Proposition \ref{prop.neutral}, we get:
\begin{prop}\label{p.FV}
Let $0 < \gamma < \gamma'$ and $t \ge 0$. Then there is a law $\lambda^{\gamma',\gamma}$ on $\mathbb U \times \mathbb U$ with marginals $\mathcal U^{\gamma'}_t$ and $\mathcal U^{\gamma}_t$ such that
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{\gamma,\gamma'}(\{(\mfx,\mfy):\ \mfx\lemetric \mfy\}) = 1,
\end{equation}
or, in other words, there is a coupling such that $\mathcal U^{\gamma'}_t \lemetric \mathcal U^{\gamma}_t$ almost surely.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows by Proposition~\ref{prop.neutral} together with Proposition~\ref{p.lemetric.pots} and Proposition~\ref{p.prop.metric}, \ref{p.lemetric.compact} (see also Proposition~3 in \cite{kamae1977}).
\end{proof}
If we define, for $t \ge 0$, $R^\gamma_t$ as the distance of two randomly chosen points from $\mathcal U^{\gamma}_t$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
P(R^\gamma_t \in A) = E[\nu^{2,\mathcal U^{\gamma}_t}(A)],
\end{equation}
for $A \subset \mathbb R_+$ measurable, then we get as a consequence (see Proposition~\ref{p.polynom.order}):
\begin{cor}
For all $t \ge 0$, and $0 < \gamma < \gamma'$, there is a coupling such that
\begin{equation}
P(R^{\gamma'}_t \le R^{\gamma}_t) = 1.
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
Another interesting observation is the following: By Theorem 3 in \cite{gpw_mp}, there is a unique invariant law $\mathcal U^{\gamma}_\infty$ for the TVFV. Combining Proposition~\ref{p.FV} with Proposition~\ref{p.lemetric.pots} and Proposition~\ref{p.prop.metric}, \ref{p.lemetric.compact} shows that the result in Proposition~\ref{p.FV} stays true if we replace $t $ by $\infty$. If we now apply Proposition~\ref{c.Eurandom}, we get:
\begin{prop} Let $0 < \gamma < \gamma'$, then for all $\lambda > 0$:
\begin{equation}
d_W^{\lambda}(\mathcal U^{\gamma}_\infty,\mathcal U^{\gamma'}_\infty) = \frac{\gamma'}{\gamma'+\lambda} - \frac{\gamma}{\gamma + \lambda}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $R^\gamma_\infty$ is $\Exp(\gamma)$ distributed (see for example Remark~3.16 in \cite{DGP12})
the result follows directly from the above discussion.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
There has been a long history of studies on the $\alpha$ radioactivity which was first described by Ernest Rutherford in 1899. The structure of the particle was identified by 1907 as $^4$He (He$^{2^+}$ ion) with two protons and two neutrons, which, with the binding energy 7.1 MeV per nucleon, is the most stable configuration below $^{12}$C.
The greatest challenge then was to understand how the $\alpha$ particle could leave the less stable mother
nucleus without any external disturbance.
The decay process was successfully interpreted by Gamow
\cite{Gamow1928} and Gurney and Condon \cite{Gurney1928,PhysRev.33.127} as a quantum tunneling effect, which required to accept the
probabilistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The extent to which this was
revolutionary can perhaps best be gauged by noticing the multitude of
models that have been put forward as an alternative
to the probabilistic interpretation. Besides its pioneering role in nuclear physics and in the development of quantum theory,
the tunneling effect is also realized to be responsible for the thermonuclear reactions and stellar evolution.
Processes like nuclear fusion, proton and $\alpha$ captures can also be explained as an inverse tunneling \cite{RevModPhys.70.77}.
The tunneling was accepted as a general physical phenomenon around mid-20th century and also becomes relevant at the nanoscale with important applications such as the tunnel
diode, scanning tunneling microscopy and quantum computing as well as chemical and biological
evolutions. Without tunneling there would be no star, no life, let alone nuclear physics or quantum mechanics.
$\alpha$ decay has been among the most important decay modes
of atomic nuclei for more than a century. The decay occurs most often in massive nuclei that have large proton to neutron ratios, where it can reduce the ratio of protons to neutrons in the parent nucleus, bringing it to a more stable configuration in the daughter nucleus. Almost all observed proton-rich or neutron-deficient nuclei
starting from mass number $A \sim 150$ have $\alpha$
radioactivities, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}.
Various phenomenological and microscopic models
have been developed to study the $\alpha$-decay process, which can successfully reproduce available experimental $\alpha$-decay half-lives.
The spontaneous emission of charged
fragments heavier than the $\alpha$ particle is known as cluster
radioactivity. This process is more closely related to spontaneous fission, i.e., a disintegration of the heavy nucleus into two lighter ones \cite{0034-4885-62-4-001,RevModPhys.85.1541,2015arXiv151107517S}.
For available superheavy elements or superheavy nuclei \cite{0954-3899-34-4-R01,PT.3.2880,0954-3899-42-11-114001}, fission and $\alpha$ decay are the dominant decay modes. The detection of emitted $\alpha$ particles has been the principal method of identifying superheavy nuclei as well as their excited states \cite{PhysRevLett.111.112502}, which can be created in heavy ion fusion reactions.
Nuclear physics is undergoing a renaissance with the availability of intense radioactive beams. The new facilities have opened up new possibilities to investigate highly unstable nuclei as well as to probe existing formalisms trying to describe those nuclei. Recent investments in new or upgraded facilities such as FAIR at GSI, Darmstadt, HIE-ISOLDE at CERN, Geneva, SPIRAL2 at GANIL, Caen, FRIB at MSU and RIBF at RIKEN, in conjunction with new detector systems, in particular $\gamma$ ray tracking devices like AGATA, will produce unprecedented data on exotic nuclei and nuclear matter in the decades to come. In this review we would like to discuss the recent developments and new opportunities in the study of the decay of heavy nuclei and our understanding of the so-called nuclear $\alpha$ formation probabilities and the underlying structure of the nuclei involved.
We will concentrate in particular on the progress that has been made during the past decade and the current status of experimental and theoretical studies. Extensive reviews on the $\alpha$ clustering in light nuclei, which is a closely related topic, could be found, e.g., in Refs. \cite{Freer2014,Beck2014,vonOertzen200643}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=1.1\linewidth]{chart.eps}
\put(0,15){\Large Z}
\put(40,0){\Large N}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\caption{Dominant ground-state decay modes for nuclei with proton number $Z\geq50$. EC and P stand for electron capture and proton radioactivity, respectively. The horizontal and vertical lines correspond to the proton shell closures $Z=50$, 82 and neutron shell-closures $N=50$, 82 and 126, respectively. The shell structure in the superheavy nuclei is not known hitherto. \label{fig1}}
\end{figure}
\section{The microscopic description of $\alpha$ decay}
The Gamow theory explained nicely the $\alpha$ decay as the penetration (tunneling) through the Coulomb barrier.
Although successful, one can
assert that this is an effective theory, where one has to assume a preformed $\alpha$ particle inside the nucleus and concepts like ``frequency of
escape attempts" have to be introduced. This semiclassical picture collides with basic quantum
mechanics, since even if the $\alpha$ particle existed in the mother nucleus, the Pauli
principle would hinder any free motion of the particle inside the nucleus.
Actually it has been realized in the early study of nuclear structure that the nucleus cannot be composed of $\alpha$ particles \cite{RevModPhys.8.82}. The $\alpha$ configuration is usually a very small component of the nuclear wave function.
What is missing in Gamow's picture
is the probability that the
$\alpha$ particle is formed at a certain distance around the nuclear surface.
A proper
calculation of the decay process needs to address first the formation of the $\alpha$ particle
around the nuclear surface and, in a
second step, the evaluation of the penetrability (the probability of tunneling) through the static Coulomb
and centrifugal barriers
at the region where
the $\alpha$ particle was already formed.
It is
expected that the decays of the proton and other charged
clusters heavier than $\alpha$ can be described by the same
mechanism.
We understand now that the structure of the nucleus is best described by the nuclear shell model where its building blocks, neutrons and protons, are held together by an
average potential (the so-called nuclear mean field) generated by nucleon-nucleon potentials.
The shell structure indicates that nucleons need to fill successively single-particle orbitals separated by the magic numbers.
The traditional ones are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, and 126.
The neutrons and protons are expected to distribute homogeneously if no two-body correlation is considered. However, they do
correlate with each other through the residual interaction (in the sense that the mean field part is subtracted from the nucleon-nucleon interaction).
The correlation may induce clusterization (i.e., large spatial overlap) of the four nucleons which may eventually become the $\alpha$-particle.
A proper description of $\alpha$ clusterization in terms of its
components
requires the treatment of the residual correlation in a microscopic many-body framework that is a challenging
undertaking. Moreover, the nuclear shell structure may evolve as a function of isospin (or neutron/proton ratio), leading to different particle correlation properties.
One of the main aims of modern nuclear structure studies is to address on the same footing the underlying nature
of atomic nucleus and the limit to its existence. It is also hoped that one can describe simultaneously dynamical processes including nuclear decay, reaction and fission.
The so-called \textit{ab initio} approaches (in the sense that the full realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction is used) have been developed in recent years and are able to describe light nuclei with $A<16$ with the help of supercomputing facilities.
Because of the enormous configuration spaces involved, the properties of intermediate-mass nuclei are best described by the nuclear configuration interaction approach (the modern shell model) where one considers only the residual correlation between particles around the surface. The
superfluid nuclear density functional theory (e.g., the self-consistent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method) provides a convenient tool to study the ground states and low-lying quasiparticle states of heavy nuclei throughout the nuclear chart.
The main ingredient of such approach is an effective density-dependent two-body interaction that generates the nuclear mean field on top of which the pairing correlation is added.
\subsection{The $\alpha$ formation probability}
A variety of theoretical models were proposed for the explanation of the $\alpha$ decay
phenomenon~\cite{Lovas1998,Delion2010book,qi-alpha} (see, also, Ref. \cite{Mang1964} for a review on early efforts).
Here we very briefly go through the microscopic $R$-matrix description of the $\alpha$ decay \cite{RevModPhys.30.257,Thomas01091954} for which details may be found in recent publications \cite{Delion2006,PhysRevC.61.024304,PhysRevC.46.1346,PhysRevC.44.545,PhysRevC.86.034338,Qi2009,QI2009a,Qi2012c,Qi2010c}. In general, the $\alpha$-decay half-life can be
written as
\begin{equation}\label{life}
T_{1/2}=\frac{\hbar\ln2}{\Gamma_{\alpha}} \approx \frac{\ln2}{\nu} \left|
\frac{H_l^+(\chi,\rho)}{RF_{\alpha}(R)} \right|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the velocity of the emitted $\alpha$ particle with angular momentum $l$ which is equal to zero for ground-state to ground-state $\alpha$ decays of even-even nuclei.
The quantity $F_{\alpha}(R)$ is the formation
amplitude of the $\alpha$ cluster at distance $R$.
$R$ is usually chosen at a distance around the
nuclear surface where the internal wave function $F_{\alpha}(R)$ is matched with the
wave function of the outgoing $\alpha$ particle.
$H_l^+$ is the Coulomb-Hankel function with $\rho=\mu\nu R/\hbar$ and
$\chi = 4Z_de^2/\hbar\nu$. $\mu$ is the reduced mass
and $Z_d$ is the charge number of the daughter
nucleus.
The penetrability
is proportional to $|H_l^+(\chi,\rho)|^{-2}$.
Its great importance in
radioactive decay studies lies in the fact that within a given
decay the penetrability process is overwhelmingly dominant.
The amplitude of the wave
function inside the nucleus is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{foram}
F_{\alpha}(R)=\int d{\mathbf R} d\xi_d d\xi_{\alpha}
[\Psi_d(\xi_d)\phi(\xi_{\alpha})Y_l(\mathbf R)]^*_{J_mM_m}
\Psi_m(\xi_d,\xi_{\alpha},\mathbf{R}),
\end{equation}
where $d$, ${\alpha}$ and $m$ label the daughter, emitting $\alpha$ and mother
nuclei, respectively, and $\xi$ denote the coordinates of the nucleons involved. $\Psi_m$ and $\Psi_d$ are the wave functions of the mother and daughter nuclei. $\phi(\xi_{\alpha})$ is a Gaussian function of the relative
coordinates of the nucleons that constitute the $\alpha$ particle.
We take $^{212}$Po as a simple example.
The nucleus can be described as a four-particle state ($\alpha_4$) outside the doubly magic $^{208}$Pb (with frozen degrees of freedom).
The wave function can be
written within the shell model framework as
\begin{equation}
\label{msmwf}
|^{212}{\rm Po}(\alpha_4)\rangle=\sum_{\alpha_2 \beta_2} X(\alpha_2\beta_2;\alpha_4)
|^{210}{\rm Pb}(\alpha_2)\otimes^{210}{\rm Po}(\beta_2)\rangle
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_2$ ($\beta_2$) labels two-neutron (two-proton) states.
The amplitudes $X$ are
influenced by the neutron-proton (np) interaction. If this interaction was neglected,
only one configuration would appear in Eq.~(\ref{msmwf}). This
is in cases where the correlated four-particle
state is assumed to be provided by collective vibrational states. As a result,
calculations can be performed by assuming $|^{212}{\rm Po(gs)}\rangle$
as a double pairing vibration above the $^{208}$Pb inert core, i.e.,
$
|^{212}{\rm Po(gs)}\rangle=|^{210}{\rm Pb(gs)}\otimes~^{210}{\rm Po(gs)}\rangle$.
The corresponding formation amplitude acquires the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{po212}
{F}_{\alpha}(R;^{212}{\rm Po(gs)}) =
\int d\mathbf{R}
d\xi_{\alpha}\phi_{\alpha}(\xi_{\alpha})
\Psi_{2\nu}(\mathbf{r_1}\mathbf{r_2};^{210}{\rm Pb(gs)})
\Psi_{2\pi}(\mathbf{r_3}\mathbf{r_4};^{210}{\rm Po(gs)}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{r_1},\mathbf{r_2}$ ($\mathbf{r_3},\mathbf{r_4}$)
are the neutron (proton) coordinates and $\mathbf{R}$ is the center
of mass of the $\alpha$ particle.
If we assume that the intrinsic wave function of the
$\alpha$ particle can be approximated by a $\delta$ function, an even
simpler expression exists for the $\alpha$ formation amplitude, which reads,
\begin{equation}\label{delta}
F_{\alpha}(R) = \frac{16\pi^2}{R^4}\left(\frac{
s_{\alpha}^3}{3}\right)^{3/2}\Psi_{2\nu}(R,R,0)\Psi_{2\pi}(R,R,0),
\end{equation}
where $s_{\alpha}=\sqrt{20}/3R_{\alpha}$, $R_{\alpha}\sim 1.281$ fm is the root mean square radius of the $\alpha$ particle and we take
$\mathbf{\hat{r}_1} =\mathbf{\hat{r}_3} =\mathbf{\hat{z}}$. This approximation works well outside the nuclear surface.
In the first applications of the shell
model to the description of the mother nucleus of $\alpha$ decay only one
configuration was used. The results were discouraging
since the theoretical decay rates were smaller than the corresponding
experimental values by 4-5
orders of magnitude \cite{Mang1964,PhysRev.119.1069,SANDULESCU1962332,Mang57,Fliessbach197675,PhysRevC.13.1318}, depending on the value to
be chosen for the nuclear radius. However, since the matching radius $R$ has to be chosen at a
distance beyond the point where the cluster was formed, i. e.
beyond the range of the nuclear force
and Pauli exchanges,
the formation amplitude had to be or should have been evaluated at rather
large distances. But that
would have required shell model calculations with
large bases for the mother and daughter nuclei. With the
very limited shell-model spaces used at that time,
the region of prominent four-particle correlation was not reached.
The fundamental role of configuration mixing was confirmed by actual
large-scale calculations \cite{TONOZUKA197945,PhysRevC.27.896}. This surface $\alpha$-clustering effect produces a tremendous enhancement of the $\alpha$-decay widths in both $^{212}$Po \cite{TONOZUKA197945} and light nuclei \cite{Arima1974475,ARIMA197215}.
With the expression for the formation amplitude shown above, the experimental
half-life can now be reproduced rather well if a large number of
high-lying configurations is included \cite{TONOZUKA197945}. Recent calculations in Ref. \cite{Qi2012c} are done within the harmonic oscillator (HO) representation by using a surface delta interaction and
nine major HO shells.
\subsection{The single-particle basis and the Hartree-Fock wave function}
The evaluation of $\alpha$ formation amplitude involves the evaluation of the overlap between the corresponding proton and neutron radial functions in the laboratory framework with
the $\alpha$-particle intrinsic wave function as defined in the center of mass framework (see, e.g., Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.69.044318}). The transformation can be relatively easily handled if the radial wave functions are defined within the harmonic oscillator basis due to its intrinsic simplicity. This is also the reason why the harmonic oscillator representation is used in most \textit{ab initio} and shell-model configuration interaction calculations.
More realistic calculations are done based on Woods-Saxon and Nilsson single-particle states. A single particle basis consisting of two different harmonic oscillator representations was introduced in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.54.292}.
An additional attractive pocket potential of a Gaussian form was introduced on top of the Woods-Saxon potential in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.87.041302} in order to correct the asymptotic behavior of the $\alpha$ formation amplitude. The mixture of shell model and cluster wave functions was considered in Ref. \cite{VARGA1992421} and was applied to describe the decay of the ground state of $^{212}$Po. The calculated formation probability that can reproduce experimental decay half-life is found to be 0.025.
Significant progress has also been made in the development of nuclear density functional approaches which are now able to provide a reasonable description
of ground state binding energies
and densities throughout the nuclear chart, even though the description of the single-particle spectroscopy is still less satisfactory. The Skyrme-Hartree-Fock single-particle wave functions were applied to calculate the $\alpha$ formation amplitudes in both even-even nuclei
\cite{PhysRevC.88.064316,1402-4896-89-5-054027} and even-odd nuclei \cite{PhysRevC.92.014314}. However, the calculated formation amplitude is still several of orders of magnitude too small in comparison to experimental data. The application of the recently refined functional seems to make the discrepancy even worse \cite{1402-4896-89-5-054027}. Further investigation along this line would be interesting to understand the origin of the discrepancy, which may shed additional light on the constraint of the density functional.
Time-dependent Hartree-Fock calculations for $\alpha$ decay and $\alpha$ capture were carried out in Ref. \cite{San83} with a simplified Skyrme plus Yukawa potential. No spin-orbital field was considered.
\subsection{Continuum effect}
A full microscopic description of the clustering on the nuclear surface requires the use of realistic finite single-particle
potentials including their continuum states, which is still a challenging open problem. The continuum is expected to be important since the decay involves states at the nuclear surface and high-lying states beyond that.
The influence of the single-particle resonances on $\alpha$ clustering was considered in Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.48.1463,PhysRevC.61.024304}.
In Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.86.034338,1742-6596-436-1-012061} the complex-energy shell model was applied to describe the $\alpha$ decay of $^{212}$Po and $^{104}$Te by using a simple separable interaction. The single-particle space is again expanded in a Woods-Saxon basis that consists of bound and unbound resonant states.
The calculations for $^{104}$Te did not fully converge in that work, which is probably due to the fact that the valence proton
shells that lie in the continuum were not considered in the model space.
\subsection{Nuclear deformation}
Eq.~(\ref{life}) is
valid for the decays of spherical as well as deformed nuclei~\cite{Lovas1998}. If the Coulomb barrier of a deformed nucleus is also deformed (or with anisotropic barrier width or height), the tunneling of the $\alpha$ particle may become direction dependent.
The tunneling through a deformed Coulomb barrier was first described within the WKB approximation by Bohr, Fr\"oman, and Mottelson, who introduced the so-called Fr\"oman matrix. The method was applied in later calculations on $\alpha$ decay \cite{PhysRevC.69.044318,PhysRev.103.1298,PhysRev.181.1697,PhysRev.112.512}.
The angular distribution of emitted $\alpha$ particles from deformed nuclei were measured in Refs.
\cite{PhysRev.124.1512,PhysRevC.2.2379,PhysRevC.71.044324,PhysRevLett.77.36}, which indeed revealed preferential $\alpha$ emission along the symmetry axis. However, it should be mentioned that the anisotropy can be a combined effect of nuclear deformation and structure \cite{PhysRevLett.82.4787}.
Semi-classical approaches were also proposed to treat the nuclear deformation in a macroscopic way
\cite{PhysRevC.72.064613}. This was also used recently in Refs.
\cite{PhysRevC.92.014602,Qian201487}. Coupled-channel calculations were presented in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.92.051301} and compared with that from the averaged WKB approach.
\section{$\alpha$ formation probability and pairing correlation}
The mechanism for nuclear pairing is similar to that behind electronic superconductivity \cite{bohr1998nuclear2}.
The nuclear pairing correlation is related to the presence of strongly attractive two-body pairing interaction with angular momentum $J=0$.
It is the most crucial correlation beyond the nuclear mean field and leads to zero angular momentum (e.g., with all particles paired to $J=0$) for the ground states of all observed even-even nuclei.
It is also responsible for the occurrence of systematic staggerings, depending on the evenness and oddness of $Z$ and $N$,
in many nuclear phenomena including the nuclear binding energy. The pairing correlation is relatively less favored in nuclei with odd numbers of protons and/or neutrons in relation to the fact that the odd neutron and/or proton do not participate the pairing correlation.
The pairing wave function can be described well by the Barden-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) approach. More sophisticated models have also been developed in recent years.
The pairing correlation manifests itself through the coherent contribution of a large number of shell-model configurations.
This feature is also responsible
for the two-particle clustering, which is
manifested in a strong increase in the form factor of the
two-particle transfer cross section in
transfer reactions between collective pairing states.
This also gives rise
to giant pairing resonances, which correspond to the most collective of
the pairing states lying
high in the spectrum.
Soon after
the pairing interaction had been adapted
to nuclei, it was applied to the study of $\alpha$ decay \cite{Soloviev1962202}.
The pairing correlation
highly enhances the
calculated $\alpha$-decay width and is indeed the mechanism governing the formation of $\alpha$ particles at the nuclear surface.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f-vs-n2.eps}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.8cm}\caption{(color online). Upper panel: $\alpha$-particle
formation probabilities for the decays of the even-even isotopes
as a function of the neutron numbers $N$ of the mother nuclei.
Lower panel: Neutron pairing gaps in even-even lead to thorium nuclei
extracted from experimental binding energies. From Ref. \cite{Andreyev2013}.
}
\label{fap}
\end{figure}
The formation
amplitude $F_{\alpha}(R)$ can be extracted from the experimental
half-lives $T^{{\rm
Expt.}}$ by
\begin{equation}
\log |RF_{\alpha}(R)|=\frac{1}{2}\log \left[ \frac{\ln
2}{\nu}|H^+_0(\chi,\rho)|^2\right] - \frac{1}{2}\log T^{{\rm
Expt.}}_{1/2}.
\end{equation}
This is done in Refs. \cite{Qi2010c,Andreyev2013,Qi2014203}.
Fig. \ref{fap}a shows the formation probabilities $|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ extracted from the experimental half-lives
from known
ground state to ground state $\alpha$-decay transitions in even-even isotopes from $N=92$ to 140. From the
trend of $|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ around the neutron shell closure at $N=126$, one can deduce a global trend. Below
the shell closure, $|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ decreases as a function of
rising neutron number, reaching its lowest values at the shell closure. When
the shell closure is crossed, a sudden increase in $|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ is observed. It is followed by an additional but smaller increase and finally saturation occurs.
The $\alpha$-particle formation amplitudes for nuclei $^{162}$W, $^{162}$Hf \cite{PhysRevC.92.014326} and $^{193}$At \cite{Ket2003} are systematically larger than those of neighboring nuclei, which is not understood and needs further investigation.
Within the BCS approach the two-particle formation amplitude is proportional
to $\sum_k u_kv_k$ where $u_k$ and $v_k$ are the standard occupation numbers. To this
one has to add the overlaps of the corresponding proton and neutron radial functions with
the $\alpha$-particle wave function on the nuclear surface,
which do not differ strongly from each other for neighboring nuclei. The BCS pairing gap is given by
$\Delta=G\sum_k u_kv_k$,
where $G$ is the pairing strength. It indicates that
the $\alpha$ formation amplitude is proportional to the product of the proton and the neutron pairing gaps which can serve as a signature of the
change in clusterization
as a function of the nucleon numbers. To probe this conjecture one may compare the
formation probabilities extracted from the experimental half-lives to the
corresponding pairing gaps. The latter can readily
be obtained from the experimental binding energies as \cite{Andreyev2013,Satula1998,Changizi2015210,PhysRevC.91.024305,Qi2012g}
\begin{equation}\label{dexp}
\Delta_n(Z,N)=\frac{1}{2}\left[B(Z,N)+B(Z,N-2)-2B(Z,N-1)\right].
\end{equation}
The empirical pairing gaps are shown as a function of the neutron number in Fig. \ref{fap}b.
One indeed sees a striking similarity between the tendency of the pairing gaps
in this figure with the $\alpha$-particle formation probabilities.
This similarity makes it possible to draw conclusions on the
tendencies of the formation probabilities. The near constant value of $|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ for neutron
numbers $N\leq114$ is due to the influence of the $i_{13/2}$ and other high-$j$ orbitals. As these highly degenerate shells
are being filled the pairing gap and
the formation probability
should remain constant, as indeed they do in Fig. \ref{fap}.
A quite sharp decrease of
formation probability and pairing gap happens as soon as the low-$j$ orbitals like $2p_{3/2}$, $1f_{7/2}$ and $2p_{1/2}$ start
to be filled. Finally, when we reach $N=126$, the pairing gap reaches its lowest value.
The possible influence of the $Z=82$ shell closure on the $\alpha$ formation probability and the robustness of the shell was also discussed in Ref. \cite{Andreyev2013}, which was questioned based on earlier measurements on the $\alpha$ decays of neutron-deficient Pb isotopes \cite{PhysRevC.60.011302}.
The role of the pairing interaction in multi-quasiparticle isomeric states and the reduction of pairing in those states on $\alpha$-decay half-lives was examined in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.90.044324}.
\subsection{Generic form of the $\alpha$ formation probability}
A generic form for the $\alpha$-particle formation probability was proposed in Refs. \cite{Andreyev2013,Qi2014203}: When the nucleons are filling a new major closed shell, the $\alpha$-particle formation amplitude is nearly constant as high-$j$ orbitals are filled first. As soon as the low-$j$ orbitals are filled, the formation probability smoothly reduces until one reaches again a closed proton or neutron configuration. Crossing the closed shell induces a steep increase and the approximately constant trend mentioned above continues. However, when strong particle-hole excitations across closed shells are encountered, this 'generic' form of the $\alpha$-particle formation probability is altered as one clearly sees in the light polonium isotopes.
\subsection{$\alpha$ decays to and from excited states}
The $\alpha$ decays from ground states to excited states (fine structure) as well as the decays from excited states are usually less favored than ground-state to ground-state decays.
Ref. \cite{PhysRev.113.1593} first estimated the ratio between reduced widths for transitions to
ground and excited states. Further calculations on the decay to vibrational states were done in Ref. \cite{Sandulescu1965404} and later in Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.71.044315,PhysRevC.75.054301,PhysRevC.64.064302}. Systematics to rotational states in deformed in nuclei was done in Refs. \cite{PhysRev.181.1697,PhysRevC.78.034608,PhysRevC.73.014315,PhysRevC.81.064318}.
Systematic evaluations of the $\alpha$-decay fine structure were also done recently in Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.92.021303,Delion20151}. It was found that the $\alpha$ decays to excited states also follow the Viola-Seaborg law, discussed in chapter 4.
The $\alpha$ decays of neutron-deficient nuclei around $Z=82$ are of particular interest in relation to the possible co-existence of states with different shapes \cite{RevModPhys.83.1467}. Three low-lying $0^+$ states in $^{186}$Pb were observed following the $\alpha$ decay of $^{190}$Po in Ref. \cite{10.1038/35013012}, which were interpreted to be of spherical, oblate and prolate shapes, respectively.
The $\alpha$ decay of $^{187}$Po to the spherical ground state of $^{183}$Pb was observed to be strongly hindered \cite{PhysRevC.73.044324} whereas the decay to a low-lying excited state at 286 keV is favored. Based on the potential energy surface calculations, the $^{187}$Po ground state and the 286 keV excited state in $^{183}$Pb were interpreted as of prolate shape. The decay to the $^{183}$Pb ground state is hindered since this state has a spherical nuclear shape which is different from that of the ground state. The difference in the shapes indicates that the configurations of the mother and daughter wave functions would be very different. As a result, the $\alpha$ formation amplitude is significantly reduced.
The hindrance of the $\alpha$ decay of the isomeric state in $^{191}$Po has the same origin \cite{PhysRevLett.82.1819}. The hindrance of the $\alpha$ decays of neutron-deficient even-even nuclei around $Z=82$ was measured in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.72.1329}.
The $\alpha$ decays to and from the excited $0^+_2$ states in Po, Hg and Rn isotopes were studied in Refs. \cite{Delion1995a,PhysRevC.54.1169,PhysRevC.90.061303}. These states are described as the minima in the potential energy surface provided by the standard deformed Woods-Saxon potential. A simple approach was also presented in Ref. \cite{Karlgren2006} to evaluate the hindrance by taking the ratio between the wave function amplitudes for the transitions to the ground and excited $0^+$ states of the daughter nucleus obtained from potential energy surface calculations.
The robustness of the $N=Z=50$ shell closures has fundamental influence on our understanding of the structure of nuclei around the presumed doubly magic nucleus $^{100}$Sn.
It was argued that $^{100}$Sn may be a soft core in analogy to the soft $N=Z=28$ core $^{56}$Ni. It seems that such a possibility can be safely ruled out based on indirect information from recent measurements in this region \cite{PhysRevC.84.041306,Back2013,10.1038/nature11116,PhysRevLett.110.172501,PhysRevC.91.061304}. It is still difficult to measure the single-particle states outside the $^{100}$Sn core. The neutron single-particle states $d_{5/2}$ and $g_{7/2}$ orbitals in $^{101}$Sn, which have been expected to be close to each other,
were
observed by studying the $\alpha$-decay chain $^{109}$Xe$\rightarrow$ $^{105}$Te $\rightarrow$ $^{101}$Sn \cite{PhysRevLett.97.082501}.
In Ref. \cite{Seweryniak2006}, the nucleus $^{105}$Te was also populated and one $\alpha$ transition was observed.
A prompt 171.7 keV $\gamma$-ray transition was observed in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.99.022504} and was interpreted as the transition from the $g_{7/2}$ to the $d_{5/2}$ orbital, which was assumed to be the ground state.
On the other hand, two $\alpha$ decay events from $^{105}$Te were observed in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.105.162502} with the branching ratios (energies) of 89\%
(4711 keV) and 11\% (4880 keV). Based on those observation and on the assumption that the ground state of $^{105}$Te has spin-parity $5/2^+$, a flip between the $g_{7/2}$ and $d_{5/2}$ orbitals was suggested.
This information was used in the optimization of the effective shell-model Hamiltonian for this region \cite{PhysRevC.86.044323}.
Excited states in the heavy nucleus $^{212}$Po were populated in Refs. \cite{Astier2010,PhysRevLett.104.042701} by using the $\alpha$ transfer reaction. Several electric dipole (E1) transitions were observed, which are several orders of magnitude faster than one would expect between normal shell model states. The states involved were discussed in terms of enhanced $\alpha$ clustering structure. Those E1 transitions were evaluated in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.85.064306} within the shell model approach by adding an additional Gaussian-like component in the single-particle orbitals to simulate the clustering. The enhanced experimental E1 strength distribution below 4 MeV in rare-earth nuclei was studied in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.114.192504} within the interacting boson model by treating the nucleon pairs as boson particles.
\section{The Geiger-Nuttall law and its generalizations}
The incredible range of $\alpha$ decay half-lives can be modeled with the so-called Geiger-Nuttall law~\cite{gn1,gn2}, where a striking correlation between the half-lives of radioactive
decay processes and the decay $Q_{\alpha}$ values (total amount of energy released by the decay process)
is found to be
\begin{equation}\label{gn-o}
\log T_{1/2}=\mathcal{A}Q_{\alpha}^{-1/2}+\mathcal{B},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are constants that can be determined by fitting to experimental data.
The Gamow theory reproduced the Geiger-Nuttall law nicely by describing the $\alpha$ decay as the tunneling through the Coulomb barrier, which leads to the $Q_{\alpha}^{-1/2}$ dependence. Still one may wonder why the Geiger-Nuttall has been so successful. The reason is
that the $\alpha$-particle formation probability usually varies from
nucleus to nucleus much less than the penetrability. This is a consequence of the smooth variation in the nuclear structure that is often found when going from a nucleus to its neighbors.
In
the logarithm scale of the Geiger-Nuttall law, the differences in the
formation probabilities are usually small fluctuations (as seen in Fig. \ref{fap}) along the straight
lines predicted by that law~\cite{Buck90}.
The Geiger-Nuttall law in
the form of Eq.~(\ref{gn-o}) has limited prediction power since its
coefficients change for the decays of each isotopic
series~\cite{Buck90}. Intensive works have
been done trying to generalize the Geiger-Nuttall law for a
universal description of all detected $\alpha$ decay
events \cite{PhysRevC.80.024310,0954-3899-39-1-015105}. One of the most known generalization is the Viola-Seaborg law \cite{VIOLA1966741} which for even-even nuclei reads
\begin{equation}\label{gn-v}
\log T_{1/2}=(aZ_d+b)Q_{\alpha}^{-1/2}+bZ_d+d
\end{equation}
where $a$ to $d$ are constants and $Z_d$ the charge number of the daughter nucleus.
The importance of a proper treatment of $\alpha$ decay was attested in Refs. \cite{Qi2009,QI2009a} which shows that the different lines can be merged into a
single line.
In this generalization the penetrability is
still a dominant quantity where $H^+_0(\chi,\rho)$ can be well
approximated by an analytic formula
\begin{equation}
H^+_0(\chi,\rho) \approx (\cot
\beta)^{1/2}\exp\left[\chi(\beta-\sin\beta\cos\beta)\right].
\end{equation}
By defining
the quantities $\chi' = Z_{\alpha}Z_d\sqrt{A_{\alpha d}/Q_{\alpha}}$ and $\rho' =
\sqrt{A_{\alpha d}Z_{\alpha} Z_d(A_d^{1/3}+A_{\alpha}^{1/3})}$ where $A_{\alpha d}=A_d A_{\alpha}/(A_d+A_{\alpha})$,
one gets, after some simple algebra,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gn-2}
\log T_{1/2}=a\chi' + b\rho' + c,
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$, $b$, $c$ are constants to be determined.
One thus obtained a generalization of the Geiger-Nuttall law
which holds for all isotopic chains and all cluster radioactivities.
The expression reproduces nicely most available
experimental $\alpha$ decay data on ground-state to ground-state radioactive decays. There is a case where it fails by a
large factor. This corresponds to the $\alpha$ decays of nuclei with
neutron numbers equal to or just below $N=126$.
The reason for this large discrepancy is that
the $\alpha$ formation amplitudes in $N\leq126$ nuclei
are much smaller than the average quantity predicted. The case that shows the largest deviation corresponds to the $\alpha$
decay of the nucleus $^{210}$Po for which, as discussed in the previous section, the $\alpha$ formation is not favored due to the fact that the neutron states behave like holes below the shell closure.
\subsection{Limitations of the Geiger-Nuttall law}
The origin and physical meaning
of the coefficients $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ in the Geiger-Nuttall law can be deduced by comparing Eq. (\ref{gn-o}) and (\ref{gn-2}).
These coefficients are determined from experimental data and show a linear dependence upon $Z$.
The need for a different linear $Z$ dependence of the coefficients $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ in different regions of the nuclear chart was discussed in Ref. \cite{Qi2014203}, which is related to the generic form of the $\alpha$ formation probability.
When the dependence of $log_{10}|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ on the neutron
number is not linear or constant, the Geiger-Nuttall law is broken. This
also explains why the Geiger-Nuttall law works so well for nearly all $\alpha$ emitters known
today, as the data within each isotopic chain are limited to a region
where $log_{10}|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ is roughly a constant or behaves linearly with $N$.
For the polonium isotopic chain with $N<126$, the linear behavior of $log_{10}|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ breaks down below $^{196}$Po.
As a result, the Geiger-Nuttall law is broken in the light polonium isotopes. This violation is induced by the strong suppression of the $\alpha$ formation
probability due to the fact that the deformations (or shell-model configurations) of the ground states of the lightest $\alpha$-decaying
neutron-deficient polonium isotopes ($A < 196$) are very different from those of the daughter lead isotopes.
\subsection{The effective approaches}
The simple Gamow theory is so
successful that even today it is applied, with minor changes, in the studies
of radioactive decays. That is, the $\alpha$ particle (or charged clusters in general) is
assumed to be a preformed particle which is initially confined in a finite potential well, bouncing on and reflected off the internal wall of the
potential. The $\alpha$ particle (with no intrinsic structure) wave function is assumed to be an eigenstate of the potential for which the depth can be determined by fitting to the $Q_{\alpha}$ value according to the
Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition~\cite{Buck90}.
The decay
width is given as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma =F_{{\rm
eff}}\exp\left[-2\int^{R_2}_{R_1}k(r)dr \right],
\end{equation}
where $F_{{\rm eff}}$ is the effective quantity, $k(r)=\sqrt{2\mu|Q_{\alpha} - V(r)|}/\hbar$ with $V(r)$ being the
effective potential between the cluster and the daughter nucleus. $R_1$ and $R_2$ are turning points obtained by requiring $V (r) = Q_{\alpha}$.
Similar successfully empirical approaches based on an effective $\alpha$-core potential were also developed in recent publications (Refs. \cite{Xu2006322,0954-3899-26-8-305,PhysRevC.74.014312,Denisov2009815,0954-3899-37-10-105107,PhysRevC.78.057302} and references therein).
An effective $\alpha$-particle equation is derived for the $\alpha$ particle on top of the $^{208}$Pb core in Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.90.034304,
2015arXiv151107584X}, where an attractive pocket-like potential appears around the nuclear surface. That is related to the sharp disappearance of the nucleon density in
the Thomas-Fermi model employed in their work.
The formation
amplitude $F_{\alpha}(R)$ extracted from the experimental
half-lives data is a model-independent quantity. On the other hand, effective $\alpha$ formation quantities like $F_{{\rm eff}}$ are often introduced in many effective models, which are determined by minimizing the difference between the calculation and the experimental datum. This quantity depends strongly on the shape of the effective potential employed \cite{Buck90}.
One may wonder how the $\alpha$ formation mechanism is manifested in effective models, which is not explicitly taken into account.
Since the radius $R$ should
satisfy the relation of $R_1<R<R_2$, we have
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = F_{{\rm eff}}\exp\left[-2\int^{R}_{R_1}k(r)dr
\right]P(R),
\end{equation}
where we define a penetration factor $P$ that, after some mathematics, is given as
\begin{equation}\label{pn}
P=\frac{[H^+_0(\chi,\rho)]^{-2}}{\tan \beta} =
\exp\left[-2\chi(\beta-\sin\beta\cos\beta)\right].
\end{equation}
One thus realizes that the product $F_{{\rm eff}}\exp\left[-2\int^{R}_{R_1}k(r)dr
\right]$ mimics in an effective way the $\alpha$ formation process within the nucleus. By using a properly chosen potential, it is possible to reproduce the general smooth trend of the $\alpha$ formation amplitude. The reduced width introduced in Ref. \cite{PhysRev.113.1593} is also a similar effective quantity that depends on the effective optical potential.
\subsection{Heavier cluster decays}
The spontaneous emission of clusters heavier than $\alpha$ particle was first observed in 1984 \cite{Nature1984}. It has been
established experimentally in trans-lead nuclei decaying into
daughters around the doubly magic nucleus
$^{208}$Pb. A second island of
cluster radioactivities is expected in trans-tin nuclei decaying
into daughters close to $^{100}$Sn.
One advantage of the different generalizations of the Geiger-Nuttall law and semiclassical approaches is that, if reliable values of decay $Q$ values can be obtained, it is easy to extrapolate to all kinds of cluster decays
throughout the nuclear chart, which can be a challenging task for microscopic models.
Systematic calculations on the decays of clusters heavier than $^{4}$He were done in Refs. \cite{Qi2009,QI2009a,0954-3899-39-1-015105,PhysRevC.70.034304}.
Such calculations were extrapolated to the decays of even heavier clusters from superheavy nuclei to daughter nuclei around $^{208}$Pb in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.107.062503} and later in Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.85.034615,PhysRevC.89.067301}. However,
further analysis is necessary to understand the uncertainty behind the extrapolation.
\section{Proton radioactivity}
The proton radioactivity is also shown to be a useful tool to study the structure of nuclei beyond the proton
drip-line. It is often referred to as proton emission or proton decay (not to be confused with the unseen decay of a proton) in nuclear physics. Nearly 50 proton decay events
have been successfully observed in odd-$Z$ elements between $Z=53$ and $Z=83$ in the past few decades,
leading to an almost complete
identification of the proton edge of nuclear stability in this region
\cite{doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.47.1.541,Blank2008a}.
The concurrence of both proton decay and $\alpha$ decay was also observed in several nuclei.
On the theoretical side,
the proton-emission process can be described as the quantum
tunneling of a quasistationary single-particle state through the Coulomb and centrifugal barriers
\cite{Delion2006a}. Similar to the case of $\alpha$ decay in Eq. (\ref{foram}), the proton decay formation amplitude can be evaluated as
\begin{equation}
F_l(R)=\int d{\mathbf R} d\xi_d
[\Psi_d(\xi_d)\xi_pY_l(\mathbf R)]^*_{J_mM_m}
\Psi_m(\xi_d,\xi_p,\mathbf{R}),
\end{equation}
where $d$, $p$ and $m$ label the daughter, proton and mother
nuclei, respectively and $l$ is the orbital angular momentum carried by the outgoing proton. In
the BCS approach the formation amplitude at a given radius $R$ is
proportional to the product of the occupancy $u$ times the single-proton wave
function $\psi_p(R)$. $F_l(R)$ would indeed be the
wave function of the outgoing particle $\psi_p(R)$ if the
mother nucleus behaved simply as
\begin{equation}\label{mother}
\Psi_m(\xi_d,\xi_p,\mathbf{R})=
[\Psi_d(\xi_d)\xi_p\psi_p(R) Y_l(\mathbf R)]_{J_mM_m}.
\end{equation}
One example is the proton-unbound nucleus $^{109}$I \cite{Procter2011118} for which the lowest collective band starting from $7/2^+_1$ and the inner-band E2 transition properties are very similar to those of ground state band in
$^{108}$Te \cite{PhysRevC.84.041306} and the $7/2^+_1$ band in $^{109}$Te \cite{PhysRevC.86.034308}, indicating that the odd proton in $^{109}$I, which occupies the $g_{7/2}$ orbital, is weakly coupled to the $^{108}$Te daughter nucleus like a spectator. This scheme is supported by shell-model and pair truncated shell model calculations \cite{PhysRevC.88.044332}.
The ground state of $^{109}$Te is 98 keV lower than the $7/2_1^+$ state, for which the spin-parity has been tentatively assigned as $5/2^{+}$.
This state can be reproduced nicely by the shell model calculation. It is predicted to be dominated by the coupling of a $d_{5/2}$ neutron to $^{108}$Te. Based on systematics of proton decay half-lives \cite{Qi2012c} and the level structure of I isotopes from Ref. \cite{nudat}, a similar $5/2_1^+$ state is also expected to be the ground state of $^{109}$I. However, it was not seen in the life-time measurement in Ref. \cite{Procter2011118}.
The logarithm of the decay half-life can be approximated by \cite{Delion2006,Qi2012c}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gn-3}
\log T_{1/2} &=&a\chi' + b\rho' +d l(l+1)/\rho' + c,
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ are constants which can be determined by fitting available
experimental data. It is seen that most of the data can be reproduced by the calculation within a
factor of four \cite{Qi2012c}.
Relatively large discrepancies are seen for a few
emitters between $63\leq Z\leq 67$ and the isomeric $h_{11/2}$
hole state in the $Z=81$ nucleus $^{177}$Tl and the ground state
of $^{185}$Bi.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f-vs-rho.eps}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{(Color online) The logarithm of the proton-decay formation probabilities
$\log_{10} |RF_l(R)|^{2}$ extracted from experimental data as a function of
$\rho'$ from \cite{Qi2012c}. Squares correspond to nuclei with $N<75(Z\leq67)$ while circles
are for $N\geq 75(Z>67)$.
\label{fvsrho}}
\end{figure}
To further understand Eq. (\ref{gn-3}), the formation amplitudes $F_l(R)$ were extracted from the experimental half lives \cite{Qi2012c}, which are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fvsrho} as a function of $\rho'$.
One sees that two clearly defined regions emerge. The region to the left in Fig. \ref{fvsrho},
i.e. for lighter isotopes, corresponds to the decays of well deformed nuclei where the formation probabilities decreases for these
nuclei as $\rho'$ increases. Then, suddenly, a strong
transition occurs for the nucleus
$^{144}_{~69}$Tm at $\rho'$=20.5. Here the formation probability acquires its maximum value, where the experimental uncertainty regarding the half-life
(from where the formation probability is extracted) is still quite large,
and then decreases again as $\rho'$ increases.
The reason of the tendency of the formation probability in the figure is
related to the influence of the deformation: In the left region of Fig. \ref{fvsrho},
the decays of the deformed nuclei proceed through
small spherical components of the corresponding deformed orbitals and,
therefore, the formation probabilities are small.
The right region of Fig. \ref{fvsrho} involves the decays of spherical orbits
as well as major spherical components of deformed orbitals (for example, the
$h_{11/2}$ component of the Nilsson orbital $11/2^- [505]$) which give large proton formation amplitudes.
Another important question is whether the formation probability is
affected by the proton decay $Q_p$ value. This is not expected since, as shown schematically in Ref. \cite{Qi2012c},
the formation amplitude at the nuclear surface is not sensitive to changes
in the single-particle energy. Neither the BCS amplitudes $u_k$ are much
affected by the changing of the energy and the potential depth.
On the other hand, the formation amplitude can indeed be sensitive to the nuclear deformation. But this should not be mixed up with the influence of the deformation on the binding energies and the $Q_p$ value.
The systematic behavior of $Q_p$ values is presented in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.83.014305} which provides good information for estimating $Q_p$ values for as yet
unknown proton and $\alpha$ decays and for the possibility for them to be observed using current experimental methods. It is suggested that the most likely candidates are $^{158,160}$Re, $^{164,165}$Ir and $^{169}$Au. The partial half-lives for the proton and $\alpha$-decay branches $^{160}$Re are measured to be $687 \pm
11$ $\mu$s and $5.6 \pm0.5$ ms, respectively \cite{PhysRevC.83.064320}. The proton decay is expected to be from the $d_{3/2}$ orbital.
The $\alpha$-decay branch of the
$h_{11/2}$ isomeric state in $^{164}$Ir was identified in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.89.064309}.
There have been extensive efforts measuring the rotational
bands of proton emitters
including $^{141}$Ho and the tri-axially deformed nucleus $^{145}$Tm \cite{PhysRevC.58.R3042,PhysRevLett.86.1458,PhysRevLett.99.082502}.
Moreover, $\gamma$ rays from excited states feeding proton-emitting ground- or isomeric-state have been observed for $^{112}$Cs \cite{PhysRevC.85.034329}, $^{117}$La \cite{Liu201124}, $^{171}$Au \cite{Back2003}, and $^{151}$Lu \cite{Procter201379,PhysRevC.91.044322}. In the latter case the nucleus was suggested to be of moderate oblate deformation.
A multiparticle spin-trap $19^-$ isomer was discovered in $^{158}$Ta in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.112.092501}. The state is unbound to proton decay but shows remarkable stability. Structure calculations have been carried out for those nuclei. In Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.89.014317} the rotational band in $^{141}$Ho is described using the
projected shell model by taking deformed Nilsson quasi-particle orbitals as bases. The $^{145}$Tm is well described as the coupling of of deformed rotational core and the odd proton within the particle-rotor framework in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.78.041305}.
\section{$\alpha$ decays of $N\sim Z$ nuclei}
The np correlation was neglected in our calculations for heavy nuclei \cite{Qi2010c} where the two-body clustering is induced by the neutron-neutron (nn) and proton-proton (pp) pair correlations. This is reasonable since the low-lying neutron and proton single-particle states are very different from each other in those cases and the np correlation is expected to be weak. The $\alpha$ formation amplitude may increase as a result of enhanced isovector (with isospin quantum number $T=1$) nn, pp and np pairing and isoscalar (with $T=0$) np correlation in nuclei with $N\sim Z$ where protons and neutrons occupy the same shells and np correlation is expected to be strong. Therefore, the $\alpha$ decays from $N\sim Z$ nuclei can provide an ideal test ground for our understanding of the np correlation for which there is still no conclusive evidence after long and extensive studies (see, recent discussions in Refs. \cite{Ced11,Frauendorf201424,Qi11,Xu2012,Qi2015}).
There has already been a long effort answering the question whether the formation probabilities of neutron-deficient $N\sim Z$ isotopes are larger compared to those of other nuclei \cite{Seweryniak2006,Liddick2006}.
Moreover, if it is correct, this faster $\alpha$ decay
would also change the borderline of accessible neutron deficient $\alpha$-decaying nuclei and might be motivation for further experimental work.
Refs. \cite{Liddick2006} compared the $\alpha$-decay reduced widths for Xe and Te nuclei with that of the textbook $\alpha$-decay isotope $^{212}$Po and neighboring Po isotopes and an enhancement by a factor of 2-3 is seen.
It was also noticed that the $|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ value of $^{194}$Rn is larger by a similar factor compared to the $|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^2$ of $^{212}$Po \cite{Andreyev2013,Qi2014203}.
The $\alpha$ decays of $^{114}$Ba \cite{Mazzocchi200229} and light Xe and Te \cite{Seweryniak2006,Janas2005,Liddick2006} isotopes have also been observed.
The decays of $^{112,113}$Ba as well as $^{108}$Xe and $^{104}$Te may soon be reachable.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{nz.eps}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption{(Color online) $\alpha$-decay formation amplitudes
$|RF_{\alpha}(R)|^{2}$ extracted from experimental data \cite{nudat,PhysRevLett.105.162502} as a function $N$ for neutron-deficient Te (circle) and Xe (square) above $^{100}$Sn. Open symbols correspond to the decays of $\alpha$ particles carrying orbital angular momentum $l=2$.
\label{fvsrp}}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fvsrp} we compare the $\alpha$ formation probabilities of nuclei just above $^{100}$Sn. The $\alpha$ formation probabilities of those nuclei follows the general average mass-dependence trend of $\alpha$ formation probability systematics but shows a rather large fluctuations and uncertainties. It is still difficult to determine whether there is indeed an extra enhancement in those transitions. Further experimental investigation
is essential in clarifying the issue. It may be useful to mention here that the systematics of formation probabilities for available $\alpha$ decays shows an increasing trend as the mass number decreases. This is related to the fact that the size of the nucleus also gets smaller, which favors the formation of $\alpha$ particles on the surface.
The influence of np correlation upon the formation of $\alpha$ particles in nuclei $^{220}$Ra and $^{116,108}$Xe was calculated in Ref. \cite{DELION1992407} within the framework of a generalized BCS approach in an axially deformed Woods-Saxon potential. Only diagonal terms between proton and neutron orbitals
with the same angular-momentum projections were considered and a modest enhancement of the clustering was found in $^{116,108}$Xe.
We have evaluated within the shell-model approach the nn and pp two-body clustering in $^{102}$Sn and $^{102}$Te and then evaluated the correlation angle between the two pair by switching on and off the np correlation \cite{Qi2015}. If the np correlation is switched on, in particular if a large number of levels is included, there is significant enhancement of the four-body clustering at zero angle. This is eventually proportional to the $\alpha$ formation probability. It should be mentioned that, one needs large number of orbitals already in heavy nuclei in order to reproduce properly the $\alpha$ clustering at the surface. The inclusion of np correlation will make the problem even more challenging due to the huge dimension.
\section{Summary and outlook}
Understanding how nuclear many-body systems can self-organize in
simple and regular patterns is a long-standing challenge in modern
physics. The first case where this was realized concerns the Geiger-Nuttall law in $\alpha$
radioactivity which shows striking linear correlations between the logarithm of
the decay half-life and the energy of the outgoing particle. We discussed in this review the formation of $\alpha$ particle in nuclei from the clusterization of the two protons and two neutrons through the mixture of high-lying empty single particle configurations, which is induced by the strong pairing correlation.
We understand that the reason for the success of the Geiger-Nuttall law is
that the $\alpha$-particle formation probability usually varies smoothly from
nucleus to nucleus. Systematics of the $\alpha$ formation probabilities reveal interesting local fluctuations which can provide invaluable information on the pairing correlation and shell structure.
The reduction of the pairing at $Z=82$ and $N=126$ and the changes in the nuclear shapes in neutron-deficient nuclei around $Z=82$ induce suppression of the nuclear $\alpha$ clusterization on the surface. The proton decay can also be an excellent probe for our understanding of the intrinsic structure of the deformed single- (or quasi-) particle orbital.
It
will be possible to extend the experimental knowledge on both proton decay and $\alpha$ decay towards more
neutron deficient nuclei around $Z=82$ and 50 with the new or upgraded radioactive beam facilities. This will allow us to validate the generic description of the $\alpha$ formation probabilities of $N\sim Z$ nuclei above $^{100}$Sn where the influence the np correlation is expected to be the strongest since the protons and neutrons are filling the same single particle orbitals. It may also shed light on our understanding of np pairing correlation.
More realistic description of the $\alpha$ formation probability in heavy nuclei by using globally optimized density functional and large-scale configuration interaction method may be expected in the near future. A full microscopic description relies also on a realistic choice of the single-particle wave function including the scattering to continuum.
Consequently, more reliable predictions of the $\alpha$ decay half lives will be achieved in unknown nuclei and in low $\alpha$-decay branching ratios in nuclei close to stability.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I thank A. N. Andreyev, D.S. Delion, M. Huyse, R. J. Liotta, P. Van Duppen, R. Wyss for collaborations on the present subject. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR) under grant Nos. 621-2012-3805, 621-2013-4323. I also thank the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at NSC in Link\"oping and PDC at KTH, Stockholm for computational support.
\section*{References}
\renewcommand{\bibfont}{\small}
\begin{singlespace}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\bibsep}{0pt plus 0.3ex}
\providecommand{\newblock}{}
|
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Related Works}\label{app:relworks}
\RelatedWorkSection
\subsection{Trivial Scheme for Non-Adaptive Protocols with Minimum Message
Length Under Random Errors} \label{app:trivialscheme}
\TrivialScheme
\subsection{Preliminaries} \label{app:prelim}
\Prelim
\subsubsection{Communication Channels} \label{subsec:commchannel}
\CommChannels
\subsection{Proofs} \label{app:proofs}
\ProofofBlocking
\ProofofRatelessCode
\subsection{Encoding and Decoding Scheme for Control Information}
\label{app:encscheme}
\EncodingScheme
\section{Average Message Length and Blocked Protocols}\label{subsec:msglen}
One conceptual contribution of this work is to introduce the notion of
\emph{average message length} as a natural measure of the level of interactivity of a protocol. While this paper uses it only in the
context of analyzing the optimal rate of interactive coding schemes, we believe that this notion and parametrization will also be useful in other settings, such as compression. Next, we define this notion formally.
\begin{definition}\label{def:avgmsg}
The \emph{average message length} $\ell$ of an $n$-round interactive protocol
$\Pi$ is the minimum, over all paths in the protocol tree of $\Pi$, of the
average length in bits of a maximal contiguous block (spoken by a single
party) down the path.
More precisely, given any string $s\in\{0,1\}^n$, there exist integer message lengths $l_0, \ldots, l_k>0$ such that along the path of $\Pi$ given by $s$ one player (either Alice or Bob) speaks between round $1 + \sum_{j < i} l_j$ and round $\sum_{j \leq i} l_j$ for even $i$ while the other speaks during the remaining intervals, i.e., those for odd $i$. We then define $\ell_s$ to be the average of these message lengths $l_0, \ldots, l_k$ and define the \emph{average
message length} of $\Pi$ to be minimum over all possible inputs, i.e., $\ell = \min_{s\in\{0,1\}^n} \ell_s$.
\end{definition}
An alternate characterization of the amount of interaction in a protocol
involves the number of alternations in the protocol:
\begin{definition}
An $n$-round protocol $\Pi$ is said to be \emph{$k$-alternating} if any path
in the protocol tree of $\Pi$ can be divided into at most $k$ blocks of
consecutive rounds such that only one person (either Alice or Bob) speaks
during each block.
More precisely, $\Pi$ is \emph{$k$-alternating} if, given any string $s \in
\{0,1\}^n$, there exist $k' \leq k$ integers $r_0, r_1, \dots, r_{k'}$ with $0 = r_0 < \dots <
r_{k'} = n$, such that along the path of $\Pi$ given by $s$, only one player
(either Alice or Bob) speaks for rounds $r_i + 1, \dots, r_{i+1}$ for any
$0\leq i < k'$.
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that the two notions are essentially equivalent, as an $n$-round protocol
with average message length $\ell$ is an $(n/\ell)$-alternating protocol, and a
$k$-alternating $n$-round protocol has average message length $n/k$.
Note that an $n$-round \emph{alternating} protocol has average message
length $1$, while a \emph{one-way} protocol has average message length $n$.
The average message length can thus be seen as a natural measure for the interactivity of a protocol.
We emphasize that the average message length definition does not require
message lengths to be uniform along any path or across paths. In particular,
this allows for the length of a response to vary depending on what was
communicated before, e.g., the statement the other party has just made---a
common phenomenon in many applications. Taking as an example real-world
conversations between two people, responses to statements can be as short as a
simple ``I agree'' or much longer, depending on what the conversation
has already covered and what the opinion or input of the receiving party is.
Thus, a sufficiently large average message length roughly states that while the
$i^\text{th}$ response of a person can be short or long depending on the history
of the conversation, no sequence of responses can lead to two parties going back
and forth with super short statements for too long a period of time. This
flexibility makes the average message length a highly applicable parameter that
is reasonably large in most settings of interest. We expect it to be a very
useful parametrization for questions going beyond the communication rate
considered here.
However, the non-uniformity of protocols with an average message length bound
can make the design and analysis of protocols somewhat harder than one would
like. Fortunately, adding some dummy rounds of communication in a
simple procedure we call \emph{blocking} allows us to transform any protocol
with small number of alternations into a much more regularly structured protocol
which we refer to as \emph{blocked}.
\begin{definition}
An $n$-round protocol $\Pi$ is said to be \emph{$b$-blocked} if for any
$1\leq j \leq \lceil n/b \rceil$, only one person (either Alice or Bob) speaks
during all rounds $r$ such that $(j-1)b < r \leq jb$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:blocking}
Any $n$-round $k$-alternating protocol $\Pi$ can be simulated by a $b$-blocked protocol $\Pi'$ that consists of at most $n+kb$ rounds.
\end{lemma}
\global\def\ProofofBlocking{
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:blocking}]
Consider the protocol tree of $\Pi$, where each node corresponds to a state of
the protocol (with the root as the starting state) and each node has at most
two edges leaving from it (labeled `0' and `1'). Moreover, each node is colored
one of two colors depending on whether Alice or Bob speaks next in the
corresponding state, and the edges emanating from the node are colored the
same. The leaves of the protocol tree are terminating states of
the protocol, and one can view any (possibly corrupted) execution of the
protocol as a path from the root to a leaf of the tree, where the edge taken
from any node indicates the bit that is transmitted by the sender from the
corresponding state.
Now, consider any path down the protocol tree. We can group the edges of the
path into maximal groups of consecutive edges of the same color. Now, if any
group of edges contains a number of edges that is not a multiple of $b$, then
we add some dummy nodes (with edges) in the middle of the group so that the new
number of edges in the group is the next largest multiple of $b$. It is clear
that if we do this for every path down the original protocol tree, then the
resulting protocol tree will correspond to a protocol $\Pi'$ that is
$b$-blocked
and simulates $\Pi$ (i.e., each leaf of $\Pi'$ corresponds to a leaf of $\Pi$).
Moreover, note that the number of groups of edges is at most $k$, since $\Pi$
is $k$-alternating. Also, the number of dummy nodes we add in each group is at
most $b$. It follows that the number of nodes (and edges) down any original
path of $\Pi$ has increased by at most $kn$ in $\Pi'$. Thus, the desired claim
follows.
\end{proof}
}
\fullOnly{\ProofofBlocking}
\shortOnly{\noindent The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:blocking} is straightforward
and appears in Appendix~\ref{app:proofs}.}
\section{Introduction}
In this work, we study the communication rate of coding schemes for interactive
communication that transform any two-party interactive protocol into a protocol
that is robust to noise.
\subsection{Error-Correcting Codes}
The study of reliable transmission over a noisy channel was pioneered by Shannon's work in the 1940s. He and others showed that error-correcting codes allow one to add redundancy to a message, thereby transforming the message into a longer sequence of symbols, such that one can recover the original message even if some errors occur. This allows fault-tolerant
transmissions and storage of information. Error-correcting codes have since permeated most modern computation and communication technologies
One focus of study has been the precise tradeoff between redundancy and fault-tolerance. In particular, if one uses an error-correcting code that encodes a binary message of length $k$ into a sequence of $n$ bits,
then the \emph{communication rate} of the code is said to be $k/n$. One
wishes to make the rate as high as possible. Shannon showed that for the random binary symmetric channel (BSC)
with error probability $\epsilon$ the (asymptotically) best achievable rate is $C = 1-H(\epsilon)$, where $H(\epsilon) =
-\epsilon\log_2 {\epsilon} - (1-\epsilon)\log_2 (1-\epsilon)$ denotes
the \emph{binary entropy function}.
Another realm of interest is the case of \emph{adversarial} errors. In this
case, the communication channel corrupts at most an $\epsilon$ fraction of the
total number of bits that are transmitted. Moreover, one wishes to allow the
receiver to correctly decode the message in the presence of any such error
pattern. The work of Hamming shows that one can achieve a communication rate of
$R = 1-\Theta(H(\epsilon))$, in particular, the so-called Gilbert-Varshamov
bound of $1-H(2\epsilon) > 1 - 2H(\epsilon)$. Determining the optimal rate, or even just the constant hidden by the asymptotic $\Theta(H(\epsilon))$ term, remains a major open question.
\subsection{Interactive Communication}
The work of Shannon and Hamming applies to the problem of \emph{one-way
communication}, in which one party, say Alice, wishes to send a message to
another party, say Bob. However, in many applications, underlying (two-party)
communications are \emph{interactive}, i.e., Bob's response to Alice may be
based on what he received from her previously and vice versa.
As in the case of one-way communication, one wishes to make such interactive communications robust to noise
by adding some redundancy.
At first sight, it seems plausible that one could use error-correcting
codes to encode each round of communication separately. However, this does not
work correctly because the channel might corrupt the codeword of one such round of communication entirely and
as a result derail the entire future conversation. With the naive approach being insufficient, it is not obvious whether it is possible at all to encode interactive protocols in a way that can tolerate some small constant fraction of errors in an
interactive setting. Nonetheless, Schulman~\cite{Schulman92, Schulman93,
Schulman96} showed that this is possible and numerous follow-up works over the past
several years have led to a drastically better understanding of
error-correcting coding schemes for interactive communications
\shortOnly{(see Appendix~\ref{app:relworks})}.
\subsection{Communication Rates of Interactive Coding Schemes} \label{sec:introICrate}
Only recently, however, has this study led to results shedding light on the tradeoff between the achievable communication rate for a given error fraction or amount of noise.
Kol and Raz~\cite{KR13} gave a communication scheme for random errors that achieves a communication rate of $1-O(\sqrt{H(\epsilon)})$ for any alternating protocol, where $\epsilon>0$ is the error rate. \cite{KR13} also developed powerful tools to prove upper bounds on the communication rate. Haeupler~\cite{Haeupler14} showed communication schemes that achieve a communication rate of $1-O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ for any oblivious adversarial channel, including random errors, as well as a communication rate of $1-O(\sqrt{\epsilon \log\log(1/\epsilon)})$ for any fully adaptive adversarial channel. These results apply to alternating protocols as well as adaptively simulated non-alternating protocols (see \cite{Haeupler14} for a more detailed discussions). Lastly, given \cite{KR13}, Haeupler conjectured these rates to be optimal for their respective settings. Therefore, there is an almost quadratic gap between the conjectured rate achievable in the interactive setting and the $1-\Theta(H(\epsilon))$ rate known to be optimal for one-way communications.
\subsection{Results}
In this paper, we investigate this communication rate gap. In particular, we show
that for a natural and large class of protocols this gap disappears. Our primary
focus is on protocols for \emph{oblivious adversarial} channels. Such a channel
can corrupt any $\epsilon$ fraction of bits that are exchanged in the execution
of a protocol, and the simulation is required to work, with high probability,
for any such error pattern. This is significantly stronger, more interesting,
and, as we will see, also much more challenging than the case of independent
random errors. We remark that, in contrast to a \emph{fully adaptive
adversarial} channel, the decision whether an error happens in a given round is
not allowed to depend on the transcript of the execution thus far. This seems to
be a minor but crucially necessary restriction (see also Section
\ref{sec:conceptual}).
As mentioned, the conjectured optimal communication rate of $1-O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ for the oblivious adversarial setting is worse than the $1-O(H(\epsilon))$ communication rate achievable in the one-way communication settings. However, the conjectured upper bound seems to be tight mainly for ``maximally interactive'' protocols, i.e., protocols in which the party that is sending
bits changes frequently. In particular, \emph{alternating} protocols, in which
Alice and Bob take turns sending a single bit, seem to require the most
redundancy for a noise-resilient encoding. On the other hand, the usual
one-way communication case in which one party just sends a single message
consisting of several bits is an example of a ``minimally
interactive'' protocol. It is a natural question to consider
what the tradeoff is between achievable communication rate and the level of interaction that takes
place. In particular, most natural real-world protocols are rarely ``maximally
interactive'' and could potentially be simulated with communication rates going well beyond
$1-O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$. We seek to investigate this possibility.
Our first contribution is to introduce the notion of \emph{average
message length} as a natural measure of the interactivity of a protocol in the
context of analyzing communication rates. Loosely speaking, the average message
length of an $n$-round protocol corresponds to the average number of bits a
party sends before receiving a reply from the other party. A lower average
message length roughly corresponds to more interactivity in a protocol, e.g.,
a maximally interactive protocol has average message length 1, while a
one-way protocol with no interactivity has average message length $n$. The
formal definition of average message length appears as
Definition~\ref{def:avgmsg} in Section~\ref{subsec:msglen}.
Our second and main contribution in this paper is to show that for protocols with
an average message length of at least some constant in $\epsilon$ (but independent of
the number of rounds $n$) one can go well beyond the $1-\Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ communication rate achieved by
\cite{Haeupler14} for channels with oblivious adversarial errors. In fact, we
show that for such protocols one can actually achieve a communication rate of
$1-\Theta(H(\epsilon))$, matching the communication rate for one-way
communication up to the (unknown) constant in the $H(\epsilon)$ term.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:mainoblivious}
For any $\epsilon > 0$ and any $n$-round interactive protocol $\Pi$
with average message
length $\ell = \Omega(\mathrm{poly}(1/\epsilon))$, it is possible to
encode $\Pi$ into a protocol over the same alphabet which, with probability at
least $1 - \exp(-n \epsilon^6)$, simulates
$\Pi$ over an oblivious adversarial channel with an $\epsilon$ fraction of errors while
achieving a communication rate of $1-\Theta(H(\epsilon)) = 1-\Theta(\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon))$.
\end{theorem}
Under the (simplifying) assumption of \emph{public shared randomness}, our
protocol can furthermore be seen to have the nice property of being
\emph{rateless}. This means that the communication rate adapts automatically
and only depends on the actual error rate $\epsilon$ without having to specify or
know in advance what amount of noise to prepare for.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:rateless}
Suppose Alice and Bob have access to public shared randomness. For any
$\epsilon' > 0$ and any $n$-round interactive protocol $\Pi$ with average
message length $\ell = \Omega(\mathrm{poly}(1/\epsilon'))$, it is possible to
encode $\Pi$ into protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{rateless}$ over
the same alphabet such that for any \emph{true error rate} $\epsilon$, executing
$\Pi_\mathrm{rateless}$ for $n(1 + O(H(\epsilon)) +
O(\epsilon'\,\mathrm{polylog}(1/\epsilon')))$ rounds simulates $\Pi$ with
probability at least $1 - \exp(-n\epsilon'^3)$.
\end{theorem}
We note that one should think of $\epsilon'$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:rateless} as
chosen to be very small, in particular, smaller than the smallest amount of
noise one expects to encounter. In this case, the communication rate of the
protocol simplifies to the optimal $1 - O(H(\epsilon))$ for essentially any
$\epsilon > \epsilon'$. The only reason for not choosing $\epsilon'$ too small
is that it very slightly increases the failure probability. As an example,
choosing $\epsilon'=o(1)$ suffices to get ratelessness for any constant
$\epsilon$ and still leads to an essentially exponential failure probability.
Alternatively, one can even set $\epsilon' = n^{-1/6}$ which leads to optimal
communication rates even for tiny sub-constant true error fractions $\epsilon >
n^{-0.2}$ while still achieving a strong sub-exponential failure probability of
at most $\exp(-\sqrt{n})$.
\global\def\RelatedWorkSection{
Schulman was the first to consider the question of coding for
interactive communication and showed that one can tolerate an adversarial error
fraction of $\epsilon = 1/240$ with an unspecified constant
communication rate~\cite{Schulman92, Schulman93, Schulman96}. Schulman's result
also
implies that for the easier setting of random errors, one can tolerate any
error
rate bounded away from $1/2$ by repeating symbols multiple times. Since
Schulman's seminal work, there has been a number of subsequent works pinning
down the tolerable error fraction. For instance, Braverman and Rao~\cite{BR14}
showed that any error fraction $\epsilon < 1/4$ can be tolerated in the realm
of adversarial errors, provided that one can use larger alphabet sizes, and
this bound was shown to be optimal. A series of subsequent works~\cite{BE14,
GH14, GHS14, EGH15, FGOS15} worked to determine the error rate region under
which non-zero communication rates can be obtained for a variety of models,
e.g., adversarial errors, random errors, list-decoding, adaptivity, and channels
with feedback. Unlike the initial coding schemes of \cite{Schulman96} and \cite{BR14} that relied on tree codes and as a result required exponential time computations, many of the newer coding schemes are
computationally efficient~\cite{BK12, BN13, BKN14, GMS14, GH14}. All these results achieve
small often unspecified constant communication rate of $\Theta(1)$ which is fixed and independent of amount of noise. Only the works of \cite{KR13} and \cite{Haeupler14}, which are already discussed above in Section \ref{sec:introICrate} achieve a communication rate approaching $1$ for error fractions going to zero.
}
\fullOnly{
\subsection{Further Related Works}
\RelatedWorkSection
}
\shortOnly{
\section{Preliminaries}
The definitions and notation for the coding for interactive communication setting used throughout the paper are standard and are stated in detail in Appendix~\ref{app:prelim}.
}
\global\def\Prelim{
An \emph{interactive protocol} $\Pi$ consists of communication performed by
two parties, Alice and Bob, over a channel with alphabet $\Sigma$. Alice has
an input $x$ and Bob has an input $y$, and the protocol consists of $n$
\emph{rounds}. During each
round of a protocol, each party decides whether to listen or transmit a symbol
from $\Sigma$, based on his input and the player's \emph{transcript} thus
far. Alice's \emph{transcript} is defined as a tuple of symbols from $\Sigma$,
one for each round that has occurred, such that the $i^\text{th}$ symbol is
either (a.) the symbol that Alice sent during the $i^\text{th}$ round, if she
chose to transmit, or (b.) the symbol that Alice received, otherwise.
Moreover, protocols
can utilize
\emph{randomness}. In the case
of \emph{private randomness}, each party is given its own infinite string of
independent uniformly random bits as part of its input. In the case of \emph{shared randomness},
both
parties have access to a common infinite random string during each round. In
general, our protocols will utilize private randomness, unless otherwise
specified.
In a \emph{noiseless} setting, we can assume that in any round, exactly one
party speaks and one party listens. In this case, the listening party simply
receives the symbol sent by the speaking party.
The \emph{communication order} of a protocol refers to the order in which Alice
and Bob choose to speak or listen. A protocol is \emph{non-adaptive} if the
communication order is fixed prior to the start of the protocol, in which case,
whether a party transmits or listens depends only on the round number. A simple
type of non-adaptive protocol is an \emph{alternating} protocol, in which one
party transmits during odd numbered rounds, while the other party transmits
during even numbered rounds. On the other hand, an \emph{adaptive} protocol is
one in which the communication order is not fixed prior to the start;
therefore, the communication order can vary depending on the transcript of the
protocol. In particular, each party's decision whether to speak or listen
during a round will depend on his input, randomness, as well as the transcript
of the protocol thus far.
For an $n$-round protocol over alphabet $\Sigma$, one can define an associated
\emph{protocol tree} of depth $n$. The protocol tree is a rooted tree in
which each non-leaf node of the tree has
$|\Sigma|$ children, and the outgoing edges are labeled by the elements of
$\Sigma$. Each non-leaf node is owned by some player, and the owner of the node
has a \emph{preferred} edge that emanates from the node. The preferred edge is
a function of the owner's input and any randomness that is allowed. Also, leaf
nodes of the protocol tree correspond to ending states.
A proper execution of the protocol corresponds to the unique path from the root
of the protocol tree to a leaf node, such that each traversed edge is the
preferred edge of the parent node of the edge. In this case, each edge along
the path can be viewed as a successive round in which the owner of the parent
node transmits the symbol along the edge.
An example of a protocol tree is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:protocoltree}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{protocoltree.pdf}
\caption{An example of a protocol tree for a 3-round interactive protocol.
Nodes owned by Alice are colored red, while those owned by Bob are colored
blue. Note that Alice always speaks during the first and third rounds, while
Bob
speaks during the second round. The orange edges are the set of preferred edges
for some choice of inputs of Alice and Bob. In this case, a proper execution of
the protocol corresponds to the path ``011.''}
\label{fig:protocoltree}
\end{figure}
}
\global\def\CommChannels{
For our purposes, the communication between the two parties occurs over a
\emph{communication channel} that delivers a possibly corrupted version of the
symbol transmitted by the sending party. In this work, transmissions will be
from a \emph{binary} alphabet, i.e., $\Sigma = \{0,1\}$.
In a \emph{random error channel}, each transmission occurs over a binary
symmetric channel with crossover probability $\epsilon$. In other words, in
each round, if only one party is speaking, then the transmitted bit gets
corrupted with probability $\epsilon$.
This work mainly considers the \emph{oblivious adversarial channel}, in which
an adversary gets to corrupt at most $\epsilon$ fraction of the total number of
rounds. However, the adversary is restricted to making his decisions prior to
the start of the protocol, i.e., the adversary must decide which rounds to
corrupt independently of the communication history and randomness used by Alice
and Bob. For each round that the adversary decides to corrupt, he can either
commit a \emph{flip} error or \emph{replace} error. Suppose a round has one
party that speaks and one party that listens. Then, a flip error means that
the listening party receives the opposite of the bit that the transmitting
party sends. On the other hand, a replace error requires the adversary to
specify a symbol $\alpha\in\Sigma$ for the round. In this case, the listening
party receives $\alpha$ regardless of which symbol was sent by the transmitting
party.
An {adaptive adversarial channel} allows an adversary
to corrupt at most
$\epsilon$ fraction of the total number of rounds. However, in this case, the
adversary does not have to commit to which rounds to corrupt prior to the start
of the protocol. Rather, the adversary can decide to corrupt a round based on
the communication history thus far, including what is being sent in the
current round. Thus, in any round that the adversary chooses to corrupt in
which one party transmits and one party receives, the adversary can make the
listening party receive any symbol of his choice.
Note that we have not yet specified the behavior for rounds in which both
parties speak or both parties listen. Such rounds can occur for \emph{adaptive}
protocols when the communication occurs over a noisy communication channel.
If both parties speak during a round, we stipulate that neither party receives
any symbol during that round (since neither party is expecting to receive a
symbol).
Moreover, we stipulate that in rounds during which both parties listen, the
symbols received by Alice and Bob are unspecified. In other words, an
arbitrary symbol may be delivered to each of the parties, and we require that
the protocol work for any choice of
received symbols. Alternatively, one can imagine that the adversary
chooses arbitrary symbols for Alice and Bob to receive without this being
counted as a corruption (i.e., a free corruption that is not counted toward
the budget of $\epsilon$ fraction of corruptions). The reason for this model is
to disallow the possibility of transmitting information by using silence.
An extensive discussion on the appropriateness of this error model can be
found in~\cite{GHS14}.
}
\fullOnly{
\section{Preliminaries}
\Prelim
\subsection{Communication Channels} \label{subsec:commchannel}
\CommChannels
}
\section{Conceptual Challenges and Key Ideas}\label{sec:conceptual}
In this section, we wish to provide some intuition for the difficulties in
surpassing the $1-\Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ communication rate for interactive
coding when dealing with non-random errors. We do this because the adversarial
setting comes with a completely new set of challenges that are somewhat subtle
but nonetheless fundamental. As such, the techniques used in the previous
section for interactive coding under random errors still provide a good
introduction to some of the building blocks in the framework we use to deal with
the adversarial setting, but they are not sufficient to circumvent the main
technical challenges. Indeed, we show in this section that the adversarial
setting inherently requires several completely new techniques to beat the
$1-\Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ communication rate barrier.
We begin by noting that all existing interactive coding schemes encode the input
protocol $\Pi$ into a protocol $\Pi'$ with a certain type of structure: There
are some, \emph{a priori} specified, communication rounds which simulate rounds
of the original protocol (i.e.,
result in a walk down the protocol tree of $\Pi$), while other rounds constitute
\emph{redundant information} which is used for error correction. In the case of
protocols that use hashing (e.g., \cite{Haeupler14}, \cite{KR13}), this is
directly apparent in their description, as rounds in which hashes and control
information are communicated constitute redundant information. However, this
is also the case for all protocols based on tree codes (e.g.,
\cite{BR14,GHS14,GH14}): To see this, note that in such protocols, one can
simply use an underlying tree code that is linear and systematic, with the
non-systematic portion of the tree code then corresponding to redundant rounds.
We next present an argument which shows that, due to the above structure, no
existing coding scheme can break the natural $1-\Omega(\sqrt{\epsilon})$
communication rate barrier, even for protocols with near-linear $o(n)$ average
message lengths. This will also provide some intuition about what is required to
surpass this barrier.
Suppose that for a (randomized) $n$-round communication protocol $\Pi$, the
simulating protocol $\Pi'$ has the above structure and a communication rate of
$1 -\epsilon'$. The simulation $\Pi'$ thus consists of exactly $N = n /
(1-\epsilon')$ rounds. Note that, since every simulation must have at least $n$
non-redundant rounds, the fraction of redundant rounds in $\Pi'$ can be at most
$\epsilon'$. Given that the position of the redundant rounds is fixed, it is
therefore possible to find a window of $(\epsilon/\epsilon') N$ consecutive
rounds in $\Pi'$ which contain at most $\epsilon N$ redundant rounds, i.e., an
$\epsilon'$ fraction. Now, consider an oblivious adversarial channel that
corrupts all the redundant information in the window along with a few extra
rounds. Such an adversary renders any error correction technique useless, while
the few extra errors derail the unprotected parts of the communication, thereby
rendering essentially all the non-redundant information communicated in this
window useless as well---all while corrupting essentially only $\epsilon N$
rounds in total. This implies that in the remaining $N - (\epsilon/\epsilon')
N$ communication rounds outside of this window, there must be at least $n$
non-redundant rounds in order for $\Pi'$ to be able to successfully simulate
$\Pi$. However, it follows that $N - (\epsilon/\epsilon') N \geq n = N (1 -
\epsilon')$ which simplifies to $1 - (\epsilon/\epsilon') \geq 1 - \epsilon'$,
or $\epsilon'^2 \geq \epsilon$, implying that the communication rate of $1 -
\epsilon'$ can be at most $1 - \Omega(\sqrt{\epsilon})$, where $\epsilon$ is the
fraction of errors applied by the channel.
One can note that a main reason for the $1-\Omega(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ limitation
in the above argument is that the adversary can target the rounds with
redundant information in the relevant window. For instance, in the interactive
coding scheme of \cite{Haeupler14}, the rounds with control information are in
predetermined positions of the encoded protocol, and so, the adversary knows
exactly which locations to corrupt.
Our idea for overcoming the aforementioned limitations in the case of an
\emph{oblivious} adversarial channel is to employ some type of
\textbf{information hiding} to hide the locations of the redundant rounds carrying control/verification
information. In particular, we randomize the locations of control information
bits within the output protocol, which allows us to guard against attacks that
target solely the redundant information. In order to allow for this synchronized
randomization in the standard \emph{private randomness} model assumed in this
paper, Alice and Bob use the standard trick of first running an error-corrected
randomness exchange procedure that allows them to establish some shared
randomness hidden from the oblivious adversary that can be used for the
rest of the simulation. Note that this inherently does not work for a
\emph{fully adaptive} adversary, as the adversary can adaptively choose which
locations to corrupt based on any randomness that has been shared over the
channel. In fact, we believe that beating the $1-\Omega(\sqrt{\epsilon})$
communication rate barrier against fully adaptive adversaries may be
fundamentally impossible for precisely this reason.
Information hiding, while absolutely crucial, does not, however, make use of a
larger average message length which, according to the conjectures of
\cite{Haeupler14}, is necessary to beat the $1-\Omega(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ barrier.
The idea we use for this, as already demonstrated in Section \ref{sec:random},
is
the use of blocking and the subsequent application of error-correcting codes on
each such block.
Unfortunately, the same argument as given above shows that a
straightforward application of \emph{block} error-correcting codes, as done in
Section \ref{sec:random}, cannot work against an oblivious adversarial channel.
The reason is that in such a case, an application of \emph{systematic} block
error-correcting codes would be possible as well, and such codes again have
pre-specified positions of redundancy which can be targeted by the adversarial
channel. In particular, one could again disable all redundant rounds including
the non-systematic parts of block error-correcting codes in a large
window of $(\epsilon/\epsilon')N$ rounds and make the remaining communication
useless with few extra errors. More concretely, suppose that one simply encodes
all blocks of data with
a standard block error-correcting code. For such block codes, one needs to
specify \emph{a priori} how much redundancy should be added,
and the natural direction would be to set the relative distance to, say, $100
\epsilon$ given that one wants to prepare against an error rate of $\epsilon$.
However, this would allow the adversary to corrupt a constant fraction (e.g.,
$1/200$) of error correcting codes beyond their distance, thus making a constant
fraction of the communicated information essentially useless. This would lead to
a communication rate of $1 - \Theta(1)$. It can again be easily seen that in
this tradeoff, the best fixed relative distance one can choose for block
error-correcting codes is essentially $\sqrt{\epsilon}$, which would
lead to a rate loss of $H(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ for the error-correcting codes but
would also allow the adversary to corrupt at most a $\sqrt{\epsilon}$ fraction
of all
codewords. This would again lead to an overall communication rate of $1 -
\tilde{\Omega}(\sqrt{\epsilon})$.
Our solution to the hurdle of having to
commit to a fixed amount of redundancy in advance is to use \textbf{rateless
error-correcting codes}. Unlike block error-correcting codes with fixed
block length and minimum
distance, rateless codes encode a message into a potentially \emph{infinite}
stream of symbols such that having access to enough uncorrupted symbols allows a
party to decode the desired message with a resulting communication rate that
\emph{adapts} to the true error rate without requiring \emph{a priori}
knowledge of the error rate. Since it is not possible for Alice and Bob to know
in advance which data bits the adversary will corrupt, rateless codes allow
them to adaptively adjust the amount of redundancy for each communicated block,
thereby allowing the correction of errors without incurring too
great a loss in the overall communication rate.
\section{Main Result: Interactive Coding for Oblivious Adversarial Errors}
In this section, we develop our main result. We remind the reader that in the oblivious adversarial setting assumed throughout the rest of this paper, the adversary is allowed to corrupt up to an $\epsilon$ fraction of the total number of bits exchanged by Alice and Bob. The adversary commits to the locations of these bits before the start of the protocol. Alice and Bob will use randomness in their encoding, and one asks for a coding scheme that allows Alice and Bob to recover the transcript of the original protocol with exponentially high probability in the length of the protocol (over the randomness that Alice and Bob use) for any fixed error pattern chosen by the adversary.
For simplicity in exposition, we assume that the input protocol is
\emph{binary}, so that the simulating output protocol will also be binary.
However, the results hold virtually as-is for protocols over larger alphabet.
We first provide a high-level overview of our construction of an encoded
protocol. The pseudocode of the algorithm appears in Figure~\ref{fig:oblivious}.
\subsection{High-Level Description of Coding Scheme}\label{subsec:highlevel}
Let us describe the basic structure of our interactive coding scheme. Suppose
$\Pi$ is an $n$-round binary input protocol with average message length $\ell
\geq
\mathrm{poly}(1/\epsilon)$. Using Lemma~\ref{lem:blocking}, we first produce a
$B$-blocked binary protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ with $n'$ rounds that simulates $\Pi$.
Our encoded protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ will begin by having Alice and Bob performing a
\emph{randomness exchange procedure}. More specifically, Alice will generate
some number of bits from her private randomness and encode the random string
using an error-correcting code of an appropriate rate and distance. Alice will
then transmit the encoding to Bob, who can decode the received string. This
allows Alice and Bob to maintain \emph{shared random bits}. The randomness
exchange procedure is described in further detail in
Section~\ref{subsec:randexch}.
Next, $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ will simulate the $B$-sized blocks (which we call
\emph{$B$-blocks}) of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ in order in a structured manner. Each $B$-block
will be encoded as a string of $2B$ bits using a \emph{rateless code}, and the
encoded string will be divided into \emph{chunks} of size $b < B$. For a
detailed discussion on the encoding procedure via rateless codes, see
Section~\ref{subsec:datasend}.
Now, $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ will consist
of a series of $N_\mathsf{iter}$ \emph{iterations}. Each iteration consists of
transmitting $b'$
rounds, and we call such a $b'$-sized unit a \emph{mini-block}, where $b'>b$.
Each mini-block will consist of $b$
\emph{data bits}, as well as $b'-b$ bits of \emph{control information}. The data
bits in successive mini-blocks will taken from the successive $b$-sized chunks
obtained by the encoding under the rateless code. Meanwhile, the control
information bits are sent by Alice and Bob in order to check whether they are in
sync with each other and to allow a \emph{backtracking} mechanism to tack place
if they are not.
For a particular $B$-block that is being simulated, mini-blocks keep
getting sent until the receiving party of the $B$-block is able to decode
the correct $B$-block, after which Alice and Bob move on to the next $B$-block
in $\Pi$.
In addition to data bits, each mini-block also contains $b'-b$ bits of control
information. A party's unencoded control information during a mini-block
consists of some hashes of his view of the current state of the protocol as well
as some backtracking parameters. The aforementioned quantities are encoded
using a hash for verification as well as an error-correcting code. Each party
sends his encoded control information as part of each mini-block. The locations
of the control information within each mini-block will be randomized for
the sake of \emph{information hiding}, using bits from the shared randomness of
Alice and Bob. This is described in further detail in
Section~\ref{subsec:controlinfo}. Moreover, we note that the hashes
used for the control information in each mini-block are seeded using bits from
the shared randomness. The structure of each mini-block is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:protocolstructure}.
After each iteration, Alice and Bob try to decode each other's control
information in order to determine whether they are in sync. If not, the parties
decide whether to backtrack in a controlled manner (see
Section~\ref{subsec:backtrack} for details).
Throughout the protocol, Alice maintains a \emph{block index} $c_A$ (which
indicates which block of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ she believes is currently being simulated), a
\emph{chunk counter} $j_A$, a \emph{transcript} (of the blocks in
$\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ that have been simulated so far) $T_A$, a \emph{global counter} $m$
(indicating the number of the current iteration), a \emph{backtracking
parameter} $k_A$, as well as a \emph{sync parameter} $\mathsf{sync}_A$. Similarly, Bob
maintains $c_B$, $j_B$, $T_B$, $m$, $k_B$, and $\mathsf{sync}_B$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{protocol_structure.pdf}
\caption{Each $B$-block of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ gets encoded into
chunks of size $b$ using a rateless code. Every $b'$-sized mini-block
in $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ consists of the $b$ bits of such a chunk, along with $(b'-b)/2$
bits of Alice's control information and $(b'-b)/2$ bits of Bob's control
information. The positions of the control information within a mini-block
are randomized. Note that rounds with Alice's control information are in
green, while rounds with Bob's control information are in light blue.}
\label{fig:protocolstructure}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Parameters}
We now set the parameters of the protocol. For convenience, we will define a
\emph{loss parameter} $\epsilon' < \epsilon$. Our interactive coding scheme
will incur a rate loss of $\Theta(\epsilon'\,\mathrm{polylog}(1/\epsilon'))$,
in
addition to the usual rate loss of $\Theta(H(\epsilon))$. Alice and Bob are free
to decide on an $\epsilon'$ based on what rate loss they are willing to tolerate
in the
interactive coding scheme. In particular, note that if $\epsilon' =
\Theta(\epsilon^2)$, then the rate loss of
$\Theta(\epsilon'\,\mathrm{polylog}(1/\epsilon'))$ is overwhelmed by
$\Theta(H(\epsilon))$. For the purposes of Theorem~\ref{thm:mainoblivious}, it
will suffice to take $\epsilon' = \Theta(\epsilon^2)$ at then end, but for the
sake of generality, we maintain $\epsilon'$ as a separate parameter.
We now take the average message length threshold to be $\Omega(1/\epsilon'^3)$,
i.e., we assume that our input protocol $\Pi$ has average message length $\ell
= \Omega(1/\epsilon'^3)$. Then, $\Pi$ has at most $\mathsf{alt} = n/\ell =
O(n\epsilon'^3)$ alternations. Moreover, we take $B =
\Theta(1/\epsilon'^2)$ and $b = s = \Theta(1/\epsilon')$, with $B = sb$. Then,
by Lemma~\ref{lem:blocking}, note that $n' \leq n + \mathsf{alt}\cdot B = n(1 +
O(\epsilon'))$.
We also take $b' = b +
2c\log(1/\epsilon')$, so that within each $b'$-sized mini-block, each party
transmits $c\log(1/\epsilon')$ bits of (encoded) control information.
Finally, we take $N_\mathsf{iter} = \frac{n'}{b}(1 +
\Theta(\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon))$ iterations. This will guarantee, with high
probability, that at the end of the protocol, Alice and Bob have successfully
simulated all blocks of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$, and therefore, $\Pi$. Also, it should be
noted that we append trivial blocks of zeros (sent by, say, Alice) to the end
of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ to simulate in case $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ ever runs out of blocks of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ to
simulate (because it has reached the bottom of the protocol tree) before
$N_\mathsf{iter}$ iterations of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ have been executed.
\subsection{Randomness Exchange}\label{subsec:randexch}
Alice and Bob will need to have some number of shared random bits throughout
the course of the protocol. The random bits will be used for two main purposes:
\emph{information hiding} and \emph{seeding hash functions}, which will be
discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:controlinfo}. As it turns out, it will suffice
for Alice and Bob to have $l' =
O(n\epsilon'\,\mathrm{polylog}(1/\epsilon'))$ shared random bits for the
entirety of the protocol, using some additional tricks.
Thus, in the private randomness model, it suffices for Alice to generate the
necessary number of random bits and transmit them to Bob using an
error-correcting code. More precisely, Alice generates a uniformly random
string $\mathsf{str}\in\{0,1\}^{l'}$, uses an error-correcting code $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{exchange}:
\{0,1\}^{l'} \to \{0,1\}^{10\epsilonN_\mathsf{iter} b'}$ of relative distance $2/5$ to
encode $\mathsf{str}$, and transmits the encoded string to Bob. Since the adversary
can corrupt only at most $\epsilon$ fraction of all
bits, the transmitted string cannot be corrupted beyond half the minimum
distance of $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{exchange}$. Hence, Bob can decode the received string and determine
$\mathsf{str}$.
Note that the exchange of randomness via the codeword in $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{exchange}$ results in a
rate loss of $\Theta(\epsilon)$, which is still overwhelmed by
$\Theta(H(\epsilon))$.
\subsection{Sending Data Bits Using ``Rateless'' Error-Correcting
Codes}\label{subsec:datasend}
To transmit data from blocks of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$, we will use an error-correcting code
that has incremental distance properties. One can think of this as a rateless
code with minimum distance properties. Recall
that $b = s = \Theta(1/{\epsilon'})$ and $B=sb$. In particular, we require an
error-correcting code $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{rateless}: \{0,1\}^{B} \to \{0,1\}^{2B}$ for which
the output is divided in to $2s$ chunks of $b$ bits each such that the code
restricted to any contiguous block (with cyclic wrap-around) of $> s$ chunks
has a certain guaranteed minimum distance. The following lemma guarantees the
existence of such a code.
\shortOnly{The proof appears in Appendix~\ref{app:proofs}.}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ecc}
For sufficiently large $b, s$, there exists an error-correcting code $\mathcal{C}:
\{0,1\}^{sb} \to \{0,1\}^{2sb}$ such
that for any $a = 0,1,\dots, 2s-1$ and $j = s+1, s+2,\dots, 2s$, the code
$\mathcal{C}_{a,j}:\{0,1\}^{sb} \to \{0,1\}^{jb}$ formed by
restricting $\mathcal{C}$ to the bits $ab, ab+1, \dots, ab+jb-1$ (modulo $2sb$) has
relative distance at least $\delta_{j} =
H^{-1}\left(\frac{j-s}{j}
- \frac{1}{4s}\right)$, while $\mathcal{C}$ has relative distance at least
$\delta_{2s} = \frac{1}{15}$. (Here, $H^{-1}$ denotes the unique inverse of $H$
that takes
values in $[0,1/2]$.)
\end{lemma}
\global\def\ProofofRatelessCode{
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:ecc}]
We use a slight modification of the random coding argument that is often used
to
establish the Gilbert-Varshamov bound. Suppose we pick a random
linear code. For $s < j \leq 2s$, let us consider the probability $P_{a,j}$ that
the
resulting $\mathcal{C}_{a,j}$
does not have relative distance at least $\delta_j$. Consider any codeword
$y\in\{0,1\}^{jb}$ in $\mathcal{C}_{a,j}$. The probability that $y$ has Hamming weight
less
than $\delta_j$ is at most $2^{-jb(1-H(\delta_j))}$. Thus, by the
union bound, we have that the probability that $\mathcal{C}_{a,j}$ contains a codeword
of
Hamming weight less than $\delta_j$ is at most
\begin{align*}
P_{a,j} = 2^{sb} \cdot 2^{-jb(1-H(\delta_j))} &= 2^{sb-jb\left(1 -
\frac{j-s}{j} + \frac{1}{4s}\right)}\\
&= 2^{-jb / 4s}\\
&\leq 2^{-b/4}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, $P$, the probability that $\mathcal{C}$ contains a codeword of Hamming
weight less than $\frac{2}{15}s$, is at most
\begin{align*}
P \leq 2^{sb} \cdot 2^{-2sb(1-H(2/15))} \leq 2^{-sb/4} \leq 2^{-b/4}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, by another application of the union bound, the probability that some
$\mathcal{C}_{a,j}$ or $\mathcal{C}$ does not have the required relative distance is at most
\begin{align*}
P + \sum_{\substack{0\leq a \leq 2s-1\\ s < j\leq 2s}} P_{a,j} \leq (2s^2+1)
\cdot
2^{-b/4} < 1
\end{align*}
for sufficiently large $b, s$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For our purposes, $b = s = \Theta(1/\epsilon')$. Therefore, for suitably small
$\epsilon' > 0$, there exists such an error-correcting code $\mathcal{C}$ as
guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:ecc}. Moreover, it is possible to find a such a
code by brute force in time $\mathrm{poly}(1/\epsilon')$.
\end{remark}
}
\fullOnly{\ProofofRatelessCode}
Thus, Alice and Bob can agree on a fixed error-correcting code $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{rateless}$
of the type guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:ecc} prior to the start of the
algorithm. Now, let us describe how data bits are sent during the iterations of
$\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$. The blocks of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ are
simulated in order as follows.
First, suppose Alice's block index $c_A$ indicates a
$B$-block in $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ during which Alice is the sender. Then in $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$,
Alice will transmit
up to a maximum of $2s$ chunks (of size
$b$) that
will encode the data $x$ from
that block. More specifically, Alice will compute $y = \mathcal{C}^\mathsf{rateless}(x)
\in \{0,1\}^{2B}$ and decompose it as $y = y_0 \circ y_1 \circ \cdots \circ
y_{2s-1}$, where $\circ$ denotes concatenation
and $y_0, y_1, \dots, y_{2s-1} \in \{0,1\}^b$.
Recall that each mini-block of
$\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ contains $b$ data
bits (in
addition to $b'-b$ control bits). Thus, Alice can send each $y_i$ as the
data
bits of a mini-block. The chunk that Alice sends in a given iteration depends
on the global counter $m$. In particular, Alice always sends the chunk
$y_{m\bmod 2s}$. Moreover, Alice keeps a chunk counter $j_A$, which is set to 0
during the first iteration in which she transmits a chunk from $y$ and then
increases by 1 during each subsequent iteration (until $j_A = 2s$, at which
point $j_A$ stops increasing).
On the other hand, suppose Alice's block index $c_A$ indicates a $B$-block in
$\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ during which Alice is the receiver. Then, Alice listens for data
during each mini-block. Alice stores her received $b$-sized chunks as
$\widetilde{g}_0, \widetilde{g}_1, \dots$ and increments her chunk counter $j_A$ after
each iteration to keep track of how many chunks she has stored, along with $a$,
an index indicating which $y_a$ she expects the first chunk $\widetilde{g}_0$ to be.
Once Alice has received more than $s$ chunks (i.e., $j_A > s$), she starts to
keep an estimate $\widetilde{x}$ of the data $x$ that Bob is sending
that Alice has by decoding $\widetilde{g}_0 \circ \widetilde{g}_1 \circ \cdots \circ
\widetilde{g}_{j_A-1}$ to the nearest codeword of $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{rateless}_{a,j_A}$. This
estimate is updated after each subsequent iteration. As soon as Alice undergoes
an iteration in which she receives valid control information
suggesting that $\widetilde{x}=x$ (if Alice's estimate $\widetilde{x}$ matches the hash
of $x$ that Bob sends as control
information, see Section~\ref{subsec:controlinfo}), she advances her block
index $c_A$ and appends her transcript $T_A$ with $\widetilde{x}$.
Note that it is possible that $j_A$ reaches $2s$ and Alice has not yet received
valid control information suggesting that he has decoded $x$. In this case,
Alice resets $j_A$ to 0 and
also resets $a$ to the current value of $m$, thereby restarting the listening
process. Also, during any iteration, if Alice receives control information
suggesting that $j_B < j_A$ (i.e., Alice has been listening for a greater
number of iterations than Bob has been transmitting), then again, Alice resets
$j_A$ and $a$ and restarts the process.
\begin{remark}
The key observation is that using a rateless code
allows the amount of redundancy in data that the sender sends to \emph{adapt} to
the number of errors being introduced by the adversary, rather than wasting
redundant bits or not sending enough of them.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Control Information}\label{subsec:controlinfo}
Alice's unencoded control information in the $m^\text{th}$ iteration consists of
(1.) a hash
$h_{A,c}^{(m)} =
{hash}(c_A, S)$ of the block index $c_A$,
(2.) a hash $h_{A,x}^{(m)} = {hash}(x, S)$ of the data in the current
block
of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ being communicated, (3.) a hash $h_{A, k}^{(m)} =
{hash}(k_A, S)$
of the
\emph{backtracking
parameter} $k_A$, (4.) a hash $h_{A,T}^{(m)} = {hash}(T_A, S)$ of Alice's
transcript $T_A$, (5.) a hash $h_{A, {\tt MP1}}^{(m)} = {hash}(T_A[1,{\tt
MP1}],
S)$
of
Alice's transcript up till the first \emph{meeting point}, (6.) a hash
$h_{A,{\tt MP2}}^{(m)} = {hash}(T_A[1,{\tt MP2}], S)$ of Alice's transcript up
till the
second \emph{meeting point}, (7.) the chunk counter $j_A$, and (8.) the
\emph{sync parameter} $\mathsf{sync}_A$. Here, $S$ refers
to a string of fresh random bits used to seed the hash functions (note that $S$
is different for each instance).
Thus, we write Alice's unencoded control information as
\[
\mathsf{ctrl}_A^{(m)} = \left(h_{A,c}^{(m)}, h_{A,x}^{(m)}, h_{A,k}^{(m)},
h_{A,T}^{(m)},
h_{A, {\tt MP1}}^{(m)}, h_{A, {\tt MP2}}^{(m)}, j_A, \mathsf{sync}_A \right).
\]
Bob's unencoded control information $\mathsf{ctrl}_B^{(m)}$ is similar in the
analogous way.
For the individual hashes, we can use the following Inner Product hash function
${hash}: \{0,1\}^l \times \{0,1\}^r \to \{0,1\}^{p}$, where $r=lp$:
\[
{hash}(X, R) = \left(\langle X, R_{[1,l]}\rangle, \langle X,
R_{[l+1,2l]}\rangle, \dots, \langle X, R_{[lp-(l-1), lp]}\rangle\right),
\]
where the first argument $X$ is the quantity to be hashed, and the second
argument $R$ is a random seed. This choice of hash function guarantees the
following property:
\begin{property}\label{prop:collision}
For any $X, Y\in \{0,1\}^l$ such that $X\neq Y$, we have that
$\Pr_{R\sim\mathrm{Unif}(\{0,1\}^r)} [{hash}(X, R) = {hash}(Y, R)] \leq 2^{-p}$.
\end{property}
Now, we wish to take output size $p=O(\log(1/\epsilon'))$ for each of the
hashes so that the total size of each party's control information in any
iteration is $O(\log(1/\epsilon'))$. Note that some of the quantities we
hash (e.g., $T_A$, $T_B$) actually have size $l = \Omega(n)$. Thus, for the
corresponding hash function, we would naively require $r = lp =
\Omega(n\log(1/\epsilon'))$ fresh bits of randomness for the seed (per
iteration), for a total of $\Omega(N_\mathsf{iter} n\log(1/\epsilon'))$ bits
of randomness. However, as described in Section~\ref{subsec:randexch}, Alice
and Bob only have access to $O(n\epsilon' \mathrm{polylog}(1/\epsilon'))$ bits
of shared randomness!
To get around this problem, we make use of $\delta$-biased sources to minimize
the amount of randomness we need. In particular, we can use the $\delta$-biased
sample space of \cite{NaorNaor} to stretch $\Theta(\log(L/\delta))$ independent
random bits into a string of $L = \Theta(N_\mathsf{iter}
n\log(1/\epsilon'))$ pseudorandom bits that are $\delta$-biased. We take
$\delta = 2^{-\Theta(N_\mathsf{iter}\cdot p)}$. The sample space guarantees that the $L$
pseudorandom bits are $\delta^{\Theta(1)}$-statistically close to being
$k$-wise independent for $k=\log(1/\delta) = \Theta(N_\mathsf{iter}\cdot p) =
\Theta(N_\mathsf{iter}\log(1/\epsilon'))$. Moreover, the Inner Product Hash Function
satisfies the following modified collision property, which follows trivially
from Property~\ref{prop:collision} and the definition of $\delta$-bias:
\begin{property}\label{prop:collisionbiased}
For any $X, Y\in \{0,1\}^l$ such that $X\neq Y$, we have that
$\Pr_{R} [{hash}(X, R) = {hash}(Y, R)] \leq 2^{-p} + \delta$,
where $R$ is sampled from a $\delta$-biased source.
\end{property}
As it turns out, this property is good enough for our purposes. Thus,
after the randomness exchange, Alice and Bob can simply take
$\Theta(\log(L/\delta))$ bits from $\mathsf{str}$ and stretch them into an $L$-bit
string $\mathsf{str}_\mathrm{stretch}$ as described. Then, for each iteration, Alice and Bob can
simply seed their hash functions using bits from $\mathsf{str}_\mathrm{stretch}$.
\subsubsection{Encoding and Decoding Control
Information}\label{subsubsec:controlencode}
Recall that during the $m^\text{th}$ iteration, Alice's (unencoded) control
information is $\mathsf{ctrl}_A^{(m)}$, while Bob's (unencoded) control information
is
$\mathsf{ctrl}_B^{(m)}$. In this section, we describe the encoding and
decoding functions that
Alice and Bob use for their control information. We start by listing the
properties we desire.
\begin{definition}
Suppose $X\in\{0,1\}^l$ and $V\in\{*,\neg,0,1\}^l$ for some $l > 0$. Then, we
define $\mathsf{Corrupt}_V(X) = Y \in \{0,1\}^l$ as follows:
\[
Y_i = \begin{cases}
V_i \quad &\text{if $V_i \in \{0,1\}$}\\
X_i \oplus 1 \quad &\text{if $V_i = \neg$}\\
X_i \quad &\text{if $V_i = *$}
\end{cases}.
\]
Moreover, we define $\mathsf{wt}(V)$ to be the number of coordinates of $V$ that are
not equal to $*$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Note that $V$ corresponds to an error pattern. In
particular, $*$ indicates a position that is not corrupted, while $\neg$
indicates a bit flip, and 0/1 indicate a bit that is fixed to the appropriate
symbol (see Section~\ref{subsec:commchannel} for details about \emph{flip} and
\emph{replace} errors). The function $\mathsf{Corrupt}_V$ applies the error pattern $V$
to the bit
string given as an argument. Also, $\mathrm{wt}(V)$ corresponds to the number of
positions that are targeted for corruption.
\end{remark}
We require a seeded encoding function $\mathsf{Enc}:
\{0,1\}^{l} \times \{0,1\}^r \to
\{0,1\}^{o}$ as well as a seeded decoding function $\mathsf{Dec}:
\{0,1\}^{o} \times \{0,1\}^r \to
\{0,1\}^{l} \cup \{\perp\}$ such that the following property holds:
\begin{property}\label{prop:encdec}
The following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $X\in\{0,1\}^{l}$, $R\in\{0,1\}^{r}$, and $V\in\{*,
\neg, 0, 1\}^{o}$ such
that $\mathsf{wt}(V) < \frac{1}{8}o$,
\[
\mathsf{Dec}(\mathsf{Corrupt}_V(\mathsf{Enc}(X, R)), R) = X.
\]
\item For any $X \in\{0,1\}^{l}$ and $V\in\{0,1\}^{o}$ such
that $\mathsf{wt}(V) \geq \frac{1}{8}o$,
\[
\Pr_{R\sim\mathrm{Unif}(\{0,1\}^r)} \left[\mathsf{Dec}(\mathsf{Corrupt}_V(\mathsf{Enc}(X,R)),
R)
\not\in \{X, \perp\} \right] \leq 2^{-\Omega(l)}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{property}
\begin{remark}
The second argument of $\mathsf{Enc}$ and $\mathsf{Dec}$ will be a
\emph{seed}, which is generated by taking $r$ fresh bits from the shared
randomness of Alice and Bob. A decoding output of $\perp$ indicates a
decoding failure. Moreover,
(1.) of Property~\ref{prop:encdec} guarantees that a party can successfully
decode the other party's control information if at most a constant fraction of
the encoded control information symbols are corrupted (this is then used to
prove Lemmas~\ref{lem:whpcontrol} and \ref{lem:invbound}). On the other
hand, (2.) of Property~\ref{prop:encdec} guarantees that if a larger fraction
of the encoded control information symbols are corrupted, then the decoding
party can detect any possible corruption with high probability (this is
then used to establish Lemma~\ref{lem:malbound}).
\end{remark}
\global\def\EncodingScheme{
We now show how to obtain $\mathsf{Enc}$, $\mathsf{Dec}$ that satisfy
Property~\ref{prop:encdec}. The idea is that $\mathsf{Enc}$ consists of a
three-stage encoding: (1.) append a hash value to the unencoded control
information, (2.) encode the resulting string using an error-correcting code,
and (3.) XOR each output bit with a fresh random bit taken from the shared
randomness.
For our purposes, we want $l = O(\log(1/\epsilon'))$ to be the number of bits
in $\mathsf{ctrl}_A^{(m)}$ (or $\mathsf{ctrl}_B^{(m)}$) and $o = c\log(1/\epsilon')$.
First, we choose a hash function $h: \{0,1\}^l \times \{0,1\}^t \to
\{0,1\}^{o'}$ that has the following property:
\begin{property}\label{prop:addshift}
Suppose $X, U \in \{0,1\}^l$, where $U$ is not the all-zeros vector, and
$W\in\{0,1\}^{o'}$. Then,
\[
\Pr_{R\sim\mathrm{Unif}(\{0,1\}^t)} [h(X+U, R) = h(X,R) + W] \leq 2^{-o'}.
\]
\end{property}
\noindent In particular, we can use the simple Inner Product Hash
Function with $t
= l\cdot o'$ and $o' = \Theta(\log(1/\epsilon'))$:
\[
h(X,R) = \left(\left\langle X, R_{[1,l]}\right\rangle, \left\langle X,
R_{[l+1,2l]}\right\rangle, \dots, \left\langle X, R_{[l\cdot o' - (l-1), l\cdot
o']}\right\rangle\right).
\]
Next, we choose a \emph{linear} error-correcting code $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}:\{0,1\}^{l+o'}
\to \{0,1\}^{o}$ of constant
relative distance $1/4$ and constant rate.
We now take $r = t + o$ and define $\mathsf{Enc}$ as
\[
\mathsf{Enc}(X,R) = \mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}(X \circ h(X, R_{[o+1,r]})) \oplus R_{[1,o]}.
\]
Moreover, we define $\mathsf{Dec}$ as follows: Given $Y, R$, let $X'$ be the
decoding of $Y + R_{[1,o]}$ under $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}$ (using the nearest
codeword of $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}$ and then inverting the map $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}$). We then define
\[
\mathsf{Dec}(Y,R) = \begin{cases}
X'_{[1,l]} \quad &\text{if
$h(X'_{[1,l]}, R_{[o+1,r]}) = X'_{[l+1,l+o']}$}\\
\perp \quad &\text{if $h(X'_{[1,l]}, R_{[o+1,r]})
\neq X'_{[l+1,l+o']}$}
\end{cases}.
\]
\begin{remark}
Note that we have $r = O(\log^2(1/\epsilon'))$, which means that over the
course of the protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$, we will need $O(N_\mathsf{iter} r) =
O(n\epsilon'\log^2(1/\epsilon'))$ fresh random bits for the purpose of encoding
and decoding control information.
\end{remark}
We now prove that the above $\mathsf{Enc}$, $\mathsf{Dec}$ satisfy
Property~\ref{prop:encdec}.
\begin{proof}
Note that if $V\in\{*,\neg,0,1\}^o$ satisfies $\mathsf{wt}(V) < \frac{1}{8}o$, then
note that the Hamming distance between $\mathsf{Corrupt}_V(\mathsf{Enc}(X,R))$ and
$\mathsf{Enc}(X,R)$ is less than $\frac{1}{8}o$. Hence, since $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}$ has relative
distance $1/4$, it follows that under the
error-correcting code $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}$, $\mathsf{Corrupt}_V(\mathsf{Enc}(X,R)) \oplus
R_{[1,o]}$ and $\mathsf{Enc}(X,R) \oplus R_{[1,o]}$ decode to
the same element of $\{0,1\}^{l+o'}$, namely, $X\circ h(X,R)$. Part (1.) of
Property~\ref{prop:encdec} therefore holds.
Now, let us establish (2.) of Property~\ref{prop:encdec}. Consider a
$V\in\{0,1\}^o$ with $\mathsf{wt}(V) \geq \frac{1}{8}o$. Now, let us enumerate
$W^{(1)}, W^{(2)}, \dots, W^{(2^{\mathsf{wt}(V)})} \in\{0,1\}^o$ as the set of all
$2^{\mathsf{wt}(V)}$ vectors in $\{0,1\}^o$ which have a 0 in all coordinates where
$V$ has a $*$. Now, observe that the distribution of $\mathsf{Corrupt}_V(\mathsf{Enc}(X,
R))$ over $R_1, R_2, \dots, R_o$ taken i.i.d. uniformly in $\{0,1\}$ is
identical to the distribution of
\[
\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}(X\circ h(X, R_{[o+1,r]})) \oplus W,
\]
where $W$ is chosen uniformly from $\left\{W^{(1)}, W^{(2)}, \dots,
W^{(2^{\mathsf{wt}(V)})}\right\}$. Now, note that for each $W^{(i)}$, there exists a
corresponding $U^{(i)} \in \{0,1\}^{o+l}$ such that under the nearest-codeword
decoding of $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}$,
\[
\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{hash}(X\circ h(X, R_{[o+1, r]})))
\oplus W^{(i)}
\]
decodes to $(X\circ h(X, R_{[o+1, r]})) \oplus U^{(i)}$.
Thus, we have that
\begin{multline*}
\Pr_{R\sim\mathrm{Unif}(\{0,1\}^r)}\left[\mathsf{Dec}(\mathsf{Corrupt}_V(\mathsf{Enc}(X,R)),R)\not\in
\{X, \perp\}\right]\\ = \Pr_{\substack{R_{o+1} \dots, R_r \sim \mathrm{Unif}(\{0,1\})\\
1\leq i \leq 2^{\mathsf{wt}(V)}}} \left[U^{(i)} \neq (0,0,\dots,0) \text{ AND }
h\left(X\oplus U^{(i)}_{[1,l]}\right) = h\left(X,R_{[o+1,r]}\right) \oplus
U^{(i)}_{[l+1,l+o]} \right],
\end{multline*}
which, by Property~\ref{prop:addshift}, is at most $2^{-o'}$, thereby
establishing (2.) of Property~\ref{prop:encdec}.
\end{proof}
}
\fullOnly{\EncodingScheme}
\shortOnly{
For our purposes, we take $l = O(\log(1/\epsilon'))$ to be the number
of bits in $\mathsf{ctrl}_A^{(m)}$ (or $\mathsf{ctrl}_B^{(m)}$) as well as $o =
c\log(1/\epsilon')$ and $r = \Theta(\log^2 (1/\epsilon'))$. Thus, over the
course of the protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$, we will need $O(N_\mathsf{iter} r) =
O(n\epsilon'\log^2(1/\epsilon'))$ fresh random bits for the purpose of encoding
and decoding control information. The details of the construction for
$\mathsf{Enc}$, $\mathsf{Dec}$ are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:encscheme}.
}
\subsubsection{Information Hiding}\label{subsubsec:infohide}
We now describe
how the encoded control information bits are sent within each mini-block.
Recall that in the $m^\text{th}$ iteration, Alice
chooses a fresh random seed $R^A$ taken from the
shared randomness $\mathsf{str}$ and computes her encoded
control information $\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{ctrl}_A^{(m)}, R^A)$. Similarly, Bob chooses
$R^B$ and computes $\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{ctrl}_B^{(m)}, R^B)$. Recall that $R^A,
R^B$ are known to both Alice and Bob.
As discussed previously, the control information bits in each mini-block are
not sent contiguously. Rather, the
locations of the control information bits within each $b'$-sized mini-block are
hidden from
the oblivious adversary by using the shared randomness to agree on a designated
set of $2c\log(1/\epsilon')$ locations. In particular, the locations of the
control information bits sent by Alice and
Bob during the $m^\text{th}$ iteration are given by the variables $z_{m,i}^A$
and $z_{m,i}^B$ ($i=1,\dots, c\log(1/\epsilon')$), respectively. For each
$m$, these
variables are chosen randomly at the beginning using $O(\log^2(1/\epsilon'))$
fresh random bits from the preshared string $\mathsf{str}$. Since there are $N_\mathsf{iter}$
iterations, this will
require a total of $\Theta(N_\mathsf{iter} \cdot
\log^2(1/\epsilon')) = \Theta(n\epsilon' \log^2(1/\epsilon'))$ random
bits from $\mathsf{str}$.
Thus, Alice sends the $c\log(1/\epsilon')$ bits of $\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{ctrl}_A^{(m)},
R^A)$ in positions $z_{m,i}^A$ ($i=1,\dots, c\log(1/\epsilon')$) of the
mini-block of the $m^\text{th}$ iteration, and similarly, Bob sends the bits of
$\mathsf{Enc}(\mathsf{ctrl}_B^{(m)}, R^B)$ in positions $z_{m,i}^B$ ($i=1,\dots,
c\log(1/\epsilon')$). Meanwhile, Bob listens for Alice's encoded control
information in
positions $z_{m,i}^A$ of the mini-block and assembles the received bits as a
string $Y \in \{0,1\}^{c\log(1/\epsilon')}$, after which Bob tries to decode
Alice's control information by computing $\mathsf{Dec}(Y, R^A)$. Similarly, Alice
listens for Bob's encoded control information in locations $z_{m,i}^B$ and tries
to decode the received bits.
After each iteration, Alice and Bob use their decodings of each other's
control information to decide how to proceed. This is described in detail in
Section~\ref{subsec:backtrack}.
\begin{remark}
The information hiding provided by the randomization of $z_{m,i}^A$
and $z_{m,i}^B$ ($i=1,\dots,c\log(1/\epsilon')$) ensures that an oblivious
adversary generally needs to corrupt a constant fraction of bits in a
mini-block in order to corrupt a constant fraction of either party's encoded
control
information bits in that mini-block. Along with Property~\ref{prop:encdec},
this statement is used to prove Lemma~\ref{lem:whpcontrol}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Flow of the Protocol and Backtracking}\label{subsec:backtrack}
Throughout $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$, each party maintains a state that indicates whether
both parties are in sync as well as parameters that allow for backtracking
in the case that the parties are not in sync. After each iteration, Alice and
Bob use their decodings of the other party's control information from that
iteration to update their states. We describe the flow of the protocol in
detail.
Alice and Bob maintain binary variables $\mathsf{sync}_A$ and $\mathsf{sync}_B$, respectively,
which indicate the players' individual perceptions of whether they are in sync.
Note that $\mathsf{sync}_A = 1$ implies $k_A = 1$ (and similarly, $\mathsf{sync}_B=1$ implies
$k_B=1$). Moreover, in the case that $\mathsf{sync}_A = 1$ (resp. $\mathsf{sync}_B=1$), the
variable
$\mathsf{speak}_A$ (resp. $\mathsf{speak}_B$) indicates whether Alice (resp. Bob) speaks in the
$c_A^{\text{th}}$ (resp. $c_B^{\text{th}}$) block of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$, based on the
transcript thus far.
Let us describe the protocol from Alice's point of view, as Bob's procedure is
analogous. Note that after each iteration, Alice attempts to decode Bob's
control information for that iteration. We say that Alice \emph{successfully
decodes} Bob's control information if the decoding procedure (see
Section~\ref{subsubsec:controlencode}) does not output $\perp$. In this case,
we write the output of the control information decoder (for the $m^\text{th}$
iteration) as
\[
\widetilde{\mathsf{ctrl}}_B^{(m)} = \left(\widetilde{h}_{B,c}^{(m)}, \widetilde{h}_{B,x}^{(m)},
\widetilde{h}_{B,k}^{(m)}, \widetilde{h}_{B,T}^{(m)}, \widetilde{h}_{B, {\tt MP1}}^{(m)},
\widetilde{h}_{B, {\tt MP2}}^{(m)}, \widetilde{j}_B, \widt{\mathsf{sync}}_B\right).
\]
We now split into two cases, based on whether $\mathsf{sync}_A=1$ or $\mathsf{sync}_A=0$.
\bigskip
\noindent\underline{$\mathsf{sync}_A=1$:}
\bigskip
The general idea is that whenever Alice thinks she is in sync with
Bob (i.e., $\mathsf{sync}_A=1$), she either (a.) \emph{listens} for data bits from Bob
while
updating her estimate $\widetilde{x}$ of block $c_A$ of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$, if
$\mathsf{speak}_A=0$, or (b.) \emph{transmits}, as data bits of the next iteration, the
$(m\bmod{2s})$-th chunk of the encoding of $x$ (the $c_A$-th $B$-block of
$\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$) under $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{rateless}$, if $\mathsf{speak}_A=1$ (see
Section~\ref{subsec:datasend} for details).
If Alice is \emph{listening} for data bits, then Alice expects that $k_A = k_B =
1$ and either (1.) $c_A = c_B$, $T_A = T_B$ or (2.) $c_A = c_B + 1$, $T_B =
T_A[1\dots (c_B-1)B]$. Condition (1.) is expected to hold if Alice has still
not managed to decode the $B$-block $x$ that Bob is trying to relay, while (2.)
is expected if Alice has managed to decode $x$ and has advanced her transcript
but Bob has not yet realized this.
On the other hand, if Alice is \emph{transmitting} data bits, then Alice
expects that $k_A = k_B = 1$, as well as either (1.) $c_A = c_B$, $T_A = T_B$,
or (2.) $c_B = c_A + 1$, $T_B = T_A \circ x$, or (3.) $c_A = c_B+1$, $T_B =
T_A[1\dots (c_B-1)B]$. Condition (1.) is expected to hold if Bob is still
listening
for data bits and has not yet decoded Alice's $x$, while (2.) is expected to
hold if Bob has already managed to decode $x$ and advanced his block
index and transcript, and (3.) is expected to hold if Bob has been transmitting
data bits to Alice (for the $(c_A-1)$-th $B$-block of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$), but Bob has
not realized that Alice has decoded the correct $B$-block and moved on.
Now, if Alice manages to successfully decode Bob's control information in the
most recent iteration, then Alice checks whether the hashes
$\widetilde{h}_{B,c}^{(m)}$, $\widetilde{h}_{B,k}^{(m)}$, $\widetilde{h}_{B,T}^{(m)}$,
$\widetilde{h}_{B,x}^{(m)}$, as well as $\widt{\mathsf{sync}}_B$ are
consistent with Alice's expectations (as outlined in the previous two
paragraphs). If not, then Alice sets $\mathsf{sync}_A = 0$. Otherwise, Alice proceeds
normally.
\begin{remark}
Note that in general, if a party is trying to transmit the contents $x$ of a
$B$-block and the other party is trying to listen for $x$, then there is a
delay of at least one iteration between the time that the listening party
decodes $x$ and the time that the transmitting party receives control
information suggesting that the other party has decoded $x$. However, since
$b/B = O(\epsilon')$, the rate loss due to this delay turns out to be
just $O(\epsilon')$.
\end{remark}
\bigskip
\noindent\underline{$\mathsf{sync}_A=0$:}
\bigskip
Now, we consider what happens when Alice believes she is out of sync (i.e.,
$\mathsf{sync}_A=0$). In this case, Alice uses a meeting point based backtracking
mechanism along the lines of \cite{Schulman92} and \cite{Haeupler14}. We sketch
the main ideas below:
Specifically, Alice keeps a backtracking parameter $k_A$ that is initialized as
1 when Alice first believes she has gone out of sync and increases by 1 each
iteration
thereafter. (Note that $k_A$ is also maintained when $\mathsf{sync}_A=1$, but it is
always set to 1 in this case.) Alice also maintains a counter $E_A$ that counts
the number of discrepancies between $k_A$ and $k_B$, as well as \emph{meeting
point counters} $v_1$ and $v_2$. The counters $E_A, v_1, v_2$ are initialized
to zero when Alice first sets $\mathsf{sync}_A$ to 0.
The parameter $k_A$ measures the amount by which Alice is willing to backtrack
in her transcript $T_A$. More specifically, Alice creates a \emph{scale}
$\widetilde{k}_A = 2^{\lfloor \log_2
k_A \rfloor}$ by rounding $k_A$ to the largest power of two that does not
exceed it. Then, Alice defines two \emph{meeting points} ${\tt MP1}$ and ${\tt
MP2}$ on this scale to be the two largest multiples of $\widetilde{k}_A B$ not
exceeding $|T_A|$. More precisely, ${\tt MP1} =
\widetilde{k}_A B \left\lfloor \frac{|T_A|}{k_A B} \right\rfloor$ and ${\tt MP2} =
{\tt MP1} - \widetilde{k}_A B$. Alice is willing to rewind her transcript to
either one of $T_A[1\dots {\tt MP1}]$ and $T_A[1\dots {\tt MP2}]$, the last two
positions in her transcript where the number of $B$-blocks of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ that
have been simulated is an integral multiple of $\widetilde{k}_A$.
If Alice is able to successfully decode Bob's control information, then she
checks $\widetilde{h}_{B,k}^{(m)}$. If it does not agree with the hash of $k_A$
(suggesting that $k_A\neq k_B$), then Alice increments $E_A$. Alice also
increments $E_A$ if $\widt{\mathsf{sync}}_B = 1$.
Otherwise, if $\widetilde{h}_{B,k}^{(m)}$ matches her computed hash of $k_A$, then
Alice checks whether either of $\widetilde{h}_{B, {\tt MP1}}^{(m)}, \widetilde{h}_{B,
{\tt
MP2}}^{(m)}$ matches the appropriate hash of $T_A[1\dots {\tt MP1}]$. If so,
then Alice
increments her counter $v_1$, which counts the number of times her \emph{first}
meeting point matches one of the meeting points of Bob.
If not, then Alice then checks whether either of $\widetilde{h}_{B, {\tt
MP1}}^{(m)}, \widetilde{h}_{B, {\tt MP2}}^{(m)}$ matches the hash of $T_A[1\dots
{\tt
MP2}]$ and if so, she increments her counter $v_2$, which counts the number of
times her \emph{second} meeting point matches one of the meeting points of Bob.
In the case that Alice is not able to successfully decode
Bob's control information from the most recent iteration (i.e., the decoder
outputs $\perp$), she increments $E_A$.
Regardless of which of the above scenarios holds, Alice then increases $k_A$ by
1 and updates $\widetilde{k}_A$, ${\tt MP1}$, and ${\tt MP2}$ accordingly.
Next, Alice checks whether to initiate a \emph{transition}. Alice only
considers making a transition if $k_A = \widetilde{k}_A \geq 2$ (i.e., $k_A$ is a
power of two and is $\geq 2$). Alice first decides whether to initiate a
\emph{meeting point transition}. If $v_1 \geq 0.2 k_A$, then Alice rewinds
$T_A$ to $T_A[1\dots {\tt MP1}]$ and resets $k_A, \widetilde{k}_A, \mathsf{sync}_A$ to 1 and
$E_A, v_1, v_2$ to 0. Otherwise, if $v_2 \geq 0.2 k_A$, then Alice rewinds
$T_A$ to $T_A[1\dots {\tt MP2}]$ and again resets $k_A, \widetilde{k}_A, \mathsf{sync}_A$ to 1
and $E_A, v_1, v_2$ to 0.
If Alice has not made a meeting point transition, then Alice checks whether
$E_A \geq 0.2 k_A$. If so, Alice undergoes an \emph{error transition}, in which
she simply resets $k_A, \widetilde{k}_A, \mathsf{sync}_A$ to 1 and $E_A, v_1, v_2$ to 0
(without modifying $T_A$).
Finally, if $k_A = \widetilde{k}_A \geq 2$ but Alice has not made any transition,
then she simply resets $v_1, v_2$ to 0.
\begin{remark}
The idea behind meeting point transitions is that if the transcripts $T_A$
and $T_B$ have not diverged
too far, then there is a common meeting point up to which the
transcripts of Alice and Bob agree. Thus, during the control information of each
iteration, both Alice and Bob send hash values of their two meeting points in
the hope that there is a match. For a given scale $\widetilde{k}_A$, there are
$\widetilde{k}_A$ hash comparisons that are generated. If at least a constant
fraction of these comparisons result in a match, then Alice decides to
backtrack and rewind her transcript to the relevant meeting point. This ensures
that in order for an adversary to cause Alice to backtrack incorrectly, he must
corrupt the control information in a constant fraction of iterations.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Pseudocode}
We are now ready to provide the pseudocode for the protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$, which
follows the high-level description outlined in Section~\ref{subsec:highlevel}
and is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:oblivious}. The pseudocode for the helper
functions ${\tt AliceControlFlow}$, ${\tt AliceUpdateSyncStatus}$,
${\tt AliceUpdateControl}$, \\
${\tt AliceDecodeControl}$, ${\tt AliceAdvanceBlock}$, ${\tt
AliceUpdateEstimate}$, and ${\tt AliceRollback}$ for Alice
is also displayed. Bob's functions ${\tt BobControlFlow}$,
${\tt BobUpdateSyncStatus}$, ${\tt BobUpdateControl}$, ${\tt
BobDecodeControl}$, ${\tt BobAdvanceBlock}$, ${\tt BobUpdateEstimate}$, and
${\tt BobRollback}$ are almost identical, except that ``A'' subscripts are
replaced with ``B'' and are thus omitted. Furthermore, the function
${\tt InitializeSharedRandomness}$ is the same for Alice and Bob.
\input{fig_oblivious}
\input{alg_oblivious}
\subsection{Analysis of Coding Scheme for Oblivious Adversarial Channels}
Now, we show that the coding scheme presented in Figure~\ref{fig:oblivious}
allows one to tolerate an error fraction of $\epsilon$ under an oblivious
adversary with high probability.
\subsubsection{Protocol States and Potential Function}
Let us define states for the encoded protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$. First, we define
\[
\ell^+ = \left\lfloor \max\{\ell' \in [1, \min\{|T_A|, |T_B|\}]:
T_A[1\dots \ell'] = T_B[1\dots \ell']\right\rfloor, \quad\quad \ell^- =
|T_A|+|T_B| - 2\ell^+.
\]
In other words, $\ell^+$ is the length of the longest
common prefix of the transcripts $T_A$ and $T_B$, while $\ell^-$ is the total
length of the parts of $T_A$ and $T_B$ that are not in the common
prefix. Also recall that $\delta_{s+1}, \delta_{s+2}, \dots,
\delta_{2s}$ are defined as in Lemma~\ref{lem:ecc}. Furthermore, we define
$\delta_0, \delta_1, \dots, \delta_s = 0$ for convenience.
Now we are ready to define states for the protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ as its execution
proceeds.
\begin{definition}\label{def:state}
At the beginning of an iteration (the start of the code block in
Figure~\ref{fig:oblivious} that is repeated $N_\mathsf{iter}$ times), the protocol is
said to be in one of three possible states:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Perfectly synced} state: This occurs if $\mathsf{sync}_A=\mathsf{sync}_B=1$, $k_A
= k_B = 1$, $\ell^-
= 0$, $c_A=c_B$, and $j_A \geq j_B$ if Alice is the sender in block $c_A=c_B$
of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ (resp. $j_B \geq j_A$ if Bob is the sender in $B$-block $c_A=c_B$
of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$). In this case, we also define $j = \min\{j_A, j_B\}$.
\item \textbf{Almost synced} state: This occurs if $\mathsf{sync}_A=\mathsf{sync}_B=1$, $k_A =
k_B = 1$, and one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ell^-=B$, $c_B = c_A + 1$, and $T_B = T_A\circ w$, where $w$
represents the contents of the $c_A$-th $B$-block of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$. In this case, we
define $j = j_B$.
\item $\ell^-=B$, $c_A = c_B + 1$, and $T_A = T_B\circ w$, where $w$
represents the contents of the $c_B$-th $B$-block of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$. In this case, we
define $j = j_A$.
\item $\ell^-=0$, $c_A = c_B$, $j_B > j_A$, and Alice speaks in $B$-block
$c_A=c_B$ of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$. In this case, we define $j = j_B$.
\item $\ell^-=0$, $c_A = c_B$, $j_A > j_B$, and Bob speaks in $B$-block
$c_A=c_B$ of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$. In this case, we define $j = j_A$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Unsynced} state: This is any state that does not fit into the
above two categories.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\noindent We also characterize the control information sent by each party
during an iteration based on whether/how it is corrupted.
\begin{definition}
For any given iteration, the encoded control information sent by a party is
categorized as one of the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Sound control information}: If a party's unencoded control
information for an iteration is decoded correctly by the other party (i.e., the
output of $\mathsf{Dec}$ correctly retrieves the intended transmission), and no
hash collisions (involving the hashes contained in the control information
$\widetilde{\mathsf{ctrl}}_A^{(m)}$ or $\widetilde{\mathsf{ctrl}}_B^{(m)}$) occur, then the
(encoded) control information is considered \emph{sound}.
\item \textbf{Invalid control information}: If the attempt to decode a party's
unencoded control information by the other party results in a failure (i.e.,
$\mathsf{Dec}$ outputs $\perp$), then the (encoded) control information is
considered \emph{invalid}.
\item \textbf{Maliciously corrupted control information}: If a party's
control information is decoded incorrectly (i.e., $\mathsf{Dec}$ does not output
$\perp$, but the output does not retrieve the intended transmission) or a hash
collision (involving the hashes contained in the control information
$\widetilde{\mathsf{ctrl}}_A^{(m)}$ or $\widetilde{\mathsf{ctrl}}_B^{(m)}$) occurs, then the
(encoded) control information is considered \emph{maliciously corrupted}.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\noindent Next, we wish to define a potential function $\Phi$ that depends on
the current state in the encoded protocol. Before we can do so, we define a few
quantities:
\begin{definition}
Suppose the protocol is in a perfectly synced state. Then, we define the
quantities $\mathsf{err}$ and $\mathsf{inv}$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathsf{err}$ is the total number of data (non-control information) bits
that have been corrupted
during the last $j$ iterations.
\item $\mathsf{inv}$ is the number of iterations among the last $j$ iterations for
which the control information of at least one party was invalid or maliciously
corrupted.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Suppose the protocol is in an unsynced state. Then, we define $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}$ as
follows: At the start of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$, we initialize $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}$ to 0. Whenever an
iteration occurs from a state in which $\mathsf{sync}_A = 0$, such that either Alice's
or Bob's control information during that iteration is maliciously corrupted,
$\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}$ increases by 1 at the end of line 21 of ${\tt AliceControlFlow}$ during
that iteration. Moreover, whenever Alice undergoes a \emph{transition} (i.e.,
one of the ``if'' conditions in lines 22-29 of ${\tt AliceControlFlow}$ is
true), $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}$ resets to 0.
The variable $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}$ is defined in the obvious analagous manner.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For the sake of brevity, a variable $\mathrm{var}_{AB}$ will denote
$\mathrm{var}_A + \mathrm{var}_B$ (e.g., $k_{AB} = k_A+k_B$ and $E_{AB} = E_A
+ E_B$).
\end{definition}
\noindent Now, we are ready to define the potential function $\Phi$.
\begin{definition}
Let $C_0, C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4, C_5, C_6, C_7, C_\mathsf{inv}, C_\mathsf{mal}, C, D > 0$ be
suitably chosen constants (to be determined by Lemmas~\ref{lem:synctrans},
\ref{lem:asynctrans}, \ref{lem:unsynctrans} and Theorem~\ref{thm:nonrate}).
Then, we define the potential function $\Phi$ associated with the execution of
$\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ according to the state of the protocol (see
Definition~\ref{def:state}):
\begin{align*}
\Phi = \begin{cases}
\ell^+(1+ C_0 H(\epsilon)) + (jb -
C\cdot\mathsf{err}\cdot\log(1/\epsilon)) - Db\cdot\mathsf{inv} \quad &\text{perfectly
synced}\\
\max\{\ell_A, \ell_B\}\cdot(1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)) - (j+1)b\quad &\text{almost
synced}\\
\ell^+ (1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)) - C_1 \ell^- + b(C_2 k_{AB} - C_3 E_{AB}) \quad
&\text{unsynced, $(k_A, \mathsf{sync}_A) = (k_B, \mathsf{sync}_B)$} \\
\qquad - 2C_7 B\,\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB} - Z_1
\quad
&\ \\
\ell^+ (1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)) - C_1 \ell^- + bC_5(-0.8 k_{AB} + 0.9 E_{AB})\quad
&\text{unsynced, $(k_A, \mathsf{sync}_A) \neq (k_B, \mathsf{sync}_B)$} \\
\qquad - C_7 B\,\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB} - Z_2 \quad &\ \\
\end{cases},
\end{align*}
where $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are defined by:
\[
Z_1 = \begin{cases} bC_4 \quad &\text{if $k_A = k_B = 1$
and $\mathsf{sync}_A=\mathsf{sync}_B=1$}\\
\frac{1}{2}bC_4 \quad &\text{if $k_A = k_B = 1$ and $\mathsf{sync}_A=\mathsf{sync}_B=0$}\\
0 \quad &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
\]
and
\[
Z_2 = \begin{cases}
bC_6 \quad &\text{if $k_A=k_B=1$}\\
0\quad &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\]
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Bounding Iterations with Invalid or Maliciously Corrupted
Control Information}
We now prove some lemmas that bound the number of iterations that can have
invalid or maliciously corrupted control information.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:whpcontrol}
If the fraction of errors in a mini-block is $O(1)$, say, $< \frac{1}{20}$,
then
with probability at least $1 - {\epsilon'}^{2}$,
both parties can correctly decode and verify the control symbols sent in the
block.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\nu < 1/20$ be the fraction of errors in a mini-block. Recall that Alice's
control information in the mini-block consists of $c\log(1/\epsilon')$ randomly
located bits. Let $X$ be the number of these control bits that are corrupted.
Note that $\mathbb{E}[X] = \nu c\log(1/\epsilon')$. Now, since the control information
is protected with an error correcting code of distance $c\log(1/\epsilon')/4$,
we see that Bob can verify and correctly decode Alice's control symbols as long
as $X < c\log(1/\epsilon')/8$. Note that by the Chernoff bound,
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(X > c\log(1/\epsilon')/8\right) &\leq
e^{-\frac{\frac{c\log(1/\epsilon')}{8} - \frac{c\log(1/\epsilon')}{20}}{3}}\\
&\leq {\epsilon'}^{c/40},
\end{align*}
which is $< \epsilon'^2 / 2$ for a suitable constant $c$. Similarly, the
probability that Alice fails to verify and correctly decode Bob's control
symbols is $< \epsilon'^2/2$. Thus, the desired statement follows by a
union bound.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:invbound}
With probability at least $1 - 2^{-\Omega(\epsilon'N_\mathsf{iter})}$, the
number of iterations in which some party's control information is invalid but
neither party's control information is maliciously corrupted is $O(\epsilon
N_\mathsf{iter})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, consider the number of iterations of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ for which the
fraction of errors within the iteration is at least $1/20$. Since the total
error fraction throughout the protocol is $\epsilon$, we know that at at most
$20\epsilonN_\mathsf{iter}$ iterations have such an error fraction.
Next, consider any ``low-error'' iteration in which the error fraction is less
than $1/20$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:whpcontrol}, the probability that control
information of some party is invalid (but neither party's control information
is maliciously corrupted) is at most $\epsilon'^2$. Then, by the Chernoff
bound, the number of ``low-error'' iterations with invalid control information
is at most $(\epsilon'^2 + \epsilon')N_\mathsf{iter} = O(\epsilon' N_\mathsf{iter})$ with
probability at least $1-2^{-\Omega(\epsilon' N_\mathsf{iter})}$.
It follows that with probability at least $1-2^{-\Omega(\epsilon' N_\mathsf{iter})}$,
the total number of iterations with invalid control information (but not
maliciously corrupted control information) is $O(\epsilonN_\mathsf{iter})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:malbound}
With probability at least $1 - 2^{-\Omega(\epsilon'^2 N_\mathsf{iter})}$, the
number of iterations in which some party's control information is
maliciously corrupted is at most $O(\epsilon'^2 N_\mathsf{iter})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose a particular party's control information is maliciously corrupted
during a certain iteration (say, the $m^\text{th}$ iteration). Without loss of
generality, assume Alice's control
information is maliciously corrupted. Then, we must have one of
the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The number of corrupted bits in the encoded control information of Alice
is $> \frac{1}{8} \left(\frac{b'-b}{2}\right)$, i.e., the fraction of
control information bits that is corrupted is greater than $\frac{1}{8}$.
\item The number of corrupted bits in the encoded control information of Alice
is $< \frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{b'-b}{2}\right)$, but a hash collision occurs for
one of $h_{A,c}^{(m)}$, $h_{A,x}^{(m)}$, $h_{A,k}^{(m)}$, $h_{A,T}^{(m)}$,
$h_{A,{\tt MP1}}^{(m)}$, $h_{A, {\tt MP2}}^{(m)}$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that by Property~\ref{prop:encdec}, case (1.) happens with
probability at most
\[
2^{-\Theta(\log(1/\epsilon'))} \leq \epsilon'^2,
\]
for suitable constants.
Next, we consider the probability that case (2.) occurs. By
Property~\ref{prop:collisionbiased}, we have that the probability of a hash
collision any specific quantity among $c_A$, $x$, $k_A$, $T_A$, $T_A[1, {\tt
MP1}]$, $T_A[1, {\tt MP2}]$ is at most $2^{-\Theta(\log(1/\epsilon'))} +
2^{-\Theta(N_\mathsf{iter} \log(1/\epsilon'))} \leq \epsilon'^2$ for appropriate
constants. Thus, by a simple union bound, the probability that any one
of the aforementioned quantities has a hash collision is at most $6\epsilon'^2$.
A simple union bound between the two events shows that the probability that
Alice's control information in a given iteration is maliciously corrupted is at
most $7\epsilon'^2$. Similarly, the probability that Bob's control information
in a given iteration is maliciously corrupted is also at most $7\epsilon'^2$.
Hence, the desired claim follows by the Chernoff bound (recall that there is
limited independence, due to the fact that we use pseudorandom bits to seed
hash functions, but this is not a problem due to our choice of parameters (see
Section~\ref{subsec:controlinfo})).
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Evolution of Potential Function During Iterations}
We now wish to analyze the evolution of the potential function $\Phi$ as the
execution of the protocol proceeds. First, we define some notation that will
make the analysis easier:
\begin{definition}
Suppose we wish to analyze a variable $\mathrm{var}$ over
the course of an iteration. For the purpose of Lemmas~\ref{lem:synctrans},
\ref{lem:asynctrans}, and \ref{lem:unsynctrans}, we let $\mathrm{var}$
denote the value of the variable at the start of the iteration (the start of
the code block in Figure~\ref{fig:oblivious} that is repeated $N_\mathsf{iter}$ times).
Moreover, we let $\mathrm{var}'$ denote the value of the variable
just after the ``update phase'' of the iteration (lines 2-21 of ${\tt
AliceControlFlow}$ and ${\tt BobControlFlow}$), while we will let
$\mathrm{var}''$ denote the value of the variable at the end of the iteration
(at the end of the execution of ${\tt AliceControlFlow}$ and ${\tt
BobControlFlow}$).
Moreover, we will use the notation $\Delta\mathrm{var}$ to denote
$\mathrm{var}'' - \mathrm{var}$, i.e., the change in the variable over the
course of an iteration. For instance, $\Delta\Phi = \Phi'' - \Phi$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
During an iteration of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$, Alice is said to undergo a \emph{transition}
if one of the ``if'' conditions in lines 22-29 of ${\tt AliceControlFlow}$ is
true. The transition is called a \emph{meeting point transition} (or \emph{MP
transition}) if either line 23 or line 25 is executed, while the transition is
called an \emph{error transition} if lines 27-29 are executed. Transitions for
Bob are defined similarly, except that one refers to lines in the corresponding
${\tt BobControlFlow}$ function.
\end{definition}
\noindent Now, we are ready for the main analysis. Lemmas~\ref{lem:synctrans},
\ref{lem:asynctrans}, and \ref{lem:unsynctrans} prove lower bounds on the
change in potential, $\Delta\Phi$, over the course of an iteration, depending
on (1.) the state of the protocol prior to the iteration and (2.) whether/how
control information is corrupted during the iteration.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:synctrans}
Suppose the protocol is in a perfectly synced state at the beginning of an
iteration. Then, the change in potential $\Phi$ over the course of the
iteration behaves as follows, according to the subsequent state (at the end of
the iteration):
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the subsequent state is perfectly synced or almost synced, then:
\begin{itemize}
\item If the control information received by both parties is sound, then
$\Delta\Phi \geq b - Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon)$, where $t$ is the number of
data (non-control) bits that are corrupted in the next iteration.
\item If the control information received by at least one party is invalid or
maliciously corrupted, then $\Delta\Phi \geq -Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon) - (D-1)b
\geq -Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon) - \min\{C_\mathsf{inv} b,C_\mathsf{mal} B\}$.
\end{itemize}
\item If the subsequent state is unsynced, then $\Delta\Phi \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that the protocol is currently in a perfectly synced state, and, without
loss of generality, suppose that Alice is trying to send data bits
corresponding to $c_A$-\text{th} $B$-block of $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ to Bob.
For the first part of the lemma statement, assume that the state after the next
iteration is perfectly synced or almost synced. At the end of the iteration, Bob
updates his estimate of what Alice is sending, and there are three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Case 1}: Bob is still not able to decode the $c_A$-th
$B$-block that Alice
is sending, and $j_B$ does not reset to zero. In this case, it is clear that
$j$
increases by 1, while $\mathsf{err}$ increases by $t$. Thus, $\Delta\Phi
\geq b-Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon)$ if the control information received by both
parties is sound, while $\Delta\Phi \geq -Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon) - (D-1)b$
otherwise (as $\mathsf{inv}$ increases by 1).
\item \underline{Case 2}: Bob is still not able to decode the $c_A$-th
$B$-block that Alice is sending, but $j_B$ resets to 0 (after increasing to
$2s$). Then, note that if both parties receive sound control information in the
next iteration, we have
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq (b-Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon)) + (Db\cdot\mathsf{inv}
+ C(\mathsf{err}+t)\log(1/\epsilon) - 2B).
\]
Moreover, we must have $\mathsf{err} + t \geq \frac{1}{2} \delta_{2s} (2B) =
\frac{1}{15}B$, which implies that
\[
Db\cdot\mathsf{inv} + C(\mathsf{err} + t)\log(1/\epsilon) - 2B \geq 0,
\]
as desired (for suitably large $C$).
On the other hand, suppose some party receives invalid or maliciously corrupted
control information in the next iteration. Then,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq (-Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon) - (D-1)b) + (Db\cdot(\mathsf{inv}+1)
+ C(\mathsf{err}+t) \log(1/\epsilon) - 2B).
\]
Thus, to prove the lemma, it suffices to show
\begin{equation}
Db\cdot(\mathsf{inv}+1) + C(\mathsf{err}+t) \log(1/\epsilon) - 2B \geq 0. \label{eq:reset}
\end{equation}
Let $j_0$ be the last/most recent value of $j_B$ occurring after an
iteration in which Bob receives sound control information (or
$j_0 = 0$ if such an iteration did not occur). Thus, in the
last $2s-j_0-1$ iterations, Bob has not received sound control information.
This implies that $\mathsf{inv} \geq 2s-j_0-1$ and $\mathsf{err} \geq
\frac{1}{2}\delta_{j_0}j_0 b$. Thus, we reduce (\ref{eq:reset}) to showing the
following:
\begin{equation}
D(2s-j_0)b + \frac{C}{2}\delta_{j_0}j_0 b \cdot
\log(1/\epsilon) - 2B \geq 0. \label{eq:resetupdate}
\end{equation}
Note that if $j_0 \leq s$, then $\delta_{j_0} = 0$, and so the lefthand side of
(\ref{eq:resetupdate}) is at least
\[
Dsb - 2B = (D-2)B \geq 0,
\]
as desired. Hence, we now assume that $j_0 > s$. Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:ecc},
$\delta_{j_0} \geq H^{-1}\left(\frac{j_0 - s}{j_0} - \frac{1}{4s}\right)$
(recall that $H^{-1}$ is the unique inverse of $H$ that takes values in
$[0,1/2]$). Thus, (\ref{eq:resetupdate}) reduces to showing
\begin{equation}
\frac{C}{2}H^{-1}\left(\frac{j_0 - s}{j_0} -
\frac{1}{4s}\right)\log(1/\epsilon) \geq D - \frac{2s(D-1)}{j_0}.
\label{eq:redeq}
\end{equation}
Note that if $j_0 \leq \frac{D-1}{D}\cdot 2s$, then (\ref{eq:redeq}) is
clearly true, as the righthand side of (\ref{eq:redeq}) is nonpositive.
If $j_0 > \frac{D-1}{D}\cdot 2s$, then note that the righthand side of
(\ref{eq:redeq}) is at most 1 (since $j_0 \leq 2s$), while the lefthand side
is at least
\begin{align*}
\frac{C}{2} H^{-1}\left(1 - \dfrac{s}{\frac{D-1}{D}\cdot 2s} -
\frac{\epsilon'}{4}\right)\log(1/\epsilon) &\geq \frac{C}{2}
H^{-1}\left(\frac{D-2}{2(D-1)} - \frac{\epsilon'}{4}\right)\log(1/\epsilon)\\
&\geq 1.
\end{align*}
\item\underline{Case 3}: Bob manages to decode the $c_A$-th $B$-block and
updates his transcript. Then, the protocol either transitions to an almost
synced state or remains in a perfectly synced state (if Alice receives
maliciously corrupted control information indicating that Bob has already
advanced his transcript). Thus,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq (b-Ct\cdot\log(1/\epsilon)) + B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) +
C (\mathsf{err}+t) \log(1/\epsilon) - (j+2)b + Db\cdot\mathsf{inv},
\]
Hence, it suffices to show that
\begin{equation}
B(1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)) + C(\mathsf{err}+t) \log(1/\epsilon) - (j+2)b +
Db\cdot\mathsf{inv} \geq 0.
\label{eq:nonnegpot}
\end{equation}
Note that $j \geq s$. Suppose $j_0$ is the last/most recent value of $j_B$
occurring after an iteration in which Bob receives sound control information
(or
$j_0 = 0$ if such an iteration did not
occur). Then, $\mathsf{inv} \geq j-j_0$. Hence, (\ref{eq:nonnegpot}) reduces to
showing
\begin{equation}
B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + C\cdot\mathsf{err}' \cdot
\log(1/\epsilon) - (j+2)b + Db(j-j_0) \geq 0. \label{eq:rednonneg}
\end{equation}
Note that if $j_0 \leq s$, then the lefthand side of (\ref{eq:rednonneg}) is at
least
\begin{align*}
B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) - (j+2)b + Db(j-s) &\geq B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + (D-1)jb -
DB - 2b\\
&\geq B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + (D-1)B - DB - 2b\\
&\geq B(C_0 H(\epsilon) - 2\epsilon')\\
&\geq 0,
\end{align*}
as desired.
Now, assume $j_0 > s$. Let $\epsilon_0$ be the fraction of errors in the first
$j_0 b$ data bits sent since Alice and Bob became perfectly synced (or since the
last reset). Then,
\[
\mathsf{err}' \geq \epsilon_0 j_0 b.
\]
Hence, the lefthand side of (\ref{eq:rednonneg}) is at least
\begin{equation}
B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + j_0 b(C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon) - 1) - 2b +
(D-1)b(j-j_0). \label{eq:lhspot}
\end{equation}
Note that if $C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon) \geq 1$, then the above quantity is
clearly nonnegative, as $B \geq b/\epsilon' \geq 2b$. Thus, let us assume that
$C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon) < 1$. Now, recall from our choice of $\mathcal{C}^\mathsf{rateless}$
and the fact that Bob had not successfully decoded the blocks sent by Alice
before the current iteration, we have $\epsilon_0 \geq
\frac{1}{2}\delta_{j_0}$, which implies that
\begin{align*}
\frac{j_0 - s}{j_0} - \frac{1}{4s} = H(\delta_{j_0}) \leq H(2\epsilon_0).
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
j_0 \leq \frac{s}{1-H(2\epsilon_0)-\frac{1}{4s}}.
\end{align*}
Now, (\ref{eq:lhspot}) is at least
\begin{align}
&\ B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) +
\frac{B(C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon)-1)}{1-H(2\epsilon_0)-\frac{1}{4s}} - 2b
\nonumber\\
&\geq B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) +
\frac{B(C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon)-1)}{1-H(2\epsilon_0)-\frac{\epsilon'}{4}}
- 2b \nonumber \\
&\geq B\left(1 + C_0 H(\epsilon) - (1-C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon))\left(1 +
H(2\epsilon_0) + \frac{\epsilon'}{4} + 2\left(H(2\epsilon_0) +
\frac{\epsilon'}{4}\right)^2\right) - 2\epsilon'\right) \nonumber \\
&\geq B \left(1 + C_0 H(\epsilon) - 1 - H(2\epsilon_0) - \frac{\epsilon'}{4} -
2 H(2\epsilon_0)^2 - \epsilon' H(2\epsilon_0) - \frac{\epsilon'^2}{8} +
C\epsilon_0\log(1/\epsilon) - 2\epsilon'\right) \nonumber \\
&\geq B\left( C_0 H(\epsilon) - 4\epsilon' - 3H(2\epsilon_0) +
C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon) \right). \label{eq:simppot}
\end{align}
Note that if $\epsilon_0 < \epsilon$, then (\ref{eq:simppot}) is bounded from
below by
\begin{align*}
B(C_0 H(\epsilon) - 4\epsilon' - 3 H(2\epsilon)) &\geq B\left((4 H(\epsilon)
- 4\epsilon') + ((C_0-4)H(\epsilon) - 3H(2\epsilon))\right)\\
&\geq 0,
\end{align*}
since $H(\epsilon) \geq \epsilon \geq \epsilon'$, $C_0 \geq 10$, and
$2H(\epsilon)\geq H(2\epsilon)$.
On the other hand, if $\epsilon_0 \geq \epsilon$, then (\ref{eq:simppot}) is
bounded
from below by
\[
B\left((4 H(\epsilon) - 4\epsilon') + (C\epsilon_0 \log(1/\epsilon_0) - 3
H(2\epsilon_0))\right) \geq 0,
\]
as long as $C\geq 10$.
\end{itemize}
This completes the proof of the first part of the lemma.
Next, we prove the second part of the lemma. Assume that the protocol is
currently in a perfectly synced state and that the subsequent state is
unsynced. Then, note that the control information of at least one party must be
maliciously corrupted. Observe that $k_A'' = k_B'' = 1$, and ${\ell^-}''
\leq 2B$, while $E_A'' = E_B'' = 0$. Thus, if $\mathsf{sync}_A'' = \mathsf{sync}_B''$, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -jb- 2 C_1 B + 2b C_2 - bC_4 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\]
while if $\mathsf{sync}_A'' \neq \mathsf{sync}_B''$, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -jb - 2 C_1 B - 1.6bC_5 - bC_6 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\]
since $jb \leq 2B$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:asynctrans}
Suppose the protocol is in an almost synced state at the beginning of an
iteration. Then, the change in
potential $\Phi$ over the course of the iteration behaves as follows, according
to the control information received during the iteration:
\begin{itemize}
\item If the control information received by both parties is sound, then
$\Delta\Phi \geq b$.
\item If the control information received by at least one party is invalid, but
neither party's control information is maliciously corrupted, then the
potential does not change, i.e., $\Delta\Phi \geq -b \geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b$.
\item If the control information received by at least one party is maliciously
corrupted, then $\Delta\Phi \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume the protocol lies in an almost synced state. We consider the following
cases, according to the subsequent state in the protocol.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Case 1}: The subsequent state is perfectly synced. Then, we
must have that $\Delta\Phi \geq (j+1)b \geq b$.
\item \underline{Case 2}: The subsequent state is also almost synced. Then,
note that the control information received by some party must be invalid or
maliciously corrupted. Moreover, since $\max\{\ell_A,\ell_B\}$ remains
unchanged and $j$ can increase by at most 1, it follows that $\Delta\Phi \geq
-b \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B$.
\item \underline{Case 3}: The subsequent state is unsynced. Then, observe that
the control information received by some party must be maliciously
corrupted. Note that ${\ell^+}'' \geq \max\{\ell_A, \ell_B\} - B$, and
${\ell^-}'' \leq 3B$. Moreover, $k_A'' = k_B'' = 1$. Therefore, if $\mathsf{sync}_A'' =
\mathsf{sync}_B''$, then
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) - 3C_1 B + 2bC_2 - bC_4
\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\end{align*}
while if $\mathsf{sync}_A'' \neq \mathsf{sync}_B''$, then
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) - 3C_1 B - 1.6bC_5 - bC_6\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:unsynctrans}
Suppose the protocol is in an unsynced state at the beginning of an iteration.
Then, the change in potential $\Phi$ over the course of the iteration behaves
as follows, according to the control information received during the iteration:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the control information received by both parties is sound, then
$\Delta\Phi \geq b$.
\item If the control information received by at least one party is invalid,
but neither party's control information is maliciously corrupted, then
$\Delta\Phi \geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b$.
\item If the control information received by at least one party is maliciously
corrupted, then $\Delta\Phi \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider several cases, depending on the values of $k_A, k_B$ and what
transitions occur before the end of the iteration.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Case 1}: $k_A \neq k_B$.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Subcase 1}: No transitions occur before the start of the
next iteration.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.)]
\item If the control information sent by both parties is sound or invalid,
then note
that $\Delta k_A = \Delta E_A \in \{0,1\}$ and $\Delta k_B = \Delta E_B \in
\{0,1\}$. Also, at least one of $\Delta k_A$, $\Delta k_B$ must be 1, while
$\ell^+$, $\ell^-$, $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB}$ remain unchanged. Moreover, the state
will remain an unsynced state with $k_A'' \neq k_B''$. Therefore,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq b(-0.8 C_5 + 0.9 C_5) \geq b.
\]
\item If at least one party's control information is maliciously corrupted and
$k_A, k_B > 1$,
then note that the state at the beginning of the next iteration will also be
unsynced with $k_A'' \neq k_B''$. Also, observe that $\Delta k_A = \Delta k_B =
1$, while $\ell^+, \ell^-$ remain unchanged. Thus,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq 2b(-0.8C_5) - 2C_7 B \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
\item If at least one party's control information is maliciously corrupted and
one of $k_A,
k_B$ is 1, then without loss of generality, assume $k_A = 1$ and $k_B > 1$.
Note that $k_B$ increases by 1. Also, if $k_A$ does not
increase, then $\ell^-$ can increase by at most $B$. Hence,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -0.8bC_5 - 2C_7B - \max\{0.8b C_5, C_1 B\} \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\item \underline{Subcase 2}: Only one of Alice and Bob undergoes a transition
before the start of the next iteration. Without loss of generality, assume that
Alice makes the transition. Also, let
\begin{align}
P_1 = \begin{cases}
0.2 C_7 (k_A+1)B - (1+C_0 H(\epsilon) + C_1)k_A B \ &\text{if Alice has
an MP trans.}\\ 0 \ &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases} \label{eq:pdef}
\end{align}
Note that $P_1\geq 0$ for a suitable choice of constants $C_0$, $C_1$, $C_7$.
Also observe that if $k_A\geq 3$, then
\begin{align}
E_A \leq \frac{1}{2}(k_A + 1) - 1 + 0.2\cdot \frac{1}{2}(k_A+1) = 0.6 k_A - 0.4
\leq 0.7(k_A-1), \label{eq:eabd}
\end{align}
since an error transition did not occur when Alice's backtracking parameter was
equal to $\frac{1}{2}(k_A+1)$, and an additional $\frac{1}{2}(k_A+1)-1$
iterations have occurred since then. Note that (\ref{eq:eabd}) also holds if
$k_A < 3$ since it must be the case that $E_A = 0$.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.)]
\item Suppose the control information sent by each party is sound. Then, note
that $(k_A'', \mathsf{sync}_A'') \neq (k_B'', \mathsf{sync}_B'')$. Moreover, if Alice's
transition is a meeting point transition, then we must have $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} \geq
0.2(k_A+1)$, and the transition can cause Alice's transcript $T_A$ to be
rewound by at most $k_A B$ bits, which implies that $\Delta\ell^- \leq k_A B$
and $\Delta\ell^+ \geq -k_A B$.
Thus, if $k_A, k_B > 1$, then by (\ref{eq:eabd}), we have
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8b C_5 (k_A - 1) - 0.9 b C_5 E_A + (-0.8b C_5 + 0.9 bC_5)
+ P_1\\
&\geq 0.8 bC_5 (k_A - 1) - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7(k_A - 1) + 0.1bC_5\\
&\geq 0.27 b C_5\\
&\geq b,
\end{align*}
while if $k_A = 1$ and $k_B > 1$, then
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -0.8 b C_5 + 0.9 b C_5 + P_1\\
&\geq 0.1 b C_5\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
Finally, if $k_B = 1$, then $k_A > 1$ and so, by (\ref{eq:eabd}), we have
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8 bC_5(k_A - 1) - 0.9 bC_5 E_A - bC_6 + P_1\\
&\geq 0.8bC_5 (k_A - 1) - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7 (k_A - 1) - bC_6\\
&\geq (0.17 C_5 - C_6)b\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
\item Suppose the control information sent by at least one party is invalid,
but neither party's control information is maliciously corrupted. Again, we
note that if Alice's transition is a meeting point transition,
then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} \geq 0.2(k_A+1)$ and $\Delta\ell^- \leq k_A B$ and $\Delta\ell^+
\geq -k_A B$.
First, suppose that $k_B = \mathsf{sync}_B = 1$ and that Bob receives invalid control
information. Then, note that $(k_A'', \mathsf{sync}_A'') = (k_B'', \mathsf{sync}_B'') = (1,1)$.
Thus, by (\ref{eq:eabd}),
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8 bC_5 (k_A+1) - 0.9 bC_5 E_A + 2bC_2 - bC_4 + P_1\\
&\geq 0.8 bC_5 (k_A+1) - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7(k_A-1) + 2bC_2 - bC_4\\
&\geq (2C_2 - C_4 + 1.77 C_5)b\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\end{align*}
Next, suppose that $k_B = \mathsf{sync}_B = 1$ but Bob receives sound information. Then,
note that $(k_A'', \mathsf{sync}_A'') \neq (k_B'', \mathsf{sync}_B'')$. Hence, by
(\ref{eq:eabd}),
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8 bC_5 (k_A-1) - 0.9 bC_5 E_A - bC_6 + P_1\\
&\geq 0.8bC_5 (k_A-1) - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7 (k_A - 1) - bC_6\\
&\geq (0.17 C_5 - C_6)b\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\end{align*}
Finally, suppose that $(k_B, \mathsf{sync}_B) \neq (1,1)$. Then, $\Delta k_B = \Delta
E_B = 1$. Thus, if $k_A > 1$, then by (\ref{eq:eabd}),
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8bC_5 (k_A-1) - 0.9 bC_5 E_A + (-0.8bC_5 + 0.9 bC_5) + P_1\\
&\geq 0.8 b C_5 (k_A - 1) - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7 (k_A - 1) + 0.1bC_5\\
&\geq 0.27 C_5 b\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b,
\end{align*}
while if $k_A = 1$, Alice's transition must be an error transition and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -0.8 b C_5 + 0.9 b C_5\\
&= 0.1 C_5 b\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\end{align*}
\item Suppose the control information sent by at least one of the parties is
maliciously corrupted. If Alice's transition is a meeting point
transition, then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} \geq 0.2(k_A+1) - 1$, and $T_A$ can be rewound up to
at most $k_A B$ bits during the transition.
First, suppose that $(k_B'', \mathsf{sync}_B'') \neq (1,1)$. Then, $\Delta k_B \leq 1$
and $\Delta \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B} \leq 1$. Thus, by (\ref{eq:eabd}), we have
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8 bC_5 (k_A - 1) - 0.9 bC_5 E_A - 0.8 bC_5 - C_7 B -
bC_6 + (P_1 - C_7 B)\\
&\geq 0.8bC_5 (k_A - 1) - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7 (k_A - 1) - 0.8bC_5 - C_7 B -
bC_6 - C_7 B\\
&\geq -(0.8 C_5 + C_6)b - 2C_7 B\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\end{align*}
Next, suppose that $(k_B'', \mathsf{sync}_B'') = (1,1)$. Then, since Bob does not
undergo a transition, we have $k_B = \mathsf{sync}_B = 1$. Also, the length of $T_B$ can
increase by at most $B$ bits over the course of the next iteration. Hence,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8 bC_5 k_{AB} - 0.9 bC_5 E_{AB} - C_1 B + (P - C_7 B) +
2bC_2 - bC_4\\
&\geq 0.8 bC_5 (k_A + 1) - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7 (k_A - 1) - C_1 B - C_7 B +
2bC_2 - bC_4\\
&\geq (2C_2 - C_4 + 1.6 C_5)b - (C_1 + C_7)B\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \underline{Subcase 3}: Both Alice and Bob undergo transitions before the
start of the next iteration. Again, note that note
that $E_A \leq 0.7(k_A - 1)$, due to (\ref{eq:eabd}). Similarly, $E_B \leq
0.7(k_B - 1)$. Also, we define $P_1$ as in (\ref{eq:pdef}) and define $P_2$
analogously:
\[
P_2 = \begin{cases} 0.2 C_7(k_B+1)B - (1+C_0H(\epsilon)+C_1) k_B B\ &\text{if
Bob has an MP trans.}\\
0\ &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\]
Observe that $P_1, P_2 \geq 0$ for a suitable choice of constants $C_0$, $C_1$,
$C_7$.
First, suppose that no party receives maliciously corrupted control
information. Then, note that if Alice undergoes a meeting point transition,
then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} \geq 0.2 (k_A+1)$, and the transition can cause $T_A$ to be rewound
by at most $k_A B$ bits. Similarly, if Bob undergoes a meeting point transition,
then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B} \geq 0.2 (k_B+1)$, and the transition can cause $T_B$ to be rewound
by at most $k_B B$ bits. Thus, regardless of the types of transitions that Alice
and Bob make, we have
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8 bC_5 k_{AB} - 0.9 bC_5 E_{AB} + P_1 + P_2 + 2bC_2 - bC_4\\
&\geq 0.8 bC_5 k_{AB} - 0.9 bC_5 \cdot 0.7 ((k_A-1) + (k_B-1))
+ 2bC_2 - bC_4\\
&\geq (2C_2 - C_4 + 1.6 C_5)b\\
&\geq b,
\end{align*}
Now, suppose some party receives maliciously corrupted control information.
We instead have $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} \geq 0.2 (k_A+1)-1$ and $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B} \geq 0.2(k_A+1)-1$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq 0.8bC_5 k_{AB} - 0.9 bC_5 E_{AB} + (P_1-C_7 B) + (P_2 - C_7
B) + 2bC_2 - bC_4\\
&\geq (2C_2 - C_4 + 1.6C_5)b - 2C_7 B\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{itemize}
\item \underline{Case 2}: $k_A = k_B = 1$.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Subcase 1}: $\mathsf{sync}_A = \mathsf{sync}_B = 1$. Then, note that if both
parties receive sound control information, then $\mathsf{sync}_A'' = \mathsf{sync}_B'' = 0$. Thus,
\[
\Delta\Phi = -\Delta Z_1 = \frac{1}{2}bC_4 \geq b.
\]
On the other hand, if some party receives invalid control information but
neither party receives maliciously corrupted control information, then note
that either $\mathsf{sync}_A'' = \mathsf{sync}_B'' = 1$, in which case,
\[
\Delta\Phi = 0 \geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b,
\]
or $\mathsf{sync}_A'' \neq \mathsf{sync}_B''$, in which case,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2bC_2 + bC_4 - 1.6bC_5 - bC_6 \geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\]
Finally, consider the case in which some party receives maliciously corrupted
information. Then, if $\mathsf{sync}_A'' = \mathsf{sync}_B''$, note that $\Delta\ell^- \leq 2$.
Thus, if the subsequent state is unsynced, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2C_1 B \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\]
while if the subsequent state is perfectly or almost synced, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2bC_2 + bC_4 - (2s+1)b \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
Otherwise, if $\mathsf{sync}_A'' \neq \mathsf{sync}_B''$, then $\Delta\ell^- \leq 1$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi \geq -C_1 B -2bC_2 + bC_4 - 1.6bC_5 -bC_6 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\end{align*}
\item \underline{Subcase 2}: $\mathsf{sync}_A = \mathsf{sync}_B = 0$. First, suppose both parties
receive sound control information. Then, either both parties do not undergo any
transitions, in which case,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq 2bC_2 + \frac{1}{2}bC_4 \geq b,
\]
or both parties undergo a meeting point transition, in which case the
subsequent state is perfectly synced, and so,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2bC_2 + \frac{1}{2}bC_4 \geq b.
\]
Next, consider the case in which some party receives invalid control
information, but neither party receives maliciously corrupted control
information. Suppose, without loss of generality, that Alice receives invalid
control information. Then, $k_A'' = \mathsf{sync}_A'' = 1$. Note that if $k_B'' = 2$,
then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2bC_2 + \frac{1}{2}bC_4 - 2.4bC_5 \geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\]
Otherwise, if $k_B'' = 1$, then either the subsequent state is perfectly
synced, in which case
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2bC_2 + \frac{1}{2}bC_4 \geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b,
\]
or the subsequent state is almost synced, in which case
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) - 2bC_2 + \frac{1}{2} bC_4 - b \geq
-C_\mathsf{inv} b,
\]
or the subsequent state is unsynced, in which case
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -\frac{1}{2}bC_4 \geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\]
Finally, consider the case in which some party receives maliciously corrupted
control information. If $k_A'' = k_B'' = 2$, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq 2bC_2 - 4C_7 B + \frac{1}{2}bC_4 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
On the other hand, if $k_A'' = k_B'' = 1$, then $\Delta\ell^- \leq 2$. Thus, if
the subsequent state is unsynced, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2(1+C_0 H(\epsilon) + C_1)B - \frac{1}{2}bC_4 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\]
while if the subsequent state is perfectly or almost synced, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -2(1+C_0 H(\epsilon) + C_1)B + \frac{1}{2} bC_4 - b \geq
-C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
If $k_A''\neq k_B''$, then without loss of generality, assume that $k_A'' = 2$
and $k_B'' = 1$. We then have
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -(1+C_0 H(\epsilon) + C_1)B -2bC_2 + \frac{1}{2}bC_4 - 2.4
bC_5 - C_7 B \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
\item \underline{Subcase 3}: $\mathsf{sync}_A \neq \mathsf{sync}_B$. Without loss of generality,
assume that $\mathsf{sync}_A=1$ and $\mathsf{sync}_B=0$.
First, suppose that neither party receives maliciously corrupted control
information. Then, $k_A'' = \mathsf{sync}_A'' = k_B'' = \mathsf{sync}_B'' = 1$. Thus, if the
subsequent state is unsynced, then we have
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq 1.6bC_5 + bC_6 + 2bC_2 - bC_4 \geq b,
\]
while if the subsequent state is perfectly or almost synced, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq 1.6bC_5 + bC_6 - b \geq b.
\]
Next, suppose that some party receives maliciously corrupted control
information. Note that $k_A'' = 1$. If $\mathsf{sync}_A = 1$ and $k_B'' = 2$, then
$\Delta\ell^- \leq 1$, and so,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -C_1 B - 0.8 bC_5 - C_7B + bC_6 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
If $\mathsf{sync}_A = 1$ and $k_B'' = 1$, then either the subsequent state is unsynced,
in which case,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -C_1 B - (1+C_0 H(\epsilon) + C_1) B + 0.8bC_5 + bC_6 + 2bC_2
- bC_4 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\]
or the subsequent state is perfectly/almost synced, in which case,
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -C_1 B - (1+C_0 H(\epsilon) + C_1) B + 1.6bC_5 + bC_6 -
(2s+1)b \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
Finally, suppose $\mathsf{sync}_A = 0$. Then, note that
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq -(1+C_0 H(\epsilon) + C_1)B - 0.8bC_5 - C_7 B \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
\end{itemize}
\item \underline{Case 3}: The protocol is in an unsynced state, and $k_A = k_B >
1$.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Subcase 1}: Suppose neither Alice nor Bob undergoes a
transition before the start of
the next iteration. Then, we have $\Delta k_A = \Delta k_B = 1$. If the
control information received by both parties is either sound or invalid, then
we have
\[
\Delta \Phi \geq 2 b C_2 \geq b.
\]
On the other hand, if some party's control information is maliciously
corrupted, then
\[
\Delta\Phi \geq 2bC_2 - 2bC_3 - 4BC_7 \geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\]
\item \underline{Subcase 2}: Suppose both Alice and Bob undergo a transition,
and suppose at least one of the transitions is a meeting point transition.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.)]
\item Suppose ${\ell^-}'' = 0$ and $k_A + 1 = k_B + 1 \leq \frac{4\ell^-}{B}$.
Then, note that $\ell^+$ decreases by at most $k_A B = k_B B$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -k_A B (1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)) + C_1 \ell^- - 2C_2 b (k_A -
1) - C_4 b\\
&\geq -k_A B (1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)) + C_1\cdot \frac{B(k_A+1)}{4} - 2C_2 b (k_A
- 1) - C_4 b\\
&= k_A B \left(\frac{C_1}{4} - C_0 H(\epsilon) - \frac{2C_2 b}{B} - 1\right) +
\frac{C_1 B}{4} + (2C_2 - C_4) b\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
\item Suppose ${\ell^-}'' \neq 0$. Without loss of generality, assume that
Alice has made a meeting point transition. Note that if Alice has made an
incorrect meeting point transition, then it is clear that $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}' \geq
0.2(k_A+1)$. On the other hand, if she has made a correct transition, then Bob
has made an incorrect transition, since ${\ell^-}'' \neq 0$, and so, $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}'
\geq 0.2(k_A+1)$. Since $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}' = \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}'$, it follows that $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB}' \geq
0.4(k_A+1)$ in either case. Thus, if the control information in the current
round is not maliciously corrupted, then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB} \geq 0.4(k_A+1)$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -k_A B(1+C_0 H(\epsilon)+C_1) - 2C_2 b (k_A - 1) +
2 C_7 B \cdot 0.4(k_A + 1) - C_4 b\\
&\geq k_A B \left(0.8 C_7 - C_0 H(\epsilon) - C_1 - \frac{2C_2 b}{B} - 1\right)
+ (2C_2 - C_4) b + 0.8 C_7 B\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
Otherwise, if some party's control information in the current round is
corrupted, then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB} \geq 0.4(k_A+1) - 2$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq k_A B \left(0.8 C_7 - C_0 H(\epsilon) - C_1 - \frac{2C_2 b}{B}
- 1\right) + (2C_2 - C_4) b - 3.2 C_7 B\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\end{align*}
\item Suppose that ${\ell^-}'' = 0$ but $k_A + 1 = k_B + 1 > \frac{4\ell^-}{B}$.
Then observe that there must have been at least
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{4}(k_A+1)-0.2\cdot \frac{1}{2}(k_A+1) - 0.2\cdot\frac{1}{2}(k_A+1) =
0.05 (k_A+1) \label{eq:malcorr}
\end{equation}
maliciously corrupted rounds among the past $k_A$ rounds. This is because there
were $\frac{1}{4}(k_A+1)$ iterations taking place as Alice's backtracking
parameter increased from $\frac{1}{4}(k_A+1)$ to $\frac{1}{2}(k_A+1)$, of which
at most $0.2\cdot\frac{1}{2}(k_A+1)$ iterations could have had invalid control
information for Alice, and at most $0.2\cdot\frac{1}{2}(k_A+1)$ iterations
could have had sound control information for Alice (since Alice did not
undergo a meeting point transmission when her backtracking parameter reached
$\frac{k_A+1}{2}$). Thus, $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB}\geq 2\cdot 0.05(k_A+1) = 0.1(k_A+1)$ and
so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -k_A B (1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)) - 2b C_2 (k_A-1) + C_7 B
\cdot \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB} - C_4 b\\
&\geq k_A B\left( 0.1 C_7 - C_0 H(\epsilon) - \frac{2C_2 b}{B} - 1\right) +
(2C_2-C_4)b + 0.1C_7 B\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \underline{Subcase 3}: Suppose both Alice and Bob undergo error
transitions. Then, $E_A' \geq 0.2 (k_A+1)$ and $E_B' \geq 0.2
(k_B+1) = 0.2(k_A+1)$. Therefore, if both parties receive sound control
information, then $E_A, E_B \geq 0.2(k_A+1)$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq C_3 bE_{AB} - 2C_2 b(k_A-1) - C_4 b\\
&\geq C_3 b(0.4k_A + 0.4) - 2C_2 b(k_A-1) - C_4 b\\
&\geq (0.4 C_3 - 2C_2)k_A b + (2C_2 + 0.4 C_3 - C_4)b\\
&\geq (0.8C_3 - C_4)b\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, if some party receives invalid or maliciously corrupted
control information, then $E_A, E_B \geq 0.2(k_A+1) - 1$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq C_3 bE_{AB} - 2C_2 b(k_A-1) - C_4 b\\
&\geq (0.4C_3 - 2C_2)k_A b + (2C_2 - 1.6 C_3 - C_4)b\\
&\geq (-1.2 C_3 - C_4)b\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\end{align*}
\item \underline{Subcase 4}: Suppose only one of Alice and Bob undergoes a
transition
before the next iteration. Without loss of generality, assume Alice undergoes
the transition.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.)]
\item Suppose the transition is an error transition. If both parties'
control information is sound, then observe that $E_A
\geq 0.2(k_A+1)$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -2bC_2 k_A + bC_3 E_A - 0.8 bC_5 (k_A + 2)\\
&\geq -2bC_2 k_A + b C_3 (0.2 k_A + 0.2) - 0.8 bC_5 (k_A+2)\\
&\geq k_A b (0.2 C_3 - 0.8 C_5 - 2C_2) + (0.2 C_3 - 1.6C_5)b\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
Otherwise, if some party's control information is invalid, but neither
party's control information is maliciously corrupted, then $E_A \geq
0.2(k_A+1)-1 = 0.2k_A - 0.8$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -2bC_2 k_A + bC_3 E_A - 0.8 bC_5 (k_A + 2)\\
&\geq -2bC_2 k_A + b C_3 (0.2 k_A - 0.8) - 0.8 bC_5 (k_A+2)\\
&\geq k_A b (0.2 C_3 - 0.8 C_5 - 2C_2) - (0.8 C_3 + 1.6C_5)b\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{inv} b.
\end{align*}
Finally, if some party's control information is maliciously corrupted, then
again, we have $E_A \geq 0.2 k_A - 0.8$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -2bC_2 k_A + bC_3 E_A - 0.8 bC_5 (k_A + 2) - C_7 B\\
&\geq k_A b (0.2 C_3 - 0.8 C_5 - 2C_2) - (0.8 C_3 + 1.6C_5)b - C_7 B\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B.
\end{align*}
\item Suppose the transition is a meeting point transition. Then, since
only one of the two players is transitioning, either (1.) Alice is incorrectly
transitioning, meaning that $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}', \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}' \geq 0.2 (k_A+1)$, or (2.) Bob
should have also been transitioning, meaning that $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}',
\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}' \geq\frac{1}{2}(k_A+1) - 0.2 (k_A+1) - 0.2(k_A + 1) \geq 0.1(k_A+1)$.
Either way, $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A}', \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}' \geq 0.1(k_A+1)$.
Hence, if neither party's control information in the current round is
maliciously corrupted, then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A},\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B} \geq 0.1(k_A+1)$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -2bC_2 k_A - 0.8b C_5 (k_A+2) + 2C_7 B \cdot \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} + C_7 B
\cdot \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}\\
&\quad - k_A B(1 + C_0H(\epsilon)+C_1) \\
&\geq -2bC_2 k_A - 0.8b C_5 (k_A+2) + 0.3C_7 B (k_A+1) - k_A B(1 +
C_0H(\epsilon)+C_1) \\
&\geq k_A B \left(0.3 C_7 - C_1 - C_0 H(\epsilon) - 2C_2 \frac{b}{B} - 0.8C_5
\frac{b}{B} - 1\right) - 1.6bC_5 + 0.3 C_7 B\\
&\geq b.
\end{align*}
Otherwise, if there is maliciously corrupted control information in the current
round, then $\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A},\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B}\geq 0.1(k_A+1)-1 = 0.1 k_A - 0.9$, and so,
\begin{align*}
\Delta\Phi &\geq -2bC_2 k_A - 0.8b C_5 (k_A+2) + 2C_7 B \cdot \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} + C_7 B
\cdot \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{B} - C_7 B\\
&\quad - k_A B(1 + C_0H(\epsilon)+C_1) \\
&\geq -2bC_2 k_A - 0.8b C_5 (k_A+2) + 3C_7 B (0.1k_A-0.9) - C_7 B\\
&\quad - k_A B(1 + C_0H(\epsilon)+C_1) \\
&\geq k_A B \left(0.3 C_7 - C_1 - C_0 H(\epsilon) - 2C_2 \frac{b}{B} - 0.8C_5
\frac{b}{B} - 1\right) - 1.6bC_5 - 2.7 C_7 B\\
&\geq -C_\mathsf{mal} B,
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Now, we are ready to prove the main theorem of the section, which implies
Theorem~\ref{thm:mainoblivious} for the choice $\epsilon' = \epsilon^2$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:nonrate}
For any sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$ and $n$-round interactive protocol
$\Pi$ with average message length $\ell = \Omega(1/\epsilon'^3)$, the protocol
$\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ given in Figure~\ref{fig:oblivious} successfully simulates $\Pi$,
with probability $1-2^{-\Omega(\epsilon'^2 N_\mathsf{iter})}$, over an oblivious
adversarial channel with an $\epsilon$ error fraction while
achieving a communication rate of $1-\Theta(\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon)) =
1-\Theta(H(\epsilon))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ has $n'$ rounds, where $n' = n(1 +O(\epsilon'))$. Let
$N_\mathsf{mal}$ be the number of iterations of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ in which some party's control
information is maliciously corrupted. Moreover, let $N_\mathsf{inv}$ be the number of
iterations in which some party's control information is invalid but neither
party's control information is maliciously corrupted. Finally, let $N_\mathsf{sound}$ be
the number of iterations starting at an unsynced or almost synced state such
that both parties receive sound control information.
Now, by Lemma~\ref{lem:malbound}, we know that with probability
$1-2^{-\Omega(\epsilon'^2 N_\mathsf{iter})}$, $N_\mathsf{mal}
= O(\epsilon'^2 N_\mathsf{iter})$. Also, by Lemma~\ref{lem:invbound}, $N_\mathsf{inv} =
O(\epsilon N_\mathsf{iter})$ with probability $1-2^{-\Omega(\epsilon' N_\mathsf{iter})}$. Recall
that the total number of data bits that can be corrupted
by the adversary throughout the protocol is at most $\epsilon bN_\mathsf{iter}$. Since
$N_\mathsf{iter} = N_\mathsf{sound} + N_\mathsf{inv} + N_\mathsf{mal}$, Lemmas~\ref{lem:synctrans},
\ref{lem:asynctrans}, and \ref{lem:unsynctrans} imply that at the end of the
execution of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$, the potential function $\Phi$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\Phi &\geq bN_\mathsf{sound} - C \epsilon b N_\mathsf{iter}\log(1/\epsilon) - C_\mathsf{inv} b N_\mathsf{inv} -
C_\mathsf{mal} B N_\mathsf{mal}\\
&= b(N_\mathsf{iter}-N_\mathsf{inv}-N_\mathsf{mal}) - C \epsilon b N_\mathsf{iter}\log(1/\epsilon) - C_\mathsf{inv} b N_\mathsf{inv}
- C_\mathsf{mal} B N_\mathsf{mal}\\
&= bN_\mathsf{iter} - C\epsilon b N_\mathsf{iter}\log(1/\epsilon) - (C_\mathsf{inv} + 1)bN_\mathsf{inv} - (C_\mathsf{mal} B
+
b)N_\mathsf{mal} \\
&= bN_\mathsf{iter} - C \epsilon b N_\mathsf{iter}\log(1/\epsilon) - O(\epsilon)
\cdot (C_\mathsf{inv}+1) bN_\mathsf{iter} - O(\epsilon'^2) \cdot (C_\mathsf{mal} B + b) N_\mathsf{iter}\\
&= bN_\mathsf{iter} (1 - O(\epsilon) \cdot (C_\mathsf{inv}+1) - O(\epsilon'^2) \cdot (C_\mathsf{mal} s +
1) - C\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon))\\
&= bN_\mathsf{iter} (1 - O(\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon)))\\
&= b\cdot \frac{n'}{b}(1+\Theta(\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon)))\\
&\geq n' (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + (C_0 + 1)B.
\end{align*}
Now, in order to complete the proof, it suffices to show that $\ell^+ \geq
n'$. We consider several cases, based on the ending state:
\begin{itemize}
\item If the ending state is perfectly synced, then note that $jb -
C\cdot\mathsf{err}\cdot \log(1/\epsilon) \leq 2B$. Thus,
\[
\ell^+ \geq \frac{\Phi - 2B}{1 + C_0 H(\epsilon)} \geq n'.
\]
\item If the ending state is almost synced, then note that
\[
\ell^+ \geq \frac{\Phi}{1+C_0 H(\epsilon)} - B \geq n'.
\]
\item If the ending state is unsynced and $(k_A, \mathsf{sync}_A) = (k_B, \mathsf{sync}_B)$, then
first consider the case $k_A = k_B = 1$. In this case,
\[
\Phi \leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + 2bC_2,
\]
and so,
\[
\ell^+ \geq \frac{\Phi - 2bC_2}{1+C_0 H(\epsilon)} \geq n'.
\]
Now, consider the case $k_A = k_B \geq 2$. Note that either $\ell^- \geq
\frac{B}{4}(k_A+1)$ or
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB} &\geq 2\cdot\mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{A} \geq 2 \left(\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{k}_A - 0.2 \widetilde{k}_A -
0.2\widetilde{k}_A\right) \geq 0.2 \widetilde{k}_A \geq 0.1 (k_A+1)
\end{align*}
(see (\ref{eq:malcorr})). If the former holds, then
\begin{align*}
\Phi &\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) - C_1 \ell^- + bC_2 k_{AB}\\
&\leq \ell^+ (1+ C_0 H(\epsilon)) - C_1 \cdot \frac{B}{4}(k_A+1) + 2bC_2 k_A\\
&\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)).
\end{align*}
Otherwise, if the latter holds, then
\begin{align*}
\Phi &\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + bC_2 k_{AB} - 2C_7 B \mathsf{mal}_\mathrm{AB}\\
&\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + 2bC_2 k_A - 2C_7 B(0.1(k_A+1))\\
&\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)).
\end{align*}
Either way,
\[
\ell^+ \geq \frac{\Phi}{1+C_0 H(\epsilon)} \geq n'.
\]
\item If the ending state is unsynced and $k_A \neq k_B$, then consider the
following. Note that if $k_A = 1$, then $E_A = 0 \leq 0.6 k_A - 0.4$. On the
other hand, if $k_A \geq 2$, then
\begin{align*}
E_A &\leq 0.2 \widetilde{k}_A + (k_A -\widetilde{k}_A)\\
&= k_A - 0.8\widetilde{k}_A\\
&\leq k_A - 0.8\left(\frac{k_A+1}{2}\right)\\
&\leq 0.6 k_A - 0.4.
\end{align*}
Either way, $E_A \leq 0.6 k_A - 0.4$. Similarly, $E_B \leq 0.6 k_B - 0.4$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\Phi &\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + bC_5(-0.8 k_{AB} + 0.9
E_{AB})\\
&\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)) + bC_5 (-0.8 k_{AB} + 0.9 ((0.6 k_A-0.4) +
(0.6 k_B-0.4)))\\
&\leq \ell^+ (1+C_0 H(\epsilon)).
\end{align*}
Thus,
\[
\ell^+ \geq \frac{\Phi}{1+C_0 H(\epsilon)} \geq n'.
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\noindent Finally, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:rateless}.
\begin{proof}
Consider the same protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:nonrate}, except
that we discard the random string exchange procedure at the beginning of the
protocol. Since Alice and Bob have access to public shared randomness, they can
instead initialize $\mathsf{str}$ to a common random string of the appropriate
length and continue with the remainder of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{oblivious}$. Moreover, in this case,
$\epsilon'$ is a parameter that is set as part of the input. Then, it is clear
that the analysis of Theorem~\ref{thm:nonrate} still goes through. In this
case, we have that the total number of rounds is
\[
N_\mathsf{iter}\, b' = \frac{n'b'}{b}(1+O(\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon))) = n(1 +
O(H(\epsilon)) + O(\epsilon'\,\mathrm{polylog}(1/\epsilon'))),
\]
while the success probability is $1 - 2^{-\Omega(\epsilon'^2 N_\mathsf{iter})} = 1 -
2^{-\Omega(\epsilon'^3 n)}$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is routine to verify that the constants $C_0, C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4,
C_5, C_6, C_7, C_\mathsf{inv}, C_\mathsf{mal}, C, D > 0$ can be chosen appropriately such that
the relevant inequalities in Lemmas~\ref{lem:synctrans}, \ref{lem:asynctrans},
\ref{lem:unsynctrans}, and Theorem~\ref{thm:nonrate} all hold.
\end{remark}
\section{Warmup: Interactive Coding for Random Errors}\label{sec:random}
As a warmup for the much more difficult adversarial setting, we first consider
the setting of random errors, as this will illustrate several ideas including
blocking, the use of error-correcting codes, and how to incorporate those with
known techniques in coding for interactive communication.
In this section, we suppose that each transmission of Alice and Bob occurs over a binary symmetric channel with an $\epsilon$ probability of corruption. Recall that we wish to encode an $n$-round protocol $\Pi$ into a protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ such that with high probability over the communication channel, execution of $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ robustly simulates $\Pi$. By \cite{Haeupler14}, it is known that
one can achieve a communication rate of $1-O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$. In this section, we show how to go beyond the rate of $1-O(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ for protocols with at least a constant (in $\epsilon$) average message length.
\shortOnly{
}
\global\def\TrivialScheme{
The first coding scheme we present for completeness is a completely trivial and straight forward application of error correcting codes which works for \emph{non-adaptive} protocols $\Pi$ with a guaranteed \emph{minimum} message
length. In particular, the coding scheme achieves a communication rate of $1-O(H(\epsilon))$ for non-adaptive protocols
with minimum message length $\Omega((1/\epsilon)\log n)$.
In particular, we assume that $\Pi$ is a a non-adaptive $n$-round protocol with
message lengths of size $b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k$, i.e., Alice sends $b_1$ bits,
then Bob sends $b_2$ bits, and so on. Moreover, we assume that that $b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k \geq b$, where $b = \Omega((1/\epsilon)\log n)$ is the minimum message length.
Now, we can form the encoded protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ by simply having the
transmitting party replace its intended message in $\Pi$ (of $b_i$ bits)
with the encoding (of length, say, $b_i'$) of the message under an
error-correcting code of minimum relative distance $\Omega(\epsilon)$ and
rate $1-O(H(\epsilon))$ and then transmitting the resulting codeword. The
receiver then decodes the word according to the nearest codeword of the
appropriate error-correcting code.
Note that for any given message (codeword) of length $b_i'$, the expected
number of
corruptions due to the channel is $\epsilon b_i'$. Thus, by Chernoff bound,
the probability
that the corresponding codeword is corrupted beyond half the minimum distance
of the relevant error-correcting code is
$e^{-\Omega(\epsilon b')} = n^{-\Omega(1)}$. Since $k = O(n/b) =
O(n\epsilon/\log
n)$, the union bound implies that the probability that any of the $k<n$ messages
is corrupted beyond half the minimum distance is also $n^{-\Omega(1)}$. Thus, with
probability $1-n^{-\Omega(1)}$, $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ simulates the original
protocol without error. Moreover, the overall communication rate is clearly $1
- O(H(\epsilon))$ due to the choice of the error-correcting codes.
\begin{remark}
Note that the aforementioned trivial coding scheme has the disadvantage of
working only for nonadaptive protocols with a certain \emph{minimum} message
length, which is a much stronger assumption than average message length. In
Section~\ref{subsec:randblock}, we show how to get around this problem by
converting the input protocol to a \emph{blocked} protocol.
Another problem with the coding scheme is that the minimum message length is
required to be $\Omega_\epsilon(\log n)$. This is in order to ensure that the
probability of error survives a union bound, as the trivial coding scheme has
no mechanism for recovering if a particular message gets corrupted. This also results in
a success probability of only $1 - 1/\mathrm{poly}(n)$ instead of the $1 - \exp(n)$ one would like to
have for a coding scheme. Section~\ref{subsec:randblock} shows how to rectify both problems by combining the
reduced error probability of a error correcting code failing with any existing interactive coding scheme, such as \cite{Haeupler14}.
\end{remark}
}
\fullOnly{
\subsection{Trivial Scheme for Non-Adaptive Protocols with Minimum Message
Length}
\TrivialScheme
}
\subsection{Coding Scheme for Protocols with
Average Message Length of $\Omega(\log(1/\epsilon)/\epsilon^2)$}
\label{subsec:randblock}
\fullOnly{In this section, we build on the trivial scheme discussed earlier to provide
an improved coding scheme that handles any protocol $\Pi$ with an \emph{average
message length} of at least $\ell = \Omega (\log(1/\epsilon) / \epsilon^2)$.}
The first step will be to transform $\Pi$ into a protocol that is blocked.
Note that the $\Pi$ is a $k$-alternating protocol, where $k = n/\ell =
O(n\epsilon^2 / \log(1/\epsilon))$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem:blocking}, we can
transform $\Pi$ into a $b$-blocked protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$, for $b =
\Theta(\log(1/\epsilon)/\epsilon)$, such that $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ simulates $\Pi$
and consists of $n_b = n+kb = n(1+O(\epsilon))$ rounds.
Now, we view $\Pi_\mathrm{blk}$ as a $q$-ary protocol with $n_b / b$ rounds,
where $q = 2^b$. This can be done by grouping the symbols in each $b$-sized
block as a single symbol from an alphabet of size $q$. Next, we can use the
coding scheme of \cite{Haeupler14} in a blackbox manner to encode this $q$-ary
protocol as a $q$-ary protocol $\Pi'$ with $\frac{n_b}{b}(1 +
\Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon'}))$ rounds such that $\Pi'$ simulates $\Pi$ under oblivious random
errors with error fraction $\epsilon'$ (i.e., each $q$-ary symbol is
corrupted (in any way) with an independent probability of at most $\epsilon'$). We pick $\epsilon' = \epsilon^4$.
Finally, we transform $\Pi'$ into a \emph{binary} protocol $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ as
follows: We expand each $q$-ary symbol of $\Pi'$ back into a sequence of
$b$ bits and then expand the $b$ bits into $b' > b$ bits using an
error-correcting code. In particular, we use an error-correcting code
$\mathcal{C}: \{0,1\}^b \to \{0,1\}^{b'}$ with block length $b' = b +
(2c+\delta)\log^2 (1/\epsilon)$ and minimum distance $2c\log(1/\epsilon)$ for
appropriate constants $c,\delta$ (such a code is guaranteed to exist by the
Gilbert-Varshamov bound). Thus, $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ is a $b'$-blocked binary protocol
with $n_b\cdot \frac{b'}{b} (1+\Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon'})) = n(1 +
O(\epsilon\log(1/\epsilon))$ rounds. Moreover, each $b'$-sized block of
$\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ simply simulates each $q$-ary symbol of $\Pi'$ and the listening party simply decodes the received $b'$ bits to the nearest codeword of $\mathcal{C}$.
To see that $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ successfully simulates $\Pi$ in the presence of
random errors with error fraction $\epsilon$, observe that a $b'$-block is
decoded incorrectly if and only if more than $d/2$ of the $b'$ bits are
corrupted. By the Chernoff bound, the probability of such an event is $<
\epsilon^4$ (for appropriate choice of $c,\delta$). Thus, since $\Pi'$ is known
to simulate $\Pi$ under oblivious errors with error fraction $\epsilon^4$, it
follows that $\Pi_\mathrm{enc}^\mathrm{random}$ satisfies the desired property. |
\section{Introduction}
\bigskip
In a series of papers the authors extended
most of the theory of generalized
$H^p$ spaces for function algebras from the 1960s
to the setting of Arveson's (finite maximal) {\em subdiagonal
algebras}. Most of this is summarized in the survey \cite{BL5}.
We worked in the setting
that the subdiagonal
algebra $A$ was a unital weak* closed subalgebra
of a von Neumann algebra $M$,
where $M$ possesses a faithful
normal tracial state. Ueda followed this work in \cite{U} by
removing a hypothesis involving a dimensional restriction on $A \cap A^*$
in four or five of our theorems, and
also establishing several other beautiful results such as
the fact that such an $A$ has a unique predual, all of which followed from
his very impressive noncommutative (Amar-Lederer) peak set type theorem. (We will
say more about peak sets and peak projections later in this introduction when we
describe notation and technical background,
and Section 2 of the paper is devoted to general results about
peak projections, for example giving some useful characterizations of peak projections
in $C^*$-algebras, von Neumann algebras, and general operator algebras that do not
seem to appear explicitly in the literature.)
Ueda's peak set result may be phrased as saying that the support projection in $M^{**}$
of a singular state $\varphi$ on $M$ is dominated by a peak projection $p$ for $A$ (so
$\varphi(p) = 1$) with $p$ in the `singular part' of $M^{**}$ (that is, $p$ annihilates all
normal functionals on $M$).
With the theory of subdiagonal subalgebras of von Neumann algebras with a faithful
normal tracial state reaching a level of maturity, several authors turned their attention to the more general $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebras. Important structural results were obtained by Ji, Ohwada, Saito, Bekjan, and Xu \cite{JOS,jisa,Xu,Ji0,Ji,Bek}. Recently in \cite{Lis} the second author used Haagerup's reduction theory \cite{HJX} to make several significant advances in generalizing aspects of the earlier theory to the $\sigma$-finite case, most
notably the Beurling invariant subspace theory. The present work flowed out of this,
being a direct continuation of the line of attack in \cite{Lis}. Here we extend Ueda's
peak set theorem, and its corollaries, to maximal subdiagonal algebras $A$ in more general
von Neumann algebras $M$, thereby demonstrating that such algebras too for example have a
unique predual, admit a highly refined F \& M. Riesz type theorem,
have a powerful
Gleason-Whitney theorem (in particular,
every normal functional on $A$ has a
unique Hahn-Banach extension to $M$, and this extension is also
normal), etc.
We remark that a special case of
two of these results were obtained under an additional semi-finite hypothesis
in \cite{U2}.
The technically difficult extension of Ueda's theorem
to the general $\sigma$-finite case is found in Section 4, while the applications mentioned a few lines back
are discussed in Section 5. In Section 3 we establish some Kaplansky density
type results for operator spaces and subdiagonal algebras which we need.
In Section 6 we discuss
the extent to which Ueda's theorem might be generalized beyond the $\sigma$-finite case.
There is some limited good news: our results will have variants valid for any von Neumann algebra
under an appropriate condition on its center, since it is
known that any von Neumann algebra is a direct sum of algebras of the form
$M_i = R_i \bar{\otimes} B(K_i)$ for $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebras $R_i$.
The central projections $e_i$ corresponding to this direct sum will
sometimes allow a decomposition of a maximal subdiagonal algebra $A$ of $M$ as a
direct sum of subalgebras $A_i$ of the $R_i$, and it is easy to see that
then these are maximal subdiagonal subalgebras of the $\sigma$-finite
algebras $R_i$.
The `bad news' is that there is little hope of proving Ueda's theorem
in ZFC for
all von Neumann algebras, or even for commutative (and hence finite) or semi-finite von Neumann algebras.
Indeed we show that the validity
Ueda's theorem for commutative atomic von Neumann algebras is a stronger
statement than (it would imply) a ZFC proof of the nonexistence of uncountable
measurable cardinals, a famous
problem in set theory which nobody today seems to believe is solvable.
Indeed certain cases of Ueda's peak set theorem, for a von Neumann algebra $M$, may be seen as `set theoretic statements' about $M$ that require the
sets to not be `too large'. These issues are discussed in Section 6, and this also led to
a sequel paper with Nik Weaver \cite{BW}. Some of the ramifications of \cite{BW} are
described at the end of the present paper, for example that that work indicates that one cannot
generalize Ueda's peak set theorem in ZFC much beyond the $\sigma$-finite case (not even
to $l^\infty(\Rdb)$). Thus the main result of our paper is somewhat sharp.
We now turn to our set-up, background, and notation.
We recall that a $\sigma$-{\em finite von Neumann algebra} $M$ is one with the property that
every collection of mutually orthogonal projections is at most countable.
Equivalently, $M$ has a faithful normal state (or even just a faithful state); or has a faithful normal representation possessing a
cyclic separating vector. We often write
${\mathds {1}}$ for the identity of $M$, which may be viewed as the identity
operator on the underlying Hilbert spaces $M$ is acting on.
A projection $p \in M$ is called {\em finite}
if it is not Murray von Neumann equivalent to any proper subprojection;
$M$ is said to be finite if ${\mathds {1}}$ is finite.
Beware: $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebras are not sums of finite ones,
nor is every finite von Neumann algebra $\sigma$-finite. However
a von Neumann algebra $M$ possesses a faithful
normal tracial state (the setting of \cite{BL5} and most of \cite{AIOA}) iff it
is both finite and $\sigma$-finite. (For the difficult direction of this one may compose the center valued trace
on a finite von Neumann algebra, with a faithful
normal state on the center, which in this case is $\sigma$-finite. From this it follows easily from e.g.\ \cite[Proposition 2.2.5]{Sakai})
that any finite von Neumann algebra is a direct sum of algebras with
faithful
normal tracial states.) Any von Neumann algebra which is
separably acting, or
equivalently has separable predual $M_*$, is $\sigma$-finite.
We will sometimes mention {\em semi-finite von Neumann algebras}; that is
$1$ is a sum of mutually orthogonal finite projections, or equivalently
that every nonzero projection has a nonzero finite subprojection.
For a subalgebra $A$ of $C(K)$, the continuous scalar functions on a compact Hausdorff space $K$,
a {\em peak set} is a set of form $f^{-1}(\{ 1 \})$ for $f \in A, \Vert f \Vert = 1$. By replacing
$f$ by $(1+f)/2$ we may assume also that $|f| = 1$ only on $E$. A noncommutative version
of this called {\em peak projections} was considered in \cite{Hay} and developed there
and in a series of papers
e.g.\ \cite{BHN,Bnpi,BRead,BN,BReadII,BRst}. There are
various useful equivalent definitions of peak projections in
the latter papers. They may be defined to be the weak* limits $q = \lim_n \, a^n$
in the bidual
for $a \in {\rm Ball}(A)$ in the
case such limit exists \cite[Lemma 1.3]{BReadII}.
We will say much more about peak projections in Section 2 below.
Let $M$ be a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra, and let
$\nu$ be a fixed faithful
normal state on $M$. We write $N$ for the crossed product $M\rtimes_\nu \mathbb{R}$
of $M$ with the modular group
$(\sigma_{t}^\nu)$ induced by $\nu$. If $M$ acts on the Hilbert space
$\mathfrak{H}$, this crossed product is constructed by canonically representing the elements $a$
of $M$ as operators on $L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathfrak{H})$ by means of the prescription
$\pi(a)\xi(t)=\sigma_{-t}^\nu(a)(\xi(t))$, and then
generating a ``larger'' von Neumann algebra by means of the elements $\pi(a)$ and the
shift operators $\lambda_s(\xi)(t)=\xi(t-s)$. The crossed product is known to admit a dual
action of $\mathbb{R}$ in the form of an automorphism group $(\theta_s)$
indexed by $\mathbb{R}$, and a normal faithful semifinite trace $\tau$ characterised
by the property that $\tau\circ \theta_s=e^{-s}\tau$. (See \cite{Terp}.)
Using the fact that $\tau\circ \theta_s=e^{-s}\tau$, it is a simple matter to show that the group of *-automorphisms $(\theta_s)$ admit an extension to continuous $*$-automorphisms on $\tilde{N}$ (see for example either of \cite[bottom p.\ 42]{G-L} and \cite[Proposition 4.7]{LL2}). We will retain the notation $\theta_s$ for these extensions.
The identification $a\to\pi(a)$ turns out to be a
*-isomorphic embedding of $M$ into $N$, and we will for the sake of simplicity identify
$M$ with $\pi(M)$. For simplicity of notation the canonical Hilbert space on which $N$ acts will be denoted by $K$
rather than $L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathfrak{H})$. We will work in the space $\tilde{N}$
of all
$\tau$-measurable operators on $K$ affiliated to $N$. We remind the reader that the $\tau$-measurable operators are those
closed densely defined affiliated operators $f$ which are ``almost'' bounded in the sense that for any $\epsilon>0$ we may find a projection $e\in N$ with $\tau({\mathds {1}}-e)<\epsilon$, and with $fe\in N$. This space turns out to be a very well-behaved complete *-algebra large enough to admit all the noncommutative function spaces of interest. Within this framework, the Haagerup $L^p$-spaces
($0<p<\infty$) are defined by $L^p(M)=\{a\in \tilde{N}: \theta_s(a)=e^{-s/p}a, s\in \mathbb{R}\}$.
We remind the reader that the crossed product admits an operator valued weight from the extended positive part of $N$ to that of $M$. Using this operator valued weight, any normal weight $\omega$ on $M$ may be extended to a dual weight $\widetilde{\omega}$ on $N$ by means of the simple prescription $\widetilde{\omega}=\omega\circ T$. In our analysis $h$ will denote the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the (faithful normal semifinite) dual weight $\tilde{\nu}$ of $\nu$ with respect to
$\tau$. It is known that $h$ belongs to the positive cone of the Haagerup space $L^1(M)$.
Using this operator it is also known that for each $0\leq c\leq 1$, $a\to h^{c/2}ah^{(1-c)/p}$ defines a dense embedding of $M$ into
$L^p(M)$ ($1\leq p<\infty$) \cite{Kos}. Inspired by this fact, the Hardy spaces $H^p(A)$ ($1\leq p<\infty$) are defined to be the closure in $L^p(M)$ of the subspace $h^{c/p}Ah^{(1-c)/p}$ where $0\leq c\leq 1$. (We remind the reader that the closures for the various values of $c$ all agree \cite{Ji}).
Given such a von Neumann algebra $M$ and ${\mathcal E}$ a faithful normal conditional expectation from $M$ onto
a von Neumann subalgebra $D$, a {\em subdiagonal algebra} $A$ in $M$ (with respect to ${\mathcal E}$) is defined to be
a weak* closed subalgebra
of $M$ containing ${\mathds {1}}$ such that $A + A^*$ is weak* dense in $M$,
and for which the action of the
conditional expectation ${\mathcal E} : M \to D = A \cap A^*$ is multiplicative on $A$.
We say that $A$ is {\em maximal} if it is not properly contained in
any larger proper subdiagonal algebra in $M$ with respect to ${\mathcal E}$.
Maximality of such unital weak* closed subdiagonal algebras satisfying the aforementioned weak* density condition, is characterised by the requirement that $A$ be invariant under the
modular automorphism group $(\sigma_t^\varphi)$
(see \cite[Theorem 1.1]{Lis}, or equivalently \cite[Theorem 1.1]{Xu} \& \cite[Theorem 2.4]{JOS}).
Since we will have occasion to use the
Haagerup reduction theorem \cite{HJX}, we pause
to explain the essentials of that theory. From the von Neumann algebra $M$ one constructs a larger
algebra $R$ by computing the crossed product with the diadic rationals $\mathbb{Q}_D$ (not $\mathbb{R}$).
So in this case one uses only the *-automorphisms $\sigma^\nu_t$ with symbols $t$ in $\mathbb{Q}_D$ to similarly
construct a copy $\pi_{\mathbb{Q}}(M)$ of $M$ inside $B(L^2(\mathbb{Q},\mathfrak{H}))$, with
$R = M\rtimes_\nu \mathbb{Q}_D$ then being the algebra generated by the elements belonging to this copy of $M$,
and the shift operators $\lambda_s$ with symbol $s$ in $\mathbb{Q}_D$. The discreteness of
the group ensures that in this case the associated operator valued weight from the extended positive part
of $R$ to that of $M$, is in fact a faithful normal conditional expectation $\Phi:R\to M$. Inside $R$ one may
then construct an increasing net $R_n$ of finite von Neumann algebras and a concomitant net of
expectations $\Phi_n:R\to R_n$ for which $\Phi_n\circ \Phi_m=\Phi_m\circ\Phi_n=\Phi_n$ when $n\geq m$. (In the present setting this net actually turns out to be a sequence.) Each $R_n$ comes equipped with a faithful state $\tilde{\nu}_n=\nu\circ\Phi|_{R_n}$ and a faithful normal tracial state $\tau_n$.
The vital fact regarding this construction, is that it may be adapted to the study of maximal subdiagonal algebras.
Following \cite{Xu}, let $\hat{D}$ be the von Neumann subalgebra of $R$ generated by $D$ and the
shift operators $\lambda_s$ ($s\in \mathbb{Q}_D$). (This is in essence just a copy
of $D\rtimes_{\sigma^{\nu}}\mathbb{Q}_D$.) Similarly let
$\hat{A}$ be the weak* closed subalgebra generated by $A$ and the same set of shift operators. Since
$A$ is invariant under $\sigma_t^\varphi$ in that reference,
$\hat{A}$ may be defined as the weak* closure of sums of terms of the
form $\lambda(t) x$ with $x \in A$.
It is shown
in \cite{Xu} that $\hat{A} \cap \hat{A}^* = \hat{D}$.
The canonical expectation $\mathcal{E}:M\to D$ extends to an expectation
$\hat{{\mathcal E}} : R \to \hat{D}$, and if indeed $A$ is maximal subdiagonal with respect to
$\mathcal{E}$, the algebra $\hat{A}$ will be maximal subdiagonal with respect to $\hat{{\mathcal E}}$.
Moreover the expectation $\Phi:R\to M$, maps $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{D}$
onto $A$ and $D$ respectively.
By equations (2.5) and (3.2) in \cite{Xu}, and the fact which we mentioned
a few lines back
regarding the definition of $\hat{A}$, we see that
${\mathcal E} \circ \Phi = \Phi \circ \hat{{\mathcal E}}$ on $\hat{A}$. Hence
$\Phi(\hat{A}_0) = A_0$ since
if $\hat{{\mathcal E}}(\hat{a}) = 0$ then
${\mathcal E}(\Phi(\hat{a})) = \Phi(\hat{{\mathcal E}}(\hat{a})) = 0$.
Taking this one step further, the subalgebras $\hat{A}_n=\hat{A}\cap R_n$ turn out to be
finite maximal subdiagonal subalgebras
of the finite von Neumann algebras $R_n$, with the restriction of $\hat{{\mathcal E}}$
to $R_n$ acting multiplicatively on $\hat{A}_n$, and mapping $R_n$ onto $\hat{D}\cap R_n$.
The algebras $\hat{A}_n$ turn out to be an increasing sequence of algebras which are weak* dense
in $\hat{A}$.
\section{Peak projections}
As we said in the introduction, peak projections with respect to an operator algebra
$A$ may be defined to be the weak* limits $q = \lim_n \, a^n$
in the bidual,
for $a \in {\rm Ball}(A)$ in the
case such limit exists. Historically,
if $A$ is a $C^*$-algebra $B$ then peak projections are very closely related to Edwards and Ruttiman's element $u(a)$ (see e.g.\ \cite{ER4}), computed
in $B^{**}$. Certainly they are the same if $a \geq 0$, and in that case they also agree with
the $B^{**}$-valued Borel functional calculus element ${\mathds {1}}_{\{ 1 \}}(a)$. Also they are the
same, that is $q$ above is $u(a)$, if $\Vert 1 - 2a \Vert \leq 1$ (see \cite[Corollary 3.3]{BN}).
Thus we shall sometimes simply
write our peak projections as $u(a)$.
Indeed every peak projection is of the form
$u(x)$ where $\Vert 1-2x \Vert \leq 1$ (if $A$ is unital and $a^n \to q$ weak*
set $x = \frac{1}{2}(1+a)$,
or see \cite[Theorem 3.4 (3)]{BN} for the general case).
We call $u(x)$ the peak for $x$. There is an elementary connection
with the {\em support projection} $s(\cdot)$ (computed in $B^{**}$) which is often useful: if $B$ is a unital $C^*$-algebra then
$$u(1-x) = {\mathds {1}}_{\{ 1 \}}(1-x) = {\mathds {1}}_{(0,\infty)}(x)^\perp = s(x)^\perp , \qquad x \in {\rm Ball}(B)_+ .$$
A similar but more general result holds in a unital nonselfadjoint algebra $A$: in the notation of Proposition 2.22 in \cite{BRead} that result
says that if $\Vert 1-2x \Vert \leq 1$ then the peak for $x$ is
$u(x) = s(1-x)^\perp$, where $s(\cdot)$ is the support projection in $A^{**}$ studied in e.g.\ \cite[Section 2]{BRead}.
The following fact is implicit in the noncommutative peak set theory (see e.g.\ \cite{BRead,Bnpi,BN}), but we could not find it stated explicitly (except in the case of
two projections--see e.g.\ \cite{Hay}).
\begin{lemma} \label{cipeak} If $A$ is a closed subalgebra of a $C^*$-algebra $B$
then the infimum of any countable collection of peak projections for $A$ is a peak projection
for $A$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $A$ is unital, for example by Proposition
\cite[Proposition 6.4 (1)]{BReadII} (see also \cite[Lemma 3.1]{BN}).
Suppose that $q_n$ is a peak for $a_n \in A$, and that $\Vert 1 - 2 a_n \Vert \leq 1$ (which can
always be arranged as we said).
Let $q = \wedge_n \, q_n$, and $a = \sum_n \, \frac{a_n}{2^n}$. We
will show that $q$ is the peak for $a$. For this we may assume that $A$ is unital. By a relation above the lemma we have
$$u(a) = s(1-a)^\perp = s(\sum_n \, \frac{1-a_n}{2^n})^\perp
= (\vee_n \, s(1-a_n))^\perp = \wedge_n \, s(1-a_n)^\perp = \wedge_n \, q_n.$$
In the last line we have used e.g.\ Proposition 2.14 or Theorem 2.16 (2) in \cite{BRead}, and the
easy and known fact that the support projection of the closure
of a sum of right ideals with left contractive approximate identities
is the supremum of the individual support
projections \cite{BRead}.
\end{proof}
{\bf Remark.} There is also a `facial' proof of the previous result
along the lines of \cite[Proposition 1.1]{BN}. Another proof follows
from an appeal to the next two results.
For a compact Hausdorff space $K$, the peak sets for $C(K)$ can be characterized abstractly as
the compact $G_\delta$ subsets. There is a similar fact for $C^*$-algebras using Akemann's noncommutative
topology (see \cite{AAP} and references therein): the next result chararacterizes the peak projections
for any $C^*$-algebra $B$ as the `compact $G_\delta$ projections'. A $G_\delta$ projection
is the infimum in $B^{**}$ of a sequence $(p_n)$ of open projections in $B^{**}$, where
a projection in $B^{**}$ is said to be open if it is a weak* limit of an increasing net from $B_{+}$.
Since infima of a finite number of open projections is open, the sequence $(p_n)$ may be chosen to be
decreasing if desired. The perp of an open projection is called closed.
A compact projection in $B^{**}$ is
a projection $q \in B^{**}$ which is closed and satisfies $q a = q$ for some $a \in {\rm Ball}(B)_+$
(or equivalently, which is closed in $B^1$; see e.g.\ \cite{AAP}, or {\rm 2.47} in \cite{Brown1}). If $B$ is unital then `compact' is the same as `closed'.
We have not been able to find all of the following result in the literature except for some form of parts of the unital case:
\begin{proposition} \label{cipeak3} If $B$ is a $C^*$-algebra and $q$ is a projection in $B^{**}$, the following are equivalent: \begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] $q$ is a peak projection with respect to $B$.
\item [(ii)] $q$ is a compact $G_\delta$ projection.
\item [(iii)] $q$ is the weak* limit of a decreasing sequence from $B_{\rm sa}$. \end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) \
If $q = u(a)$ for $a \in {\rm Ball}(B)_+$ let $p_n$ be the $M$-valued spectral projection of $(1-\frac{1}{n},1+\frac{1}{n})$
for $a$. This gives a decreasing sequence of open
projections in $M$ whose infimum (= weak* limit) equals $q$ by the Borel functional calculus.
It is well known that peak projections are compact (e.g.\ since $q = aq$).
(i) $\Rightarrow$ (iii) \ Clearly $a^n \searrow u(a)$ weak* if $a \in {\rm Ball}(B)_+$ .
If $B$ is unital then one may finish the proof using the relation
$u(1-x) = s(x)^\perp$ discussed above,
and known results about the support projection $s(\cdot)$. Thus (ii) implies by e.g.\ \cite[Corollary 3.34]{Brown1} that $1-q$ is a support projection, so that $q$ is a peak projection.
Similarly if $B$ is unital then (iii) implies that $1-q$ is the weak* limit of an increasing sequence $(a_n)$ from $B_+$. Let $h = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \, \frac{1}{2^n} \, a_n$, then $h \leq 1-q$.
A standard argument shows that $h$ is strictly positive in the HSA determined by $1-q$ (any state of that HSA annihilating $h$
also annihilates each $a_n$, hence also $1-q$, which is impossible). Thus $1-q$ is the support projection of $h$, so that $q$ is the peak projection of $1-h$.
If $B$ is nonunital then (ii) or (iii) imply similar conditions with respect to $B^1$, so that by the unital case $q$ is a peak for $a+t1$ for some $t \in [0,1]$ and
$a \in {\rm Ball}(B)_+$. The norm of $a +t 1$ is $\Vert a \Vert + t = 1$, and so $0 \leq t = 1- \Vert a \Vert < 1$ (or else $a = 0$ which
is impossible). It is then easy to see,
by e.g.\ the functional calculus for $a$, that $q = u(a+t1) = u(a/\Vert a \Vert)$, giving (i).
\end{proof}
We now describe general peak projections in terms of the $C^*$-algebraic peak projections characterized in the
last result.
\begin{lemma} \label{cipeak2} If $A$ is a closed subalgebra of a $C^*$-algebra $B$ and $q \in B^{**}$
then $q$ is a peak projection for $A$ if and only if $q \in A^{\perp \perp}$ and $q$ is a peak projection for $B$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} If $q$ is a peak projection for $A$, the peak for
$x \in {\rm Ball}(A)$,
then $q$ is the weak* limit of $(x^n)$,
which is in $A^{\perp \perp}$. It is also the peak for some $a \in {\rm Ball}(B)_+$
(e.g.\ for $x^* x$ or $|x|$, this follows for example from the proof of \cite[Lemma 3.1]{BN} or the formula
$u(x^* x) = u(x)^* u(x)$).
Conversely, suppose that $q \in A^{\perp \perp}$ and $q$ is a peak projection for $B$.
We may assume that $B$ is unital.
Let $A^1$ be the span of $A$ and $1_B$. By Proposition \ref{cipeak3} (2) and
\cite[Lemma 4.4]{BRst}, $q$ is a peak projection for $A^1$.
\cite[Proposition 6.4 (1)]{BReadII} (see also \cite[Lemma 3.1]{BN}), $q$ is a peak projection for $A$.
\end{proof}
The following result, which characterizes peak projections
in subalgebras of von Neumann algebras, will also be used in \cite{BW}.
\begin{theorem} \label{psvn} If $A$ is a closed subalgebra (not necessarily with
any kind of approximate identity) of a von Neumann algebra $M$
and $q$ is a projection in $M^{**}$ , then $q$ is a peak projection for $A$
if and only if $q \in A^{\perp \perp}$ and $q = \wedge_n \, q_n$, the infimum in $M^{**}$ of a (decreasing, if desired) sequence $(q_n)$ of
projections in $M$. \end{theorem}
\begin{proof} If $q$ is a peak projection for $x \in {\rm Ball}(A)$ then by
the last lemma $q$ is in $A^{\perp \perp}$,
and $q$ is the peak for some $a \in {\rm Ball}(M)_+$, so that
$q = {\mathds {1}}_{\{ 1 \}}(a)$, the $M^{**}$-valued spectral projection of $\{ 1 \}$.
Let $q_n$ be the $M$-valued spectral projection of $(1-\frac{1}{n},1+\frac{1}{n})$
for $a$. We claim that the decreasing sequence $(q_n)$ in $M$ has infimum $q$ in $M^{**}$.
To see this note that as in Proposition \ref{cipeak3}, $q$ is the infimum of $(p_n)$ in $M^{**}$ where $p_n$ is
the $M^{**}$-valued spectral projection of $(1-\frac{1}{n},1+\frac{1}{n})$
for $a$. However, $q_n \leq p_n \searrow q$. This may be seen
from viewing the $M$-valued Borel functional calculus as the
$M^{**}$-valued Borel functional calculus multiplied by the canonical central projection $z$ with
$z M^{**} \cong M$ (this follows in turn from the uniqueness property of the Borel functional calculus).
Also $q \leq q_n$ (as may be seen e.g.\ by the above functional calculi, using continuous
$f$ with ${\mathds {1}}_{\{ 1 \}} \leq f \leq {\mathds {1}}_{(1-\frac{1}{n},1+\frac{1}{n})}$).
Conversely, suppose that $q = \wedge_n \, q_n$. Note that
$q_n$ is clearly a peak projection for $M$,
hence so is $q$ by Lemma \ref{cipeak}. Now apply the last lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{A Kaplansky density type result}
The following simple principle
will be useful
for dealing with Kaplansky density type results in
unital operator spaces.
\begin{lemma} \label{kos} Let $M$ be a unital operator space
or operator system. Let $\sigma$ be any linear topology on $M$ weaker than the
norm topology, e.g. the weak or weak* topology (the latter
if $M$ is a dual space too). Let $X$ be a subspace of $M$ for which
${\rm Ball}(X)$ is dense in ${\rm Ball}(M)$ in the topology $\sigma$. Then
$\{ x \in X : x + x^* \geq 0 \}$ is dense in
$\{ x \in M : x + x^* \geq 0 \}$ in the topology $\sigma$.
\end{lemma} \begin{proof} Suppose that
$x \in M$ with
$x + x^* \geq 0$. Then
$z = x + \frac{1}{n}$ satisfies
$z + z^* \geq 0$ and
$$z + z^* \geq \frac{2}{n} \geq
C z^* z$$
for some constant $C > 0$. This implies that
$C^2 z^* z - C(z + z^*) + 1 = (1 - Cz)^* (1-Cz) \leq 1$.
We may then approximate $1-Cz$ in the topology $\sigma$
by a net $x_t \in {\rm Ball}(X)$,
and so $\frac{1}{C} (1-x_t) \to z$ with respect to $\sigma$.
Since $2 - x_t - x_t^* \geq 0$ we have shown that
$z$ is in the closure of $\{ x \in X : x + x^* \geq 0 \}$
in the topology $\sigma$.
Hence so is $x$.
\end{proof}
The following is a Kaplansky density type result generalizing the
one in Corollary 4.3 in \cite{BL3}, and \cite[Section 4]{U}
(where Ueda points out that the dimensional restriction in
\cite[Corollary 4.3]{BL3} can be removed).
\begin{theorem} \label{kap1} If $A$ is a maximal subdiagonal algebra
in a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra $M$, then
${\rm Ball}(A + A^*)$ is weak* dense in ${\rm Ball}(M)$.
Hence ${\rm Ball}(A + A^*)_{\rm sa}$ is weak* dense in
${\rm Ball}(M)_{\rm sa}$.
Moreover, $(A + A^*)_+$ is weak* dense in $M_+$. Also, in all of these statements we can
replace `weak*' by $\sigma$-strong*.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion is known in the case that $M$ has a
faithful normal tracial state (this is the case
discussed immediately before the theorem).
Let $x \in {\rm Ball}(M)$. As stated in the
introduction, one may construct a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann super-algebra
$R$ of $M$ with $M$ appearing as the image of a faithful normal
conditional expectation $\Phi:R\to M$. This $R$ may be constructed so
that it appears as the weak* closure of an increasing sequence $R_n$ of
finite von Neumann algebras each of which is the image of a faithful normal
conditional expectation $\Phi_n:R\to R_n$ for which we have that
$\Phi_n\circ \Phi_m=\Phi_m\circ\Phi_n=\Phi_n$ when $n\geq m$.
In fact each $x\in R$ is the weak* limit of the sequence
$\Phi_n(x)$.
As shown by \cite{Xu}, this construction can be modified in such a
way that $R$ admits a maximal subdiagonal subalgebra $\hat{A}$ for which
$\Phi$ will map $\hat{A}$ onto $A$, and $\hat{A}\cap \hat{A}^*$ onto
$A\cap A^*$. Moreover the subalgebras $\hat{A}_n\cap R_n \subset
R_n$, are each maximal subdiagonal in $R_n$, with $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\hat{A}_n$
weak*-dense in $\hat{A}$. By known results ${\rm Ball}(\hat{A}_n + \hat{A}_n^*)$
is for each $n$ weak* dense in ${\rm Ball}(R_n)$. So the subset
$\cup_{n=1}^\infty {\rm Ball}(\hat{A}_n + \hat{A}_n^*)$ of
${\rm Ball}(\hat{A} + \hat{A}^*)$ must be weak* dense in the weak* closure of
$\cup_{n=1}^\infty{\rm Ball}(R_n)$, namely ${\rm Ball}(R)$. It therefore follows that
$\Phi({\rm Ball}(\hat{A} + \hat{A}^*)) = {\rm Ball}(A + A^*)$
is weak* dense in $\Phi({\rm Ball}(R)) = {\rm Ball}(M)$.
The second assertion follows from the first by taking the
real part. The third follows by applying the previous Lemma to the first.
The last assertion follows from the previous assertions
and \cite[Theorem 2.6 (iv)]{Tak}.
\end{proof}
We give a corollary of this which we will use later.
Note that any element in $A + A^*$ has a unique
representation $a^* + d + b$ with $a, b \in A_0$ and $d \in D$.
This is because if $a^* + d + b = 0$ then applying ${\mathcal E}$
we see that $d = 0$. Also $A_0 \cap A_0^* \subset
D \cap A_0 = (0)$. Thus $A + A^* = A_0 \oplus D \oplus A_0^*$.
It follows from this that selfadjoint elements $x$ in $A+A^*$ are of form $a + d + a^*$ for $a \in A_0, d \in D_{\rm sa}$; and $d$
must be positive if $x \geq 0$ since $d = {\mathcal E}(x)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{maxprx} Let $A$ be as in the previous result,
and $H$ the Hilbert transform on $L^2(M)$ with respect to $A$
as presented in {\rm \cite{Ji}}. If $x \in M_{sa}$, then $h^{\frac{1}{2}} \, H(x h^{\frac{1}{2}})$ is
selfadjoint. Moreover $H(x h^{\frac{1}{2}})^*=H(h^{\frac{1}{2}}x)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove the claim for the case where $x\in M_+$.
If $a \in A_0, d \in D_{\rm sa}$ then $H((a^* + d + a) h^{\frac{1}{2}})
= i (a^* - a) h^{\frac{1}{2}}$ by the definition
in \cite{Ji}. Hence $h^{\frac{1}{2}} \, H((a^* + d + a) h^{\frac{1}{2}})
= i h^{\frac{1}{2}} (a^* - a) h^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is selfadjoint.
Any $x \in M_+$ is the weak* limit
of a net $x_\lambda = a_\lambda^* + d_\lambda + a_\lambda$, where $a_\lambda\in A$ and $d_\lambda\in D_+$,
by Theorem \ref{kap1} and the comment following it.
Hence the net $(x_\lambda h^{\frac{1}{2}})$ converges weakly to $xh^{\frac{1}{2}}$ in $L^2$. To see this note that for any
$b\in L^2$, $h^{\tfrac{1}{2}}b$ will be in $L^1$, whence $tr(x_\lambda h^{\frac{1}{2}}b)\to tr(xh^{\frac{1}{2}}b)$. Since any norm continuous operator is also weakly continuous, the $L^2$ continuity of $H$ ensures that $(H(x_\lambda h^{\frac{1}{2}}))$ converges
weakly to $H(xh^{\frac{1}{2}})$ in $L^2$. This in turn ensures that $(h^{\frac{1}{2}}\,H(x_\lambda h^{\frac{1}{2}}))$ converges weakly to $h^{\frac{1}{2}}\,H(xh^{\frac{1}{2}})$ in $L^1$. By the lines at the start
of this paragraph, $h^{\frac{1}{2}} \, H(x_\lambda h^{\frac{1}{2}})$ is selfadjoint.
Hence $h^{\frac{1}{2}} \, H(x h^{\frac{1}{2}})$ is selfadjoint.
Similarly in view of the fact that $(x_\lambda h^{\frac{1}{2}})^*= h^{\frac{1}{2}}x_\lambda$ is weakly convergent to $(xh^{\frac{1}{2}})^*=h^{\frac{1}{2}}x$, we again have that $H(h^{\frac{1}{2}}x_\lambda)$ is weakly convergent to $H(h^{\frac{1}{2}}x)$. It is obvious that $H(h^{\frac{1}{2}}x_\lambda)^*=H(x_\lambda h^{\frac{1}{2}})$ for each $\lambda$, from which it follows that $H(x h^{\frac{1}{2}})^*=H(h^{\frac{1}{2}}x)$, as required.
\end{proof}
\section{Ueda's peak set theorem for $\sigma$-finite $M$}
\begin{theorem} \label{uadasig} Let $A$ be a maximal subdiagonal subalgebra of a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra $M$.
For a nonzero singular $\varphi \in M^*$, there exists a contraction $a \in A$ and a projection
$p \in M^{**}$ with
\begin{enumerate} \item [(1)] $a^n \to p$ weak* in $M^{**}$.
\item [(2)] $a^n \to 0$ weak* in $M$, or equivalently $\psi(p) = 0$ for all $\psi \in M_*$.
\item [(3)] $|\varphi|(p) = |\varphi|(1)$, where $|\varphi|$ is the absolute value of $\varphi$ regarded
as a member of the predual of the $W^*$-algebra $M^{**}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Since $\varphi$ is known to be singular iff $|\varphi|$ is singular \cite{Tak},
one may assume that $\varphi$ is a state if one wishes. In this
case as in \cite{U}, (1)--(3) may be restated as saying that
(1) \ $p$ is a peak projection, (2) \
$p$ is dominated by the `singular part' projection of $M^{**}$,
and (3) \ $\varphi(p) = 1$.
The present section is devoted to generalizing Ueda's
elegant proof of the tracial state case of Theorem \ref{uadasig}.
As in Theorem 1 of \cite{U} we may find a decreasing sequence $(p_n)$
of projections in $M$ with strong limit $0$ and $|\varphi|(p_n) =
|\varphi|(p_0) =
|\varphi|(1) \neq 0$ for all $n$, where $p_0$ is the strong limit of
$(p_n)$ in $M^{**}$. We may also assume that
$\nu(p_n) < n^{-6}$ where $\nu$ is the fixed faithful
normal state on $M$.
We let $g = \sum_k \, k p_k$, a positive
unbounded closed and densely defined operator affiliated to $N$.
Let $g_n = \sum_{k=1}^n \, k p_k$.
Then $g h^{\frac{1}{2}} \in L^2(M)$ (resp.\ $g_n h^{\frac{1}{2}}
\in L^2(M)$, since the action of the group $(\theta_s)$ on this element has the form
$$\theta_s(g h^{\frac{1}{2}}) = \theta_s(g) \theta_s(h^{\frac{1}{2}}) =
e^{-s/2} g h^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
\begin{lemma} \label{2lim}
Let the projections $p_n$ be as in the previous paragraphs, for $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Then the formal operator $gh^{1/2}=(\sum_{n=1}^\infty np_n)h^{1/2}$ exists as an element of $L^2(M)$ in the sense that we may write it in the form $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n(n+1)}{2}((p_n-p_{n+1})h^{1/2})$ where each $(p_n-p_{n+1})h^{1/2}$ belongs to $L^2(M)$, and where the series converges in $L^2$-norm. In particular the operators $g_kh^{1/2}=\sum_{n=1}^k np_nh^{1/2}$ are well defined elements of $L^2$ which converge in $L^2$-norm to $gh^{1/2}$. Similarly $h^{1/2}g=h^{1/2}(\sum_{n=1}^\infty np_n)$ exists as as an element of $L^2(M)$ and may be written it in the form $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n(n+1)}{2}(h^{1/2}(p_n-p_{n+1}))$ where each $h^{1/2}(p_n-p_{n+1})$ ($n\in \mathbb{N}$) belongs to $L^2(M)$, and where the series converges in $L^2$-norm. The operators $h^{1/2}g_k=\sum_{n=1}^k nh^{1/2}p_n$ are well defined elements of $L^2$ which converge in $L^2$-norm to $h^{1/2}g$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It suffices to prove the first claim. Since the projections $p_n$ above decrease to 0, we have
$\sum_{n=1}^k np_n=(\sum_{n=1}^{k-1} \frac{n(n+1)}{2}(p_n-p_{n+1}))+\frac{k(k+1)}{2}p_k$. Formally at least, $\sum_{n=1}^\infty np_n=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n(n+1)}{2}(p_n-p_{n+1})$. For each $n$ it follows from \cite[Lemma 2.1 (c)]{G-L}
that $((p_n-p_{n+1})h^{1/2})$ are an orthogonal sequence in $L^2(M)$
and $$\|(p_n-p_{n+1})h^{1/2}\|^2=tr(|(p_n-p_{n+1})h^{1/2}|^2)= tr(h^{1/2}|p_n-p_{n+1}|h^{1/2})=\nu(p_n-p_{n+1}).$$
Hence $\|(p_n-p_{n+1})h^{1/2}\|^2 \leq \nu(p_n)<n^{-6}.$ Therefore
$$\sum_{n=1}^\infty (\frac{n(n+1)}{2})^2\|h^{1/2}(p_n-p_{n+1})\|^2=\sum_{n=1}^\infty (\frac{n(n+1)}{2})^2\|(p_n-p_{n+1})h^{1/2}\|^2\leq \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-2},$$ which is finite.
The series converges (absolutely), and so $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n(n+1)}{2}(h^{1/2}(p_n-p_{n+1}))$ exists as an element of $L^2(M)$. The final claim in the hypothesis follows from the fact that
$$g_kh^{1/2}= (\sum_{n=1}^{k-1} \frac{n(n+1)}{2}(p_n-p_{n+1}))h^{1/2}+\frac{k(k+1)}{2}p_kh^{1/2}$$
with the final term converging to $0$ in norm since
$$\|\frac{k(k+1)}{2}p_kh^{1/2}\|^2_2=(\frac{k(k+1)}{2})^2tr(h^{1/2}p_kh^{1/2})=(\frac{k(k+1)}{2})^2\nu(p_k)<\frac{k^2(k+1)^2}{4k^6},$$
which has limit $0$. \end{proof}
{\bf Remark.} We note that if $g = \sum_n \, n p_n$,
viewed as a supremum in the extended positive part $\hat{M}_+$
of $M$,
then $h^{\frac{1}{2}} g h^{\frac{1}{2}} \in L^1(M)$ and the
latter can be shown to be the supremum and limit in $L^1(M)$
of $(h^{\frac{1}{2}} g_n h^{\frac{1}{2}})$. We will not use
this though.
\medskip
Let $\tilde{g}$ (resp.\ $\tilde{g_n}$)
be the Hilbert transform of $g h^{\frac{1}{2}}$ (resp.\ $g_n h^{\frac{1}{2}}$)
as in \cite[Section 3]{Ji}, and let $f = g h^{\frac{1}{2}} + i \tilde{g}$
(resp.\ $f_n = g_n h^{\frac{1}{2}} + i \tilde{g}_n$).
Then $f_n, f \in H^2(A)$.
\begin{corollary} \label{deduc} With
$g = \sum_k \, k p_k$ as above, and $f = g h^{\frac{1}{2}} + i \tilde{g}$, we have
$h^{\frac{1}{2}} \tilde{g}$ is selfadjoint in $L^1(M)$, so that $h^{\frac{1}{2}} f$
is accretive.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $g_n$ is as defined above, then
by Lemma \ref{maxprx} we have $h^{\frac{1}{2}} \, H(g_n
h^{\frac{1}{2}})$ is
selfadjoint. By Lemma \ref{2lim}
and the continuity of $H$ from \cite{Ji},
it follows that $h^{\frac{1}{2}} \tilde{g}$ is selfadjoint. Thus
$h^{\frac{1}{2}} f = h^{\frac{1}{2}} g h^{\frac{1}{2}} + h^{\frac{1}{2}} \tilde{g}$ is
accretive.
\end{proof}
A $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra $M$ has a convenient `standard form'. Indeed as we recalled in the introduction,
a characterization
of $\sigma$-finite
algebras is the existence of
a (normal faithful) Hilbert space representation $\mathfrak{H}$ possessing a fixed cyclic and separating vector $\Omega$. Then $\nu(x) = (\Omega, x \ \Omega)$ is a faithful normal state on $M$. It is known that in this context
\begin{equation}
(M, \mathfrak{H}, \mathcal{P}, J, \Omega),
\end{equation}
is a `standard form' for $M$, where $\mathcal{P}$ and $J$ respectively denote the naturally associated cone and
the modular conjugation. The modular automorphism group $\sigma_t$ is
implemented by $\sigma_t(\cdot) = \Delta^{it}\cdot \Delta^{-it}$, where $\Delta$ is the modular operator. By the universality of the standard form (see \cite{Araki,Haage,Terp}) and hence also of the natural cone, we may identify the context
$$(M, \mathfrak{H}, \mathcal{P}, J, \Omega)$$
with $$(M,\ L^2(M),\ L^2_+(\mathfrak{M}),\ ^*, h^{\frac{1}{2}}).$$
In what follows we choose to work with the copy of $M$ living inside $B(L^2(M))$ as multiplication operators. In view of the above correspondence, we may do so without loss of generality.
We view $h^{\frac{1}{2}}$ as the fixed cyclic and separating
vector for this action of $M$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem1} For each $k \in \Ndb,$ there exist nets $(a(k)_\lambda)\subset A_0$, $(d(k)_\lambda)\subset D_+$ such that $(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda)\in M_+$, with $(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda)$ converging to $g_k$ in the $\sigma$-strong* topology. Hence for any $q\in L^2(M)$, the nets $(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda)q$ and $q(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda)$ will respectively converge in $L^2$-norm to $gq$ and $qg$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Theorem \ref{kap1} and the observation following it.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2} Given $a\in A_0$, $d\in D_+$ with $a^*+d+a \in M_+$, the element $(a^*+d+a+{\mathds {1}})+iH(a^*+d+a)$ has an inverse $v$ belonging to $A$, with both $v$ and $1-v$ contractive.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that with $a$ and $d$ as in the hypothesis, $H(a^*+d+a)=i(a^*-a)$ is selfadjoint.
Thus $x = a^*+d+a + i H(a^*+d+a)$ is accretive. By the basic theory of accretive operators (see e.g.\
\cite[Appendix C.7]{Haase})
${\mathds {1}} + x$ has a contractive inverse $v$. Note that $v \in A$ since the numerical range and hence the
spectrum of $x$ in $A$ is in the right half plane. Also $x ({\mathds {1}} + x)^{-1} = {\mathds {1}} - ({\mathds {1}} + x)^{-1} = {\mathds {1}}- v$
is a contraction in $A$, being the average of ${\mathds {1}}$ and the well known Cayley transform of $x$. We remark that
the map $x \mapsto x ({\mathds {1}} + x)^{-1}$
is called the ${\mathfrak F}$-transform in recent papers of Charles Read and the first author.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{maintech}
There exist elements $(w_k)$ and $w_g$ of $A$ for which each of $w_k$, $w_g$, $w_k-{\mathds {1}}$ and $w_g-{\mathds {1}}$ are contractions, with
$$w_k[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g_kh^{1/2})]=h^{1/2}=[h^{1/2}(g_k+{\mathds {1}})+iH(h^{1/2}g_k)]w_k$$
and
$$w_g[(g+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(gh^{1/2})]=h^{1/2}=[h^{1/2}(g+{\mathds {1}})+iH(h^{1/2}g)]w_g.$$
Moreover there exists a subsequence of $(w_k)$ which is weak* convergent to $w_g$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Choose
nets $(a(k)_\lambda)\subset A_0$, $(d(k)_\lambda)\subset D_+$
as in Lemma \ref{lem1}. By Lemma \ref{lem2} each $(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})+iH(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda)$ has an inverse $v(k)_\lambda$ belonging to $A$, with both $v(k)_\lambda$ and $1-v(k)_\lambda$ contractive. By passing to a subnet if necessary, we may assume that $(v(k)_\lambda)$ is weak* convergent. Let $w_k$ be the weak* limit of $(v(k)_\lambda)$. (Since both $(v(k)_\lambda)$ and $(v(k)_\lambda-{\mathds {1}})$ are contained in the weak* compact set Ball$(A)$, it is clear that both $w_k$ and $w_k-{\mathds {1}}$ will also be in this set. We wish to prove that $$w_k[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g_kh^{1/2})]=h^{1/2}=[h^{1/2}(g_k+{\mathds {1}})+iH(h^{1/2}g_k)]w_k.$$
In view of the similarity of the proofs, we prove only the first equality. Notice that $(v(k)_\lambda[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g_kh^{1/2})])$ converges weakly in $L^2$ to $w_k[(g_k +{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(gh^{1/2})]$. By Lemma \ref{lem1}
we have that $(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda)
h^{1/2} \to g_kh^{1/2}$ in $L^2$-norm, and so also
$H((a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda) h^{1/2}) \to H(g_kh^{1/2})$
in $L^2$-norm by the continuity of $H$ established in \cite{Ji}.
Since the $v(k)_\lambda$'s are contractive, it easily follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\|v(k)_\lambda[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g_kh^{1/2})]-h^{1/2}\|_2\\
&&=\|v(k)_\lambda[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g_kh^{1/2})]\\
&&\qquad\quad- v(k)_\lambda[((a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})+iH(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda))h^{1/2}]\|_2\\
&&\leq \|[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g_kh^{1/2})]\\
&&\qquad\quad- ((a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})+iH(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda))h^{1/2}\|_2.
\end{eqnarray*}Hence $(v(k)_\lambda[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g_kh^{1/2})])$ is norm convergent to $h^{1/2}$. The claim regarding the
$g_k$'s now follows from the uniqueness of limits.
Since $(w_k)$ is bounded, it will admit a weak* convergent subsequence. Let $w_g$ be the limit of that subsequence. The claim regarding $w_g$ can now be verified with an essentially similar proof, but with the roles of $v(k)_\lambda$ and $(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda)$ respectively being played by $w_k$ and $g_k$, and with Lemma \ref{2lim} replacing Lemma \ref{lem1}.
Thus we begin by noting that
$$w_k [(g+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g h^{1/2})] \; \to \; w_g [(g+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g h^{1/2})]$$
weakly in $L^2$. Amending the previous argument as described above, now leads to the conclusion that
$$\| w_k [(g+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(g h^{1/2})] - h^{1/2} \|_2 \to 0.$$
So again the claim regarding the $g$'s follows from the uniqueness of limits.
\end{proof}
We proceed to use Proposition \ref{maintech} to analyse the structure of $[(g+{\mathds {1}})h^{1/2}+iH(gh^{1/2})]$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thobs}
For any $n\in \mathbb{N}$, we have $\|p_nw_g\|\leq\sqrt{\frac{2}{n(n+1)}}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $g_k$ and $w_k$ be as in Proposition \ref{maintech}. By passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that $(w_k)$ is weak* convergent to $w_g$. It then suffices to show that $\|p_nw_k\|\leq\sqrt{\frac{2}{n(n+1)}}$ for every $k\geq n$. To see this recall that the closed ball of radius $\sqrt{\frac{2}{n(n+1)}}$ is weak* closed. So if each $p_nw_k$ ($k\geq n$) is in this ball, so is $p_nw_g$.
Observe that for $a$, $d$ and $v$ as in Lemma \ref{lem2}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}v^*(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}})v&=&\frac{1}{2}v^*[((a^*+d+a+{\mathds {1}})+iH(a^*+d+a))\\
&& \qquad\qquad+ ((a^*+d+a+{\mathds {1}})-iH(a^*+d+a))]v\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}[v+v^*].
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $v$ and $v^*$ are both contractive, this means that $v^*(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}})v\leq {\mathds {1}}$. This in turn ensures that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}})vv^*(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}})\\
&&=(v^{-1})^*v^*(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}})vv^*(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}})vv^{-1}\\
&&\leq (v^{-1})^*v^*(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}})vv^{-1}\\
&&=(a+d+a^*+{\mathds {1}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq}
&& \|v_\lambda^*(a_\lambda^*+d_\lambda+a_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\|^2\\
&&=\langle w_k^* (a_\lambda^*+d_\lambda+a_\lambda +{\mathds {1}})v_\lambda v_\lambda^*(a_\lambda^*+d_\lambda+a)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\, ,\, h^{1/2}a\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\leq\langle w_k^*(a_\lambda^*+d_\lambda+a_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\, ,\, h^{1/2}a\rangle\nonumber\\
&&=\langle (a_\lambda^*+d_\lambda+a_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\, ,\, w_kh^{1/2}a\rangle\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now let $a\in M$ be given, and let the nets $(a(k)_\lambda)\subset A_0$, $(d(k)_\lambda)\subset D_+$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem1}. Then the nets $(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a$ converge to $(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a$ in $L^2$-norm. As we saw in the proof of Proposition \ref{maintech}, on passing to a subnet if necessary, we may assume that the nets $(v(k)_\lambda)$'s described by Lemma \ref{lem2}, are weak* convergent to the $w_k$'s.
Since the $v(k)_\lambda$'s are contractive, we have that $$\|[v(k)_\lambda^*(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a]-[v(k)_\lambda^*(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a]\|$$ $$\leq \|[(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a]-[(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a]\| \to 0.$$
Thus
$$[v(k)_\lambda^*(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a]-[v(k)_\lambda^*(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a] \to 0$$
in norm. Since also $v(k)_\lambda^*(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a$ is weakly convergent in $L^2(M)$ to $w_k^*(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a$,
it follows that $v(k)_\lambda^*(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a$ is weakly convergent to $w_k^*(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a$.
We proceed to show that $\|(g_k+{\mathds {1}})^{1/2}w_kh^{1/2}a\|_2\leq\|h^{1/2}a\|_2$. To see this we firstly observe that
$$\langle v(k)_\lambda^*(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a, h^{1/2}a\rangle$$ $$\to \langle w_k^*(g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a,h^{1/2}a\rangle =\|(g_k+{\mathds {1}})^{1/2}w_kh^{1/2}a\|^2,$$and that
$$\langle (a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\, ,\, w_kh^{1/2}a\rangle$$ $$\to \langle (g_k+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a,w_kh^{1/2}a\rangle= \|(g_k+{\mathds {1}})^{1/2}w_kh^{1/2}a\|^2.$$
Next observe that by inequality
(\ref{ineq}), we have that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \|v(k)_\lambda^*(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\|^2\\
&&=\langle (a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\, ,\, w_kh^{1/2}a\rangle
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows from the above inequality that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\langle v(k)_\lambda^*(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\, ,\, h^{1/2}a\rangle\\
&&\leq \|v(k)_\lambda^*(a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\|.\|h^{1/2}a\|\\
&&\leq [\langle (a(k)_\lambda^*+d(k)_\lambda+a(k)_\lambda+{\mathds {1}})w_kh^{1/2}a\, ,\, w_kh^{1/2}a\rangle]^{1/2}.\|h^{1/2}a\| .
\end{eqnarray*}
On taking limits, we have $\|(g_k+{\mathds {1}})^{1/2}w_kh^{1/2}a\|^2\leq \|(g_k+{\mathds {1}})^{1/2}w_kh^{1/2}a\|.\|h^{1/2}a\|,$ or equivalently, $\|(g_k+{\mathds {1}})^{1/2}w_kh^{1/2}a\|\leq \|h^{1/2}a\|$ as claimed.
Finally note that since the $p_n$'s are decreasing, we as before have that $$\frac{(n+1)n}{2}p_n =\sum_{m=1}^n mp_n \leq \sum_{m=1}^n mp_m,$$ which is dominated by $\sum_{m=1}^{k}mp_m=g_m$. Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|p_nw_k h^{1/2}a\|^2 &=& \langle w_k^* p_n w_k (h^{\frac{1}{2}} a) , (h^{\frac{1}{2}} a) \rangle\\
&\leq& \frac{2}{n(n+1)} \langle w_k^* g_k w_k (h^{\frac{1}{2}}a) , (h^{\frac{1}{2}} a) \rangle\\
&\leq& \frac{2}{n(n+1)} \langle w_k^* (g_k+{\mathds {1}}) w_k (h^{\frac{1}{2}} a) , (h^{\frac{1}{2}} a) \rangle\\
&=& \frac{2}{n(n+1)} \|(g_k+{\mathds {1}})^{1/2}w_kh^{1/2}a\|^2 \\
&\leq& \frac{2}{n(n+1)} \|h^{1/2}a\|^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the subspace $\{h^{1/2}a: a\in M\}$ is dense in $L^2(M)$, it follows that the operator of left multiplication by $p_nw_k$ on $L^2(M)$, has norm dominated by $\sqrt{\frac{2}{n(n+1)}}$. This proves the claim.
\end{proof}
Thus with $b = 1 - w_g$ we deduce that
$\Vert p_k - p_k b \Vert \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{k(k+1)}}$
as needed for the argument in \cite{U} to proceed. Indeed
the rest of that argument is identical.
We obtain $p_0 = p_0 b = b p_0$ where
$p_0$ is the strong limit of
$(p_n)$ in $M^{**}$, and if $a = (1 + b)/2$ then $(a^n)$ converges weak* to a peak projection
$p \geq p_0$ with $|\varphi|(p) = |\varphi|(p_0) = |\varphi|(1)$. If $\Vert a \xi \Vert_2 = \Vert \xi \Vert_2$ for
$\xi \in L^2(M)$, then as in \cite{U} we obtain $b \xi = \xi$, so that in our notation above
we have $\xi \in {\rm Ker}(w_g) = 0$. However Ker$(w_g) = (0)$.
Indeed the projection associated with the kernel is in $M$; and if $e \in M$ is a projection with
$w_g e = 0$
then by the last equality in Proposition \ref{maintech}
we obtain $h^{1/2} e = 0$, so that $e= 0$. Hence as in \cite{U} (which relies
here on
the noncommutative peak theory \cite{Hay}, see also e.g.\
\cite{BHN,BN}) we obtain $a^n \to 0$ weak*
in $M$. This completes the proof
of the generalization of Ueda's peak set theorem to $\sigma$-finite algebras.
\section{Consequences of Ueda's peak set theorem for $\sigma$-finite $M$} \label{cons}
All the other consequences from \cite{U} of Ueda's peak set theorem, now go through with unaltered proofs for maximal subdiagonal subalgebras $A$ of a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra $M$. Indeed this is true rather generally.
If $A$ is a weak* closed subalgebra of a von Neumann algebra $M$ then we say that
$A$ is an {\em Ueda algebra} in $M$
if Ueda's peak set theorem holds for $A$;
that is if for every singular state on $M$
there is a peak projection $q$ for $A$ with $\varphi(q) = 1$ and
$q$ is dominated by the `singular part' projection of $M^{**}$, as
in the restatement after Theorem \ref{uadasig}.
The ideas in \cite[Lemma 9.1]{BW} give the following restatement:
\begin{corollary} \label{restU} Suppose that $A$ is a weak* closed
subalgebra of a von Neumann algebra $M$.
Then $A$ is an Ueda algebra in $M$ iff
for every singular state $\varphi$ on $M$, there exists a
(increasing, if desired) sequence $(q_n)$ of projections
in ${\rm Ker}(\varphi)$ with supremum $1$ in $M$,
and supremum in $M^{**}$ lying in $A^{\perp \perp}$.
The last condition if $(q_n)$ is increasing means that
$\psi(q_n) \to 0$ for any $\psi \in A^{\perp}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By Theorem \ref{psvn}, the information about $q$
in the lines above the present corollary is equivalent to:
there is a (decreasing, if desired) sequence $(q_n)$ of
projections in $M$ with infimum $q$ in $M^{**}$ lying in $A^{\perp \perp}$
satisfying $\varphi(q) = 1$, and $\psi(q) = 0$ for all
normal states $\psi$ of $M$. As in \cite[Lemma 9.1]{BW}
the last condition
is equivalent to the infimum in $M$ of $(q_n)$ being $0$,
and $\varphi(q) = 1$
iff $\varphi(q_n) = 0$ for all $n$.
Finally set $p = q^\perp$ and replace $q_n$ by $q_n^\perp$.
\end{proof}
We remark that if $A$ is an Ueda algebra then it is easy to see that so
is $A^* = \{ x^* : x \in A \}$.
\begin{corollary} \label{co1} Suppose that a weak* closed
subalgebra $A$ of a von Neumann algebra $M$ is
an Ueda algebra. If $\varphi \in M^*$ has nonzero singular part $\varphi_s$, then there exists a contraction $a \in A$ and a projection
$p \in M^{**}$ with $a^n \to p$ weak* in $M^{**}$, $a^n \to 0$ weak* in $M$,
and $\varphi_s = \varphi \cdot p$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{theorem} \label{co3} Suppose that
a weak* closed
subalgebra $A$ of a von Neumann algebra $M$ is
an Ueda algebra. Write $A^*_s$ and $A^*_n$ for the set of restrictions to $A$ of singular and normal functionals on $M$. Each
$\varphi \in A^*$ has a unique Lebesgue decomposition relative to $M$: $\varphi = \varphi_n + \varphi_s$
with $\varphi_n \in A^*_n$ and $\varphi_s \in A^*_s$. Moreover, $\Vert \varphi \Vert
= \Vert \varphi_n \Vert + \Vert \varphi_s \Vert$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary} \label{co4} Suppose that
a weak* closed
subalgebra $A$ of a von Neumann algebra $M$ is
an Ueda algebra. Then the predual $A_*$ of $A$
is unique, and is
an $L$-summand in $A^*$.
Also, $A_*$ has property {\rm (V$^*$)} and is weakly sequentially complete.
\end{corollary}
(See also e.g.\ \cite{KY} for recent similar results for a completely different class of dual operator algebras.)
\begin{theorem}[F. $\&$ M. Riesz type theorem] \label{co5} Suppose that a weak* closed
subalgebra $A$ of a von Neumann algebra $M$ is
an Ueda algebra.
If $\varphi \in M^*$ annihilates $A$ (that is, $\varphi \in A^\perp$)
then the normal and singular parts, $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_s$, also annihilate $A$.
\end{theorem}
Our proofs from \cite{BL3} then give the following results (suitably modified by an appeal to Theorem \ref{co5}
instead of to the F $\&$ M type theorem in \cite{BL3}), as noted in \cite{U} and suggested by the referee of that paper.
One may define an {\em F $\&$ M Riesz algebra}
to be a weak* closed subalgebra $A$ of a von Neumann algebra $M$,
such that if $\varphi \in A^\perp$
then the normal and singular parts, $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_s$, also annihilate $A$. Theorem \ref{co5} then
says that any Ueda algebra is an F $\&$ M Riesz algebra.
Again, it is easy to argue (by considering $\psi^*(x) = \overline{\psi(x^*)}$)
that if $A$ is an F $\&$ M Riesz algebra then so is $A^* = \{ x^* : x \in A \}$.
By proofs in \cite{BL3} we then have:
\begin{corollary} \label{co6} Suppose that $A$ is an F $\&$ M Riesz algebra in a von Neumann algebra
$M$ such that $A + A^*$ is weak* dense in $M$. If $\varphi \in M^*$
annihilates $A + A^*$ then $\varphi$ is singular. Any normal functional on $M$ is the unique Hahn-Banach extension
of its restriction to $A+ A^*$, and in particular is normed by $A+ A^*$. In addition, any Hahn-Banach extension to $M$ of a weak* continuous functional on $A$, is normal.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary} \label{co7} If $A$ is an F $\&$ M Riesz algebra in a von Neumann algebra
$M$ such that $A + A^*$ is weak* dense in $M$ then ${\rm Ball}(A + A^*)$ is weak* dense in ${\rm Ball}(M)$.
\end{corollary}
Moreover in this case we obtain all the
assertions of Theorem \ref{kap1} too.
The last assertion of the Corollary \ref{co6} is related to the well known Gleason-Whitney theorem in function theory. A special case of the following appears in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{BL3} and \cite[Theorem 3.4]{Lis}. We can express some of the ideas in those results more
abstractly and generally as follows:
\begin{lemma} \label{gw2} Suppose $A$ is a weak* closed subalgebra of a von Neumann algebra $M$. Then $A + A^*$ is weak* dense in $M$ iff there is at most one normal Hahn-Banach extension to $M$ of any normal weak* continuous functional on $A$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
($\Rightarrow$) \ Choose $a \in {\rm Ball}(A)$ such that $\varphi(a) = 1$, and let $e$ be the left support of $a$, which is the support of $aa^*$. We may suppose that $\varphi \in M_*$
and that $\psi$ is another normal Hahn-Banach extension
of $\varphi_{|A}$. We have $$1 = \varphi(a) \leq
|\varphi|(aa^*) \leq |\varphi|(e),$$
so that $|\varphi|(e^\perp) = 0$. Hence
$|\varphi| e^\perp = 0$ and $\varphi e^\perp = 0$.
Similarly $\psi e^\perp = 0$ and $(\varphi - \psi)e^\perp = 0$.
Next note that $\varphi a$ is contractive and unital,
so positive. Similarly for $\psi$, and so
$(\varphi - \psi) a$ is a selfadjoint normal functional. It vanishes on $A$, hence also on $A+A^*$
and on $M$. From this it is easy to see that
$(\varphi - \psi) e = 0$. So $\varphi - \psi =
(\varphi - \psi) e + (\varphi - \psi) e^\perp = 0$.
($\Leftarrow$) \ It is enough to show that if normal $\psi$ annihilates $A+A^*$ then $\psi = 0$.
By taking real and imaginary parts we may assume that $\psi = \psi^*$. Suppose $\psi = \psi_1 - \psi_2$
for positive normal $\psi_k$. Then $\psi_1 = \psi_2 + \psi$ and $\psi_2$ agree on $A$, and are normal Hahn-Banach extensions since the norm of a positive functional is its value at $1$. So $\psi_1 = \psi_2$ and $\psi = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}[Gleason-Whitney type theorem] Suppose that $A$ is an F $\&$ M Riesz algebra in a von Neumann algebra
$M$. Then $A+A^*$ is weak* dense in $M$
if and only if every normal functional on $A$ has a
unique Hahn-Banach extension to $M$,
and if and only if every normal
functional on $A$ has a
unique normal Hahn-Banach extension to $M$. \end{corollary}
Of course all of these hold when $A$ is a maximal subdiagonal subalgebra of
a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra $M$. Conversely these properties characterize
maximal subdiagonal subalgebras. The following is a partial strengthening of \cite[Theorem 3.4]{Lis}
(the equivalence of (i) and (iv) there).
\begin{corollary}[Gleason-Whitney type theorem] Let $A$ be a weak* closed unital subalgebra of a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra $M$, for which
\begin{itemize}
\item $\sigma^\nu_t(A)=A$ for each $t\in \mathbb{R}$ (where $\sigma^\nu_t$ is the modular
automorphism group for $M$ described in our Introduction), and
\item the canonical expectation $\mathcal{E}:M\to A\cap A^*=D$ is
multiplicative on $A$.
\end{itemize}
Then $A+A^*$ is weak* dense in $M$ (that is, $A$ is maximal subdiagonal with respect to $D$)
if and only if every normal functional on $A$ has a
unique normal Hahn-Banach extension to $M$.
\end{corollary}
\section{The case of semi-finite and general von Neumann algebras}
We first briefly discuss the results of our paper in the setting of
general von Neumann algebras. We recall from e.g.\
\cite[Proposition 2.2.5]{Sakai} that
any von Neumann algebra $M$
is a direct sum of algebras $M_i$ of the form
$R_i \bar{\otimes} B(\mathfrak{H}_i)$ for a $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebra $R_i$.
If $A$ is a maximal subdiagonal algebra
in $M$, and if the center of $M$ is contained in the center
of $A \cap A^*$, then the central projections
corresponding to the direct sum will allow a decomposition of a maximal
subdiagonal algebra $A$ of $M$ as a direct sum of algebras $A_i\subset M_i$, and it is easy to see that
these are maximal
subdiagonal subalgebras of $M_i$.
Assuming that the $B(\mathfrak{H}_i)$'s appearing
in the form of $M_i$ above correspond to separable Hilbert spaces $\mathfrak{H}_i$,
then $R_i \bar{\otimes} B(\mathfrak{H}_i)$
is $\sigma$-finite,
and we get Ueda's theorem in this case (Theorem \ref{uadasig} but with the
$\sigma$-finite $M$ replaced by our $M$ above).
We immediately deduce that all
the
results in the
last section (Section \ref{cons}) are valid for this $A$ and $M$.
\medskip
We now turn to investigating when
Ueda's peak set theorem fails.
Of course if Ueda's peak set theorem fails for a von Neumann algebra $M$ then it
also fails for every weak* closed unital subalgebra $A$ of $M$.
Thus henceforth in this section we shall assume that $A = M$.
An {\em Ulam measurable cardinal} is one such that if $I$ is a set of this cardinality, then there
exists a
free ultrafilter $p$ on $I$ such that every
sequence $A_1 \supseteq A_2 \supseteq \cdots$ of nonempty sets in $p$ has nonempty intersection
\cite{CN,Jech}.
(Remark: it is a pleasant exercise that an ultrafilter allows no empty countable intersections of members
if and only if it is closed under countable intersections. Also, one may always make countable intersections `decreasing'.)
The concept of
{\em measurable cardinal} used in the next result will be explained
a little more at the start of its proof. This result shows that there is
little chance of generalizing Ueda's peak set theorem to semi-finite von Neumann algebras in
the usual set theoretic universe used in most of functional analysis, since
this would imply a solution to one of the famous open ``problems''
in mathematics. We use quotes because nowadays this
problem is not believed to be solvable.
The strategy of our proof is simple:
it is known that a bound on the size of a set $I$ in relation to being of measurable cardinality is equivalent to being
`realcompact'. Also, $I$ not being realcompact is known to imply that $\beta I \setminus I$ contains points not contained in closed G$_\delta$ subsets of $\beta I$ of a certain type. Finally, for $C(K)$ spaces the closed G$_\delta$ sets are exactly the peak sets, by the strict form
of the Urysohn lemma or
as in Proposition \ref{cipeak3}.
However since we lack a good reference (besides scattered pieces
found in an internet search for `realcompact discrete spaces'; see e.g.\ \cite[p.\ 402 ff]{CN}), we will include short arguments for several of these points for the reader's convenience.
\begin{theorem} \label{Ulam} If Ueda's peak set theorem held for all finite von Neumann algebras then
there exist no (uncountable) measurable cardinals.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The existence of (uncountable) measurable cardinals is known to be
equivalent to the existence of Ulam measurable cardinals \cite{CN,Jech}.
Suppose that $I$ was an uncountable set of
Ulam measurable cardinality.
Clearly $M= \ell^\infty(I)$ is a finite (and semi-finite) von Neumann algebra, and $A = M$ is a maximal subdiagonal
algebra. We may view the $p$ in the definition of
Ulam measurable cardinality as a (singleton) closed set in $\beta I \setminus I$. It is the support of a Dirac probability measure,
which can be viewed as a pure state on $M = C(\beta I)$ (evaluation at $p$). This state is singular (we leave this
as an exercise since there are many ways to see this). Moreover via the well known correspondences between
minimal projections and pure states and their supports, the support of this
state in $C(\beta I)^{**}$ is the minimal projection which is the image $e$ of the
characteristic function of $F = \{ p \}$ in $C(\beta I)^{**}$ (that is, it is the image of the functional $\mu \mapsto \mu (F)$ on $C(\beta I)^*$, viewing the latter as a space of measures). Indeed here we are just invoking
aspects of the well known noncommutative dictionary between the basic theory of
probability measures and that of states.
If Ueda's theorem held for $M$ then there would exist
a peak projection $q \in C(\beta I)^{**}$ with $e \leq q \leq z$, where $z$ is the orthogonal complement of the canonical projection in $M^{**}$ corresponding to $M_*$. These three projections $e, z, q$ correspond to closed sets in $\beta I$, namely
to sets $F = \{ p \}, \beta I \setminus I,$
and $E$ say, respectively; and the latter is a classical peak set by the `peaking'
theory \cite{BHN,Hay,Bnpi,BRead,BN,BReadII}. (That $z$ corresponds to
$\beta I \setminus I$ is well known, and was sketched in an earlier
version of the present paper.)
By Theorem \ref{psvn}, the characteristic function
of any peak set $E$ for $M$ is
an intersection of a decreasing sequence of projections in $M = C(\beta I) =
l^\infty(I)$. Thus by the theory of the
Stone-Cech compactification, $E = \cap_{n=1}^\infty \, [A_n]$,
where $[A_n]$ is the (clopen) closure in $\beta I$ of (open) $A_n \subset I$,
where $A_1 \supseteq A_2 \supseteq \cdots$.
Also, $\cap_{n=1}^\infty \, [A_n] \subset \beta I \setminus I$
if and only if $\cap_{n=1}^\infty \, A_n = \emptyset$. To see the latter,
note that $$\cap_{n=1}^\infty \, A_n \subset
(\cap_{n=1}^\infty \, [A_n]) \cap I \subset (\beta I \setminus I) \cap I = \emptyset$$ if
$\cap_{n=1}^\infty \, [A_n] \subset \beta I \setminus I$.
The converse follows from the inclusion
$$I \cap (\cap_{n=1}^\infty \, [A_n]) \subset I \cap [A_n] = A_n, \qquad
n \in \Ndb.$$
Thus for any closed subset $F$
of a peak set $E$ for $C(\beta I)$, with $E \subset \beta I \setminus I$,
we have $F \subset \cap_{n=1}^\infty \, [A_n]$ for sets $A_1 \supseteq A_2 \supseteq \cdots$ in $I$
with empty intersection. In our special case where $F = \{ p \}$, the fact that $p \in [A_n]$
implies that $A_n \in p$, with the latter regarded as an ultrafilter. But this contradicts
the the assumption made at the start of the proof. So there is no Ulam measurable cardinal.
\end{proof}
{\bf Remark.} By the last proof
Ueda's peak set theorem holding for $M = A = \ell^\infty(I)$, is equivalent to
saying that every closed set $F$ in $\beta I \setminus I$ which is
the support of a Borel probability measure, is contained in $\cap_{n=1}^\infty \, [A_n]$ for sets $A_1 \supseteq A_2 \supseteq \cdots$ in $I$ with empty intersection. Closed sets in $\beta I \setminus I$ have a nice characterization
in the basic literature of the Stone-Cech compactification.
\medskip
It turns out that Ueda's peak set theorem
also fails when $M = A = B(H)$ with $H$ of dimension an Ulam measurable cardinal,
or a real valued measurable cardinal,
as is discussed together with Nik Weaver in \cite{BW}. Indeed in
that paper (which was written after the first distributed version of
the present paper) it is shown that if is $M$ is a von Neumann algebra then Ueda's peak set theorem
fails when $M = A$ iff $M$ possesses a singular state $\varphi$ which
is {\em regular}, that is, $\varphi(\vee_n \, q_n) = 0$ for every sequence of projections $(q_n)$ in ${\rm Ker}(\varphi)$.
(See \cite{Ham} for other characterizations and facts about regular states;
hence Ueda's peak set theorem is strongly tied to `quantum measure theory'
in the sense of that reference.) This is also equivalent to saying that there is
a collection of mutually orthogonal projections in $M$ of cardinality $\geq$
a fixed cardinal $\kappa$, namely the first cardinal on which there is a
`regular' singular finitely additive
probability measure. (Here and below measures are assumed to be defined
on all subsets of the cardinal.
The existence of regular singular states or such regular measures
is generally believed to be consistent with ZFC set theory. Indeed as
explained in \cite{BW} it is believed to be consistent with ZFC set theory
that the latter `first cardinal' is $\leq$ the cardinality of the real numbers.
On the other hand, since any cardinal on which there is a
singular probability measure dominates
the `first cardinal' above,
it follows that if $M \subset B(H)$ where dim$(H)$ is smaller than any
real-valued measurable cardinal
(or if measurable cardinals do not exist), then Ueda's
peak set theorem holds for $M$ (and taking $A = M$).
From the assertion in the last paragraph about the cardinality of the real numbers,
it follows that one should not hope to be able to prove
Ueda's
peak set theorem for $A = M = l^\infty(\Rdb)$ in ZFC.
Indeed Ueda's theorem in this case implies by
the assertion in the last paragraph
about regular states, a negative solution to the famous `Banach measure problem':
Is there a probability
measure defined on all subsets of
$[0,1]$ which is zero on singletons? (It is well known that if there is, then one
can find another that extends Lebesgue measure.) Banach showed that you cannot prove an affirmitive answer to this in ZFC.
The existence of a negative answer
is equivalent to the nonexistence of measurable cardinals in ZFC.
However as we have stated earlier,
it is generally believed by set theorists
that the existence of measurable cardinals is consistent with ZFC.
This shows that one cannot hope to be able to prove Ueda's
peak set theorem in ZFC for von Neumann algebras that are
much `bigger' that $\sigma$-finite (the case of the main theorem
of our paper). And indeed experts in von Neumann algebras
are usually happy to only consider $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebras in their results,
because `bigger' algebras are often pathological.
On the other
hand it is shown in \cite{BW} that Ueda's
peak set theorem holds in ZFC for $A = M = l^\infty(\aleph_1)$,
where $\aleph_1$ is the first uncountable cardinal,
and this von Neumann algebra is not $\sigma$-finite.
Hence if we assume the continuum hypothesis then
Ueda's peak set theorem does hold for $A = M = l^\infty(\Rdb)$.
Assuming the negation of the continuum hypothesis, a remaining
question seems to be for what cardinals $\kappa$ between countable
and the cardinality of the reals can one prove Ueda's
peak set theorem in ZFC for
$A = M = l^\infty(\kappa)$. Nik Weaver has sketched to us a
proof in the case of $\aleph_2$, and this trick seems
to extend to $\aleph_n$ for $n \in \Ndb$.
Thinking about the last paragraph in conjunction with the
proof of our main theorem, suggests to us
that it may possibly be interesting to study Haagerup's reduction theory,
the standard form, and related topics, for von Neumann algebras
possessing uncountable collections of mutually orthogonal projections
of cardinality smaller than the cardinality of the reals
(assuming of course the negation of the continuum hypothesis).
\medskip
{\em Acknowledgments.} We are grateful to Nik Weaver for a very helpful and
lengthy conversation
shortly before distribution of
an earlier version of
the present paper, which led to \cite{BW}, a paper largely devoted to quantum measure theory
in the sense of \cite{Ham}, quantum cardinals, and various
continuity properties of states on von Neumann algebras.
In Section 9 of that paper the
set theoretic issues associated with Ueda's peak set theorem
for von Neumann algebras are explored more fully,
as mentioned above.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
A thorough census of young stars and brown dwarfs in nearby star-forming
regions is important for measuring the global properties of young stellar
populations (e.g., initial mass functions, disk fractions) and for providing
well-defined samples of targets for a variety of studies of star and planet
formation.
The Perseus molecular cloud is one of the nearest and richest of these regions
\citep[$\sim300$~pc,][]{sch14}.
It contains several hundred young stars, most of which reside in two clusters,
IC~348 and NGC~1333 \citep{her08,wal08}.
Age estimates for IC~348 based on evolutionary models range from
2 to 6~Myr \citep{luh03,bel13}.
NGC~1333 appears to be younger than IC~348 based on its greater obscuration
and higher abundance of circumstellar disks and protostars \citep{mue07,gut08}.
Candidate members of IC~348 have been identified via
proper motions \citep{fre56,sch99},
H$\alpha$ emission \citep{her54,her98},
X-ray emission \citep{pre96,pre01,pre02,pre04,for11,ste12},
outflow signatures \citep{wal06,hat09},
optical and near-infrared (IR) photometry
\citep{str74b,lad95,luh98,luh03,luh99,naj00,mai03,bur09,mue03,alv13},
mid-IR excess emission \citep{lad06,jor06,jor07,cie07,mue07,reb07,cur09,eva09,you15},
variability \citep{fla12,fla13,cod14},
and kinematics \citep{cot15}.
Optical and near-IR spectroscopy has been used to measure spectral types
and confirm membership for many of those candidates
\citep{str74b,har54,her98,luh98,luh99,luh03,luh05flam,mue07,alv13}.
Similar diagnostics of youth and membership have been applied
to NGC~1333, including
X-ray emission \citep{pre97,pre03,get02,win10,for11}, outflows \citep{hat09},
optical and near-IR photometry
\citep{str76,asp94,lad96,asp03,wil04,gre07,ots08,sch09},
mid-IR excesses \citep{jor06,jor07,cie07,reb07,gut08,eva09,you15},
kinematics \citep{fos15}, and variability \citep{reb15b}.
As in IC~348, spectroscopic classification has been performed on many
of the resulting candidates
\citep{asp03,wil04,gre07,win09,win10,sch09,sch12a,sch12b}.
The current census of IC~348 is incomplete in the outer portions of the
cluster and among the least massive brown dwarfs.
The census of NGC~1333 has significant incompleteness as well,
particularly at substellar masses.
In addition, the methods of spectral classification that have been applied
to NGC~1333 are less uniform than in IC~348.
To address these issues, we have performed a survey for new
members down to $\sim0.005$~$M_\odot$ across the full extent of each cluster,
and we have measured spectral types for a large fraction of the known members
of NGC~1333 with the classification scheme that we have previously applied
to IC~348 and other nearby star-forming regions.
In our presentation of this work, we begin by compiling lists of all known
members of these clusters from previoius studies (Section~\ref{sec:previous}).
We then select candidate cluster members based on X-ray emission,
mid-IR excess emission, optical and near-IR color-magnitude diagrams, and
proper motions (Section~\ref{sec:select}) and use optical and near-IR
spectra to measure their spectral types and determine whether they are members
(Section~\ref{sec:spectra}). We also measure new spectral types for a
large number of the known members of NGC~1333. We conclude by analyzing
several aspects of the new samples of members of IC~348 and NGC~1333, which
include their completeness, ages, mass functions, disk fractions, and spatial
distributions (Section~\ref{sec:analysis}).
\section{Census from Previous Studies}
\label{sec:previous}
We have searched previous studies of IC~348 and NGC~1333 for objects
that exhibit evidence of membership. For IC~348, we began with the
census of 288 members compiled by \citet{luh03}. In that tabulation, pairs
of objects with separations of $<1\arcsec$ appeared as single entries.
We adopt the same approach in this work.
\citet{luh03} noted that LRL~1434\footnote{When referring to objects
in IC~348, we use the number identifications from our previous studies and
from this work, which are found in the second column of Table~\ref{tab:mem348}.}
was unusually faint for a cluster member
near its spectral type, which would indicate that it is either a field star
or a member that is detected in scattered light, as in the case of an edge-on
disk. Because its H$\alpha$ emission and Na~I absorption in a low
signal-to-noise (S/N) spectrum seemed to indicate that it was young,
\citet{luh03} adopted it as a member. However, it was not detected in
subsequent mid-IR images of the cluster \citep{lad06,mue07}, indicating that
it does not have a disk, and hence is unlikely to be seen in scattered light.
Therefore, we omit LRL~1434 from our sample of members.
In a low S/N spectrum from \citet{luh03}, LRL~624 appeared
to have the weak Na~I absorption that is expected for a young, low-gravity
cluster member. However, we now treat it as a field star based on its proper
motion, which is inconsistent with membership in IC~348 (Section~\ref{sec:pm}).
\citet{luh05wfpc} measured spectral types for a likely companion in the census
from \citet{luh03}, LRL~78~B, and for the candidate companion LRL~166~B.
Because LRL~166~B and its primary are separated by less than $1\arcsec$,
they appear as a single entry in our tabulation of members.
We have added to our sample the 16, 45, and 16 members identified by
\citet{luh05flam}, \citet{mue07}, and \citet{alv13}, respectively.
The latter study presented spectra for several additional objects whose
membership was uncertain. Based on our inspection of those spectra, we
have classified five of those candidates as likely members
(Section~\ref{sec:class}), consisting of sources 3, 5, 14, 20, and 31
from \citet{alv13} (LRL~670, LRL~5209, LRL~10378, LRL~22443, LRL~54229).
We include in our census the protostar HH~211-IR, the candidate protostellar
brown dwarf IC~348-SMM2E \citep{pal14}, and LRL 1898, LRL 54361, LRL 54362,
LRL 54419, LRL 54459, LRL 54460, LRL 55400, and LRL 57025 \citep{mue07}.
The latter eight objects are probable protostars based on their spectral
energy distributions and their proximity to millimeter cores and
known protostars. Through the above steps, we arrived at a sample
of 378 known members of IC~348 based on previous studies.
Later in this work, we describe the identification of 100 new members,
resulting in a total of 478 known members.
We present the full sample of members in Table~\ref{tab:mem348}.
The new members can be identified by the presence of a spectral type from
this study alone with the exception of LRL~60~B and LRL~187~B.
Although the latter stars lacked classifications prior
to our spectroscopy, they are counted as previously known members rather
than new ones since they appeared within the sample of members from
\citet{luh03}.
To construct a census of known members of NGC~1333, we assessed the evidence
of membership for all objects proposed to be members in previous surveys
of the cluster. The evidence consisted of signatures of youth in the form
of strong emission lines, Li absorption, X-ray emission,
mid-IR excess emission, and the shape of the gravity-sensitive steam bands.
We also examined whether the proposed members exhibited radial velocities
\citep{fos15} and proper motions (Section~\ref{sec:pm}) that are
consistent with those of the larger population of objects that show evidence
of youth.
The radial velocity of 2MASS~03290289+3116010 and the proper motion of source
38 from \citet{sch12a} indicate that they are unlikely to be cluster members.
The previously reported members that we find have sufficient evidence of
membership in NGC~1333 are listed in Table~\ref{tab:mem1333}.
We also include in that tabulation the new members found in our study.
This census contains a total of 203 members. For 42 sources, our
new spectral classifications are the only ones available, some of which
were identified as candidate members in previous studies.
In our tabulations of members of IC~348 and NGC~1333, we have included
all known young stars and brown dwarfs within the fields encompassed by the
maps in Figure~\ref{fig:map}. However, one could argue that the
objects at the largest distances from the centers of the clusters
should instead be assigned to the distributed population that
is present across the Perseus cloud \citep{you15}.
\section{Identification of Candidate Members}
\label{sec:select}
To improve the completeness of the census of known members of IC~348
and NGC~1333, we have obtained spectra of candidate members that
have been identified through several signatures of cluster membership.
In this section, we describe the selection of these candidates.
\subsection{Survey Fields}
\label{sec:fields}
We have made use of several imaging surveys of IC~348 and NGC~1333
for identifying candidate members. In Figure~\ref{fig:map}, we show maps
of the positions of the known members of the clusters and the boundaries
of the fields in those surveys.
IC~348 was observed with the imaging array of the Advanced CCD Imaging
Spectrometer (ACIS-I) on the {\it Chandra} X-ray Observatory
\citep{pre01,pre02,for11,ste12}, CFH12K on the
Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) \citep[$IZ$,][]{luh03},
and WIRCam and MegaCam on the CFHT
\citep[$z\arcmin$$JHK_s$,][]{alv13}.
The MegaCam data encompass the entire field surrounding IC~348 in
Figure~\ref{fig:map}.
Data in $ZYJHK$ are also available for all of IC~348 from Data Release 10
of the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope Infrared Deep Sky Survey
\citep[UKIDSS,][]{law07}.
NGC~1333 was observed with ACIS-I \citep{get02,win10,for11} and
Suprime-Cam on Subaru Telescope \citep[$i\arcmin$$z\arcmin$,][]{sch09}.
Unpublished images from WIRCam are also available for NGC~1333.
We reduced all of the WIRCam images in $JHK_s$ that are available
for IC~348 and NGC~1333 from the CFHT archive, which were obtained through
programs 07BH20 (K. Allers), 07BH12 (B. Biller), 09BD95 (L. Albert),
O6BF23, 08BF98, and 09BF50 (J. Bouvier). The data from O6BF23 were those
in IC~348 analyzed by \citet{alv13}. We also reduced the Suprime-Cam images
from \citet{sch09}, which were retrieved from the Subaru Telescope data archive.
Both clusters have been observed on many occasions at mid-IR wavelengths
with the Infrared Array Camera \citep[IRAC;][]{faz04} on the
{\it Spitzer Space Telescope} \citep{wer04}.
Through the c2d {\it Spitzer} Legacy project \citep{eva03}, shallow IRAC images
were obtained for much of the Perseus cloud, including all of
IC~348 and NGC~1333 \citep{jor06,eva09}.
Deeper images were taken for the larger IRAC fields indicated in
Figure~\ref{fig:map} \citep{lad06,mue07,gut08}. The smaller IRAC
fields in Figure~\ref{fig:map} were monitored for approximately one
month \citep{fla13,reb15b}. In the latest IRAC observations,
most of each cluster was imaged at an additional epoch through program
90071 (A. Kraus) to facilitate the identification of candidate members
via proper motions. The IRAC observations prior to May 2009 were performed with
bands at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0~\micron, denoted as [3.6], [4.5], [5.8],
and [8.0], respectively. The later images were collected only in the
[3.6] and [4.5] bands because of the depletion of the liquid helium coolant.
The Multiband Imaging Photometer for {\it Spitzer} \citep[MIPS;][]{rie04}
also has been used to fully map each cluster at 24~\micron\
\citep{lad06,reb07,gut08,cur09}.
In addition to the known members and the survey fields, we also show in
Figure~\ref{fig:map} the positions of candidate disk-bearing stars that were
identified by the c2d survey and that have not been observed with spectroscopy
to confirm membership. Only a few of these candidates are present within
the map of IC~348 and none are found in the map of NGC~1333,
indicating that the distributions of known members trace the full extent of
the clusters. The distribution for IC~348 has a radius of $\sim14\arcmin$,
which is consistent with previous estimates of 10--$15\arcmin$
for the cluster radius \citep{sch99,mue03}.
We wish to achieve a census of the members of these clusters
within fields that have well-defined boundaries, are large enough to
encompass most of the members, and are small enough to be covered by as
many imaging surveys as possible. Given these considerations, we have
searched for new members primarily within a radius of $14\arcmin$ from the B5
star BD+$31\arcdeg$643 in IC~348 and within the $18\arcmin\times18\arcmin$
field in NGC~1333 that was observed by ACIS-I.
We will assess the completeness of our new census within these fields in
Section~\ref{sec:completeness}.
\subsection{X-ray Emission}
Because young stars are bright in X-rays, one can search for
members of star-forming regions via their X-ray emission \citep{fei87,wal88}.
The X-ray studies of IC~348 and NGC~1333 (see Section~\ref{sec:intro})
have done so by checking for X-ray sources that have optical and near-IR
data that are consistent with those expected for cluster members.
Most of the resulting candidate members have been observed with the
spectroscopy that is needed to confirm membership.
We have pursued spectroscopy of the remaining candidates that lack spectra.
For this sample, we selected X-ray sources identified in {\it Chandra}
images of IC~348 and NGC~1333 by \citet{ste12} and K. Getman (in preparation),
respectively, that are not rejected as non-members by our color-magnitude
diagrams (Section~\ref{sec:cmd}). Those two studies have generated
catalogs of sources found in all available ACIS-I images of the two clusters.
In Table~\ref{tab:mem348}, the members of IC~348 that have X-ray detections
can be identified by the presence of source names from \citet{ste12}.
For the members of NGC~1333, we indicate in Table~\ref{tab:mem1333}
the X-ray detections from the new catalog of K. Getman under the column
for membership evidence.
\subsection{Mid-IR Excess Emission}
\label{sec:midir}
When a star is born, it is surrounded by an accretion disk and an infalling
envelope.
The stars in a young cluster that still retain these structures can be
identified via mid-IR emission in excess above that expected from a stellar
photosphere.
The {\it Spitzer} images described in Section~\ref{sec:fields}
have been previously used to search for new members of IC~348 and NGC~1333 in
that manner \citep{mue07,gut08,eva09,you15}.
As with the X-ray candidates, we have sought spectroscopy for the small
fraction of mid-IR candidates that lack previous spectral classifications.
When assembling this sample of candidates, we rejected those
that appear to be knots of extended emission rather than stars based
on visual inspection of the IRAC and MIPS images, which consist of
sources 171, 216, 222, and 227 from \citet{eva09} and \citet{you15}.
If a young star is seen primarily in scattered light, as in
the case of an edge-on disk, it is likely to appear unusually faint for
its color compared to other cluster members. As a result, it would be prone
to rejection as a field star in optical and near-IR color-magnitude diagrams.
Therefore, we have retained mid-IR candidates in our spectroscopic sample
regardless of their locations in the color-magnitude diagrams in
Section~\ref{sec:cmd}.
Active galactic nuclei and stars on the asymptotic giant branch are
common types of contaminants in a sample of this kind that is selected via
red mid-IR colors.
The absence or presence of mid-IR excess emission is indicated for
each known member of IC~348 and NGC~1333 in Tables~\ref{tab:mem348}
and \ref{tab:mem1333}, except for a few of the faintest members that
lack sufficiently accurate mid-IR photometry.
\subsection{Optical and Near-IR Color-Magnitude Diagrams}
\label{sec:cmd}
In the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram, the members of a young, coeval
stellar population appear along the main sequence at higher masses and diverge
above the main sequence at lower masses, which is manifested in color-magnitude
diagrams as a band that becomes redder at fainter magnitudes.
For a nearby young cluster, that stellar sequence is brighter than most
foreground and background stars. As a result, color-magnitude diagrams can
be used to select a sample of candidate cluster members that has relatively
little contamination from field stars.
To identify candidate members of IC~348, we have used the diagrams
of $I$ versus $R-I$ and $m_{791}$ versus $m_{791}-m_{850}$
from \citet{luh99} and \citet{luh05wfpc}, respectively.
We also have constructed the following extinction-corrected diagrams:
$K_s$ versus $I-Z$, $I-K_s$, and $Z-K_s$ based on the $I$ and $Z$ data from
\citet{luh03}, $K_s$ versus $Z-Y$, $Z-K_s$, and $Y-K_s$ based on the $Z$ and $Y$
data from UKIDSS, and $K_s$ versus $Z-K_s$ based on the $Z$ data that we have
measured from MegaCam images. The $K_s$ (or $K$) measurements are from the
Two Micron Point Source Catalog \citep[2MASS,][]{skr06}, \citet{mue03},
UKIDSS, and the WIRCam images described in Section~\ref{sec:fields}.
The extinctions of stars in these diagrams were estimated in the manner
described by \citet{luh03tau} using the extinction law from \citet{car89}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:cmd348}, we show the extinction-corrected diagrams
for the known members of IC~348 (including the new ones from this work)
and all other sources with the exception of those that have been
spectroscopically classified as field stars in this work and in previous
studies. In each diagram, we have marked a boundary along the lower envelope
of the locus of known members, which we have used for selecting candidate
members for spectroscopy.
The small number of known members that appear below
the cluster sequence in some of the color-magnitude diagrams are likely seen
in scattered light. They consist of LRL 435, LRL 725, LRL 904, LRL 1287, and
LRL 4011. \citet{luh03} previously noted that LRL 425 and LRL 725 were
unusually faint for their spectral types and colors.
For NGC~1333, we have constructed diagrams of $K_s$ versus $B-K_s$, $R-K_s$, and
$I-K_s$ where $B$, $R$, and $I$ are photographic data from
the USNO-B1.0 Catalog \citep{mon03} and extinction-corrected diagrams
of $K_s$ versus $i\arcmin-z\arcmin$, $i\arcmin-K_s$, and $z\arcmin-K_s$ based
on the $i\arcmin$ and $z\arcmin$ data from Suprime-Cam.
The $K_s$ data are from 2MASS, UKIDSS, and WIRCam.
These diagrams are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cmd1333} for the known members
of NGC~1333 and all other detected sources, excluding known field stars.
As with IC~348, we have plotted a boundary that follows the lower envelope
of the cluster sequence in each diagram for use in selecting candidate members.
The known members that are below those boundaries consist of
2MASS J03291228+3123065 and sources 39, 66, 92, 102, 110, 113, and 122 from
\citet{gut08}. All of these objects exhibit mid-IR excess emission, so it is
plausible that they are seen in scattered light because of occulting disks.
For each cluster, a source is considered a candidate member
if it is above a boundary in any diagram and is not below a boundary
in any diagram. As an exception to the latter criterion, we do not
reject candidates identified based on mid-IR excesses, as mentioned
in the previous section.
\subsection{Proper Motions}
\label{sec:pm}
Nearby young clusters (150--300~pc) have proper motions of
10--20~mas~yr$^{-1}$, and the members of a given cluster exhibit dispersions
of $\sim1$~mas~yr$^{-1}$ ($\sim1$~km~s$^{-1}$). In comparison, foreground
and background stars typically have much larger and smaller motions,
respectively.
As a result, precise measurements of proper motions can be used to identify
possible cluster members. To measure proper motions in IC~348 and NGC~1333, we
have made use of the multiple epochs of IRAC observations that are available
for the clusters, which were performed through programs 6 (G. Fazio), 36
(G. Fazio), 178 (N. Evans), 30516 (L. Looney), 50596 (G. Rieke), 60160
(J. Muzerolle), 61026 (J. Stauffer), 80174 (K. Flaherty), and 90071 (A. Kraus).
We measured proper motions for all sources in these images by applying the
astrometric techniques and distortion corrections from \cite{esp16}.
Because the different epochs of astrometry have been registered using
the stars that are in common among them (most of which are
background stars), our analysis has produced relative proper motions.
We have ignored proper motion measurements for sources with median values
of S/N in the final epoch of exposures at 4.5~\micron\ that are below
4 and 7.5 and that have errors larger than 6 and 8~mas~yr$^{-1}$
for IC~348 and NGC~1333, respectively. We were able to adopt a lower threshold
of S/N for IC~348 because more epochs of IRAC images are available for it,
which provides lower proper motion errors at a given S/N.
We also inspected the IRAC images of the members that exhibited discrepant
motions compared to the bulk of the population to identify and exclude
measurements that were erroneous due to extended emission or blending of stars.
Two previously identified members, LRL 624 in IC~348
and source 38 from \citet{sch12a} in NGC~1333, appear to have reliable
proper motion measurements that are inconsistent with membership, and hence
have been rejected from the sample of members for each cluster, as mentioned
in Section~\ref{sec:previous}.
Among the 478 and 203 adopted members of IC~348 and NGC~1333, 405 and 141
sources (85 and 69\%) have useful proper motions, respectively.
A larger fraction of the stellar population in IC~348 has measured motions
because of its greater number of IRAC epochs. The proper motions
measured for known members are included in Tables~\ref{tab:mem348} and
\ref{tab:mem1333}. Those data have median values of
($\mu_{\alpha}, \mu_{\delta}=1.9, -2.1$~mas~yr$^{-1}$) for IC~348
and ($\mu_{\alpha}, \mu_{\delta}=2.3, -3.0$~mas~yr$^{-1}$) for NGC~1333.
The motions for the known members and all other sources with measured
motions are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:pm}.
For each cluster, most of the members are within 3~mas~yr$^{-1}$ of the
median value, and nearly all members are within 6~mas~yr$^{-1}$ of it.
Therefore, we consider objects within 6~mas~yr$^{-1}$ of the median motions
to be candidates, and those within 3~mas~yr$^{-1}$ are the most promising ones.
Sources with motions that differ by $>6$~mas~yr$^{-1}$ are rejected
as non-members (although the previously known members that are only slightly
beyond that threshold are retained as members).
It is evident from Figure~\ref{fig:pm} that the known members overlap with
a large number of field stars in their proper motion measurements.
As a result, the sample of proper motion candidates has significant
contamination from field stars, and it would be inefficient to pursue
spectroscopy of candidates identified based on these measurements alone.
However, these proper motions are valuable for refining the samples of
candidates selected with the other methods that we have already described.
If a candidate found with other diagnostics appeared to be a non-member
based on its motion, we inspected its IRAC images prior to rejection
to check for blends and extended emission that might lead to an erroneous
proper motion measurement.
Many of our spectra of candidates were obtained before we measured the
IRAC proper motions. As a result, some of those objects in our spectroscopic
sample would have been rejected by proper motions if they had been available,
as indicated in Table~\ref{tab:non}.
\section{Spectroscopy}
\label{sec:spectra}
\subsection{Observations}
\label{sec:obs}
We have obtained spectra of 152 candidate members of IC~348 from the analysis
in the previous section and 16 previously known members.
We observed 130 sources with the near-IR spectrograph SpeX
\citep{ray03} at the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF).
They consisted of 122 candidates (80 new members, 42 non-members) and eight
known members. Three of the latter objects (LRL~464, LRL~659, LRL~10111)
were candidates at the time of our spectroscopy and were independently
identified as members by \citet{alv13}. One known member in
the SpeX sample (LRL~233) was placed in the slit during the observation
of a candidate at a separation of $3\arcsec$ (LRL~3171).
The spectrum of the candidate was not useful because of low S/N, but
we later successfully observed it with Gemini North. Another known member
observed with SpeX (LRL~62) has a discrepant radial velocity relative to other
cluster members \citep{cot15}, so we sought to verify the evidence of youth
previously found through optical spectroscopy.
The final three members observed with SpeX consist of the companions LRL~60~B
and LRL~187~B, which lacked previous spectral classifications, and LRL~60~A.
The SpeX data were collected in the prism mode with the $0\farcs8$ slit
(0.8--2.5~\micron, $R=150$).
We performed optical spectroscopy on 15 candidates (8 new members,
7 non-members) and six known members (LRL~141, LRL~174, LRL~294, LRL~334,
LRL~366, LRL~10094) with the Inamori Magellan Areal Camera and Spectrograph
(IMACS) on the Magellan I telescope at Las Campanas Observatory. Those data
were taken during the multi-slit observations described by \citet{mue07} for
their sample of IR-selected candidates. The IMACS spectra spanned from
6300--8900~\AA\ and exhibited a resolution of 3~\AA. One of the known members
observed with IMACS (LRL~10094) was originally selected as a candidate member
and was subsequently classified as a member by \citet{alv13}.
We used the near-IR camera on the Keck~I telescope \citep[NIRC,][]{mat94}
to obtain low-resolution ($\sim$100) spectra of one candidate (LRL~6005) and
two known members from \citet{luh05flam} that had uncertain spectral types
(LRL~1050, LRL~2103). They were observed with the gr120 and gr150 grisms, which
together provided coverage from 1--2.5~\micron.
We observed two and 12 candidates with the
Gemini Near-Infrared Imager \citep[NIRI,][]{hod03}
and the Gemini Near-Infrared Spectrograph \citep[GNIRS,][]{eli06},
respectively, at the Gemini North telescope. NIRI was operated with
the $H$-band grism and the $0\farcs75$ slit ($R=500$).
The GNIRS data were collected in the cross-dispersed mode with the
31.7~l~mm$^{-1}$ grating and the $0\farcs67$ slit (1--2.5~\micron, $R=800$).
The 152 candidates observed by these spectrographs consist of 100 new members
and 52 non-members based on the classifications from the next section.
In NGC~1333, we have performed spectroscopy on 55 candidate members and 124
known members with SpeX and 14 candidates with GNIRS. The instrument
configurations were the same as those employed for the targets in IC~348
except for BD+$30\arcdeg$547, for which we used the SXD mode of SpeX
with the $0\farcs8$ slit (0.7--2.5~\micron, $R=750$) because its earlier
type required higher resolution for classification.
We included a large number of known members in our spectroscopic sample
because we wish to maximize the number of members that are classified in
the same manner as the members of IC~348.
In the next section, we find that 42 and 26 candidates are members
and non-members, respectively, and that one of the candidates
(J03284883+3117537) has an uncertain classification because of low S/N.
The SpeX data were reduced with the Spextool package \citep{cus04} and
corrected for telluric absorption in the manner described by \citet{vac03}.
For the IMACS and NIRC spectra, we used routines within IRAF
to apply bias subtraction and flat fielding to the two-dimensional images,
extract spectra of the targets from those images, and perform
wavelength calibration on the extracted data with spectra of arc lamps.
Each NIRC spectrum was also corrected for telluric absorption using the
spectrum of an A star that was observed at a similar airmass.
The dereddened near-IR spectra of the new members of IC~348 and
NGC~1333 are presented in Figures~\ref{fig:sp348a}--\ref{fig:sp348f} and
Figures~\ref{fig:sp1333a}--\ref{fig:sp1333g}, respectively.
We also include all of our SpeX data for previously known members from this
work and previous studies \citep{luh05wfpc,mue07} with the exception of the
four featureless spectra in IC~348 that were presented by \citet{mue07}.
Within the lists of all known members of the clusters in
Tables~\ref{tab:mem348} and \ref{tab:mem1333}, we indicate the dates
and instruments for our new spectra and the previous SpeX data.
The candidates from our spectroscopic sample that we have classified as
non-members are found in Table~\ref{tab:non}.
\subsection{Spectral Classification}
\label{sec:class}
We have used the spectra that we have collected to measure spectral types of
our targets and to help determine whether they are members of IC~348 and
NGC~1333. Seven of our targets of optical spectroscopy lack the M-type
spectral features (TiO, VO)
expected if they were members of IC~348, indicating that they are likely
early-type field stars or giants that are behind the cluster.
The remaining 14 objects with optical spectra do exhibit M-type
features, all of which are young based on their Na~I and K~I
absorption lines, which are sensitive to surface gravity.
We measured spectral types from these data through comparison to the
averages of dwarf and giant standards \citep{luh99}.
In previous studies \citep[e.g.,][]{mue07}, we have measured spectral
types from near-IR spectra of young late-type objects via comparison
to spectra of individual young late-type objects that we had classified at
optical wavelengths. Because of the relatively large number of young
objects that now have both optical types and near-IR spectra, we have
recently combined the spectra of several such objects for each subclass
(K. Luhman, in preparation). We have used the resulting spectra as
standards for classifying the near-IR spectra in IC~348 and NGC~1333
that exhibit steam absorption ($\gtrsim$M0) and
evidence of youth \citep[e.g., triangular $H$-band continuum][]{luc01}.
For the remaining IR data, spectral types
were measured with spectra of standard dwarfs and giants from our previous
studies and from \citet{cus05} and \citet{ray09}.
In addition, we have revised our previous classifications of SpeX data for
members of IC~348 \citep{luh05wfpc,mue07} using the new standard spectra.
The resulting changes are $\leq0.25$~subclass for most objects.
We also measured spectral types from the near-IR spectra of candidate
members of IC~348 presented by \citet{alv13}.
For one of those objects, LRL~5209, the S/N appeared to be lower than expected
for its magnitude, so we performed our own reduction of the raw data.
We have included the new version of the spectrum with the data
that we have collected in Figure~\ref{fig:sp348f}. Most of our classifications
are similar to those from \citet{alv13}. For those cases, we adopt the
types from \citet{alv13}.
We do present our new spectral types for LRL 670, LRL 5209, and LRL 22443
since they differ noticeably from the previous measurements.
In addition, whereas \citet{alv13} classified the membership status of LRL 670,
LRL~5209, LRL 10378, LRL 22443, and LRL 54229 as uncertain, we find that the
spectra of these objects from \citet{alv13} do show sufficient evidence of
membership in the form of the gravity sensitive features. As a result, we
have included those objects in our census of members, as mentioned in
Section~\ref{sec:previous}.
For the members of IC~348 and NGC~1333 that have measured spectral types
and that have SpeX data from this work and our previous studies, we
have estimated extinctions by comparing the observed spectral slopes at
1~\micron\ to the slopes our young standards and adopting
the extinction law of \citet{car89}.
If a spectral type could not be measured from a SpeX spectrum, but a
classification was available from another source (e.g., optical spectrum),
then we adopted that classification when estimating the extinction.
For a spectrum with low S/N at 1~\micron, we estimated the extinction from the
slope at longer wavelengths if a $K$-band excess was unlikely to be present
based on an absence of a mid-IR excess.
The resulting extinctions were used for dereddening the spectra in
Figures~\ref{fig:sp348a}--\ref{fig:sp1333g}.
Among those dereddened spectra, most of the objects with high extinctions
can be identified by their lower S/N at shorter wavelengths.
The spectral types that we have measured for members of IC~348 and NGC~1333
are included within the lists of all known members in Tables~\ref{tab:mem348}
and \ref{tab:mem1333}.
The errors for the optical and IR types are $\pm0.25$ and
0.5~subclass, respectively, unless indicated otherwise. The uncertainties
in the IR types tend to be large at $\gtrsim$M9 because of a degeneracy between
spectral type and reddening in near-IR spectra with low resolution and
low-to-moderate S/N. For instance, a young M9 object with $A_V\sim3.5$ can
appear quite similar to an unreddened L3 object in data of this kind.
Our classifications for non-members are presented in Table~\ref{tab:non}.
Most of these non-members are giants and early-type stars, which are
difficult to distinguish from K and early-M cluster members in color-magnitude
diagrams. Meanwhile, cooler members have more distinctive colors, so
the yield of confirmed members can be higher at fainter magnitudes when
the appropriate bands of photometry are available. For instance,
13 of the 14 candidate low-mass members of NGC~1333 observed with GNIRS
were confirmed as such.
Finally, we note that several of the candidate members of IC~348 that we
selected from our color-magnitude diagrams and confirmed with spectroscopy
were previously identified as photometric candidates by \citet{alv13},
consisting of LRL 6005, LRL 5231, LRL 1254, LRL 1824, and LRL 22778.
\subsection{Comparison to Previous Work}
\label{sec:compare}
We have compared our membership lists and spectral types for IC~348
and NGC~1333 to those from previous studies.
We have presented spectra for 100 and 42 members of these clusters,
respectively, that have not been previously classified, which we refer
to as new members. Two additional stars, LRL~60~B and LRL~187~B, also
lack previous classifications, but they are treated as previously
known members, as mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:previous}.
To illustrate the magnitudes and spectral types at which the census of
these clusters has expanded, we show in Figure~\ref{fig:histonew} the
distributions of extinction-corrected $M_K$ and spectral types for
previously known and new members. We have adopted the extinctions
estimated from our IR spectra in Section~\ref{sec:class} when available.
Otherwise, extinctions are estimated with photometry in the
manner described in Section~\ref{sec:hr}.
Members that lack measured spectral types
(and hence extinctions) are absent from Figure~\ref{fig:histonew}, which
consist of protostars with featureless spectra.
The new members of IC~348 are predominantly low-mass stars at M4--M6 in
the outskirts of the cluster, but they also include several objects that are
the faintest known members. In NGC~1333, the new members are
distributed more uniformly with magnitude and spectral type among the
low-mass stars and brown dwarfs.
\citet{reb15b} compiled a sample of 130 members of NGC~1333, 17 of which
are absent from our census of the cluster for the following reasons.
Seven of these missing objects are among the candidate members that we
have identified in Section~\ref{sec:select}, but they lack spectroscopic
confirmation of their membership. They consist of 2MASS J03291532+3129346
and NGC 1333 IRS J03284883+3117537, J03285358+3112147, J03285508+3114163,
J03291565+311911, J03285709+3121250, and J03291317+3119495.
Sources 12, 45, 113, and 174 from \citet{win10} have been detected in X-rays,
but are rejected as field stars by our color-magnitude diagrams and have
no other evidence of membership. Using the identifiers from \citet{gut08},
sources 38 and 76 are field stars based on our spectroscopy,
sources 8 and 38 are an outflow lobe and a galaxy, respectively
\citep{arn12}, source 95 has uncertain membership (Section~\ref{sec:comments}),
and source 26 is extended at both near- and mid-IR wavelengths, so it is
unclear whether it a star.
\citet{reb15b} identified five new candidate members of NGC~1333 based on
their mid-IR variability.
One of these candidates, SSTYSV J032903.46+311617.9, is in our spectroscopic
sample. Based on its featureless near-IR spectrum and red color in
$[3.6]-[4.5]$ (it is blended with a brighter star at longer wavelengths),
it is probably a protostar, so we have included it in our census of members.
\citet{reb15b} discussed at length a second of their candidates,
SSTYSV J032911.86+312155.7. They classified it as a possible protostar based
on its flux at 24~\micron\ relative to shorter wavelengths. However, we find
that no detection is apparent in the 24~\micron\ images.
Bright extended emission associated with the nearby star SVS~3 prevents
detections in the {\it Spitzer} bands longward of 4.5~\micron.
Nevertheless, given its close proximity to other members like SVS~3 and
the excess at 4.5~\micron\ relative to bands at shorter wavelengths,
it is a promising candidate member.
We include it in our list of candidates that have not been observed with
spectroscopy in Section~\ref{sec:completeness}.
Two other objects from \citet{reb15b}, SSTYSV J032918.65+312021.8 and
SSTYSV J032907.24+312409.7, are also in our sample of candidates based
on their variability, mid-IR excess emission, and their positions
in our color-magnitude diagrams.
The final candidate from \citet{reb15b}, SSTYSV J032836.43+312856.7,
does not exhibit mid-IR excess emission and is rejected by our color-magnitude
diagrams, so we do not consider it to be a candidate member.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:obs}, we have performed spectroscopy on
a large number of the previously known members of NGC~1333 with the goal
of obtaining spectral classifications that are derived with the same
scheme applied to IC~348 in our previous studies and this work.
Spectral types are available from both our work and previous
studies for 90 objects. For a majority of the previous classifications,
there is not a systematic difference from our measurements.
However, we do find that our spectral types are an average
of $\sim1$~subclass earlier than those from \citet{sch09,sch12a,sch12b},
which corresponds to $\sim50$\% higher
mass estimates when combined with evolutionary models \citep[e.g.,][]{bar98}.
There remain several (very faint) members from \citet{sch09,sch12a,sch12b}
for which we have not obtained spectra and measured spectral types.
\subsection{Comments on Individual Sources}
\label{sec:comments}
{\it LRL~62 and LRL~155}. The optical spectrum of LRL~62 from \citet{luh99}
exhibits a spectral type of M4.5 and evidence of youth in the form of weak K~I
and Na~I lines. However, its radial velocity of $\sim$5~km~s$^{-1}$ differs
significantly from the mean value of 15.4~km~s$^{-1}$
($\sigma=0.7$~km~s$^{-1}$) for a sample of known members \citep{cot15}.
We obtained a near-IR spectrum to verify its youth through additional
gravity-sensitive features. Our new classification based on that spectrum
is consistent with the optical result. Like LRL~62,
LRL~155 also has a discrepant radial velocity ($\sim$23~km~s$^{-1}$).
Its near-IR spectrum indicates a spectral type of M1, but it is not sensitive
to signatures of low surface gravity for this type.
Both stars have higher extinctions ($A_J=0.7$ and 1) than
expected for foreground dwarfs ($A_J<0.1$) and are too bright for background
dwarfs. Therefore, we treat them as members of IC~348.
The stars may have been ejected from the cluster through dynamical interactions
with other members \citep{kro98,wei11}.
{\it IC 348 IRS J03442484+3213482}.
It was identified as a candidate protostar by \citet{eva09} and \citet{you15}
(source 405 in those studies). Its near-IR spectrum from SpeX is featureless.
Protostars can have featureless spectra if significant veiling is present.
However, such spectra are normally very red (see Fig.~\ref{fig:sp1333a}),
whereas the spectrum of this object is much bluer ($H-K_s\sim0.5$).
In addition, it is far from the area in the southern part
of the cluster where most of the known protostars are found.
As a result, we conclude that it is more likely to be a galaxy than
a protostar, and we classify it as a non-member for the purposes of this work.
{\it BD+$30\arcdeg$547}. \citet{pre97} described it as a likely foreground star,
but its proper motion is consistent with membership in NGC~1333
(E. Mamajek, private communication) and it exhibits X-ray emission.
Some previous studies have concluded that it has IR excess emission at
24~\micron\ \citep{eva09,you15,reb15b}, but that appears to be due to
contamination from a protostar at a separation of $3\farcs4$.
{\it 2MASS J03290575+3116396}. Our SpeX type (M0--M2) is much later than
previous types (late-G, A3).
{\it [SVS76] NGC 1333 7}. It has been classified as an early B giant
through optical spectroscopy \citep{tur80}. Meanwhile, several studies have
reported IR excess emission for this star based on images
from {\it Spitzer}. However, it is detected with only low S/N at 8~\micron\ and
is not detected at 24~\micron\ because of bright extended emission.
Among the bands at shorter wavelengths where better photometry is available,
only the [5.8] band exhibits a significant excess.
Given the excess in that band and its location near the center of the cluster,
the star is a promising candidate member, but we exclude it from
our census of confirmed members because of the uncertainty in its
spectral classification.
{\it NGC 1333 IRS J03290347+3116179}. It has a red, featureless near-IR
spectrum. It is too close to a brighter star (2MASS J03290375+3116039)
to be detected by {\it Spitzer} at $>5$~\micron, but its
$[3.6]-[4.5]$ color is indicative of a protostar \citep{reb15b}, which
would be consistent with the appearance of its spectrum.
Its membership is further supported by its detection in X-rays and its close
proximity to known members of the cluster.
{\it 2MASS J03290895+3122562}. Its near-IR spectrum is red and featureless,
which is consistent with the protostellar nature implied by its
IRAC colors \citep{gut08,eva09}.
{\it 2MASS J03294415+3119478}. The strength of the steam bands for this
object imply a type of M7--M8, but the overall slope of the SpeX data
does not agree with that of any reddened standard. In addition,
it is fainter than most members near its type in color-magnitude diagrams.
With these characteristics, it is similar to 2MASS~J04381486+2611399, which
is a low-mass member of Taurus that is seen in scattered light from an edge-on
disk \citep{luh07edge}.
{\it 2MASS J03283695+3123121}.
\citet{pre97} suggested that it is a foreground star based on its proper
motion from \citet{her83}, but the motion that we have measured with
IRAC is consistent with membership in NGC~1333.
{\it NGC 1333 IRS J03284883+3117537}.
The S/N of our spectrum of this object is too low for classification.
It is a candidate member based on its location on color-magnitude diagrams,
proper motion, and excesses in the IRAC bands. It also may
be detected at low S/N at 24~\micron\ in images from MIPS, which would
further support the presence of excess emission. It is included in
our sample of remaining candidate members that lack classifications
(Section~\ref{sec:completeness}).
{\it 2MASS 03302246+3132403}. \citet{eva09} and \citet{you15} identified it
as a possible protostar based on its mid-IR excess emission.
However, it is detected in the optical bands of the Digitized Sky Survey,
whereas most protostars are too heavily reddened for detections in those data.
In addition, it is not near known protostars or high column densities of gas.
Therefore, we conclude that it is probably a galaxy.
\section{Analysis of New Census}
\label{sec:analysis}
\subsection{Completeness}
\label{sec:completeness}
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:fields}, we have focused our survey
for members of IC~348 and NGC~1333 within a radius of $14\arcmin$ from
BD+$31\arcdeg$643 in the former and within the ACIS-I images of the latter,
which cover a field with a size of $18\arcmin\times18\arcmin$
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:map}).
To characterize the completeness of our new census for each field,
we use a color-magnitude diagram in two bands that can
detect objects at both low masses and high extinctions.
Given the available data, the best options for these bands are $H$ and $K_s$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:hk}, we plot diagrams of $K_s$ versus $H-K_s$ for
all known members of IC~348 and NGC~1333, the remaining candidate members
identified in Section~\ref{sec:select} that lack spectra and are
within the survey fields, and all other objects within those fields that
are detected in $H$ and $K_s$ and that are not rejected as field stars
by any of the color-magnitude diagrams that we used in selecting candidates.
Thirteen and 20 members of IC~348 and NGC~1333, respectively, are absent from
those diagrams, which consist of companions that are unresolved from brighter
stars and protostars that are extended\footnote{Some of these protostars have
measurements in the 2MASS Point Source Catalog, but are found to be
dominated by extended emission in the higher resolution images from WIRCam.}
or are not detected in $H$ or $K_s$. In Figure~\ref{fig:hk}, there are few
remaining objects in the survey fields with undetermined membership status down
to rather faint magnitudes for low-to-moderate levels of extinction.
Specifically, our census appears to be nearly complete for extinction-corrected
magnitudes of $K_s<16.8$, 15.8, and 15.3 in the IC~348 field and for
$K_s<17.3$, 16.2, and 15.3 in the NGC~1333 field for $A_J<1.5$, 3, and 5,
respectively.
We can use our new census of IC~348 and NGC~1333 to examine the completeness
of previous surveys for members. \citet{luh03} estimated that their census
of a $16\arcmin\times14\arcmin$ field in IC~348 was nearly complete for
extinction-corrected magnitudes of $H<15.5$ ($\lesssim$M8) for $A_V<4$
($A_J<1.13$). Subsequent studies have not uncovered any additional members
in their survey field and in that range of magnitudes and extinctions.
\citet{alv13} noted that three of their new members were within the field
from \citet{luh03}. However, one of those objects, LRL~659, actually
falls slightly outside of that field. The other two members, LRL~2050 and
22528 (M8 and M9), are fainter than the completeness limit from \citet{luh03}.
Meanwhile, \citet{alv13} concluded that their survey for brown dwarfs
($\gtrsim$M6.5) was complete down to $\sim0.013$~$M_\odot$ ($\lesssim$M9)
for $A_V\leq4$ for a field that encompasses the entire cluster.
However, we have found several new members at M6.5--M9 with $A_V<4$,
consisting of LRL~1254, LRL~1824, LRL~5103, LRL~10256, LRL~22185, LRL~22191,
LRL~22317, and LRL~22778.
\citet{sch09,sch12a,sch12b} searched for members of NGC~1333 within a
$30\arcmin\times30\arcmin$ field covering the entire cluster using images
that exhibited completeness limits of $J=20.8$ and $K=18$. We have
identified 32 additional members above those limits (13 at $\leq$M6,
19 at $>$M6). The incompleteness in their census
and the systematic offset between their spectral classification scheme
and that applied to other regions like IC~348 (Section~\ref{sec:class})
cast doubt on the validity of the statements by
\citet{sch09,sch12a,sch12b,sch13} regarding the mass function in NGC~1333.
We also can characterize the fraction of members in our census that have
been detected in X-rays by ACIS-I on {\it Chandra}.
\citet{ste12} analyzed the four existing ACIS-I observations of IC~348,
arriving at list of 290 detected sources. They found X-ray counterparts
for 187 of the 316 members from their adopted cluster census that were
within the ACIS-I images. Using our updated census, 388 known members
were observed by ACIS-I, 197 of which were detected.
The members with X-ray detections can be identified in Table~\ref{tab:mem348}
via the presence of source designations from \citet{ste12}.
K. Getman (in preparation) has performed a similar analysis for the
existing ACIS-I data in NGC~1333.
Among the 186 known members within those images, 98 have counterparts
in their catalog of ACIS-I sources, as indicated in the column for evidence
of membership in Table~\ref{tab:mem1333}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:histox}, we plot the distributions of extinction-corrected
$M_K$ and spectral types for all known members of IC~348 and
NGC~1333 within the ACIS-I images and for the members detected in those data.
As expected, the fraction of members with X-ray detections decreases with
fainter magnitudes and later spectral types, quickly approaching zero
at $M_K>6$ and $>$M7.
In Tables~\ref{tab:cand348} and \ref{tab:cand1333}, we present our remaining
candidate members that lack spectra and that are within the $14\arcmin$ radius
field in IC~348 and within the ACIS-I field in NGC~1333. Although it has been
previously observed with spectroscopy, [SVS76] NGC 1333 7 is included with
these candidates since its membership is uncertain (Section~\ref{sec:comments}).
The probability of membership varies substantially among these candidates.
Those identified via both color-magnitude diagrams and proper motions are
promising while those selected by proper motions alone (i.e., they lack
the optical data needed for the color-magnitude diagrams) are much less likely
to be members (Section~\ref{sec:pm}).
Based on their positions in the color-magnitude diagrams in
Figure~\ref{fig:hk}, most of the candidates should have spectral types
of $\gtrsim$M6 if they are members. To check whether they have the near-IR
colors expected for those types, we have included diagrams of $J-H$ versus
$H-K_s$ for each cluster in Figure~\ref{fig:hk}.
Some of the candidates at $H-K_s<1.5$ do resemble known late-type members
in both $J-H$ and $H-K_s$, but most of the candidates at $H-K_s>1.5$ have
colors indicative of earlier types, and thus are likely to be background stars.
\subsection{H-R Diagrams}
\label{sec:hr}
We have constructed H-R diagrams for the known members of IC~348 and NGC~1333
in terms of $M_K$ versus spectral type. We use absolute magnitude
and spectral type instead of bolometric luminosity and effective temperature
to avoid uncertainties in bolometric corrections and conversions between
spectral type and temperature.
We choose $K_s$ for the band of the absolute magnitude because it is long
enough in wavelength that extinctions are relatively low for most objects
while short enough in wavelength that the fluxes are likely to be dominated
by stellar photospheres rather than circumstellar disks. In addition,
given the sensitivities of the available images, those at $K_s$ detect the
largest fraction of the clusters members. The analysis in this section
was also performed with the $J$ and $H$ bands, which produced identical
results to those from $K_s$.
We estimated extinctions for all known members of IC~348 and NGC~1333 that
have measured spectral types in a similar manner as done by \citet{fur11}
for members of Taurus. For the members that we observed with IR spectroscopy,
we have adopted the extinctions derived during the spectral classifications.
For each of the remaining objects, we calculated the extinction from the
excess in $J-H$ relative to the color expected for a young stellar
photosphere at the spectral type in question \citep{luh10tau}.
After correcting the $K_s$ measurements for extinction, we converted
them to absolute magnitudes using distances of 300~pc for IC~348
\citep{her08} and 235~pc for NGC~1333 \citep{hir08}.
The resulting values of $M_K$ are plotted as a function of spectral type in
Figure~\ref{fig:hr}. For comparison, we have included data for the members
of the Upper Sco association compiled by \citet{luh12usco}. We have
adopted a distance of 145~pc for Upper Sco \citep{pm08} and have estimated
extinctions with the same methods that were applied to IC~348 and NGC~1333.
Several members of IC~348 and NGC~1333 are unusually faint for their
spectral types, appearing below the cluster sequences in Figure~\ref{fig:hr}.
These objects include LRL~276, LRL~435, LRL~621, LRL~622, LRL~725, and
LRL~4011 in IC~348 and sources 39, 92, 99, 110, and 122 from \citet{gut08}
in NGC~1333. The first five sources in IC~348 exhibited similar positions
in the H-R diagram from \citet{luh03}. As noted in Section~\ref{sec:midir},
stars that are occulted by circmumstellar disks often are observed
primarily in scattered light, which results in underestimates of their
luminosities. All of these stars do show evidence of disks in the form
of mid-IR excess emission, so it is plausible that they are occulted by
edge-on disks.
To compare the ages of IC~348, NGC~1333, and Upper Sco, we have computed the
median values of $M_K$ as a function of spectral type for each population.
This was done by applying local linear quantile regression with the
function {\tt lprq} in the {\it quantreg}
package \citep{koe16}
within R \citep{R} using a bandpass of one spectral type.
The resulting median sequences are plotted together in Figure~\ref{fig:hr}.
We do not include the median for $<$M1 in NGC~1333 because of the small
number of members at those types.
The sequences for IC~348 and NGC~1333 are not offset vertically
from each other, which would suggest that they have similar ages.
However, NGC~1333 exhibits clear evidence of a younger age in the form of
a greater abundance of protostars and
circumstellar disks \citep[][Section~\ref{sec:disks}]{mue07,gut08} and
higher extinction (Figure~\ref{fig:hk}).
In order for the H-R diagram to produce a younger age for NGC~1333, we would
need to adopt a larger distance for it \citep{her83} or a smaller distance
for IC~348 \citep{rip14}, e.g., if the clusters have similar distances.
Indeed, one would not expect the cluster distances to differ as much
as we have assumed (65~pc) given that their projected separation is only
$\sim$17~pc, although it is possible that they reside in separate clouds
along the line of site rather than a single cloud \citep{bal08}.
Meanwhile, the median sequences for IC~348 (at 300~pc) and NGC~1333 (at 235~pc)
are 0.4~mag brighter than the sequence for Upper Sco (at 145~pc),
which corresponds to an age difference of 0.25~dex based on evolutionary
models \citep[e.g.,][]{bar98,bar15}.
If Upper Sco has an age of 11~Myr \citep{pec12}\footnote{A younger
age of 4--5~Myr has also been proposed for Upper Sco based on its low-mass
stars \citep{deg89,pre02b,sle06,her15}.}, then IC~348 and NGC~1333 would have
ages of 6~Myr. The latter agrees with the value derived for
IC~348 by \citet{bel13} from color-magnitude diagrams and evolutionary models.
However, a distance of 250~pc was adopted for IC~348
in that study. Using that distance, the sequences in Figure~\ref{fig:hr}
would indicate similar ages for IC~348 and Upper Sco, which would be difficult
to reconcile with the fact that IC~348 has higher abundances of disks and
protostars and, unlike Upper Sco, is still associated with a molecular cloud.
The {\it Gaia} mission \citep{per01} should soon help isolate the sources
of these discrepancies by providing accurate parallactic distances for IC~348,
NGC~1333, and Upper Sco, as well as other nearby clusters and associations.
\subsection{Initial Mass Functions}
Previous studies have estimated the initial mass functions (IMFs) in
IC~348 and NGC~1333 based on earlier samples of spectroscopically confirmed
members \citep{luh98,luh03,gre07,alv13,sch09,sch12a,sch12b}\footnote{The IMFs
in these clusters also have been constrained via IR luminosity functions
\citep{lad95,lad96,mue03}}.
Typically, the masses of individual objects were derived by combining estimates
of bolometric luminosities and effective temperatures with the values predicted
by evolutionary models.
As a result, the IMFs depended on the adopted bolometric corrections,
temperature scales, and models.
To avoid those dependencies, we examine the IMFs in IC~348 and NGC~1333
in terms of observational parameters that should be roughly correlated with
stellar mass, spectral type and extinction-corrected $K_s$. Note that these
parameters still depend on the methods adopted for measuring spectral
types and extinctions.
As done in our previous studies of IMFs in star-forming regions, we
attempt to construct a sample of members in each cluster that is representative
and unbiased in terms of mass by considering all known members within
a field and an extinction threshold for which the current census has
a high level of completeness.
Guided by the analysis of completeness in Section~\ref{sec:completeness},
we select extinction thresholds that are high enough to encompass large
numbers of members while low enough that that the completeness extends to low
masses, arriving at $A_J<1.5$ for the $14\arcmin$ radius field in IC~348
and $A_J<3$ for the ACIS-I field in NGC~1333.
In Section~\ref{sec:completeness}, we found that the census of IC~348
and NGC~1333 within these fields and extinction limits should be
nearly complete for extinction-corrected magnitudes of $K_s<16.8$ and 16.2,
respectively. These samples contain 341 and 120 members, respectively,
which correspond to 71\% and 59\% of the known members.
The distributions of spectral types and extinction-corrected $M_K$
for our extinction-limited samples of members of IC~348 and NGC~1333 are
plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:histoav}.
Relative to IC~348, NGC~1333 exhibits a surplus of objects with late
spectral types and faint magnitudes.
For instance, N($\geq$M6.5)/N($<$M6.5)=54/287=0.188$^{+0.025}_{-0.02}$
and 42/78=0.538$\pm0.056$ and
N($M_K\geq6.5$)/N($M_K<6.5$)=50/291=0.172$^{+0.025}_{-0.019}$
and 40/80=0.50$^{+0.056}_{-0.054}$ for IC~348 and NGC~1333, respectively.
There are multiple possible explanations for the differences in these ratios.
They could reflect a variation in the IMF between the two clusters, although
a significant variation would be surprising given that the clusters
have similar stellar densities and environments, and indeed have arisen
from the same cloud (or at least related clouds).
Because most of the spectral types in NGC~1333 have been measured with
IR spectra, and the resulting classifications tend to have larger uncertainties
than the optical types that are more frequently available in IC~348, one
would expect the distribution of spectral types to be somewhat broader
in NGC~1333, which would result in a higher abundance of late spectral types.
However, this effect would not explain the difference
between the two clusters in their distributions of $M_K$.
Another possibility is that the average extinctions of members of star-forming
regions vary with stellar mass, in which case extinction-limited samples
would not be representative of the stellar populations in those clusters.
For instance, if members at lower masses tend to have less extinction
in the most embedded clusters like NGC~1333, then an extinction-limited sample
could capture most of the brown dwarfs but miss many of the stars.
In a cluster like IC~348 that has dispersed more of its natal cloud,
the dependence of extinction on stellar mass could be smaller, leading to
a larger, more representative ratio of stars to brown dwarfs in an
extinction-limited sample.
This scenario could account for the differences in the
extinction-limited samples for IC~348 and NGC~1333.
Finally, we note that both samples contain several known members that
are fainter than the completeness limits, and the degree of incompleteness
beyond those limits may differ between the two samples, which could
somewhat inflate the perceived abundance of low-mass objects in one cluster
relative to the other.
To determine whether these last two issues are
responsible for the surplus of low-mass objects in the extinction-limited
sample for NGC~1333 relative to the sample in IC~348, it will be necessary
to obtain additional data (e.g., photometry, spectroscopy, proper motions)
that can extend the completeness limits of the census to higher extinctions
and lower masses in both clusters.
Our work has provided new constraints on the minimum masses of the IMFs
in IC~348 and NGC~1333. In each cluster, members are present down to
and below the completeness limits, and thus the minimum of the IMF has
not been detected. The faintest known members have $M_K=10.4$ and 11.2,
which correspond to masses of $\sim$0.004--0.006 and 0.003--0.005~$M_\odot$,
respectively, for ages of 1--3~Myr according to the evolutionary models of
\citet{bur97} and \citet{cha00}.
\subsection{Disk Fractions}
\label{sec:disks}
We can combine our census of IC~348 and NGC~1333 with the previous mid-IR
imaging of these clusters to measure the fractions of members that have
circumstellar disks.
A disk is present in the first three stages of a young stellar object, which
consist of classes~0 and I (protostar+disk+infalling envelope)
and class~II \citep[star+disk,][]{lw84,lad87,and93,gre94}.
A star that has fully cleared its primordial disk is in the class~III stage.
A disk fraction can be defined as either N(I+II)/N(II+III) or N(II)/N(II+III)
(class~0 objects are rare enough that their contribution is usually negligible).
Because the ages measured for young clusters (with H-R diagrams)
often apply to the class~II
and III sources, we choose the latter definition, as done in \citet{luh10tau}.
Since protostars normally have heavily veiled, featureless spectra
(Fig.~\ref{fig:sp1333a}), we can exclude them from our calculations of disk
fractions by considering only members that have measured spectral types.
Members of star-forming regions are often discovered based on mid-IR excess
emission from disks. As a result, samples of members can be biased in favor
of disks, making it difficult to measure disk fractions that are representative
of the stellar populations. However, IC~348 and NGC~1333 have been thoroughly
surveyed for members using a variety of methods, and we have shown that
the current membership samples for the $14\arcmin$ radius field in IC~348
and the ACIS-I field in NGC~1333 are nearly complete for a wide range
of masses and extinctions (Section~\ref{sec:completeness}).
We have assigned the presence or absence of mid-IR excess emission for each
member based on the results of previous disk surveys in these clusters
with {\it Spitzer}
\citep{luh05frac,lad06,mue07,gut08,cur09,eva09,arn12,reb15b,you15}.
A few of the faintest brown dwarfs lack sufficiently accurate photometry for
determining whether excess emission in present; they are excluded from our
calculations of disk fractions.
In Table~\ref{tab:disks} and Figure~\ref{fig:disks}, we list and plot
the fraction of members that have excess emission as a function of spectral
type for the $14\arcmin$ radius field in IC~348 and for the ACIS-I field in
NGC~1333.
The latter has a higher disk fraction, which agrees with previous
analysis of near-IR photometry \citep{lad95,lad96} and the {\it Spitzer} data
\citep{lad06,mue07,gut08}.
The higher disk fraction in NGC~1333 is consistent with its higher
abundance of protostars \citep{mue07,gut08} and the younger age implied by
its greater obscuration. In each cluster, the disk fraction is
roughly constant for the full range of spectral types.
\subsection{Spatial Distributions}
The spatial distributions of the stellar populations in IC~348 and NGC~1333
has been previously studied through analysis of probable members detected
in near- and mid-IR imaging \citep{lad95,lad96,mue03,gut08}.
The current census of each cluster now offers confirmation of membership,
measurements of spectral types for most members, and a high level of
completeness for most locations, masses, and extinctions.
These features allow us to examine the spatial distributions of spectral types
and offsets in $M_K$ from the median cluster sequence at a given spectral
type ($\Delta M_K$), which
serve as proxies for stellar masses and ages, respectively. We can also
measure the spatial dependence of disk fractions using the mid-IR excess data
compiled in the previous section. We define $\Delta M_K$ as $M_K$(median
sequence at a star's spectral type)$-M_K$(star), i.e., higher
values of $\Delta M_K$ correspond to younger implied ages.
We consider only members within the $14\arcmin$ radius field in IC~348
and the ACIS-I field in NGC~1333 because of the well-defined completeness
in those areas. The class~0 and I objects exhibit distinct spatial distributions
compared to members in the more evolved classes, so we exclude them from our
analysis by considering only members that have measured spectral types.
We also omit members that
are later than M9 since their types tend to have large uncertainties.
For each of these samples of members, we have computed surface density
as a function of position using the {\tt kde2d} function in the R package
{\it MASS} \citep{ven02},
which performs a two dimensional kernel density estimation with a bivariate
normal kernel. We then identified the density contours that would divide the
sample for a given cluster into three subsets that have equal numbers.
We selected that number of sections to allow coarse measurements
of the variations of median spectral type, $\Delta M_K$, and disk fraction
with surface density while also providing good number statistics within
each section. The resulting contours are plotted in
Figure~\ref{fig:map2} with the locations of all known members of each cluster.
The average surface densities in these sections are 0.3, 1.0, and
3.0~arcmin$^{-2}$ in IC~348 and 0.2, 0.9, and 2.6~arcmin$^{-2}$ in NGC~1333.
As found in previous studies, IC~348 is more centrally concentrated than
NGC~1333, which exhibits a double cluster morphology \citep{lad96}.
For each of the three sections within IC~348 and NGC~1333 in
Figure~\ref{fig:map2}, we have computed the median spectral type,
the median $\Delta M_K$, and the disk fraction.
The errors in the medians were estimated with bootstrapping.
The resulting values are plotted for each section in Figure~\ref{fig:map3}.
None of these parameters exhibit significant variations among the
sections in either cluster.
Through analysis of the near-IR luminosity function of IC~348, \citet{mue03}
found a higher abundance of solar-mass stars in the core relative to the
outskirts of the cluster.
That surplus is also detected when distributions of spectral types are
compared between the inner and outer portions of the cluster,
although it is does not have a noticeable effect on the median types
because low-mass stars are the dominant component of the stellar population
throughout the cluster.
Using X-ray and near-IR photometry, \citet{get14} have detected
age gradients in NGC~2024 and the Orion Nebula Cluster in which younger
stars are found in the cores of the clusters.
A trend of that kind is not present in the median values of $\Delta M_K$
for IC~348 and NGC~1333. For perspective, an age gradient like that
reported for Orion (1.2--1.9~Myr) should correspond to a difference of
0.3~mag in $M_K$ according to evolutionary models of low-mass stars.
The errors in median $\Delta M_K$ are larger for NGC~1333
than for IC~348 because the former has a broader sequence at a given
spectral type.
We note that a variety of more sophisticated methods are available for
characterizing the spatial distributions of members of star-forming clusters
\citep{gut09,kuh14} and searching for evidence of mass segregation
\citep{sag88,hil98,all09,mas11}.
The optimum approach for measuring the latter has been a subject of
debate in recent years \citep{asc09,olc11,par15}.
\subsection{Candidate Binary Systems}
Our census of IC~348 and NGC~1333 may contain resolved components of
multiple systems. In Table~\ref{tab:pairs}, we have compiled
all pairs of objects from our census that have separations less than
$6\arcsec$. We have omitted binaries that have been resolved only
in high-resolution imaging and that lack spectral classifications of both
components \citep{duc99}. For some of these pairs, both components have
spectral types of late M, making them candidates for wide binary brown
dwarfs \citep{luh04bin,luh09fu}. The numbers of pairs are 23 and 8
for IC~348 and NGC~1333, respectively. To roughly estimate the fraction
of these pairs that comprise binary systems, we performed
a Monte Carlo simulation of the projected separations of unrelated cluster
members using surface density maps of the known members.
In $\sim$90\% of the realizations, the number of chance alignments with
separations of $<6\arcsec$ is between 5--15 for IC~348 and between 2--8
for NGC~1333. Thus, a significant fraction of the candidate binaries
could consist of unrelated cluster members.
\section{Conclusions}
We have sought to improve the completeness of the census of stars and
brown dwarfs in IC~348 and NGC~1333
and the accuracies of spectral types of known members of the latter.
The results of this study are summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
We have obtained optical and near-IR spectra of candidate members of
IC~348 and NGC~1333 that have been selected based on X-ray emission, mid-IR
excess emission, positions in color-magnitude diagrams, and proper motions.
We have classified 100 and 42 of the candidates as new members of IC~348
and NGC~1333, respectively.
The total numbers of known members are now 478 and 203.
Two stars in IC~348, LRL~62 and LRL~155, have radial velocities that
differ significantly from that of the bulk of the cluster,
but they exhibit other evidence of membership, which suggests that
they may have been ejected via dynamical interactions.
\item
We have searched for new members primarily within a radius of $14\arcmin$ from
the B5 star BD+$31\arcdeg$643 in IC~348 and within the area in NGC~1333 that
was observed by ACIS-I on {\it Chandra} ($18\arcmin\times18\arcmin$).
These fields are large enough to encompass most or all members of the clusters.
The new census is nearly complete for extinction-corrected magnitudes of
$K_s<16.8$, 15.8, and 15.3 in the IC~348 field and for
$K_s<17.3$, 16.2, and 15.3 in the NGC~1333 field
for $A_J<1.5$, 3, and 5, respectively. For perspective, $K_s=15$ and 17
correspond to masses of $\sim$0.025 and 0.008~$M_\odot$, respectively, for
an age of 3~Myr according to evolutionary models \citep{bur97,cha00,bar15}.
IC~348 and NGC~1333 now have two of the most complete membership lists
among star-forming clusters.
\item
The known members of IC~348 and NGC~1333 extend down to (and below)
the completeness limits of the current census. As a result, we have not
yet detected the low-mass cutoffs in the mass functions of these clusters.
The faintest known members have $M_K=10.4$ and 11.2, which imply masses of
$\sim$0.004--0.006 and 0.003--0.005~$M_{\odot}$, respectively, for ages of
1--3~Myr based on evolutionary models.
\item
In addition to the candidate members, we have performed spectroscopy
on a large fraction (77\%) of the previously known members of NGC~1333.
These data provide greater uniformity in the spectral types among members
of this cluster and relative to stars in other young clusters like IC~348.
\item
To estimate the IMFs in IC~348 and NGC~1333, we have attempted to select
a sample of members in each cluster that is unbiased in terms of mass.
We have constructed extinction-limited samples for this purpose,
which should have a high level of completeness down to low masses.
The resulting sample for NGC~1333 has a higher abundance of low-mass objects
than the sample for IC~348.
For instance, N($\geq$M6.5)/N($<$M6.5)=0.188$^{+0.025}_{-0.02}$ in IC~348
and 0.538$\pm0.056$ in NGC~1333. Similar fractions are found when the clusters
are compared in terms of $M_K$. A variation in the IMF between the clusters
would be surprising given their similar densities and environments.
Instead, it is possible that average extinctions are lower for
objects at lower masses, in which case extinction-limited samples may be
biased in favor of low-mass objects in heavily embedded clusters like NGC~1333.
To test that explanation, the completeness limits of the
census of IC~348 and NGC~1333 need to be extended to higher extinctions.
\item
We have constructed H-R diagrams for IC~348 and NGC~1333 in terms of spectral
type and $M_K$. For the adopted distances of 300 and 235~pc, the median
sequences of the clusters coincide, which suggests that they have similar ages.
In contrast, NGC~1333 shows strong evidence of a younger age in the form of
higher abundances of disk-bearing stars and protostars and greater obscuration.
This discrepancy may indicate that IC~348 is closer or NGC~1333 is more
distant than we have assumed. The {\it Gaia} mission should soon test this
explanation by measuring parallactic distances for the clusters.
\item
Based on mid-IR photometry, the fraction of members that have circumstellar
disks is higher NGC~1333 than in IC~348 (N(II)/N(II+III)$\sim$0.6 and 0.4),
which agrees with results for earlier samples of members.
In each cluster, the disk fraction is roughly constant across the entire
range of stellar masses (0.01--3~$M_\odot$).
\item
For each cluster, we have examined the spatial distribution of stellar masses
and ages by computing the median spectral types and median offsets in $M_K$
from the median cluster sequence in three sections with differing stellar
densities. We also have measured the disk fraction in each of these areas.
None of these parameters exhibit significant variations with stellar density.
\end{enumerate}
\acknowledgements
This work was supported by grant AST-1208239 from the NSF.
We thank Konstantin Getman for providing his X-ray catalog of
NGC~1333 and Catarina Alves de Oliveira for providing her near-IR spectra of
candidate members of IC~348. We also thank Cameron Bell, Catarina Alves
de Oliveira, Eric Feigelson, Konstantin Getman, Charles Lada,
and Eric Mamajek for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript.
The IRTF is operated by the University of Hawaii under contract
NNH14CK55B with NASA. The Gemini data were obtained through programs
GN-2008B-Q-21, GN-2014B-Q-55, GN-2015B-Q-43, and GN-2015B-FT-10.
Gemini Observatory is operated by AURA under a cooperative agreement with
the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the NSF (United States), the NRC
(Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the ARC (Australia),
Minist\'{e}rio da Ci\^{e}ncia, Tecnologia e Inova\c{c}\~{a}o (Brazil) and
Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnolog\'{i}a e Innovaci\'{o}n Productiva (Argentina).
2MASS is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and IPAC
at Caltech, funded by NASA and the NSF. This work used data from
the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, operated by JPL under contract
with NASA, and the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
The Digitized Sky Survey was produced at the Space Telescope Science
Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these
surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt
Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates
were processed into the present compressed digital form with the
permission of these institutions.
WIRCam is a joint project of CFHT, Taiwan, Korea, Canada, and France.
MegaCam is a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA.
CFHT is operated by the NRC of Canada, the Institute
National des Sciences de l'Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii.
Subaru Telescope is operated by National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
The W.M. Keck Observatory is operated as a scientific partnership among
Caltech, the University of California, and NASA. The Observatory was made
possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.
The Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds is supported by the
Pennsylvania State University, the Eberly College of Science, and the
Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
\noindent The study of phase transitions is a central topic in physics. In statistical physics these drastic changes in the physical properties of a system show up in non-analytic behaviour of quantities such as the free energy~$f$ per volume. For finite-order phase transitions (FOPTs) this takes the form of non-smoothness, where some derivative of $f$ makes a jump at the critical temperature. Such discontinuous functions provide suitable observables for numerical investigation into universal as well as model-specific properties of the phase transition. In this setting finite-size scaling (FSS) is a powerful tool to quantitatively extrapolate the power-law behaviour of observables near criticality~\cite{FF_69,NB_10}.
For infinite-order phase transitions (IOPTs) the situation is more subtle since the transition is not as abrupt as for FOPTs. In the prototypical example, the \textit{XY}-model, the critical---or perhaps more appropriately `transition'---temperature marks the point at which free vortices start to dominate the physics, even though the susceptibility, which characterizes the single-vortex fluctuations, has a peak away from this temperature \cite{Min_87}.
From a more mathematical perspective the non-analyticity marking IOPTs is rather weak: the free energy depends smoothly on the temperature, where $f$ and all its derivatives are continuous, but it has an essential singularity at the critical temperature. (Recall that, unlike in the complex case, there are smooth functions that are not real-analytic; a standard example is the function given by $\exp(-1/x)$ for $x>0$ and zero elsewhere.) In addition IOPTs often exhibit logarithmic finite-size corrections~\cite{Bax_07,Bar_83,San_13}; although this does not make FSS impossible~\cite{HB_80,*HB_81} it has been shown to give rise to difficulties~\cite{Ken_05}, and rather large systems must be investigated to accurately analyse the scaling. Accordingly, various other numerical methods for studying IOPTs have also been developed~\cite{Swe_77,HDB_11,BN_93}.
In such a more delicate setting one has to take care to select appropriate observables for numerical analysis using FSS. Order parameters do not directly allow one to locate the critical point for IOPTs since the numerical determination of the point at which a function smoothly becomes nonzero is a futile task. For this reason observables that diverge at the critical point, e.g.~susceptibilities for second-order phase transitions, are more suitable for studying a model's behaviour near criticality~\cite{Maz_92,WJ_05,Ken_05}. One should also keep in mind that for IOPTs there are also observables, such as the specific heat, that do not diverge for increasing system size; they peak away from the critical temperature and do not tend to a Dirac delta function in the thermodynamic limit of infinite system size~\cite{Bar_83}. In this work we propose a new observable that, by construction, peaks at the critical temperature in the thermodynamic limit for any model with an IOPT that is characterized by a smooth order parameter.
Specifically we consider the \textit{F}-model, which is an interesting test case since it was solved analytically on a square lattice with periodic boundaries in the thermodynamic limit~\cite{Lie_67a,Lie_67b}. At the same time it is related to the \textit{XY}-model via a series of dualities involving the discrete Gaussian solid-on-solid model and the Coulomb gas~\cite{Lie_67a,Bei_77,Nie_83,Sav_80}. Our new observable is essentially the logarithmic derivative of the spontaneous staggered polarization~$P_0$, for which an asymptotic analytical expression is known for all temperatures~\cite{Bax_73b}. We use a FSS analysis to compare the new observable with the ordinary derivative of $P_0$ and the susceptibility associated with $P_0$. These observables behave quite differently: the logarithmic derivative nicely diverges at the critical point in the thermodynamic limit, the ordinary derivative has a bounded peak elsewhere for all system sizes, and for the susceptibility---which is commonly used to analyse critical behaviour---the scaling near criticality in the thermodynamic limit has been conjectured~\cite{Bax_73a}. In our estimates of characteristics such as the critical temperature, however, identical analyses of these observables lead to similar asymptotic results. This once more illustrates that one should be careful in numerical analyses of IOPTs. In particular, our work thus suggests that one should base FSS analyses for IOPTs only on observables that are guaranteed to diverge.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:sec2} we recall the basics of the \textit{F}-model and discuss the relevant observables and their known asymptotic expression. The Monte Carlo cluster algorithm and data processing are treated in Section~\ref{sec:sec3}. The analysis of the three observables is performed in Section~\ref{sec:sec4}, and the results are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:sec5}. We end with a conclusion in Section~\ref{sec:sec6}.
\section{The \textit{F}-model and observables}\label{sec:sec2}
\noindent The six-vertex model, or ice-type model, is a lattice model for which each vertex is connected to four others by edges carrying an arrow pointing in or out of the vertex, such that precisely two arrows point towards each vertex. Thus there are six allowed configurations around each vertex as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sixvertices}. To each such vertex configuration~$i$ one assigns a (local) Boltzmann weight~$\exp({-\beta} \, \epsilon_i)$, where $\beta\coloneqq1/(k_\text{B} T)$ is the inverse temperature and $\epsilon_i$ the energy of that configuration. The (global) Boltzmann weight of the entire configuration is the product of the local weights of all vertex configurations. The \textit{F}-model~\cite{Rys_63} is given by the particular choice $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_2=\epsilon_3=\epsilon_4=\epsilon>0$ and $\epsilon_5=\epsilon_6=0$. This is the prototype of the antiferroelectric regime of the six-vertex model, where vertex configurations 5 and~6 are energetically favourable. At sufficiently low temperatures the system orders in an antiferroelectric fashion, with vertices 5 and~6 alternating in a checkerboard-like fashion. From now on we consider the \textit{F}-model on a square $L\times L$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions in both directions, and set $k_\text{B} = \epsilon = 1$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[decoration={markings, mark=at position 0.6 with {\arrow[scale=1.5,>=stealth]{>}}},font=\normalsize,scale=2]
\draw[postaction=decorate] (0,.5) -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (1,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,0) node[below] {$\epsilon_1=\epsilon_{\hphantom{1}}$} -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (.5,1);
\begin{scope}[shift={(1.5,0)}]
\draw[postaction=decorate] (0,.5) -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (1,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (.5,0) node[below] {$\epsilon_3=\epsilon_{\hphantom{1}}$};
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,1) -- (.5,.5);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(3,0)}]
\draw[postaction=decorate] (0,.5) -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (1,.5) -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (.5,0) node[below] {$\epsilon_5=0\ \, $};
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (.5,1);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,-1.5)}]
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (0,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (1,.5) -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (.5,0) node[below] {$\epsilon_2=\epsilon_{\hphantom{1}}$};
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,1) -- (.5,.5);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(1.5,-1.5)}]
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (0,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (1,.5) -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,0) node[below] {$\epsilon_4=\epsilon_{\hphantom{1}}$} -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (.5,1);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(3,-1.5)}]
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (0,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,.5) -- (1,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,0) node[below] {$\epsilon_6=0\ \, $} -- (.5,.5);
\draw[postaction=decorate] (.5,1) -- (.5,.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The six allowed vertices with associated energies for the \textit{F}-model, where $\epsilon>0$.}
\label{fig:sixvertices}
\end{figure}
The free energy (per site) in the thermodynamic limit was found analytically for the \textit{F}-model by Lieb~\cite{Lie_67a,Lie_67b} using a Bethe-ansatz analysis. There is an IOPT with critical (or `transition') temperature $\beta_\text{c}=\ln2$, or $\Delta_\text{c}=-1$ where $\Delta \coloneqq 1-\exp(2 \beta)/2$. In the low-temperature regime the free energy can be expressed as a convergent series,
\begin{align}\label{eq:fanalow}
\beta \, f^{\text{ana}}(\lambda) =
\beta - \lambda - \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\exp({-n} \lambda) \sinh(n \lambda)}{n \cosh(n \lambda)}
\end{align}
where $\lambda \coloneqq \text{arccosh}({-\Delta})>0$ parametrizes $\beta>\beta_\text{c}$, while at high temperatures one has an integral representation
\begin{align}\label{eq:fanahigh}
&\beta \, f^{\text{ana}}(\mu) = \beta\, - \\
& \qquad\qquad \frac{1}{4 \mu} \int_0^{\infty} \! \frac{dt}{\cosh(\pi t/2\mu)} \ln\!\left( \frac{\cosh(t) - \cos(2 \mu)}{\cosh(t) - 1} \right) \nonumber
\end{align}
for $\mu \coloneqq \arccos({-\Delta})$, $0<\mu<\pi/2$, parametrizing $\beta<\beta_\text{c}$. The entire high-temperature region can be regarded as critical in the sense that correlations decay as inverse power laws rather than exponentially~\cite{Bax_07}.
Although the six-vertex model has not been solved in the presence of an external staggered electric field, Baxter~\cite{Bax_73b} found an exact expression for the spontaneous staggered polarization $P_0$ per site. To each microstate~$C$ one can associate an `instantaneous' spontaneous staggered polarization $P_0(C)$, which can be computed as the `staggered' sum of the net polarizations at the vertices, where the direction of the net polarization is flipped at every other site (in a checkerboard-like way). Then the thermal average $P_0 \coloneqq \langle P_0(C) \rangle$ is an order parameter for the \textit{F}-model, vanishing for $\beta<\beta_\text{c}$ and becoming nonzero at the critical temperature. When $\beta>\beta_\text{c}$ it is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:panalow}
P_0^\text{ana}(\lambda)^{1/2} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \pi}{\lambda}} \, \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \exp\!\left({-\frac{(n-1/2)^2 \pi^2}{2\lambda}}\right).
\end{equation}
Like the free energy this function is smooth with an essential singularity at $\beta=\beta_\text{c}$, which is very weak: the functions and all their derivatives do tend to zero as $\beta$ approaches $\beta_\text{c}$ from above. When the \textit{F}-model is reinterpreted as a height model (the body-centred solid-on-solid model) the IOPT is a roughening transition~\cite{Bei_77}.
The observables on which we will focus are the derivatives $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$, where $\partial_\beta\coloneqq \partial/\partial\beta$, together with the susceptibility $\chi \coloneqq \beta \, [\langle P_0(C)^2 \rangle - \langle P_0(C) \rangle^2]$ of the staggered polarization, which is called the spontaneous staggered polarizability. Baxter~\cite{Bax_73a} conjectured the following form of the susceptibility in the low-temperature regime
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chicon}
\chi(\lambda) \sim \lambda^{-2} \exp(\pi^2/2 \lambda) \, .
\end{equation}
\indent The preceding discussion ensures that $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ diverges at the critical temperature whereas $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ has a (finite) peak at some $\beta_\text{max}>\beta_\text{c}$. To the best of our knowledge neither $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ nor $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ have been considered before in the literature. The latter is included to demonstrate one has to be careful in FSS for IOPT: we show that it is hard to extrapolate numerical data to the thermodynamic limit, even when the exact limiting expressions are known.
\section{Simulations}\label{sec:sec3}
\noindent Our Monte Carlo simulations are based on a cluster algorithm that uses the (one-to-three) mapping from the six-vertex model to a three-colouring of the square lattice~\cite[Note added in proof]{Lie_67a}. Choose three colours, ordered in some way, and use one of them to colour any single plaquette (face) of the lattice. Then any configuration of the six-vertex model uniquely determines a three-colouring, where the direction of the arrow on an edge dictates whether the colour increases or decreases (modulo three), and the ice rule ensures that the colouring is well defined. For the \textit{F}-model vertices surrounded by all three colours (configurations 1 to~4 in Figure~\ref{fig:sixvertices}) are energetically less favourable than those at which only two colours meet (configurations 5 and~6).
The multi-cluster algorithm builds clusters containing adjacent faces of two colours, and patches these clusters together diagonally with a probability that is such that required detailed balance is met. After no more clusters can be included the colours in the clusters are swapped and one cluster update has been performed~\cite{NB_10}. Because of the small auto\-correlation times at the temperatures near the phase transition, we take measurements after $10$ of these cluster updates for system sizes $L<128$, and after each cluster update for larger systems. At least $10^6$ measurements are made per temperature per system, at minimally $15$ different temperatures. For the largest system that we consider, with $L=512$, we simulate at $29$ different temperatures with slightly over $8\times10^6$ measurements performed per temperature.
From expressions \eqref{eq:fanalow}--\eqref{eq:fanahigh} for the free energy we can estimate the mean and variance in energy measurements for finite systems at a given temperature. Moreover the specific heat $C_v=\beta^2 \partial_\beta^2 (\beta f)$ is bounded and, in leading order, does not scale with $L$. Together these ensure that the parallel-tempering and multi-histogram methods can be applied successfully.
Parallel tempering is a simulation method in which systems are simulated at various temperatures and periodically swapped \cite{Par_92}. Here the probability of swapping two configurations at different temperatures is given by $P_{\text{swap}}=\min[1,\exp(\delta_\beta \, \delta_E)]$, where $\delta_\beta \coloneqq \beta_{\text{high}}-\beta_{\text{low}}$ and $\delta_E \coloneqq E_{\text{high}}-E_{\text{low}}$ are the difference in inverse temperature and energy between the two configurations, respectively. To make sure that $P_{\text{swap}}$ is large enough for configurations to move reasonably fast through this temperature landscape we want the histograms of the energies at different temperatures to overlap significantly. Starting from some temperature for which we know the average energy $U \coloneqq \langle E(C) \rangle$ and the standard deviation $\sigma_U$ from the analytical expression of the free energy, a neighbouring temperature is chosen such that the difference in energies is roughly $\sigma_U$, viz.~$\beta' = \beta \pm \beta/\sqrt{C_v}$. After each measurement we may swap the configuration with one at such a neighbouring temperature, with acceptance probability~$P_\text{swap}$ between $47\%$ and $53\%$ for all simulations at large system sizes.
At each measurement we record the energy~$E(C)$ and instantaneous spontaneous staggered polarization~$P_0(C)$ for various temperatures. Using the multi-histogram method any function of the values $E(C)$ and $P_0(C)$ can then be reliably estimated as a function of temperature~\cite{FS_89}. For this method to work the energy histograms must have significant overlap; we have ensured that this is indeed the case for our data. Figure~\ref{fig:comparisonplot} shows the result for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$, $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ and $\chi$, together with their known and conjectured analytical form. Note that the data in the low-temperature regime are in agreement with the analytical forms of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$. For $\chi$ the data collapse in this regime and support the conjecture~\eqref{eq:chicon}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\epsfig{file=comparisonplot-7,width=0.99\linewidth,clip=}
\caption{The observables $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ (upper panel), $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ (central panel), and $\chi$ (lower panel) versus $\beta$ for system sizes up to $L=512$. The data points show the temperatures at which the simulations were run, while the solid lines are the functions extracted from this data using the multi-histogram method. When available the analytical form for infinite systems, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:panalow}, is shown by a dashed black line. For sufficiently low temperatures all graphs collapse onto these dashed black lines, corroborating the validity of our simulations. For $L\to\infty$ we know that $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ must diverge at the critical temperature $\beta_\text{c}=\ln 2$, indicated by a vertical line, whereas $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ is bounded and peaks elsewhere. A fit to the conjectured form of $\chi$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:chicon}, is indicated by a dotted black line in the lower panel.}
\label{fig:comparisonplot}
\end{figure}
\section{Analysis}\label{sec:sec4}
\noindent The usual finite-size scaling procedure is to take the data, see Fig.~\ref{fig:comparisonplot}, and collapse the graphs by scaling the distance to the critical temperature and the height as functions of the system size~$L$. For the \textit{F}-model there are large logarithmic corrections due to `quasi' long-range correlations~\cite{Min_87} as well as higher-order finite-size corrections~\cite{WJ_05}. The systems size at which the finite-size corrections become negligible do not yet seem to be within reach, so we cannot perform a data collapse based purely on analytical expressions.
Instead we will perform a numerical data collapse. For each of the three observables that we are interested in we determine the coordinates $(\beta_{\text{max}},h_{\text{max}})$ of the maximum, together with the peak width~$w$. Here we define the width by demanding that the function passes through the point $(\beta_\text{max}+w,0.95\,h_\text{max})$. This definition is chosen such that $w$ can be accurately measured for large systems given the simulation data; we focus on lower temperatures (higher~$\beta$) because of the asymmetry of the observables around the critical temperature. Thus we have three characteristics, which are well defined since any observable is smooth and bounded for finite systems. This allows for a numerical data collapse by shifting $(\beta_\text{max},h_\text{max})$ and $(\beta_\text{max}+w,0.95 \, h_\text{max})$ on top of each other. The result for our three observables is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:collapseplot}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\epsfig{file=collapseplot-7,width=0.99\linewidth,clip=}
\caption{The three observables scaled such that for each system size $(\beta_\text{max},h_\text{max})\mapsto(0,1)$ and $w\mapsto1$. This scaling works well in the low-temperature regime for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ (upper panel) and $\chi$ (lower panel). For $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ (central panel) it seems to fail, cf.~the deviation from the asymptotic analytical result indicated by a dashed black line.}
\label{fig:collapseplot}
\end{figure}
Sufficiently close to the critical point $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $\chi$ scale well, which is a positive sign for scalability to the thermodynamic limit. Note that $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$, for which we know the (bounded) asymptotic solution, does not exhibit scalability for the system sizes that we investigate. We extrapolate the characteristics ($\beta_\text{max},h_\text{max})$ and $w$, extracted from the data for various system sizes, to the thermodynamic limit.
\subsection{Peak position~$\beta_\text{max}$}
The analytic expression in Eq.~\eqref{eq:panalow} reveals that $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ must develop a Dirac delta-like peak at $\beta_\text{c} \approx0.6931$ as $L\to\infty$. Instead, the peak of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ remains finite and shifts to $\beta_\text{max}^\text{ana} \approx 0.7394$. The large-$L$ behaviour of the spontaneous staggered polarizability~$\chi$ is not analytically known. The form of the leading finite-size corrections can be obtained by expanding the inverse temperature in $L$ as~\cite{WJ_05}
\begin{align}\label{eq:bcritfit}
\beta_{\text{max}}(L)=\beta_\text{c} + \frac{A_\beta}{\ln^{2}L} + \frac{B_\beta}{\ln^{3}L} + \frac{C_\beta}{\ln^{4}L} \, .
\end{align}
Figure~\ref{fig:extra-bcrit} displays our results for $\beta_\text{max}$ as a function of $L$ as obtained from our three observables, together with the analytic asymptotic values, and the best fits to Eq.~\eqref{eq:bcritfit}. These fits yield $\beta_\text{max}^\text{fit}=0.6914(28)$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$,
$\beta_\text{max}^\text{fit}=0.6955(17)$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$, and $\beta_\text{max}^\text{fit}=0.6937(11)$ for $\chi$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\epsfig{file=extra-bcrit-7,width=0.99\linewidth,clip=}
\caption{The inverse temperatures at which $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ (blue circles), $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ (green squares), and $\chi$ (yellow diamonds) are maximal, here shown as functions of the system size. The asymptotic solutions, $\beta_\text{c}=\ln 2$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $\beta_\text{max}^\text{ana}\approx0.7394$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$, are shown at $\ln^{-2} L=0$. Best fits of the form Eq.~\eqref{eq:bcritfit} to the data are shown as solid lines, and all seem to converge to $\beta_\text{c}$.}
\label{fig:extra-bcrit}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Peak height~$h_\text{max}$}
Since we know from the asymptotic formula for $P_0$ that $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ diverges as $L\to\infty$ let us consider inverse heights. The inverse peak height of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ tends to $(h_\text{max}^\text{ana})^{-1}\approx0.3009$. If a naive linear fit is applied to $h^{-1}$ as a function of $\ln^{-2} L$ the extrapolation yields $(h_\text{max}^\text{fit})^{-1}\approx {-0.0095(16)}$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $(h_\text{max}^\text{fit})^{-1}\approx 0.2161(17)$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$. Adding finite-size corrections to the conjectured form of $\chi$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:chicon} gives~\cite{WJ_05}
\begin{align}\label{eq:chifit}
h_{\text{max}}(L) = A_\chi \, L \, \ln^2 L \left( \frac{B_\chi}{\ln L}+\frac{C_\chi}{\ln^2 L}+\frac{D_\chi}{\ln^3 L} \right)
\end{align}
for the maximum of the susceptibility. The peak heights of the three observables and corresponding best fits are shown as function of system size in Fig.~\ref{fig:extra-h}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\epsfig{file=extra-h-7,width=0.99\linewidth,clip=}
\caption{The inverse maximal heights of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ (blue circles), $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ (green squares) and $\chi$ (yellow diamonds) as functions of $\ln^{-2} L$. The inset shows the peak height of $\chi$ with differently scaled axes. The asymptotic values, $(h_\text{max}^\text{ana})^{-1}=0$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $(h_\text{max}^\text{ana})^{-1}\approx0.3009$, are included at $\ln^{-2} L=0$. Data indeed suggests that $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $\chi$ diverge while $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ stays finite. Best linear fits as functions of $\ln^{-2} L$ are shown as solid blue and green lines for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$, respectively, while the best fit for $\chi$ as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:chifit} is displayed in yellow.}
\label{fig:extra-h}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Peak width~$w$}
From the asymptotic expression we know that $w^\text{ana}=0$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $w^\text{ana}\approx0.0180$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ in the thermodynamic limit. Our data, together with these analytic values, are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:extra-w}. Since the analytic form of the scaling behaviour for $w$ is lacking no best fit is performed.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\epsfig{file=extra-w-7,width=0.9\linewidth,clip=}
\caption{The width, defined as the distance between the peak and the (lower-temperature) position at which the curve reaches $95\%$ of the maximal height, shown for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ (blue circles), $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ (green squares), and $\chi$ (yellow diamonds) at various system sizes. The asymptotic values, $w^\text{ana}=0$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and $w^\text{ana}\approx0.0180$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$, are indicated at $\ln^{-2} L=0$. Note that in the observed regime all observables decrease monotonically with $L$, yet $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ must increase at some point to reach its asymptotic value.}
\label{fig:extra-w}
\end{figure}
\section{Comparison of observables} \label{sec:sec5}
\noindent Using our results we can compare the performance of our new observable for the \textit{F}-model, $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$, with that of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ and that of $\chi$. Asymptotic analytical and numerically extrapolated values for the three characteristics of these observables are collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:table-values} if available.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabularx}{0.9\linewidth}{*2X *3c} \toprule
& & $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ & $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ & $\chi$ \\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{$\beta_\text{max}$ } & ana & $\ln 2 \approx 0.6931\phantom{(28)}$ & $0.7394\phantom{(17)}$ & $\ln 2$ (conj) \\
& fit & $\mspace{51mu} 0.6914(28)$ & $0.6955(17)$ & \ $0.6937(11)$ \ \\ \cmidrule{2-5}
\multirow{2}{*}{$h_\text{max}^{-1}$ } & ana & $0\mspace{22mu}$ & $0.3009\phantom{(17)}$ & $0$ (conj) \\
& fit & $\mspace{37mu}{-0.0095(16)}$ & $0.2161(17)$ & $0$ \\ \cmidrule{2-5}
\multirow{2}{*}{$w$} & ana & $0\mspace{22mu}$ & $0.0180\phantom{(17)}$ & $0$ (conj) \\
& fit & -$\mspace{22mu}$ & -$\mspace{22mu}$ & - \\
\bottomrule
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\caption{All analytically known and conjectured asymptotic values of our characteristics, together with our numerically extrapolated best values, are shown for our three observables.}
\label{tab:table-values}
\end{table}
\subsection{Logarithmic derivative of $P_0$}
Our claim is that for an IOPT the logarithmic derivative of the order parameter is a suitable observable for numerical analysis: it must, by construction, tend to a Dirac delta-like distribution at the critical point in the thermodynamic limit. The extrapolated characteristics $\beta^\text{fit}_\text{c}$ and $h^\text{fit}_\text{max}=-0.0095(16)$ for $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ are in agreement with this claim. Note that a linear fit for the inverse peak height as a function of $\ln^{-2}L$ yields a negative asymptotic result, albeit close to zero, which indicate that there must be other leading finite-size corrections that become important for system sizes outside the reach of the simulations performed here.
\subsection{Ordinary derivative of $P_0$}
It is instructive to compare our new observable with a similar observable that, by construction, should not be suitable for numerical analysis. Interestingly, when the temperature at which $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$ peaks is extrapolated in a similar fashion as for the logarithmic derivative the results are comparable. By construction, however, we know that $\beta_\text{max}$ must go to a much higher value in the thermodynamic limit; there must be an inflection point outside the range of simulated system sizes. Similarly, a linear extrapolation for the inverse peak height matches with the data, yet is far from the known asymptotic expression. Concerning the peak width one notes that the observed peaks for $L\geq128$ are less wide than the peak of the asymptotic expression, cf.~the central panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparisonplot}; thus $w$ must start to increase at some larger system size, even though it decreases monotonically in the simulated regime.
\subsection{Polarizability}
Finally we turn to $\chi$. Recall that this quantity is not known analytically but there is a conjecture, Eq.~\eqref{eq:chifit}, for its scaling behaviour. The observed $\beta_\text{max}$ for $\chi$ are very close to those of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:extra-bcrit}, and the extrapolated value $\beta^\text{fit}_\text{max}=0.6937(11)$ is in agreement with $\beta_c=\ln 2$. Together with the steadily decreasing width for growing system sizes the data suggests that $\chi$ also tends to a Dirac delta-like distribution. Our data fits well with the conjectured form if higher-order finite-size corrections are taken into account, although it must be noted that many alternative forms are also consistent with the data for systems of sizes investigated here.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:sec6}
\noindent In this work we looked at infinite-order phase transitions (IOPTs), with the case of the \textit{F}-model as a guiding example. We have suggested a new observable that can be used for finite-size scaling analyses. For any system exhibiting an IOPT with a smooth order parameter this observable is basically the logarithmic derivative of the order parameter, which by construction diverges in the thermodynamic limit. For the \textit{F}-model this is $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$, where $P_0$ is the spontaneous staggered polarization. Since the exact asymptotic form of $P_0$ is known in the thermodynamic limit the \textit{F}-model is a good test case to study the performance of our new observable in a finite-size scaling analysis.
For comparison we also have analysed two other observables. The first is $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta P_0$, which we know to be bounded with peak away from the critical point for all system sizes. Although it must therefore behave quite differently when $L\to\infty$, its observed characteristics turned out to be rather similar to that of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ at the system sizes investigated. This illustrates that seemingly reasonable yet incorrect conclusions, cf.~the extrapolation to the critical point in Fig.~\ref{fig:extra-bcrit}, may be reached for an IOPT when no analytical expressions are available. The logarithmic corrections and large finite-size corrections for the \textit{F}-model require utmost caution in finite-size analysis; in particular one has to take care to select appropriate observables in order to make hard claims by means of extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit. Given the similarities in FSS of different observables our work thus suggests choosing an observable that is guaranteed to diverge at the critical point. In this way we ensure that the FSS analysis is formally correct, although system sizes large enough to reveal all leading-order corrections will likely be hard to reach.
The final observable that we have investigated is the (spontaneous staggered) susceptibility $\chi=\beta \, [\langle P_0(C)^2 \rangle - \langle P_0(C) \rangle^2]$, which is widely used to analyse phase transitions. The observed characteristics show striking similarities with those of $\beta^2 \, \partial_\beta \ln P_0$ and suggests that $\chi$ also diverges in the thermodynamic limit. The data are compatible with Baxter's conjecture for $\chi$'s scaling behaviour near criticality.
Due to the ice rule the $F$-model is sensitive to the choice of boundary conditions~\cite{KZ_00,*Zin_02}. Certain choices for fixed boundary conditions have already been subjected to some numerical investigations~\cite{AR_05u, TRK_15a,*TRK_15b}. In the near future we intend to analyse the influence of boundary conditions using finite-size scaling. More generally it would be interesting to test our observable for other models with an IOPT such as the \textit{XY}-model.
\section{Acknowledgements}\label{sec:sec7}
\noindent We thank Henk van Beijeren, Henk Blöte, and Henk Stoof for insightful discussions. This work is part of the D-ITP consortium, a program of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) that is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), and is in part funded by the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM). J.L.~is supported by NWO under the VICI grant 680-47-602.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Information filtering systems automatically distinguish relevant from irrelevant items (emails, news articles, intelligence information) in large information streams \cite{pid}. They typically use a classifier trained on relevance feedback from past items. However, when filtering for new users, or when item contents or user interests change, sufficient training data may not be available. In such ``cold-start'' situations, it may be beneficial to actively explore user interests by forwarding those items whose relevance we wish to learn, but too much exploration degrades short-term performance. This is an example of the so-called exploration vs. exploitation tradeoff \cite{suttonbarto}.
In this paper, we present a Bayesian sequential decision-making formulation of this problem, where user interests are described by a Bayesian linear model, similar in spirit to a Bayesian linear bandit \cite{tscblp}. The first contribution of our paper is to construct an instance-specific computational upper bound on the value of a Bayes-optimal strategy, which may be used to bound the optimality gap for implementable heuristic policies.
Our upper bound is most naturally applied to items whose features are weights from a topic model \cite{tmitm} or other mixture model, but can also be applied to other linear models.
Our second contribution is to use the idea of decomposing the problem into a collection of forwarding problems with one-dimensional feature ``vectors", developed in the construction of the upper bound, to create a pair of heuristic policies, jointly given the name {\it Decompose-Then-Decide (DTD)}. The first heuristic, called \name\ (\acronym), solves each one-dimensional forwarding problem using stochastic dynamic programming, while the second, called \NMUCB\ (\MUCB), uses the upper confidence bound policy with a learning parameter that is adjusted based on the distribution of feature vectors in the given direction.
Finally, we evaluate our upper bound and proposed policies on real and simulated data, and find that our upper bound is typically tight, and that \MUCB\ outperforms a number of benchmarks, including UCB and Linear Thompson Sampling, in all problem instances.
The traditional approach to adaptive information filtering trains on historical feedback and does not actively explore to get the most useful feedback. However, there has been some work on active exploration in information filtering.
\cite{eeaf} studies a Bayesian decision-theoretic version of this problem in which a univariate score is observed for each item, and relevance is related to this score via logistic regression. The system does active exploration by valuing the information that results from forwarding, via a one-step lookahead calculation. The multi-step Bayes-optimal policy is not calculated or characterized.
\cite{eeifp} studies another Bayesian decision-theoretic version of this problem in which items are described by a hard clustering scheme, and users have independent heterogeneous preferences for item clusters. A computational procedure for calculating the (multi-step) Bayes-optimal policy is provided. However, the learning scheme used does not allow learning user interest in one category from interactions with other related categories, making it difficult to scale to fine-grained item representations.
A much larger literature on active exploration may be found in work on the multi-armed bandit problem \cite{sasde}. Indeed, the information filtering problem we study can be seen as a special case of the (Bayesian) contextual linear multi-armed bandit problem [3, 8, 9, 10]. The context is the feature vector for the arriving paper, and two arms are available: pulling the first arm corresponds to forwarding the paper, and provides a reward corresponding to the paper's relevance, minus some cost for the user's time; pulling the second arm corresponds to discarding the paper, and has known value $0$.
While much of the work on multi-armed bandits, including work specifically on linear and contextual bandits, has focused on asymptotic regret guarantees when latent parameters (in our case, the vector of user preferences for features) are chosen by an adversary,
we focus on the Bayesian setting, where we assume that latent parameters are drawn from a prior probability distribution.
Our assumption of a Bayesian framework has advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage is that it supports good performance when the amount of feedback received is small (of great importance in the cold-start setting). In contrast, algorithms designed to have regret with an optimal rate in the linear bandit setting, such as the PEGE algorithm in \cite{lpb}, typically need a number of interactions at least as large as the dimension of the feature vector, which may be hundreds of dimensions or more.
A Bayesian algorithm can do well much sooner than this, by using information embedded in the prior that, for example, most users have little preference for a particular feature, or that users who prefer one feature tend to not prefer another feature.
The main disadvantage of the Bayesian framework is that choosing a reasonable prior typically requires work and assumptions.
However, in the specific application context that we study, personalized information filtering, there is a natural way to build a prior from historical interaction data with other users. We explain and illustrate this method in Section~\ref{sec:realdata1} using the Yelp academic dataset \cite{yelp} and Section~\ref{sec:realdata2} using the arXiv \cite{arxiv} condensed matter dataset.
Our upper bound is an instance-specific computational upper bound on the performance of the optimal policy. It can be used to compute how far \acronym, \MUCB, or any other policy is from optimal for any given problem instance by computing the value of the heuristic with simulation, computing the upper bound, and subtracting the value from the bound. In industry, where one must allocate engineering and data science effort across projects, and one typically has a collection of concrete problems with business impact, this supports deciding whether the improvements that will be seen from continued algorithmic development are worthwhile, or whether the best existing heuristic is good enough. While our upper bound does not determine whether a proposed algorithm attains the optimal asymptotic rate, nor does it allow computing worst-case bounds over all problem instances, we argue that knowing distance from the optimal finite-time performance for specific problem instances with business impact is often more useful.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:prob}, we formulate the Bayesian information filtering problem. In Section~\ref{sec:theory}, we develop a computationally tractable upper bound on the value of an optimal policy (Section~\ref{sec:bound}), use this analysis to motivate development of \acronym\ (Section~\ref{sec:policy1}) and \MUCB\ (Section~\ref{sec:policy2}). In Section~\ref{sec:numerical} we compare \acronym\ and \MUCB's performance against benchmarks on both real and simulated data, show a significant improvement over the best of these benchmarks, tuned UCB, and show that its performance is close to the computational upper bound across a range of problems.
\section{Problem formulation}
\label{sec:prob}
We consider information filtering for a single user. Items arrive to the information filtering system following a Poisson distribution with rate $\Gamma$. The \textrm{$n^{\mathrm{th}}$} arriving item is described by a k-dimensional feature vector $X_{n}=(x_{1,n},\cdots,x_{k,n})$.
We assume that $x_{i,n}\geq 0$ for all $i$ and $n$ (If $x_{i,n}$ are bounded below, then this is without loss of generality). The vector $X_{n}$ is observable to the system when the item becomes available for forwarding, and we assume the system also knows the distribution of $X_{n}$. This distribution can typically be estimated from historical data. In this paper, we denote the density function of the feature vectors' distribution as $f(X_n)$.
Let $\theta=(\theta_{1},\cdots,\theta_{k})$ denote the single user's latent preference vector for the $k$ different features. Here we model $\theta$ as having been drawn from a multivariate normal distribution with mean $\mu_{0}=(\mu_{1,0},\cdots,\mu_{k,0})$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma_{0}$, which represents our Bayesian prior distribution about the latent preference vector. Usually this initial belief can be obtained using the historical data from other users and we give examples of how this may be accomplished in Section~\ref{sec:realdata1} and Section~\ref{sec:realdata2}. Further, we use $\mu_{n}$ and $\Sigma_{n}$ to denote our Bayesian posterior distribution about the user's reward vector after the arrival of the first n items.
Upon each item's arrival, the system decides whether to forward this item to the user or not. We let $U_{n}\in \{0,1\}$ represent this decision for the \textrm{$n^{\mathrm{th}}$} item, where 1 means to forward and 0 means not to forward. If the system decides not to forward, then the item is discarded. Each time the system forwards, it pays a constant cost $c$ and receives the item's relevance $Y_n$ as a reward. This relevance is modeled as the inner product between the user's unobservable vector of preferences for features $\theta$ and the item's feature vector $X_n$, perturbed by independent normal noise $\epsilon_n$ with variance $I(X_{n})\lambda^2$, where $I(X_{n})$ denotes the number of non-zero elements in $X_{n}$. The system only observes $Y_{n}$ if it forwards the item. Except for the fact that some $Y_n$ are unobserved, this statistical model is Bayesian linear regression (see \cite{bda}, Chapter 14).
In many applications, $I(X_n)=k$ with probability 1, making our assumed observational variance of $I(X_n)\lambda^2$ equivalent to assuming homogeneous variance $k \lambda^2$. Even when $I(X_n)$ varies, we may modify our problem by perturbing each component of $X_n$ by some arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$ to make $I(X_n)=k$ without substantially affecting the value of any particular policy.
The decision of whether or not to forward the \textrm{$n^{\mathrm{th}}$} item can only depend on the previous information $H_{n-1}=(U_{m},X_{m},U_{m}Y_{m}:m\leq n-1)$ as well as our current $X_{n}$. A policy $\pi$ is a sequence of functions $\pi=(\pi_{1},\pi_{2},\cdots)$ such that $\pi_{n}=(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{k}\times \{0,1\})^{n-1}\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^{k}\mapsto \{0,1\}$ and we use $\Pi$ to denote the set of all such policies.
Suppose that the (random) lifetime of the user in the system is $T$, and let $N$ be the total number of items that arrive to the system before $T$. Then our goal is to maximize:
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\pi\in\Pi}E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{n}(Y_{n}-c)\right] \label{prob}
\end{equation}
where $E^{\pi}$ denotes the expected reward using policy $\pi$.
For analytic tractability, we assume that $T$ is exponentially distributed, and let its rate parameter be $r>0$. Then, one can show that $N$ follows a geometric distribution with parameter $\gamma=\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma+r}$, and the random finite horizon problem \eqref{prob} can be transformed to a discounted infinite horizon problem:
\begin{equation}
E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{n}(Y_{n}-c)\right]=\gamma E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma^{n-1} U_{n} (Y_{n}-c)\right],\label{Prob}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma=\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma+r}$. The proof is the same as Lemma 1 in \cite{eeifp} and we omit the proof here.
\section{Main Results}
\label{sec:theory}
The problem described in section~\ref{sec:prob} is a partially observable Markov decision process, and can, in theory, be solved using stochastic dynamic programming, see \cite{ampomdp} and \cite{pomdp}. However, the state space of this dynamic program on the belief state is in high dimension ($k$ dimensions are required to represent the posterior mean, and $O(k^2)$ dimensions are required for the posterior covariance matrix), which makes solving it computationally intractable.
Instead, we provide in this section a computational upper bound of this problem (in Section~\ref{sec:bound}) and develop two implementable policies \acronym\ and \MUCB\ based on this upper bound in Section~\ref{sec:policy1} and Section~\ref{sec:policy2}. When \acronym\ and \MUCB, or any other implementable policy, gives us a result close to the upper bound, then we are reassured that this policy is nearly optimal.
In practice, \acronym\ and \MUCB\ tend to perform best when feature vectors are approximately aligned with a basis. This may tend to occur most frequently in high dimensional problems, where vectors tend to be orthogonal.
\subsection{Upper bound}\label{sec:bound}
In this section, we provide a computational upper bound on the value of the solution to \eqref{prob}. This upper bound is based on the idea of dividing \eqref{prob} into $k$ different ``single-feature'' subproblems, then performing an information relaxation (similar in spirit to \cite{irdsdp}) in which we give the policy assigned to each single-feature subproblem additional information, which allows us to compute their value efficiently.
Define $Y_{i,n}=\theta_{i}+\epsilon_n^i$. Here $\epsilon_{n}^{i}\sim N(0,\frac{\lambda^{2}}{x_{i,n}^{2}})$ if $x_{i,n}>0$ and $\epsilon_{n}^{i}=0$ if $x_{i,n}=0$ for $i=1,\cdots,k$, independently distributed across i and n. We may think of $Y_{i,n}$ as the reward that we would have seen if $X_{n}$ were equal to $e_{i}$, where $e_{i}$ is a unit vector with the $i_{\mathrm{th}}$ element 1 and other elements 0. Later, we will use that
$Y_{n}=\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i,n}\theta_{i}+\epsilon_n =\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i,n}(\theta_{i}+\epsilon_{n}^{i})=\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i,n}Y_{i,n}.$
We will generalize the original problem \eqref{prob} by introducing notation that allows for separate forwarding decisions to be made for each feature. Define $U_{j,n}$ to be decision made for the \textrm{$j^{\mathrm{th}}$} feature of the \textrm{$n^{\mathrm{th}}$} item. The original problem \eqref{prob} can be recovered if we require that $U_{j,n}$ is identical across $j$ for each $n$.
For each feature $j$, we now introduce a new set of policies $\Pi_{j}$, which will govern the forwarding decisions $U_{j,n}$ for feature $j$, and under which these decisions can depend upon information not available in the original problem: they may depend on $\theta \cdot e_{i}$ for $\forall i\neq j$. Formally, the decision of whether or not to forward the \textrm{$j^{\mathrm{th}}$} feature of the \textrm{$n^{\mathrm{th}}$} item depends on the history $H_{n-1}^{j}=(U_{j,m},X_{j,m},U_{j,m}Y_{j,m}:m\leq n-1)$, our current $X_{j,n}$, and $\theta_{-j}=(\theta_{1},\cdots,\theta_{j-1},\theta_{j+1},\cdots,\theta_{k})$.
Using these definitions, we may now state the computational upper bound. It bounds the value of the optimal policy for our original problem of interest \eqref{prob}, on the left-hand side, by the sum of a collection of values of single-feature problems, each of which have been given additional information. Efficient computation of this right-hand side is discussed below, and summarized in Algorithm~\ref{algorithm1}.
\begin{theorem}
For $X_{n}$ that are bounded over all n, we have
\begin{align}
&\sup_{\pi\in\Pi}E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{n}(Y_{n}-c)\right] \nonumber \\
\leq &\sum_{j=1}^{k}\sup_{\pi^{''}\in\Pi_{j}}E^{\pi^{''}}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{j,n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-\frac{x_{j,n}c}{\|X_{n}\|})\right], \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\|X_{n}\|$ is the $L_1$ norm. When $\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i,n}=1$, then this theorem becomes:
\begin{align}
&\sup_{\pi\in\Pi}E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{n}(Y_{n}-c)\right] \nonumber \\
\leq &\sum_{j=1}^{k}\sup_{\pi^{''}\in\Pi_{j}}E^{\pi^{''}}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{j,n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}c)\right]. \nonumber
\end{align}
\label{t:bound}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\|X_{n}\| = x_{1,n}+\cdots+x_{k,n}$, we know
\begin{align}
&\sup_{\pi\in\Pi}E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{n}(Y_{n}-c)\right] \nonumber \\
=&\sup_{\pi\in\Pi}E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{n}(x_{1,n}Y_{1,n}+\cdots+x_{k,n}Y_{k,n}-c)\right] \nonumber \\
=&\sup_{\pi\in\Pi}E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{k}U_{n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}\frac{c}{\|X_{n}\|})\right]. \label{upper1}
\end{align}
Now we introduce two new policy sets $\Pi_{0}^{'}$ and $\Pi^{'}$, which allow different features can make their own decisions $U_{j,n}$ for the \textrm{$n^{\mathrm{th}}$} item. Further, $\Pi^{'}_{0}$ has an additional restriction that $U_{1,n}=\cdots=U_{j,n}$. Based on the definition, we have
\begin{align}
(\ref{upper1})=&\sup_{\pi^{'}\in\Pi^{'}_{0}}E^{\pi^{'}}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{k}U_{j,n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}\frac{c}{\|X_{n}\|})\right] \nonumber \\
\leq & \sup_{\pi^{'}\in\Pi^{'}}E^{\pi^{'}}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{k}U_{j,n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}\frac{c}{\|X_n\|})\right]. \label{upper2}
\end{align}
Since the supremum of a summation is less or equal to the summation of a supremum, we have
\begin{align}
(\ref{upper2})\leq \sum_{j=1}^{k}\sup_{\pi^{'}\in\Pi^{'}}E^{\pi^{'}}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{j,n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}\frac{c}{\|X_{n}\|})\right]. \label{upper3}
\end{align}
Then based on the definition of our policy set $\Pi_{j}$, for $j=1,2,\cdots,k$, we know
\begin{align}
(\ref{upper3})\leq \sum_{j=1}^{k}\sup_{\pi^{''}\in\Pi_{j}}E^{\pi^{''}}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{j,n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}\frac{c}{\|X_n\|})\right], \nonumber
\end{align}
which concludes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
We emphasize that this computational upper bound holds true in general, even when the different components of $X_{n}$ are correlated. Numerical experiments in Section~\ref{sec:numerical} suggest that the optimality gap between this upper bound and the best heuristic policy is typically small.
For simplicity, in this paper we focus on the special case where $\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i,n}=1$. We now discuss computation of the upper bound in Theorem~\ref{t:bound}. To compute this quantity, we must solve these $k$ subproblems:
\begin{align}
&\sup_{\pi\in\Pi_{j}}E^{\pi}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{N}U_{j,n}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}c)\right], j=1,2,\cdots,k,
\end{align}
where $Y_{j,n}|\theta_{j}\sim N(\theta_{j},\frac{\lambda^{2}}{x_{j,n}^{2}})$ and $\theta_{j}\sim N(\mu_{j,n}, \sigma_{j,n}^{2})$. Here $\theta_{j}\sim N(\mu_{j,n},\sigma_{j,n}^{2})$ represents our belief of $\theta_{j}$ after the first n items.
Therefore for each subproblem, after the arrival of the \textrm{$n^{\mathrm{th}}$} item, we can update our parameters as the following:
\[ \mu_{j,n} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\lambda^{2}\beta_{j,n-1}\mu_{j,n-1}+Y_{j,n-1}x_{j,n-1}^{2}}{\lambda^{2}\beta_{j,n-1}+x_{j,n-1}^{2}} & \mbox{if $U_{j,n-1}=1$};\\
\mu_{j,n-1} & \mbox{if $U_{j,n-1}=0$}.\end{array} \right. \]
The precision of our beliefs (which is the inverse of the prior/posterior variance with initial value $\beta_{j,0}=\frac{1}{\sigma_{j,0}^{2}}$) is updated as follows:
\[ \beta_{j,n} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\beta_{j,n-1}+\frac{x_{j,n-1}^{2}}{\lambda^{2}} & \mbox{if $U_{j,n-1}=1$};\\
\beta_{j,n-1} & \mbox{if $U_{j,n-1}=0$}.\end{array} \right. \]
The \textrm{$j^{\mathrm{th}}$} single-feature subproblem can be solved using dynamic programming with a three-dimensional state space $(\mu_{j,n},\sigma_{j,n},x_{j,n})$, where $\mu_{j,n}$ and $\sigma_{j,n}$ are the mean and variance of our current belief about $\theta_{j}$ and $x_{j,n}$ is the current item's \textrm{$j^{\mathrm{th}}$} feature. Initially, $\mu_{j,0}$ and $\sigma_{j,0}$ are given by the conditional distribution of $\theta_{j}$ given $\theta_{-j}$ and the prior distribution $\theta\sim N(\mu,\Sigma)$. Upon each item's arrival, we move to another state based on the updating formula described above. Define $Q_{j}(\mu,\sigma,x,0)$ and $Q_{j}(\mu,\sigma,x,1)$ be the total reward to go if you decided to discard the item and forward the item respectively,
\begin{align}
Q_{j}(\mu,\sigma,x,U)=&\sup_{\pi^{''}\in \Pi_{j}}E^{\pi^{''}
}[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\gamma^{n-1}U_{j,x}(x_{j,n}Y_{j,n}-x_{j,n}c) \nonumber \\
&|\theta_{j}\sim N(\mu,\sigma^{2}),x_{j,1}=x, U_{j,1}=U]. \nonumber
\end{align}
Then the Bellman equation for this problem is:
\begin{align}
V_{j}(\mu,\sigma,x) = \max_{U=0,1}Q_{j}(\mu,\sigma,x,U). \label{bellman}
\end{align}
This calculation is summarized as Algorithm~\ref{algorithm1}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Calculation of the \textrm{$j^{\mathrm{th}}$} subproblem}\label{algorithm1}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Solve the dynamic program using backward induction (discretizing and truncating), with state space $(\mu_{j,n},\sigma_{j,n},x_{j,n})\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\times[0,1]$,
infinite horizon and value function $V_{j}(\mu,\sigma,x)$.
\FOR {$i=1 ; i<M; i++$}
{
\STATE Generate $\theta\sim N(\mu,\Sigma)$; \STATE Calculate the conditional distribution of $\theta_{j}\sim N(\mu_{j,0},\sigma_{j,0})$, given $\theta\sim N(\mu,\Sigma)$ and $\theta_{-j}$. \STATE Generate $x_{j,0}$ from the distribution of $X_{n}$.
\STATE Find the optimal value of state $(\mu_{j,0},\sigma_{j,0},x_{j,0})$ and denote it as $V_{i}$.
}\ENDFOR
\STATE Calculate $\bar{V}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}V_{i}$ and use \eqref{Prob} to get the optimal value for the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ subproblem, where M is the number of simulation.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We may improve our upper bound by taking its minimum with a hindsight upper bound, derived in the following way.
We first consider a larger class of policies that may additionally base their decisions on full knowledge of $\theta$. An optimal policy among this larger class of policies forwards the $n^{\mathrm{th}}$ item to the user only if $\theta\cdot X_{n}>c$, and the expected total reward of this optimal policy is
\begin{equation}
E\left[\sum_{n=1}^N (\theta\cdot X_{n}-c)^{+}\right]
= \frac\gamma{1-\gamma} E\left[(\theta\cdot X_1 - c)^+\right].
\label{eq:hindsight}
\end{equation}
Since \eqref{eq:hindsight} is the supremum of the same objective as \eqref{Prob}, but over a larger set of policies, it forms an upper bound.
This style of analysis was also applied in \cite{ssesp}.
In Section~\ref{sec:numerical}, we use the minimum of the computational upper bound in Theorem~\ref{t:bound} and the hindsight upper bound \eqref{eq:hindsight} as our theoretical upper bound.
\subsection{The \acronym\ policy}
\label{sec:policy1}
The analysis in Section~\ref{sec:bound} provides a way to bound the performance of any policy, and is derived by decomposing the original multi-feature problem into many single-feature subproblems.
In this section, we build on this same idea to develop an implementable policy, called \acronym, and in Section~\ref{sec:policy2} we build on this idea further to create a second implementable policy, called \MUCB.
In \acronym, as each item arrives, we consider the decomposition from Section~\ref{sec:bound} taking the incoming feature vector $X_n$ and choosing a basis for which
$X_n$ is a unit vector in the basis.
This basis may change with each $n$.
We then consider the decomposed problem studied in Section~\ref{sec:bound}, in which we may make separate forwarding decisions for each direction in the basis, and compute the value of exploration corresponding to $X_n$ in this decomposed problem.
To compute this value of exploration, we first compute the distribution of the magnitude $x$ of the projection of future feature vector $X$ along direction $X_n$, $x=\frac{X_{n}\cdot X}{X_n\cdot X_n}$, by using the distribution of future feature vectors $f(X)$. Denote this distribution by $G(x|X_n)$. We then solve the corresponding single-feature subproblem using \eqref{bellman} as described in Section~\ref{sec:bound}.
From this solution, we derive Q factors,
$Q(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0},x_0,0)$ and
$Q(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0},x_0,1)$
corresponding to the value of discarding and forwarding the current item in the single feature subproblem, given that the current feature vector has magnitude $x_0=1$ and given that our current prior mean and variance for the subproblem are
\begin{align}
\mu_{1,0} = X_{n}\cdot \mu_{n},
\sigma_{j,0}^{2} = X_{n}\Sigma_{n}X_{n}^{T}. \nonumber
\end{align}
We then define the ``exploration benefit'' $E(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0})$ from forwarding the current item as the overall benefit of forwarding, minus the myopic benefit of forwarding $\mu_{1,0} - c$ and the benefit of discarding:
\begin{align*}
E(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0}) = & Q(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0},1,1)- \\
&Q(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0},1,0)-\mu_{1,0} + c.
\end{align*}
In \acronym, we add a scalar tuning parameter $\alpha$, mirroring the tuning parameter used in UCB, to scale up or down the exploration benefit. The default value for $\alpha$ is $\alpha=1$. Then, returning to the original multi-dimensional problem, we consider the net benefit of forwarding to be the myopic benefit $X_n \cdot \mu_n - c$ plus the exploration benefit $\alpha E(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0})$, and forward when this is strictly positive.
This is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{algorithm2}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{The \acronym\ algorithm}\label{algorithm2}
\begin{algorithmic}
\FOR{$n=1,2,\cdots$}
{
\STATE{
Denote $\mu_{1,0} = X_{n}\cdot \mu_{n}$ and $\sigma_{1,0}^{2} = X_{n}\Sigma_{n}X_{n}^{T}$; \\
Calculate $Q(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0},1,U)$ for $U=0,1$ given that $x\sim G(x|X_n)$; \\
Denote $E(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0})=Q(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0},1,1)-Q(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0},1,0)-\mu_{1,0}+c$; \\
\IF{$\mu_{1,0}+\alpha\cdot E(\mu_{1,0},\sigma_{1,0})>c$}
\STATE{Forward the item}
\ELSE
\STATE{Discard the item}
\ENDIF
}
}\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{The \MUCB\ algorithm}
\label{sec:policy2}
In this section, we develop a second heuristic, \NMUCB\ (\MUCB), which builds on the ideas underlying \acronym.
In \acronym, we considered a single-feature subproblem in which the magnitude $x$ of the projection of future feature vectors is given by $G(x|X_n)$ and in which the prior mean and prior variance were given by $X_n \cdot \mu_n$ and $X_n \Sigma_n X_n^T$ respectively. We then quantified the value of exploration by solving the single-feature subproblem using stochastic dynamic programming. In this single-feature subproblem, we observe that when future feature vectors are more closely aligned with $X_n$, so that samples from $G(x|X_n)$ are large, we are more willing to explore.
In our second heuristic \MUCB, we take a similar approach, but quantify the value of exploration using an approach adopted from the literature on upper confidence bound policies, which quantifies the value of exploration in terms of some scalar multiple $\alpha$ of the standard deviation of the value of an action, obtained from calculating an upper confidence bound and subtracting the center of the confidence region.
In \MUCB, we quantify the value of information similarly, but add an additional scaling factor to include the fact that those $X_n$ whose $G(x|X_n)$ have larger moments should induce more exploration.
To accomplish this, we let $M(X_n)$ be the mean of the distribution $G(x|X_n)$. This ``mean of the projection'' is
\begin{align}
M(X_n) = \int_{X}\frac{X_n\cdot X}{X_{n} \cdot X_n}f(X)dX. \nonumber
\end{align}
We summarize the \MUCB\ algorithm in Algorithm~\ref{algorithm3}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{The \MUCB\ algorithm}\label{algorithm3}
\begin{algorithmic}
\FOR{$n=1,2,\cdots$}
{
\IF{$X_n \cdot \mu_n+\alpha \cdot M(X_n)\cdot \sqrt{X_n \Sigma_n X_n}>c$}
\STATE {Forward the item}
\ELSE
\STATE {Discard the item}
\ENDIF
}\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Numerical Experiments}
\label{sec:numerical}
In this section, we compare \acronym\ and \MUCB\ with three different benchmark algorithms and the computational upper bound from Section~\ref{sec:bound} using both real and simulated data.
The benchmark algorithms are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Pure Exploitation: Forward the item if $X_{n}\cdot \mu_{n}\geq c$.
\item Upper Confidence Bound (UCB): Forward the item if $X_{n}\cdot \mu_{n}+\alpha\sqrt{X_{n}\Sigma_{n}X_{n}^{T}}\geq c$.
\item Linear Thompson Sampling (LTS): For item $X_{n}$, generate $\theta\sim N(\mu_{n},\Sigma_{n})$. Forward the item if $\theta\cdot X_{n}>c$.
\end{itemize}
For \acronym, \MUCB\ and UCB, there is a tuning parameter $\alpha$. In our simulation experiments we run these policies with 10 different values of $\alpha$ ranging from $0.1$ to $10$ on a log scale, and display the one with the best performance (which requires simulating performance for different values of $\alpha$ in a Monte Carlo simulation as a pre-processing step) in each instance.
We evaluate our upper bound and proposed policy on real and simulated data, and find our upper bound is tight enough to be useful (the best policy evaluated is often within 60\% of the upper bound and never below 30\% of the upper bound).
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{yelp_TR.png}
\caption{Comparison of Different Policies Using Yelp Academic Data}
\label{fig:TR_yelp}
\end{subfigure}%
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{yelp_OG.png}
\caption{Optimality Gap of Different Policies Using Yelp Academic Data}
\label{fig:OG_yelp}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The performance of \acronym, \MUCB\ and three benchmark algorithms relative to the computational upper bound.
This plot compares performance on the Yelp academic dataset (Section~\ref{sec:realdata1}), and shows that \MUCB\ outperforms all other heuristic policies. \acronym\ performs comparably (and nearly identical to) UCB, and outperforms pure exploitation and LTS. \MUCB\ performs close to the computational upper bound, showing their performance is close to optimal. \label{fig:result1}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{arxiv_TR.png}
\caption{Comparison of Different Policies Using arXiv.org dataset}
\label{fig:TR_arxiv}
\end{subfigure}%
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{arxiv_OG.png}
\caption{Optimality Gap of Different Policies Using arXiv.org dataset}
\label{fig:OG_arxiv}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The performance of \acronym, \MUCB\ and three benchmark algorithms relative to the computational instance-specific upper bound.
This plot compares performance on the 2014 arXiv.org Condensed Matter dataset (Section~\ref{sec:realdata2}), and shows that \MUCB\ outperforms all other heuristic policies. \label{fig:result2}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{ideal_TR.png}
\caption{Comparison of Different Policies Using Simulated Data}
\label{fig:TR_ideal}
\end{subfigure}%
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{ideal_OG.png}
\caption{Optimality Gap of Different Policies Using Simulated Data}
\label{fig:OG_ideal}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
The performance of \acronym, \MUCB\ and three benchmark algorithms relative to the computational instance-specific upper bound using simulated data.
This plot compares performance on simulated data (Section~\ref{sec:simudata}), and shows that \acronym\ and \MUCB\ outperform all the other algorithms and coincides with the theoretical upper bound, showing it is indistinguishable from optimal in this case.}
\label{fig:result3}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Yelp academic data}
\label{sec:realdata1}
In this section, we compare \acronym\ and \MUCB\ against benchmarks using the Yelp academic dataset \cite{yelp}.
Our items are businesses, and are described as belonging to one or more of the following six categories: Restaurants, Shopping, Food, Beauty and Spas, Health and Medical and Nightlife.
The $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ business object is then described by a 6-dimensional feature vector $X_{j}=(x_{1,j},x_{2,j},\cdots,x_{6,j})$ with the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ element $x_{i,j}=1$ if the business belongs to category i, and $x_{i,j}=0$ otherwise.
Then we normalize $X_{j}$ such that its L1 norm is 1.
We calculate the prior distribution over new customers' preferences using historical users' reviews. For each historical user, we use linear regression to regress his reviews' ratings on the feature vectors of the business objects that he reviewed. We use the estimated linear regression coefficients as his/her true user preference vector. Then we calculate the empirical distribution for all historical users, and set the prior on new users' preference vectors to be multivariate normal with mean vector and covariance matrix equal to the sample mean and sample covariance of the historical users.
In Figure~\ref{fig:TR_yelp}, evaluation is done by taking a collection of real historical users, and for each estimating his true preference vector $\theta$ using linear regression on historical data. Evaluation is then performed for each algorithm and user by simulating feedback from the user's held out $\theta$ on items forwarded by the algorithm, and an algorithm's average performance is calculated by averaging across users.
We must simulate user feedback given $\theta$ because we do not have historical relevance feedback from all users for all items, and algorithms may present items that have not been rated. We plot the $95\%$ confidence interval of cumulative reward over 100 items forwarded to the user with discount factor $\lambda = 0.9$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:OG_yelp}, we calculate the optimality gap between each heuristic algorithm and our computational upper bound. A smaller gap suggests the corresponding policy performs better in this problem instance.
The plot in Figure~\ref{fig:result1} summarizes the results. In this problem instance, \MUCB\ outperforms \acronym, UCB, pure exploitation and LTS, with \acronym\ and UCB performing almost identically. Moreover, the optimality gap is relatively small, which shows that \MUCB\ performs close to optimal.
\subsection{arXiv.org Condensed Matter Dataset}
\label{sec:realdata2}
In this section, we compare \acronym\ and \MUCB\ with benchmarks using readership data from articles submitted in 2014 to the arXiv condensed matter category. We represent each paper submitted in 2014 by a 10 dimensional vector using Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) \cite{lda}. For each user, the rating for a paper is 1 if he/she clicks and otherwise the rating is 0. We then calculate the user's preference vector by linear regression. Similar to Section~\ref{sec:realdata1}, we use the sample mean and sample variance of users' preference vectors as our prior distribution parameters.
In our simulation, we use true users' preference vectors calculated using linear regression, as we did in Section~\ref{sec:realdata1}. For each user, we randomly pick 100 papers and make the forwarding decisions using different policies. We evaluate the cumulative reward for these 100 papers with discount factor $\lambda = 0.9$.
The result is summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:result2}. The best of our heuristic policies in this example, \MUCB, outperforms all other heuristic policies. In this specific example, \acronym\ does not perform as well as UCB but it outperforms pure exploitation and LTS.
\subsection{Simulated Data}
\label{sec:simudata}
In this section, we compare the performance of \acronym\ and \MUCB\ with three benchmark algorithms, as well as our computational upper bound on simulated data.
This simulated data is chosen to give insight into situations where UCB can underperform, and where the structure of a policy like \acronym\ and \MUCB\ are needed to provide near-optimal performance.
We emphasize that it is chosen to provide insight, and not to show performance on a typical real problem instance --- we refer this comparison to Section~\ref{sec:realdata1} and Section~\ref{sec:realdata2}.
Each item is described by a 100-dimensional feature vector $X_{n}$ with the following distribution: $P(X_{n}=e_{1})=\frac{100}{199}$, $P(X_{n}=e_{i})=\frac{1}{199}$ for $i=2,\cdots,100$. Here, $e_x$ is the unit vector in the $x$th dimension. The initial belief on the user's preference for each feature is $N(0.3,1.0)$ with independence across features. We set $\gamma=0.9$ and $\lambda=0.1$. In estimating the infinite-horizon discounted sum \eqref{Prob}, we truncate after $n=100$.
The results, summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:result3}, show that \acronym\ and \MUCB\ outperform UCB, pure exploitation and LTS. In most cases, UCB performs very well with a properly chosen $\alpha$. Moreover, \acronym\ and \MUCB\ outperform UCB for several values of the forwarding cost, and nearly coincides with the theoretical upper bound for all values of the forwarding cost, which shows that it is indistinguishable from optimal in this problem instance.
LTS does not perform well in this example because it performs poorly at the initial stages and the (discounted) reward in the later stages cannot make up for the loss at the early stages. As \cite{lovis} and \cite{lovps} pointed out, LTS generally underperforms tuned UCB.
UCB underperforms \acronym\ and \MUCB\ in this example because it cannot account for the frequency with which a feature appears, and thus cannot adjust its level of exploration (encoded as the choice of $\alpha$) to explore more those features that tend to reoccur frequently, and explore less those features that are unlikely to appear again. In contrast, both \acronym\ and \MUCB\ can adjust its level of exploration, and will explore more those features that will reoccur.
\section{Conclusion}
We studied the Bayesian linear information filtering problem, providing an instance-specific computational upper bound and a pair of new {\it Decompose-Then-Decide} heuristic policies, \acronym\ and \MUCB. Numerical experiments show that the best of these two policies is typically close to the computational upper bound and outperforms several benchmarks on real and simulated data.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors were partially supported by NSF CAREER CMMI-1254298, NSF CMMI-1536895, NSF IIS-1247696, NSF DMR-1120296, AFOSR FA9550-12-1-0200, AFOSR FA9550-15-1-0038, and AFOSR FA9550-16-1-0046.
|
\section{Introduction}
The present paper deals with classical Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry for smooth toric Deligne-Mumford stacks. One of the first mathematical incarnations of this type of mirror symmetry was a theorem of Givental identifying a solution (the so-called $J$-function) of the Quantum $\mathcal{D}$-module of a (complete intersection inside a) smooth toric variety with a generalized hypergeometric function (the $I$-function). This has laid the foundation to express mirror symmetry as an equivalence of differential systems matching the Quantum $\mathcal{D}$-module on the $A$-side with certain (Fourier-Laplace transformed) Gau\ss-Manin systems coming from an algebraic family of maps (the Landau-Ginzburg model) on the $B$-side. An analytic proof of this fact using oscillating integrals was given by Iritani in \cite{Ir2}. A purely algebraic proof was given in \cite{RS1} where it was also shown that the Frobenius manifold an the $A$-side, which encodes the big quantum cohomology, is isomorphic to a Frobenius manifold on the $B$-side which comes from the Landau-Ginzburg model. The construction of Frobenius manifolds is a classical subject in singulartity theory. The first examples arose from the work of K.+ M. Saito on the base space of a semi-universal unfolding and later it was shown by Sabbah partly with Douai that these results carry over to an algebraic map which satisfies certain tameness assumptions. However, their construction is not unique in the sense that it depends on the choice of a good basis, which provides a solution to a Birkhoff problem, and on the choice of a primitive section. To circumvent this problem a careful analysis of the Fourier-Laplace transformed Gau\ss-Manin system and its degeneration along a boundary divisor, which contains the large volume limit, was carried out in \cite{RS1} in the case of Landau-Ginzburg models which serve as mirror partners for smooth nef toric varieties. Beyond the smooth case partial results for weighted projective spaces were obtained in \cite{Douai-Mann} where mirror symmetry is proven as an isomorphism of logarithmic Frobenius manifolds without pairing.\\
In this paper we prove mirror symmetry for smooth toric Deligne-Mumford stacks, satisfying a positivity condition, as an isomorphism of logarithmic Frobenius manifolds, which generalizes the theorem obtained in \cite{RS1} for smooth nef toric varieties. In order to ensure a good behavior of the connection and the pairing along the boundary divisor a careful choice of the coordinates on the complexified K\"ahler moduli space is needed. Since the Fourier-Laplace transformed Gau\ss-Manin system is a cyclic $\mathcal{D}$-module, the generator is a canonical candidate for the primitve section. The Birkhoff problem is solved at the large volume limit where we identify the fiber of the holomorphic bundle with the orbifold cohomology of the toric Deligne-Mumford stack.\\
The notion of $tt^*$ geometry was introduced by Cecotti and Vafa in their study of moduli spaces of $N=2$ supersymmetric quantum field theories. Hertling \cite{He4} formalized this structure under the name of pure and polarized TERP-structures and showed that the base space of a semi-universal unfolding of an isolated hypersurface singularity carried such a structure. In the case of a tame algebraic map, a theorem of Sabbah \cite{Sa2} shows that the corresponding Fourier-Laplace transformed Gau\ss-Manin system underlies a pure and polarized TERP-structure. In \cite{RS1} this was used to show that a Zariski open subset of the base space of the Landau-Ginzburg model carries a pure and polarized TERP-structure. Using mirror symmetry this induces $tt^*$ geometry on the quantum $\mathcal{D}$-module. Iritani \cite{Ir2} gave an intrinsic description of the real structure on the $A$-side using $K$-theory. In this paper the result of \cite{RS1} is generalized to toric orbifolds. If the toric orbifold $X$ admits a crepant resolution $Z$ we construct a global base space which contains two limit points corresponding to the large volume limit points of $X$ and $Z$ respectively. We prove that there exists $tt^*$-geometry on the whole moduli space which, when restricted to some analytic neighborhood of the large volume limits, is isomorphic to the $tt^*$-geometry coming from the quantum cohomology of $X$ resp. $Z$. The result here is in the sprit of Y.Ruan Crepant Transformation conjecture which has stimulated a lot of research:
\cite{MR2772168,MR2541935,MR2360646,MR2551767,MR2518631,MR2483931,
MR2411404,MR2357679,MR3202006,MR2553561,MR2529944,MR2486673,
MR3112518,MR2234886,2008PhDT.........4I,2011arXiv1109.5540L,
2013arXiv1311.5725L,2014arXiv1401.7097L}.\\
We give a short overview of the contents of this paper: In section 2 we recall some standard facts on toric Deligne-Mumford stacks. An import ingredient in the construction of the mirror Landau-Ginzburg model is the extended stacky fan of Jiang \cite{Jext}. This enables us to introduce the extended Picard group and the extended K\"ahler cone which are needed to construct coordinates on the base space of the mirror Landau-Ginzburg model. In section 3 we review the notion of the Fourier-Laplace transformed Gau\ss-Manin system and cite some results of \cite{RS1},\cite{RS2} which identifies the FL-Gau\ss-Manin system of a family of Laurent polynomials with a FL-transformed GKZ-system for which an explicit description as a cyclic $\mathcal{D}$-module is available. In the fourth section we use the results of the previous section to calculate the FL-transformed Gau\ss-Manin system corresponding to the Landau-Ginzburg model (cf. Proposition 4.4). As a next step we show that the FL-transformed Brieskorn lattice is coherent over the tame locus of the Landau-Ginzburg model (Theorem 4.10). We then analyze the degeneration behavior along a boundary divisor which contains the large volume limit. Finally we prove that there exists a canonical germ of a logarithmic Frobenius manifold associated to the Landau-Ginzburg model.
Section 5 reviews orbifold quantum cohomology and the Givental connection. We show that the big quantum cohomology gives rise to a logarithmic Frobenius manifold (Proposition 5.7). In section 6, using a Givental-style mirror theorem of Coates, Corti, Iritani and Tseng \cite{CCIT}, we combine the last two sections to express mirror symmetry for toric Deligne-Mumford stacks as an isomorphism of logarithmic Frobenius manifolds (Theorem 6.6). In section 7 we consider a toric orbifold $X$ admitting a crepant resolution $Z$ and construct a global Landau-Ginzburg model. We prove that there exists a pure and polarized variation of TERP structures on the base space $\mathcal{M}$ of this model which gives the $tt^*$-geometry of the corresponding quantum $\mathcal{D}$-modules in different neighborhoods of $\mathcal{M}$.
\section{Some toric facts}\label{sec:some-toric-facts}
Let $G$ be a free abelian group. We associate to it the group ring $\mathbb{C}[G]$ which is generated by the elements $\chi^g$ for $g \in G$. Its maximal spectrum $\Specm(\mathbb{C}[G]) = Hom(G,\mathbb{C}^*)$ is naturally a commutative algebraic group (i.e. a torus). Let $\mathfrak{a}: G \rightarrow H$ be a group homomorphism between the free abelian groups $G$ and $H$. This induces a ring homomorphism
\begin{align}
\phi_\mathfrak{a}: \mathbb{C}[G] &\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}[H]\, , \notag \\
\chi^g &\mapsto \chi^{\mathfrak{a}(g)} \notag
\end{align}
and a morphism of algebraic groups
\begin{align}
\psi_\mathfrak{a}: \Specm(\mathbb{C}[H]) \longrightarrow \Specm(\mathbb{C}[G])\, . \notag
\end{align}
Choose a basis $g_1,\ldots, g_n$ resp. $h_1,\ldots, h_m$ of $G$ resp. $H$. The homomorphism $\mathfrak{a}$ is then given by a matrix $A = (a_{ij})$ with $\mathfrak{a}(g_j) = \sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij} h_i$. The bases also determine coordinates $x_j = \chi^{g_j}$ resp. $y_i = \chi^{h_i}$ which identifies $\Specm(\mathbb{C}[G])$ with $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n$ and $\Specm(\mathbb{C}[H])$ with $(\mathbb{C}^*)^m$. In these coordinates the map $\psi_\mathfrak{a}$ is given by
\begin{align}
(\mathbb{C}^*)^m &\longrightarrow (\mathbb{C}^*)^n\, , \notag \\
(y_1,\ldots, y_m) &\mapsto (\underline{y}^{\underline{a}_1},\ldots, \underline{y}^{\underline{a}_n})\notag
\end{align}
where $\underline{y}^{\underline{a}_j}:= \prod_{i=1}^n y_i^{a_{ij}}$.
\subsection{Toric Deligne-Mumford stacks}
A toric Deligne-mumford stack is constructed by a so-called stacky fan which was introduced by \cite{BCS}. A stacky fan
\[
\mathbf{\Sigma} = (N, \Sigma, \mathfrak{a})
\]
consists of
\begin{itemize}
\item a finitely generated abelian group $N$ of rank $d$,
\item a complete simplicial fan $\Sigma$ in $N_\mathbb{Q} := N \otimes_\mathbb{Z} \mathbb{Q}$, where we denote by $\Sigma(k)$ the set of $k$-dimensional cones of $\Sigma$ and by $\{\rho_1, \ldots , \rho_{m}\}$ the rays of $\Sigma$,
\item a homomorphism $\mathfrak{a}: \mathbb{Z}^{m} \rightarrow N$ given by elements $a_1, \ldots a_{m}$ of $N$ with $a_i \in \rho_i$ and $\mathfrak{a}(e_i)= a_i$, where $e_1, \ldots ,e_{m}$ is the standard basis of $\mathbb{Z}^{m}$.
\end{itemize}
$ $\\
\textbf{Assumption}: In the rest of the paper we will assume that $N$ is torsion-free.\\
If we choose a basis $v_1,\ldots ,v_d$ of $N$ the map $\mathfrak{a}$ is given by a matrix $A=(a_{ki})$.\\
The morphism $\mathfrak{a}$ gives rise to a triangle in the derived category of $\mathbb{Z}$-modules
\[
\mathbb{Z}^m \overset{\mathfrak{a}}\longrightarrow N \longrightarrow Cone(\mathfrak{a}) \overset{+1}{\longrightarrow}\, .
\]
We apply the derived functor $RHom(-,\mathbb{Z})$ and consider the associated long exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dualseqN}
0 \longrightarrow N^\star \overset{\mathfrak{a}^\star}\longrightarrow (\mathbb{Z}^m)^\star \longrightarrow \Ext^1(Cone(\mathfrak{a}),\mathbb{Z}) \longrightarrow 0\, ,
\end{equation}
where the injectivity of $\mathfrak{a}^\star$ follows from the fact that the image of $\mathfrak{a}$ has finite index in $N$ and the surjectivity of $(\mathbb{Z}^m)^\star \longrightarrow Ext^1(Cone(\mathfrak{a}),\mathbb{Z})$ follows from $Ext^1(N,\mathbb{Z}) = 0$, i.e. from our assumption that $N$ is free.\\
Applying $Hom(-, \mathbb{C}^*)$ to the exact sequence \eqref{eq:dualseqN} gives the short exact sequence
\[
0 \longrightarrow G \overset{\psi_\mathfrak{a}}{\longrightarrow} (\mathbb{C}^*)^m \longrightarrow Hom(N^\star, \mathbb{C}^*) \longrightarrow 0\, ,
\]
where $G:= Hom(\Ext^1(N,\mathbb{Z}),\mathbb{C}^*)$. Here we have used the fact that $\mathbb{C}^*$ is a divisible group, hence $Hom(-, \mathbb{C}^*)$ is exact.\\
The set of anti-cones is defined to be
\[
\mathcal{A} := \left\lbrace I \subset \{1, \ldots , m\} \mid \sum_{i \notin I} \mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0} \rho_i\text{ is a cone in}\, \Sigma \right\rbrace\, .
\]
Each $I \in \mathcal{A}$ gives rise to a subvariety $\mathbb{C}^I \subset \mathbb{C}^m$ given by $\{(x_1,\ldots, x_m) \in \mathbb{C}^m \mid x_i = 0\; \text{for}\; i \notin I\}$. We set
\[
\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{A} := \mathbb{C}^m \setminus \bigcup_{I \not \in \mathcal{A}} \mathbb{C}^I\, .
\]
The toric Deligne-Mumford stack associated to this data is the following quotient stack:
\[
\mathcal{X}:= \mathcal{X}(\mathbf{\Sigma}) := [ \mathcal{U}_A /G ]\, ,
\]
where $G$ acts on $\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{A}$ via $\psi_\mathfrak{a}$.\\
For $\sigma \in \Sigma$, let
\[
\text{Box}(\sigma) = \{ a \in N \mid a = \sum_{a_i \in \sigma} r_i a_i , 0 \leq r_i <1\}\, .
\]
We set
\[
Box(\Sigma) = \bigcup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} Box(\sigma)\, .
\]
The inertia stack $\mathcal{I} \mathcal{X}(\mathbf{\Sigma})$ is the fiber product taken over the diagonal maps $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X}$. Its components are indexed by the set $Box(\Sigma)$:
\[
\mathcal{I} \mathcal{X}(\mathbf{\Sigma}) = \bigsqcup \mathcal{X}_{(v)}\, ,
\]
where $\mathcal{X}_{(v)}$ is the toric orbifold $\mathcal{X}(\mathbf{\Sigma}/\sigma(v))$ with $\sigma(v)$ being the smallest cone in $\Sigma$ which contains $v$ (cf. \cite{BCS} Section 4).\\
We have the following description of the orbifold cohomology ring of $\mathcal{X}$. As a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space it is isomorphic to the direct sum of the cohomology groups of the components of its inertia stack:
\[
H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Q}) \simeq \bigoplus_{v \in Box(\Sigma)} H^{*-2 i_v}(\mathcal{X}_{(v)},\mathbb{Q})\, ,
\]
where $i_v:= \sum r_i$ for $v \in Box(\Sigma)$. The orbifold cohomology of $\mathcal{X}$ carries a product which makes $ H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Q})$ into a graded algebra. A combinatorial description in terms of the fan has been given by Borisov, Chen and Smith \cite{BCS} and, in the semi-projective case, by Jiang and Tseng \cite{JT}. Let $N_{\Sigma} := \{ c \in N \mid c \in |\Sigma| \}$ and let
\[
\mathbb{Q}[N_\Sigma] := \bigoplus_{c \in N_\Sigma} \mathbb{Q} \chi^c
\]
with the product
\[
\chi^{c_1} \cdot \chi^{c_2} := \begin{cases} \chi^{c_1+c_2} & \text{if there exists $\sigma \in \Sigma$ such that $c_1, c_2 \in \sigma$,} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\, . \end{cases}
\]
Let $c \in N_{\Sigma}$ and $\sigma(c)$ be the minimal cone containing $c$. Then $c$ can be uniquely expressed as
\[
c = \sum_{a_i \in \sigma(c)} r_i a_i \,.
\]
We define
\[
deg(\chi^c) := deg(c) := \sum r_i\, .
\]
Using this graduation $\mathbb{Q}[N_\Sigma]$ becomes a graded semigroup ring. By \cite{BCS} we have the following isomorphism of $\mathbb{Q}$-graded rings:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BCSiso}
H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Q}) \simeq \frac{\mathbb{Q}[N_\Sigma]}{\{\sum_{i=1}^m \kappa(a_i) \chi^{a_i} \mid \kappa \in N^\ast\}}\, .
\end{equation}
Denote by $PL(\Sigma)$ the free $\mathbb{Z}$-module of continuous piece-wise linear functions on $\Sigma$ having integer values on $N$. We have the natural embedding of $N^\ast = \Hom(N,\mathbb{Z})$ into $PL(\Sigma)$, where the cokernel of this map is isomorphic to the Picard group of the underlying coarse moduli space $X:=X(\Sigma)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PLPic}
0 \rightarrow N^\ast \rightarrow PL(\Sigma) \rightarrow Pic( X) \longrightarrow 0\, .
\end{equation}
We have isomorphisms
\[
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & N^\star \otimes \mathbb{Q} \ar[r] & PL(\Sigma) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \ar[r] & Pic(X)\otimes \mathbb{Q} \ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & N^\star \otimes \mathbb{Q} \ar[r] \ar[u]^\simeq & \mathbb{Q}^m \ar[u]^\simeq \ar[r] & H^2(X,\mathbb{Q}) \ar[r] \ar[u]^\simeq & 0}
\]
where the image of the standard generator $\overline{D}_i \in \mathbb{Q}^m$ in $PL(\Sigma) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ is the piece-wise linear function having value $1$ on $a_i$ and $0$ on $a_j$ for $j \in \{1,\ldots,m\} \setminus \{i\}$. We denote the image of $\overline{D}_i$ in $Pic(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ by $[\overline{D}_i]$.
\subsection{Extended stacky fans}\label{subsec:Exstacky}
Toric Deligne-Mumford stacks can also be described by a so-called extended stacky fan (cf. \cite{Jext}. To the datum of a stacky fan $\mathbf{\Sigma} = (N, \Sigma, \mathfrak{a})$ one adds a map $\mathbb{Z}^e \rightarrow N$ and writes $S=\{a_{m+1}, \ldots , a_{m+e}\}$ for the image of the standard basis. By abuse of notation we will call the following map still $\mathfrak{a}$
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{a}: \mathbb{Z}^{m+e} &\longrightarrow N\, , \notag \\
e_i &\mapsto \mathfrak{a}(e_i) = a_i \quad \text{for}\; i = 1, \ldots m+e\, . \notag
\end{align}
The $S$-extended stacky fan $\mathbf{\Sigma}^e = ( N, \Sigma, \mathfrak{a})$ is given by the free group $N$, the fan $\Sigma$ and the map $\mathfrak{a}: \mathbb{Z}^{m+e} \rightarrow N$.\\
Assumption: In the following we will choose $a_{m+1}, \ldots, a_{m+e}$ in such a way so that $\mathfrak{a}$ is surjective.\\
We denote by $\mathbb{L}$ the kernel of $\mathfrak{a}$. This gives us as above the two exact sequences
\begin{align}
&0 \longrightarrow \mathbb{L} \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{m+e} \overset{\mathfrak{a}}{\longrightarrow} N \longrightarrow 0\, , \label{eq:extseq} \\
&0 \longrightarrow N^\star \longrightarrow (\mathbb{Z}^{m+e})^\star \longrightarrow \mathbb{L}^\star \longrightarrow 0\, . \label{eq:extseqdual}
\end{align}
We denote by $D_1,\ldots, D_{m+e}$ the standard basis of $(\mathbb{Z}^{m+e})^\star$, i.e. $ D_i(e_j) = \delta_{ij}$ and by $[D_1],\ldots , [D_{m+e}]$ the images of $D_1,\ldots, D_{m+e}$ in $\mathbb{L}^\star$.\\
Applying the exact functor $Hom(-,\mathbb{C}^*)$ to the sequence $\ref{eq:extseqdual}$ gives a map
\[
\psi_{\mathfrak{a}}: G^e \rightarrow (\mathbb{C}^*)^{m+e},
\]
where $G^e := Hom_\mathbb{Z}(\mathbb{L}^\star, \mathbb{C}^*)$. We set
\[
\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}^e := \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{A} \times (\mathbb{C}^*)^{e}\, ,
\]
then $G^e$ acts on $\mathcal{U}_A^e$ via $\psi_{\mathfrak{a}}$ and the quotient stack
\[
[\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{A}^e / G^e]
\]
is isomorphic to the stack $\mathcal{X}(\mathbf{\Sigma})$ by \cite{Jext}.\\
Given a stacky fan $\mathbf{\Sigma} = (N, \Sigma, \mathfrak{a})$ there exists a ``canonical'' choice of an extended stacky fan $\mathbf{\Sigma}^e$. Let $Gen(\sigma)$ be the subset of $Box(\sigma)$ of elements which are primitive in $\sigma \cap N$, i.e. which can not be generated by other elements in the semigroup $\sigma \cap N$ and set $Gen(\Sigma) := \bigcup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} Gen(\sigma)$.\\
In the following we will always choose
\[
S = Gen(\Sigma)
\]
and we will set $n:= m+e$ and $\mathcal{G}:= \{a_1, \ldots , a_m\} \cup Gen(\sigma)$. Notice that $\{a_1, \ldots , a_m\} \cap Gen(\sigma) = \emptyset$, hence the cardinality of $\mathcal{G}$ is $n$.\\
This choice of an extended stacky fan will allow us to give a different description of the orbifold cohomology ring which will be very useful for our purposes.
We introduce for every $a_i \in \mathcal{G}$ a formal variable $\mathfrak{D}_i$. For a top-dimensional cone $\sigma \in \Sigma(d)$ define in $\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{D}_1, \ldots , \mathfrak{D}_n]$ the ideal
\[
\mathcal{J}(\sigma) := \left\langle \prod_{l_i >0, a_i \in \sigma} \mathfrak{D}_i^{l_i} - \prod_{l_i< 0 , a_i \in \sigma} \mathfrak{D}_i^{-l_i} \mid \sum_{a_i \in \sigma} l_i a_i = 0 , l_i \in \mathbb{Z}\right\rangle\, .
\]
We call relations $\underline{l}=(l_1, \ldots , l_n)$ of such type \textbf{cone relations}. The ideal
\[
\mathcal{J}(\Sigma_X) := \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma_X(d)} \mathcal{J}(\sigma)
\]
is called the cone ideal of $\Sigma$.
Let $\mathcal{K}(\Sigma)$ be the ideal which is generated by
\[
E_k := \sum_{i=1}^{m} a_{ki} \mathfrak{D}_i \qquad \text{for} \quad k = 1, \ldots ,d\, ,
\]
where $a_{ki}$ is the $k$-th coordinate of $a_i \in \mathbb{Z}^d$.\\
We call $I \subset \{1, \ldots ,n\}$ a \textbf{generalized primitive collection} if the set $\{a_i \mid i \in I\}$ is not contained in a cone of $\Sigma$ and if any proper subset of $\{a_i \mid i \in I\}$ is contained in some cone of $\Sigma$. We denote by $\mathcal{G} \mathcal{P}$ the set of generalized primitive collections.\\
The orbifold cohomology of $\mathcal{X}$ can then be expressed in the following way.
\begin{lem}[\cite{TW} Lemma 2.4]\label{lem:orbcoho}
Let $deg(\mathfrak{D}_i) =deg(a_i) $ for $i=1, \ldots , n$, then we have an isomorphism of graded $\mathbb{C}$-algebras
\[
H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X}) \simeq \frac{\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{D}_1, \ldots , \mathfrak{D}_{n}]}{\mathcal{J}(\Sigma_X) + \mathcal{K}(\Sigma_X) + \langle \prod_{i\in I} \mathfrak{D}_i \mid I \in \mathcal{G} \mathcal{P} \rangle}\, ,
\]
which sends $\mathfrak{D}_i$ to $\chi^{a_i}$ for $i=1,\ldots n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:classcoho}
We would like to remind the reader that the ordinary cohomology ring of the underlying coarse moduli space $X$ is given by
\[
H^*(X,\mathbb{C}) \simeq \frac{\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{D}_1,\ldots, \mathfrak{D}_m]}{\mathcal{K}(\Sigma)+ \langle \prod_{i\in I}\mathfrak{D}_i \mid I \in \mathcal{P} \rangle}
\]
where $\mathcal{P}$ is the set of primitive collections. Here a collection $I \subset \{1,\ldots,m\}$ is primitive if the set $\{a_i \mid i \in I\}$ does not span a cone of $\Sigma$ but any proper subset does.
\end{rem}
\subsection{The extended Picard group}
We have the following commutative diagram (cf. \eqref{eq:PLPic})
\[
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r]& N^\star \ar[r] & (\mathbb{Z}^{n})^\star \ar[r] & \mathbb{L}^\star \ar[r] &0 \\
0 \ar[r] & N^\star \ar[r] \ar@{=}[u]& PL(\Sigma) \ar[r] \ar[u]^\Theta & Pic(X) \ar[r] \ar[u] & 0 }
\]
where the map $PL(\Sigma) \rightarrow (\mathbb{Z}^n)^\star$ is given by
\begin{align}
\Theta: PL(\Sigma) &\longrightarrow (\mathbb{Z}^{n})^\star\, , \label{def:Theta} \\
\varphi &\mapsto (\varphi(a_1), \ldots , \varphi(a_{n}))\, . \notag
\end{align}
We want to determine the image of this map. For this, let
\[
I_\sigma := \{i \in\{1,\ldots,m\} \mid a_i \in \sigma\}\, .
\]
We consider the distinguished relations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disrel}
a_{m+k} -\sum_{i \in I_\sigma} r_{kj} a_i = 0 \qquad \text{for}\; k=1,\ldots ,e\, ,
\end{equation}
which give elements $l_1,\ldots , l_e \in \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$.\\
\begin{lem}
The image of $\Theta$ is as saturated subgroup of $(\mathbb{Z}^n)^\star$, i.e.
\[
(\Theta(PL(\Sigma))\otimes_\mathbb{Z} \mathbb{Q}) \cap (\mathbb{Z}^{n})^\star = \Theta(PL(\Sigma))\, .
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $\mathbf{K}$
the kernel of the map
\begin{align}
(\mathbb{Z}^{n})^\star &\longrightarrow \mathbb{Q}^e \notag \\
x &\mapsto (x(l_1),\ldots, x(l_e)) \notag
\end{align}
In order to show the claim it is enough to show the following equality
\[
\mathbf{K} = \Theta(PL(\Sigma))\, .
\]
It is clear that $\Theta(PL(\Sigma)) \subset \mathbf{K}$
since a function in $PL(\Sigma)$ is linear on each cone $\sigma \in \Sigma$. Now let $u \in \mathbf{K}$
and let $\sigma \in \Sigma(d)$ be a maximal cone. Choose a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis $a_{j_1}, \ldots , a_{j_d}$ in the set $Gen(\sigma) \cup \{a_j \mid a_j \in \sigma\}$. The values $u(a_{j_1}), \ldots , u(a_{j_d})$ determine an element $m_\sigma \in N^\vee$. Since $u \in \mathbf{K}$
we get $u(a_i) = m_\sigma(a_i)$ for $a_i \in Gen(\sigma) \cup \{a_j \mid a_j \in \sigma\}$. Repeating this for any cone we get an element in $PL(\Sigma)$ whose image under $\Theta$ is $u$.
\end{proof}
We denote the full sublattice of $(\mathbb{Z}^{n})^\star$ generated by $\Theta(PL(\Sigma))$ and $D_{m+1},\ldots , D_{m+e}=D_n$ by $PL(\Sigma^e)$ and call its image in $\mathbb{L}^\star$ the extended Picard group $Pic^e(X)$.\\
We get an exact sequence of $\mathbb{Z}$-free modules
\begin{equation}
0 \longrightarrow N^* \longrightarrow PL(\Sigma^e) \longrightarrow Pic^e(X) \longrightarrow 0\, .
\end{equation}
The map $\Theta$ induces a map
\[
\theta: Pic(X) \longrightarrow Pic^e(X).
\]
Notice that the images of $[\overline{D}_i] \in Pic(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,m$ in $Pic^e(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ are given by
\[
\theta([\overline{D}_i]) = [D_i]+ \sum_{k=1}^{e} c_{ki} [D_{m+k}]\, ,
\]
which follows from the formulas \ref{def:Theta} and \ref{eq:disrel}.
\subsection{The extended K\"{a}hler cone}
Inside $PL(\Sigma)$ we consider the cone of convex functions $CPL(\Sigma)$. It has non-empty interior since $X$ is projective. We denote its $\mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0}$-span in $H^2(X,\mathbb{Q})$ by $\overline{\mathcal{K}}$. Consider now the cone $CPL(\Sigma^e)$ generated by $\Theta(CPL(\Sigma))$ and $D_{m+1}, \ldots , D_{m+e}$. We denote the $\mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0}$-span of $\Theta(CPL(\Sigma))$ resp. $CPL(\Sigma^e)$ in $\mathbb{L}^\star\otimes \mathbb{Q}$ by $\mathcal{K}$ resp. $\mathcal{K}^e$ and call it the K\"ahler resp. extended K\"ahler cone.
We denote the image of anti-canonical divisor $-K_X$ of $X$ in $Pic(X(\Sigma) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \simeq H^2(X,\mathbb{Q})$ by $\overline{\rho}$. It is given by $\overline{\rho} = [\overline{D}_1]+ \ldots [\overline{D}_m]$. The toric variety $X$ is weak Fano if $\overline{\rho} \in \overline{\mathcal{K}}$. Consider the following class in $\mathbb{L}^\star$
\[
\rho:= [D_1]+\ldots + [D_{m+e}]\, .
\]
Later we will impose the following condition
\[
\rho \in \mathcal{K}^e\, .
\]
There is the following characterization of this condition
\begin{lem}\label{lem:degai}
We have $\rho \in \mathcal{K}^e$ iff $\overline{\rho} \in \overline{\mathcal{K}}$ and $deg(a_i) \leq 1$ for $i=m+1,\ldots,m+e$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The element $\rho$ can be expressed in the following way
\begin{align}
\rho = [D_1]+ \ldots + [D_{m+e}] &= \theta([\overline{D}_1])+\ldots + \theta([\overline{D}_m])+ \sum_{k=1}^{e}(1- \sum_{i=1}^{m}r_{ki})[D_{m+k}]\notag \\
&= \theta([\overline{D}_1]) + \ldots + \theta([\overline{D}_m]) + \sum_{k=1}^e(1-deg(a_{m+k}))[D_{m+k}] \notag \\
& \in \qquad \qquad \mathcal{K} \qquad \qquad \quad\;\; \oplus \qquad \qquad\bigoplus_{k=1}^e\mathbb{Q} [D_{m+k}]\, . \notag
\end{align}
The last term is in $\mathcal{K}^e$ iff $deg(a_{m+k}) \leq 1$ for $k =1,\ldots ,e$.
\end{proof}
Notice that the degree function $deg$ gives rise to a piece-wise linear function $\varphi$ which is given by
\begin{equation}
\varphi(a_i) = 1 \qquad \text{for} \quad i=1,\ldots, m\, . \label{def:varphi}
\end{equation}
This piece-wise linear function corresponds to the anti-canonical divisor. If we assume that $X$ is nef (i.e. $\overline{\rho} \in \overline{\mathcal{K}}$) then $\varphi$ is a convex function.
\begin{rem}\label{rem:hleq2eqle}
It follows from Lemma \ref{lem:orbcoho} and Lemma \ref{lem:degai} that for the choice $S = Gen(\Sigma)$ we have an isomorphism $H^{\leq 2}_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Q}) \simeq \mathbb{L}^\star \otimes \mathbb{Q}$.
\end{rem}
We now introduce the so-called extended Mori cone. Set
\[
\mathcal{A}^e := \{ I \cup \{m+1,\ldots, m+e\} \mid I \in \mathcal{A}\}
\]
and
\begin{align}
\mathbb{K} &:= \{ d \in \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q} \mid \{i \in \{1,\ldots, m+e\} \mid \langle D_i,d\rangle \in \mathbb{Z}\} \in \mathcal{A}^e\}\, , \notag \\
\mathbb{K}^{\text{eff}} &:= \{ d \in \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q} \mid \{i \in \{1,\ldots, m+e\} \mid \langle D_i,d\rangle \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\} \in \mathcal{A}^e\}\, . \notag
\end{align}
Notice that the lattice $\mathbb{L}$ acts on $\mathbb{K}$.
Denote by $\lceil \cdot \rceil$, $\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ and $\{ \cdot \}$ the ceiling, floor and fractional part of a real number.
\begin{lem}[\protect{\cite[Section 3]{Ir2}}]\label{lem:kltobox}
The map
\begin{align}
\mathbb{K} / \mathbb{L} &\longrightarrow Box(\Sigma)\, , \notag \\
d & \mapsto v(d):=\sum_{i=1}^{m+e} \lceil \langle D_i,d\rangle \rceil a_i \notag
\end{align}
is bijective.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We first notice that $ \sum_{i=1}^{m+e} \lceil \langle D_i,d\rangle \rceil a_i\in N$. From the definition of $\mathbb{K}$ and the exact sequence \ref{eq:extseq} we get
\begin{align}
v(d) &= \sum_{i=1}^{m+e} (\{-\langle D_i,d\rangle \} + \langle D_i,d \rangle)a_i
= \sum_{i=1}^{m+e} \{-\langle D_i,d\rangle \}a_i
= \sum_{a_i \in \sigma} \{-\langle D_i,d\rangle \}a_i \label{eq:defvd}
\end{align}
for some $\sigma$. This shows $v(d) \in Box(\sigma)$. From the formula \ref{eq:defvd} we easily see that the map $d \mapsto v(d)$ factors through $\mathbb{K} \rightarrow \mathbb{K}/\mathbb{L}$. Choose $v \in Box(\Sigma)$. We can express $v$ either as $v = \sum_{a_i \in \sigma} n_i a_i$ with $n_i \in \mathbb{N}$ since $S = Gen(\Sigma)$ or as $v = \sum_{i \in I_{\sigma}} r_i a_i \in Box(\Sigma)$ with $r_i \in [0,1)$. The equation $\sum_{a_i \in \sigma} n_i a_i - \sum_{i \in I_{\sigma}} r_i a_i =0$ gives rise to an element in $\mathbb{K} \subset \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$, this shows the surjectivity. In order to show injectivity let $d,d' \in \mathbb{K}$ with $v(d) = v(d')$. This means there exists a $\sigma,\sigma' \in \Sigma$ such that
\[
\sum_{a_i \in \sigma} \{-\langle D_i,d\rangle\}a_i = v(d) = v(d')=\sum_{a_i \in \sigma'} \{-\langle D_i,d\rangle\}a_i
\]
since both cones are simplicial we find a cone $\sigma'' \subset \sigma \cap \sigma'$ such that
\[
v(d) = \sum_{a_i \in \sigma ''} \{-\langle D_i,d \rangle\}a_i = \sum_{a_i \in \sigma ''} \{-\langle D_i,d' \rangle\}a_i = v(d')
\]
and therefore $\{-\langle D_i,d\rangle \} = \{-\langle D_i,d'\rangle \}$ for all $i=1,\ldots m+e$. Hence $\{\langle D_i, d-d'\rangle \}= 0$ and there fore $d-d' \in \mathbb{L}$. This shows the injectivity.
\end{proof}
Denote by $NE^e(X)\subset \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ the lattice dual to the extended Picard group $Pic^e(X) \subset \mathbb{L}^\star$ which gives the following short exact sequence of free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exseqextN}
0 \longrightarrow NE^e(X) \longrightarrow PL(\Sigma^e)^* \longrightarrow N \longrightarrow 0\, .
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}
There are the following inclusions
\[
\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{K} \subset NE^e(X)\, .
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that the first inclusion follows from the fact that $\{1,\ldots,m+e\} \in \mathcal{A}^e$.
For each $v \in Box(\Sigma)$ we can write as above $v = \sum_{a_i \in \sigma} n_i a_i = \sum_{i \in I_\sigma} r_i a_i$. Denote by $d_v \in \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ the element in $\mathbb{K} \subset \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ which corresponds to the relation $\sum_{a_i \in \sigma}n_i a_i - \sum_{i \in I_\sigma} r_i a_i=$. The proof of Lemma \ref{lem:kltobox} shows that $\mathbb{K}$ is the union of the sets $d_v + \mathbb{L}$ for $v \in Box(\Sigma)$. So in order to prove the second inclusion it is enough to show that $d_v \in NE^e(X)$.
For this we need to check that $L(d_v) \in \mathbb{Z}$ for every $L \in Pic^e(X)$. Recall that $Pic^e(X)$ is the image $PL(\Sigma^e) \subset (\mathbb{Z}^{n})^\star$ generated by $\Theta(PL(\Sigma))$ and $D_{m+1},\ldots, D_{m+e}$.
Take a lift $\varphi^e= \Theta(\varphi)+\sum_{i=m+1}^{m+e}t_i D_i=\sum_{i=1}^m \varphi(a_i) D_i + \sum_{i=m+1}^{m+e}t_i D_i$ of $L$ in $PL(\Sigma^e)$. We have
\[
L(d_v) = \varphi^e(\sum_{a_i \in \sigma}n_i e_i - \sum_{i \in I_\sigma} r_i e_i) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}n_i \varphi(a_i) + \sum_{i=m+1}^{m+e}t_i n_i - \varphi(\sum_{i \in I_\sigma} r_i a_i) \in \mathbb{Z}
\]
since $\varphi$ is integer-valued on $N$.
\end{proof}
\section{Laurent polynomials and GKZ-systems}\label{sec:LauGKZ}
In this section we review some results from \cite{RS1} and \cite{RS2} concerning the relationship between (Fourier-Laplace-transformed) Gau\ss-Manin systems of families of Laurent polynomials and (Fourier-Laplace-transformed) GKZ-systems.
\begin{notn}
We will first review some notations from the theory of algebraic $\mathcal{D}$-modules. Let $X$ be a smooth algebraic variety over $\mathbb{C}$ of dimension $d$. We denote by $\mathcal{D}_X$ the sheaf of algebraic differential operators and by $D_X = \Gamma(X,\mathcal{D}_X)$ its sheaf of global sections. Recall when $X$ is affine there is an equivalence of categories between $\mathcal{D}$-modules on $X$ which are quasi-coherent as $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules and the corresponding $D_X$-module of global sections. If $\mathcal{M}$ is a $\mathcal{D}$-module on $X$ we will write $M$ for its module of global sections. We denote by $M(\mathcal{D}_X)$ the abelian category of of algebraic $\mathcal{D}_X$-modules and the abelian subcategory of (regular) holonomic $\mathcal{D}_X$-modules by $M_h(\mathcal{D}_X)$ (resp. $M_{rh}(\mathcal{D}_X)$. The full triangulated subcategory of $D^b(\mathcal{D}_X)$ which consists of objects with (regular) holonomic cohomology is denoted by $D^b_h(\mathcal{D}_X)$ ( resp. $D^b_{rh}(\mathcal{D}_X)$). Let $f: X\rightarrow Y$ be a map between smooth algebraic varieties and let $\mathcal{M} \in D^b(\mathcal{D}_X)$ and $\mathcal{N} \in D^b(\mathcal{D}_Y)$. The direct resp. inverse image functors are defined by $f_+ \mathcal{M} := Rf_*(\mathcal{D}_{Y \leftarrow X} \overset{L}\otimes \mathcal{M})$ resp. $f^+ \mathcal{N} := \mathcal{D}_{X \rightarrow Y} \overset{L}\otimes f^{-1} \mathcal{N}$.\\
Let $\mathcal{V}' := \mathbb{C}_t \times X$ be a trivial vector bundle of rank one and denote by $\mathcal{V} =\mathbb{C}_\tau \times X$ its dual. Denote by $can: \mathcal{V}' \times_X \mathcal{V} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ the canonical pairing between its fibers.
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal{L} := \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}' \times_X \mathcal{V}} e^{-can}$ the free rank one module with differential given by the product rule. Denote by $p_1: \mathcal{V}' \times_X \mathcal{V} \rightarrow \mathcal{V}'$, $p_2: \mathcal{V}' \times_X \mathcal{V} \rightarrow \mathcal{V}$ the canonical projections. The Fourier-Laplace transformation is defined by
\[
FL_X(\mathcal{M}):= p_{2+}(p_1^+ \mathcal{M} \overset{L}\otimes \mathcal{L}) \quad \text{for} \quad M \in D^b_h(\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{V}'})\, .
\]
\end{defn}
Set $ z = 1/\tau$ and denote by $j_\tau: \mathbb{C}_\tau^\ast \times X \hookrightarrow \mathbb{C}_\tau \times X$ and $j_z: \mathbb{C}^*_\tau \times X \hookrightarrow \hat{V} := \mathbb{C}_z \times X = \mathbb{P}^1_\tau \setminus \{ \tau = 0\} \times X$ the canonical embeddings. The partial, localized Fourier-Laplace transformation is defined by
\[
Fl^{loc}_X(\mathcal{M}) := j_{z+}j_\tau^+FL_X(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \text{for} \quad \mathcal{M} \in D^b_h(\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{V}'})\, .
\]
\end{notn}
Set $\hat{V} := \mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda$ , where $\Lambda = \mathbb{C}^n$ with coordinates $\lambda_1, \ldots , \lambda_n$. Let $A$ be a $d \times n$ integer matrix with columns $(\underline{a}_1, \ldots , \underline{a}_n)$ and entries $a_{ki}$ for $k=1, \ldots , d$, $i= 1, \ldots , n$ and $\beta = (\beta_1, \ldots , \beta_d) \in \mathbb{C}^d$. We denote by $\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{Z}^{n}$ the $\mathbb{Z}$-submodule of relations among the columns $A$, i.e. $(l_1, \ldots , l_n) \in \mathbb{L} $ iff $\sum_i l_i \underline{a}_i = 0$.
\begin{defn}\label{def:FLGKZ}
The Fourier-Laplace-transformed GKZ-system $\widehat{M}_A^{(\beta_0,\beta)}$ is the left $D_{\hat{V}}$-module $D_{\hat{V}}[z^{-1}]/I$, where $I$ is the left ideal generated by the operators $\hat{\Box}_{\underline{l}}$, $\hat{E}_k -\beta_kz$ and $\hat{E} - \beta_0 z$, which are defined by
\begin{align}
\hat{\Box}_{\underline{l}} &:= \prod_{i: l_i <0} (z \cdot \partial_{\lambda_i})^{-l_i} - \prod_{i : l_i >0} (z \cdot \partial_{\lambda_i})^{l_i}\quad \text{for}\; \underline{l} \in \mathbb{L} \, ,\notag \\
\hat{E} &:= z^2 \partial_z + \sum_{i=1}^m z \lambda_i \partial_{\lambda_i}\, , \notag \\
\hat{E}_k &:= \sum_{i=1}^m a_{ki} z \lambda_i \partial_{\lambda_i} \, . \notag
\end{align}
We denote the corresponding $\mathcal{D}_{\hat{V}}$-module by $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}^{(\beta_0, \beta)}_A$.
\end{defn}
Let $Y = (\mathbb{C}^*)^d$, we define a related family of Laurent polynomials:
\begin{align}
\varphi_A = (\phi_A, pr_2) : Y \times \Lambda &\longrightarrow V := \mathbb{C}_{\lambda_0} \times \Lambda\, , \notag \\
(\underline{y}, \lambda_1, \ldots,\lambda_n) &\mapsto (- \sum^n_{i=1} \lambda_i \underline{y}^{\underline{a}_i}, \lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n)\, . \notag
\end{align}
The Gau\ss-Manin system is the zeroth cohomology of the direct image of the structure sheaf $\mathcal{O}_{Y \times \Lambda}$ in the category of $\mathcal{D}$-modules:
\[
\mathcal{H}^0(\varphi_{A,+} \mathcal{O}_{Y \times \Lambda})\, .
\]
We now consider the localized partial Fourier-Laplace transform of the Gau\ss-Manin system of $\varphi_A$:
\[
\mathcal{G}^+ := FL^{loc}_\Lambda\mathcal{H}^0(\varphi_{A,+} \mathcal{O}_{Y \times \Lambda})\, .
\]
Write $G^+:=H^0(\widehat{V}, \mathcal{G}^+)$ for its module of global sections.
Then there is an isomorphism of $D_{\widehat{V}}$-modules (cf. e.g. \cite[Lemma 3.4]{RS2})
$$
G^+\cong H^0\left(\Omega^{\bullet+d}_{Y \times \Lambda / \Lambda}[z^\pm],d - z^{-1} \cdot d_y \phi\wedge\right),
$$
where $d$ is the differential in the relative de Rham complex $\Omega^\bullet_{Y \times \Lambda/\Lambda}$.
The following result relates the localized FL-transform of the Gau\ss-Manin system of $\varphi_A$ with a certain FL-transformed GKZ-system.
\begin{prop}
Assume $\mathbb{R}_+ A = \mathbb{R}^d$, then we have an isomorphism
\[
\mathcal{G}^+ \simeq \widehat{\mathcal{M}}^{(0,0)}_A\, .
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \cite[Proposition 3.3]{RS2} and the assumption.
\end{proof}
In the following we set $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A := \widehat{\mathcal{M}}^{(0,0)}_A$ resp. $\widehat{M}_A := \widehat{M}^{(0,0)}$.\\
For certain parameters $\lambda \in \Lambda$ the fibers of $\varphi_A(\cdot,\lambda)$ acquire singularities at infinity. Outside this set the singularities of the $\mathcal{D}$-module $\mathcal{G}^+$ are particularly simple. \\
Let $Q$ be the convex hull of the set $\{\underline{a}_0 := 0, \underline{a}_1, \ldots , \underline{a}_n\}$:
\[
Q := conv(0,\underline{a}_1,\ldots ,\underline{a}_n)\, .
\]
Let $\Gamma$ be a face of $Q$ and denote by $Y_\Gamma^{crit,(\lambda_0,\underline{\lambda})}$ the set
\[
\{ (y_1, \ldots ,y _d) \in Y \mid \sum_{\underline{a}_i \in \Gamma} \lambda_i \underline{y}^{\underline{a}_i} = 0 \; ; \; y_k \partial_{y_k}(\sum_{\underline{a}_i \in \Gamma} \lambda_i \underline{y}^{\underline{a}_i}) = 0 \quad \text{for all} \quad k \in \{1, \ldots ,d\} \}\, .
\]
We say that the fiber $\varphi_A^{-1}(\lambda_0,\underline{\lambda})$ has a singularity at infinity if there exists a \textbf{proper} face $\Gamma$ of the Newton polyhedron $Q$ such that $Y_\Gamma^{crit, (\lambda_0,\underline{\lambda})} \neq \emptyset$. The set
\[
\Delta^\infty_A := \{ (\lambda_0,\underline{\lambda}) \in \mathbb{C}_{\lambda_0} \times \Lambda \mid \exists \Gamma \neq Q \; \text{such that } \; Y_{\Gamma}^{crit,(\lambda_0,\underline{\lambda})} \neq \emptyset \}
\]
is called the non-tame locus of $\varphi_A$. Notice that $\Delta^\infty_A$ is independent of $\lambda_0$ since $0$ lies in the interior of $Q$, hence no proper face of $Q$ contains $0$. Denote the projection of $\Delta^\infty_A$ to $\Lambda$ by $\Lambda^{bad}$. Let $\Lambda^* := \Lambda \setminus \{\lambda_1\cdot \ldots \cdot \lambda_n = 0\} $ and define
\[
\Lambda^\circ := \Lambda^* \setminus \Lambda^{bad}\, .
\]
The following was proven in \cite{RS2} Lemma 3.13:
\begin{lem}
Consider $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A$ as a $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{P}^1\times \overline{\Lambda}}$-module, where $\overline{\Lambda}$ is a smooth projective compactification of $\Lambda$. Then $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A$ is regular outside $(\{z=0\} \times \Lambda) \cup (\mathbb{P}^1_z \times (\overline{\Lambda} \setminus \Lambda^\circ))$ and smooth on $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \Lambda^\circ$.
\end{lem}
Next we want to consider natural lattices in $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A$. For this we need the notion of $\mathcal{R}$-modules.
\begin{defn}
Let $X$ be a smooth variety . Then the sheaf of (non-commutative) rings $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times X}$ is by definition the $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times X}$-subalgebra of $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times X}$ locally generated by $z^2 \partial_z, z \partial_{x_1}, \ldots , z\partial_{x_n}$, where $(x_1, \ldots , x_n)$ are local coordinates on $X$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
$ $\\[-1 em]
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $\mathcal{I}$ be the left ideal in $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^*}$ generated by $(\hat{\Box}_{\underline{l}})$ and $(\hat{E}_k)_{k=0, \ldots ,d}$ (cf . Definition \ref{def:FLGKZ}). Write ${\,\,^{\ast\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{A}$ for the cyclic $\mathcal{R}$-module $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^*} / \mathcal{I}$.
\item Consider the open inclusions $\Lambda^\circ \subset \Lambda^* \subset \Lambda$ and define the $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ}$-module
\[
{^{\circ\!\!}}\widehat{\mcm}_{A} := \left( \widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A \right)_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ}
\]
and the $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ}$-module
\[
{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A} := \left( {\,\,^{\ast\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{A} \right) _{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ} \, .
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
We now list some properties of the $\mathcal{R}$-module ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}$:
\begin{prop}\cite[Proposition 3.18, Corollary 3.19]{RS2}\label{prop:PropLattice}$ $\\[-1em]
\begin{enumerate}
\item The $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ}$-module ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}$ is locally-free of rank vol(Q).
\item The natural map ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A} \rightarrow {^{\circ\!\!}}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}$ which is induced by the inclusion $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ} \rightarrow \mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ}$ is injective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
The so-called Fourier-Laplace transformed Brieskorn lattice of the FL-transformed Gau\ss-Manin system $\mathcal{G}^+$ is given by the following $R_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ}$-module:
\[
H^0\left(\Omega^{\bullet +d}_{Y \times \Lambda^\circ / \Lambda^\circ}[z],zd -d_y \phi \wedge \right)\, .
\]
If the semigroup $\mathbb{N} A$ is saturated we have the following identification:
\begin{prop}\cite[Proposition 3.20]{RS2}
Let $\mathbb{N} A$ be a saturated semigroup. There exists the following $R_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\circ}$-linear isomorphism
\[
H^0\left(\Omega^{\bullet +d}_{Y \times \Lambda^\circ / \Lambda^\circ}[z],zd -d_y\phi_A \wedge \right) \simeq {\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{M}_{A}\, .
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\cite[Corollary 2.19]{RS1}\label{cor:PairingPUp}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
There is a non-degenerate flat $(-1)^d$-symmetric pairing
\[
P:\left( {^\circ}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A\right)_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times \Lambda^\circ} \otimes \iota^*\left({^\circ}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A\right)_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times \Lambda^\circ}\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \Lambda^\circ}.
\]
\item
We have that $P({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A},{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A})\subset z^d \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z\times \Lambda^\circ}$,
and $P$ is non-degenerate on ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}$.
i.e., it induces a non-degenerate symmetric pairing
\[
[z^{-d}P]:\left[\dfrac{{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}}{z\cdot{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}}\right]\otimes\left[\dfrac{{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}}{z\cdot {\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}}\right]\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\Lambda^\circ}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\section{Construction of the Landau-Ginzburg model}\label{sec:LG}
\subsection{Local Landau-Ginzburg models}\label{ssec:LocalLG}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a projective toric Deligne-Mumford stack with fan $\mathbf{\Sigma} = (N, \Sigma, \mathfrak{a})$.
In this section we explain the construction of a (Zariski local) Landau-Ginzburg model which will serve as a mirror partner for $\mathcal{X}$.\\
Recall the sequence \ref{eq:extseq}
\[
0 \longrightarrow \mathbb{L} \overset{\mathfrak{t}}\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{n} \overset{\mathfrak{a}}\longrightarrow N \longrightarrow 0\, .
\]
We apply the functor $\Hom(-,\mathbb{C}^*)$ to the sequence above which gives the following sequence of algebraic tori:
\[
1 \longrightarrow \Hom(N, \mathbb{C}^*) \longrightarrow \mathcal{Y}' := \Hom( \mathbb{Z}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^*) \overset{\psi_{\mathfrak{t}}}\longrightarrow \mathcal{T}:= \Hom(\mathbb{L},\mathbb{C}^*) \longrightarrow 1\, .
\]
The basis $e_1,\ldots , e_n$ equips $\mathcal{Y}$ with coordinates $w_1,\ldots, w_n$. Consider the map
\begin{align}
W': \mathcal{Y}' &\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{T}\, , \notag \\
(w_1,\ldots,w_n) &\mapsto (-\sum_{i=1}^n w_i, \psi_{\mathfrak{t}}(\underline{w}))\, . \notag
\end{align}
Usually this map $W'$ is called the Landau-Ginzburg model of the toric orbild $\mathcal{X}$. However to ensure a correct limit behavior we need to consider a covering of this model. Consider the inclusion $\mathfrak{c}: \mathbb{L} \hookrightarrow NE^e(X)$, which gives rise to a covering $\mathcal{T} \leftarrow \mathcal{M}:= \Hom(NE^e(X),\mathbb{C}^*)$. We get the following cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix{\mathcal{Y}' \ar[d]^{W'} & \mathcal{Y} \ar[l] \ar[d]^W \\ \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{T} & \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{M} \ar[l]^{id \times \psi_\mathfrak{c}}}
\]
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a projective toric orbifold. The mirror Landau-Ginzburg model of $\mathcal{X}$ is given by
\begin{align}
W: \mathcal{Y} &\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{M}\, . \notag
\end{align}
\end{defn}
We have to compute the Fourier-Laplace transformed Gau\ss-Manin system and the Brieskorn lattice for the map $W$. For this we will construct a map $\mathbb{C}^t \times \Lambda^* \leftarrow \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{T}$ such that $W$ becomes the pull-back of the map $\varphi_A$ from Section \ref{sec:LauGKZ} (recall that $A$ is the matrix corresponding to $\mathfrak{a}$ after the choice of a basis for $N$) under the cocatenated morphisms $ \Lambda^* \leftarrow \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{T} \leftarrow \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{M}$ .
Here we will identify $\Lambda^*:= \Hom(\mathbb{Z}^n,\mathbb{C}^*)$ with $\Lambda \setminus\{\lambda_1\cdot \ldots \cdot \lambda_n =0\}$.\\
Since we assumed that $N$ is free, we have $\Ext^1(N,\mathbb{Z})= 0$ which gives us the following commutative diagram whose vertical maps are isomorphismsm
\[
\xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & \mathbb{L} \ar@{=}[d]\ar[r]^{\mathfrak{t}} & \mathbb{Z}^{n} \ar[r]^\mathfrak{a}\ar[d]^\mathfrak{k} & N \ar[r]\ar@{=}[d] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & \mathbb{L} \ar[r] & \mathbb{L} \oplus N \ar[r] & N \ar[r] & 0}
\]
where $\mathfrak{k} = \mathfrak{s} + \mathfrak{a}$ with $\mathfrak{s}: \mathbb{Z}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{L}$ and $\mathfrak{k}^{-1} = \mathfrak{t} +\mathfrak{g}$ with $\mathfrak{g}: N \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{n}$.
The maps satisfy the following relations
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak{a} \circ \mathfrak{t} = 0$ and $\mathfrak{s} \circ \mathfrak{g} = 0$
\item $\mathfrak{a} \circ \mathfrak{g} = id_N$ and $\mathfrak{s} \circ \mathfrak{t} = id_{\mathbb{L}}$
\end{enumerate}
Consider the push-out diagram
\[
\xymatrix{-\sum_{i=1}^n( \chi^{a_i} \otimes \chi^{e_i} \chi^{e_k}) &\mathbb{C}[N] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{Z}^n] \ar[r] & \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{Z}^n] & \left( -\sum_{i=1}^n \chi^{e_i}\right)\chi^{\mathfrak{t}(l)} \\t \otimes \chi^{e_k} \ar@{|->}[u]&\mathbb{C}[t] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{Z}^n] \ar[u] \ar[r] & \mathbb{C}[t] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{L}] \ar[u] & t \otimes \chi^l \ar@{|->}[u]\\
& t \otimes \chi^{e_k} \ar[r] & t \otimes \chi^{\mathfrak{s}(e_k)}}
\]
Here we made the following identifications
\begin{align}
\mathbb{C}[N] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{Z}^n] \otimes_{\mathbb{C}[t] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{Z}^n]} \mathbb{C}[t] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{L}] &\overset{\simeq}\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}[N] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{L}] \notag\\
1 \otimes \chi^{e_i} \otimes 1 \otimes 1 &\mapsto 1 \otimes \chi^{\mathfrak{s}(e_i)} \notag \\
1 \otimes 1 \otimes t \otimes 1 &\mapsto -\sum_{i=1}^n(\chi^{a_i} \otimes \chi^{\mathfrak{s}(e_i)}) \notag
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\mathbb{C}[N] \otimes \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{L}] &\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}[\mathbb{Z}^n] \notag \\
\chi^n \otimes \chi^l &\mapsto \chi^{\mathfrak{g}(n)}\chi^{\mathfrak{t}(l)}\, . \notag
\end{align}
This gives a cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix{Y \times \Lambda^* \ar[d]_{\varphi_A} & \mathcal{Y}' \ar[d]^{W'} \ar[l] \\ \mathbb{C}_t \times \Lambda^* & \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{T} \ar[l]^{id \times \psi_{\mathfrak{s}}} }
\]
We denote by $\psi$ the concatenation $\psi_\mathfrak{s} \circ \psi_\mathfrak{c}$ and get the cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix{Y \times \Lambda^* \ar[d]_{\varphi_A} & \mathcal{Y} \ar[d]^{W} \ar[l] \\ \mathbb{C}_t \times \Lambda^* & \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{M} \ar[l]^{id \times \psi} }
\]
Choose some $\mathbb{Z}$-basis $p_1,\ldots,p_{r+e}$ in $Pic^e(\mathcal{X})$ which satisifes the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p_1,\ldots , p_r \in \theta(\mathcal{K})\subset \mathcal{K}^e$,
\item $p_{r+i} = [D_{m+i}]$ for $i=1,\ldots,e$,
\item $\rho \in Cone(p_1,\ldots, p_{r+e})$.
\end{enumerate}
The dual $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $(p_a)_{a=1,\ldots,r+e}$ equips $\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} = Hom(NE^e(X),\mathbb{C}^*)$ with coordinates $\chi_1,\ldots, \chi_{r+e}$. \\
Using the coordinates $\chi_a$ the map $\psi$ is given by
\begin{align}
\psi = \psi_\mathfrak{n}: \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} &\longrightarrow \Lambda^\ast\, , \notag \\
(\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_r) &\mapsto (\underline{\chi}^{\underline{n}_1},\ldots, \underline{\chi}^{\underline{n}_{m+e}}) \notag
\end{align}
where $\mathfrak{n} := \mathfrak{c} \circ \mathfrak{s}$ with
\[
\mathfrak{n}(e_i) = \sum_{a=1}^r n_{ai}p_a\, .
\]
After the choice of the splitting above the Landau-Ginzburg model for $\mathcal{X}$ is given by
\begin{align}
W: \mathcal{Y} \simeq Y \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} &\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}_t \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}\, , \label{eq:LGLaurent} \\
(\underline{y},\underline{\chi}) &\mapsto (-\sum_{i=1}^{n} \underline{\chi}^{n_i} \underline{y}^{a_i}, \underline{\chi})\, . \notag
\end{align}
Since $\mathbb{L}$ is a full sublattice in $NE^e(X)$ the map $\mathfrak{c}$ becomes an isomorphism after tensoring with $\mathbb{Q}$. Let
\[
\mathfrak{r}: NE^e(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \longrightarrow \mathbb{L} \otimes \mathbb{Q}
\]
be its inverse. We denote by $\mathfrak{m}$ the concatenation $\mathfrak{t} \circ \mathfrak{r}$. With respect to the basis $e_1,\ldots, e_n$ and the dual basis of $p_1,\ldots, p_{r+e}$ the map $\mathfrak{m}$ is given by the matrix $M=(m_{ia})$.
It follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:charmia}
[D_i] = \sum_{a=1}^{r+e} m_{ia}p_a\, .
\end{equation}
Now we want to compute the Fourier-Laplace transformed Gau\ss-Manin system of the map $W$. We do this by computing an inverse image of the FL-transformed Gau\ss-Manin system of $\varphi_A$.\\
\begin{prop}\label{prop:RSDmodds}
Let $\widetilde{\psi} = (id_z,\psi): \mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^\ast$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The inverse image $\mcq\mcm_A:= \widetilde{\psi}^+ ({^*}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A)$ is isomorphic to the quotient of $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}} / \mathcal{I}$, where $\mathcal{I}$ is the left ideal generated by
\[
\widetilde{\Box}_{\underline{l}}:=\!\!\!\prod_{a:p_a(\underline{l})>0}\!\!\!\! {\chi_a}^{p_a(\underline{l})}\! \prod_{i:l_i<0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{-l_i-1} (\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} m_{ia} z\chi_a\partial_{\chi_a} -\nu z) -
\!\!\!\prod_{a:p_a(\underline{l})<0}\!\!\!\! {\chi_a}^{-p_a(\underline{l})}\! \prod_{i:l_i>0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{l_i-1} (\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} m_{ia} z\chi_a\partial_{\chi_a} -\nu z)
\]
for any $\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}$ and by the single operator
\[
\check{E}:= z^2 \partial_z + \sum_{a=1}^{r+e} \sum_{i=1}^{m+e}m_{ia} z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}\, .
\]
\item There is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{S}}$-modules
\[
\mcq\mcm_A \simeq \FL_{\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{X}}}^{loc}(\mathcal{H}^0 W_+ \mathcal{O}_{Y\times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}})\, .
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first choose bases $w_1,\ldots, w_{r+e}$ of $\mathbb{L}$ and $v_1,\ldots, v_d$ of $N$ and denote the dual bases by $w^*_1,\ldots, w^*_{r+e}$ and $v^*_1,\ldots, v^*_d$, respectively. This gives rise to coordinates $\tau_1,\ldots, \tau_{r+e}$ on $\mathcal{T} = \Hom(\mathbb{L},\mathbb{C}^*)$ and and $h_1,\ldots, h_d$ on $H= \Hom(N,\mathbb{C}^*)$. We set $a_i = \mathfrak{a}(e_i)$, $s_i = \mathfrak{a}(e_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $t_a = \mathfrak{t}(w_a)$ resp. $g_{j} = \mathfrak{g}(v_j)$ for $a=1,\ldots r+e$ resp. $j = 1,\ldots ,d$.\\
We will first compute the inverse image under the map $\psi_\mathfrak{s}$, which was induced by the linear morphism $\mathfrak{s}: \mathbb{Z}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{L}$. We factor $\mathfrak{s}$ in the following way:
\[
\mathfrak{s}: \mathbb{Z}^{n} \overset{(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{a})}\longrightarrow \mathbb{L} \oplus N \overset{p_1}\longrightarrow \mathbb{L}
\]
where $p_1$ is the projection to the first factor. Hence we get a factorization of $\psi_\mathfrak{s}$ given by
\begin{align}
\delta: \mathcal{T} &\longrightarrow \mathcal{T} \times H\, , \notag \\
(\tau_1, \ldots , \tau_r) &\mapsto (\tau_1, \ldots , \tau_r,1,\ldots,1)\, , \notag \\[0.7em]
i_1: \mathcal{T} \times H &\longrightarrow \Lambda^*\, , \notag\\[-0.2em]
(\tau_1,\ldots , \tau_r, h_1,\ldots, h_d) &\mapsto (\underline{\tau}^{s_1}\cdot \underline{h}^{a_1},\ldots,\underline{\tau}^{s_{m+e}}\cdot \underline{h}^{a_{m+e}} ) \notag
\end{align}
where $\underline{\tau}^{s_1} := \prod_{b=1}^{r+e}\tau_b^{s_{b1}}$ etc. and the inverse of $i_1$ is given by
\begin{align}
i_1^{-1}: \Lambda^* &\longrightarrow \mathcal{T} \times H\, , \notag \\
(\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{m+e}) &\mapsto (\underline{\lambda}^{\underline{t}_1},\ldots, \underline{\lambda}^{\underline{t}_r}, \underline{\lambda}^{\underline{g}_1},\ldots, \underline{\lambda}^{\underline{g}_d })\, . \notag
\end{align}
Notice that the ideal $\mathcal{I}$ in Definition \ref{def:FLGKZ} is generated by
\begin{align}
\left(\prod_{i: l_i >0} \lambda_i^{l_i}\right) \cdot \hat{\Box}_{\underline{l}} &= \prod_i \lambda_i^{l_i} \cdot \prod_{i: l_i <0} (\lambda_i)^{-l_i}(z \partial_{\lambda_i})^{-l_i} - \prod_{i : l_i >0} (\lambda_i)^{l_i}(z \partial_{\lambda_i})^{l_i}\quad \text{for}\; \underline{l} \in \mathbb{L} \, ,\notag \\
&=\prod_i \lambda_i^{l_i} \cdot \prod_{i: l_i <0}\prod_{\nu =0}^{-l_i-1} (z \lambda_i \partial_{\lambda_i}-\nu z)^{-l_i} - \prod_{i : l_i >0}\prod_{\nu=0}^{l_i-1} (z \lambda_i \partial_{\lambda_i}-\nu z)^{l_i}\quad \text{for}\; \underline{l} \in \mathbb{L} \, ,\notag \\
\hat{E} &:= z^2 \partial_z + \sum_{i=1}^{m+e} z \lambda_i \partial_{\lambda_i}\, , \notag \\
\hat{E}_k &:= \sum_{i=1}^{m+e} a_{ki} z \lambda_i \partial_{\lambda_i} \, . \notag
\end{align}
We have the following transformation rules for the coordinate change $i_1$:
\[
\lambda_i \partial_{\lambda_i} \mapsto \sum_{b=1}^{r+e} t_{ib} \tau_b \partial_{\tau_{b}} + \sum_{k=1}^d g_{ik} h_k \partial_{h_k}
\]
where $t_{ib} =D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w_b))$.\\
Since $i_1$ is an isomorphism, we have that $i_1^+({^*}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A) $ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \Lambda^*}/ \mathcal{I}'$ where the left ideal $\mathcal{I}'$ is generated by
\[
\Box_{\underline{l}}':=\prod_{b=1}^{r+e} \tau_b^{w_b^*(\underline{l})} \prod_{i:l_i<0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{-l_i-1} (\sum_{b=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w_b)) z\tau_b\partial_{\tau_b} -\nu z) -
\prod_{i:l_i>0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{l_i-1} (\sum_{b=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w_b)) z\tau_b\partial_{\tau_b} -\nu z)
\]
for any $\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}$ and by the Euler operators
\begin{align}
& E':= z \partial_z + \sum_{b=1}^{r+e} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m+e}D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w_b))\right) \tau_b \partial_{\tau_b}\, , \notag \\
&E'_k :=h_k \partial_{h_k} \qquad \text{for} \; k=1,\ldots ,d\, . \notag
\end{align}
Here, we have used the formulas
\[
\prod_{i=1}^{m+e} {\lambda_i}^{l_i} = \prod_{i=1}^{m+e} \underline{\tau}^{l_i \cdot\underline{s}_i} \cdot \underline{h}^{l_i \cdot \underline{a}_i} = \prod_{b=1}^{r+e}\tau_b^{\sum_i l_i s_{bi}} \prod_{k=1}^d h_k^{\sum_i l_i a_{ki}} = \prod_{b=1}^{r+e}\tau_b^{\sum_i l_i s_{bi}}
\]
and
\[
\sum_i l_i s_{ib} = \sum_i l_i w_b^*(\mathfrak{s}(e_i)) = w_b^*(\mathfrak{s}(\mathfrak{t}(\underline{l})) = w_b^*(\underline{l}).
\]
It is now easy to see that the inverse image $\psi_\mathfrak{s}^+({^*}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A) \simeq \delta^+ i_1^+({^*}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A)$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}} / \mathcal{I}''$ where the left ideal $\mathcal{I}''$ is generated by $\Box_{\underline{l}}'$ and $E'$.
We will now compute the inverse image under $\psi_\mathfrak{c}$. Denote by $q_1,\ldots, q_{r+e}$ the basis in $NE^e(X)$ dual to $p_1,\ldots, p_{r+e} \subset Pic^e(X)$. With respect to the bases $w_1,\ldots,w_{r+e}$ resp. $q_1,\ldots, q_{r+e}$ the $\mathbb{Z}$-linear map $\mathfrak{c}$ is given by a matrix $C =(c_{ab})$, i.e. $\mathfrak{c}(w_b) = \sum_{a=1}^{r+e} c_{ab}q_a$.
We factorize this matrix to obtain
\[
C = C_1 \cdot D \cdot C_2
\]
with $C_1=(c^1_{ab}),C_2=(c^2_{ba}) \in GL(r,\mathbb{Z})$ and $D=diag(d_1,\ldots,d_{r+e})$ a diagonal matrix with strictly positive integer entries.
The factorization of $C$ gives also a factorization of $R = C^{-1}$, i.e.
\[
R = R_2 \cdot D^{-1} \cdot R_1
\]
with $R_i=(r^i_{ab}) = C_i^{-1} \in Gl(r,\mathbb{Z})$. We define new bases
\[
w'_h = \sum_{b=1}^{r+e} r^2_{bh} w_b \qquad \text{and} \qquad q'_h = \sum_{a=1}^{r+e} c^1_{ah} q_a\, .
\]
With respect to these bases $\mathfrak{c}$ is diagonal, i.e. $\mathfrak{c}(w'_h) = d_h \cdot q'_h$.\\
The choice of these bases gives rise to coordinate changes on $\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}$:
\[
\tau'_h = \prod_{b=1}^{r+e} \tau_b^{r^2_{bh}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \chi'_h = \prod_{a=1}^{r+e} \chi_a^{c^1_{ah}}
\]
with inverses
\[
\tau_b = \prod_{h=1}^{r+e} (\tau'_h)^{c^2_{hb}} \qquad \text{and}\qquad \chi_a = \prod_{h=1}^{r+e} (\chi_h')^{r^1_{ha}}\, .
\]
Hence we get a factorization of $\psi_\mathfrak{c} = \psi_2 \circ \kappa \circ \psi_1$, where the maps are given by
\begin{align}
\psi_1: \mathcal{T} &\longrightarrow \mathcal{T}\, , \notag \\
(\tau'_1, \ldots , \tau'_{r+e}) &\mapsto (\tau_1 = \prod_{h=1}^{r+e} (\tau'_h)^{c_{h1}^1}, \ldots , \tau_{r+e} = \prod_{h=1}^{r+e} (\tau'_h)^{c_{h,r+e}^1})\, , \notag \\
\kappa: \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} &\longrightarrow \mathcal{T}\, , \notag \\
(\chi'_1, \ldots , \chi'_{r+e}) &\mapsto (\tau'_1= (\chi'_1)^{d_1}, \ldots , \tau'_{r+e} = (\chi'_{r+e})^{d_{r+e}})\, , \notag \\
\psi_2: \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} &\longrightarrow \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}\, , \notag\\
(\chi_1, \ldots , \chi_{r+e}) &\mapsto (\chi'_1 = \prod_{a=1}^{r+e} \chi_a^{c_{a1}^2}, \ldots , \chi'_{r+e} = \prod_{a=1}^{r+e} (\chi_a)^{c_{a,r+e}^2})\, . \notag
\end{align}
Notice that we have the following transformation rule:
\[
\tau_b \partial_{\tau_b} \mapsto \sum_{h=1}^{r+e}r^2_{bh}\tau_h'\partial_{\tau'_h}\, .
\]
Since $\psi_1$ is an isomorphism $\psi_1^+ \mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}}/\mathcal{I}''$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}} / \mathcal{J}''$ where $\mathcal{J}''$ is generated by
\[
\Box_{\underline{l}}':=\prod_{h=1}^{r+e} (\tau'_h)^{(w'_h)^*(\underline{l})} \prod_{i:l_i<0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{-l_i-1} (\sum_{h=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w'_h)) z\tau'_h\partial_{\tau'_h} -\nu z) -
\prod_{i:l_i>0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{l_i-1} (\sum_{h=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w'_h)) z\tau'_h\partial_{\tau'_h} -\nu z)
\]
where $\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}$ and
\[
z^2 \partial_z + \sum_{h=1}^{r+e} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w'_h))\right)z \tau'_h \partial_{\tau'_h}\, .
\]
Here we have used that
\[
\prod_{b=1}^{r+e} \tau_b^{w_b^*(\underline{l})} = \prod_{b=1}^{r+e} \left(\prod_{h=1}^{r+e} (\tau'_h)^{c^2_{hb}} \right)^{w_b^*(\underline{l})} = \prod_{h=1}^{r+e}(\tau'_h)^{\sum_{b=1}^{r+e} c^2_{hb} w_b^*(\underline{l})} = \prod_{h=1}^{r+e}(\tau'_h)^{(w'_h)^*(\underline{l})}
\]
and
\begin{align}
\sum_{b=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w_b)) z \tau_b \partial_{\tau_b} &= \sum_{b=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w_b)) z \left(\sum_{h=1}^{r+e}r^2_{bh}\tau_h'\partial_{\tau'_h}\right)\notag \\
&= \sum_{h=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}( \sum_{b=1}^{r+e} r^2_{bh} w_b)) z \tau'_h \partial_{\tau'_h} \notag \\
&= \sum_{h=1}^{r+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}(w'_h)) z \tau'_h \partial_{\tau'_h}\, . \notag
\end{align}
In order to compute $\kappa^+ \psi_1^+ \mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}} / \mathcal{I} '' \simeq \kappa^+ \mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}}/ \mathcal{J}$, we first notice that
\[
\kappa^+ \mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}}/ \mathcal{J} \simeq \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}} \otimes \kappa^{-1}(\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}}/ \mathcal{J})
\]
where the operators $\chi'_h$ resp. $\chi'_h \partial_{\chi'_h}$ act by
\[
(\chi'_h)^{d_n} (f \otimes P) = f \otimes \tau'_h P
\]
resp.
\[
\chi'_h \partial_{\chi'_h} ( f \otimes P) = \chi'_h \partial_{\chi'_h}(f)\otimes P + f \otimes (d_h\tau'_h \partial_{\tau'_h}) P\, .
\]
An easy computation shows that $\kappa^+ \mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \tau}/ \mathcal{J}''$ is isomorphic to the quotient $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}} / \mathcal{J}'$ where the left ideal $\mathcal{J}'$ is generated by
\[
\prod_{h=1}^{r+e} (\chi'_h)^{\mathfrak{c}^*(q'_h)^*(\underline{l})} \prod_{i:l_i<0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{-l_i-1} (\sum_{h=1}^{r} D_i(\mathfrak{t}\circ \mathfrak{r}(q'_h)) z\chi'_h\partial_{\chi'_h} -\nu z) -
\prod_{i:l_i>0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{l_i-1} (\sum_{h=1}^{r} D_i(\mathfrak{t}\circ \mathfrak{r}(q'_h)) z\chi'_h\partial_{\chi'_h} -\nu z)
\]
for any $\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}$ and by the single operator
\[
z^2 \partial_z + \sum_{h=1}^{r+e} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m+e} D_i(\mathfrak{t}\circ \mathfrak{r}(q'_h))\right)z \chi'_h \partial_{\chi'_h}\, .
\]
Here we used $\mathfrak{c}(w'_h)=d_h \cdot p'_h$, i.e. $\mathfrak{c}^*((q'_h)^*) =d_h\cdot (w'_h)^*$.
The final step consists in computing $\psi_2^+ \kappa^+ \psi_1^+ \mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}} / \mathcal{I}'$ which is completely parallel to the computation of the inverse image under $\psi_1$. Therefore the first claim follows.\\
For the second claim consider the cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix{Y \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} \ar[rr] \ar[d]_W & & Y \times \Lambda^* \ar[d]^{\varphi_A} \\ \mathbb{C}_{\lambda_0} \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} \ar[rr]^{(id \times \psi)}& &\mathbb{C}_{\lambda_0} \times \Lambda^*}
\]
We have the following isomorphisms
\begin{align}
\mcq\mcm_A &\simeq \widetilde{\psi}^+ ({^*}\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_A)\notag \\
&\simeq \widetilde{\psi}^+\FL^{loc}_{\Lambda} \mathcal{H}^0(\varphi_{A,+} \mathcal{O}_{Y \times \Lambda^*}) \notag \\
&\simeq \FL_{\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{X}}}^{loc} (id_{\mathbb{C}_{\lambda_0}}\times \psi)^+ \mathcal{H}^0(\varphi_{A,+} \mathcal{O}_{Y \times \Lambda}) \notag \\
&\simeq \FL_{\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{X}}}^{loc}(\mathcal{H}^0 W_+ \mathcal{O}_{Y\times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}}) \notag
\end{align}
where the third isomorphism follows from the compatibility of the localized Fourier-Laplace transform with base change and the fourth isomorphism is base change with respect to the diagram above.\\
\end{proof}
Write $\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ := \psi^{-1}(\Lambda^\circ) = \{ (\chi_1, \ldots , \chi_{r+e}) \in \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}\! \mid W =\! -\sum_{i=1}^{m+e} \underline{\chi}^{\underline{n}_i} \underline{y}^{\underline{a}_i} \; \text{is Newton non-degenerate} \}$.
We have the following statement for the Brieskorn-lattice:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:PropzExt}$ $\\
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The inverse image (in the category of $\mathcal{O}$-modules)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:invImLat}
{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}:= \widetilde{\psi}^*({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}) = \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ} \otimes \widetilde{\psi}^{-1}({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A})
\end{equation}
carries a natural structure of an $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}$-module.
It is isomorphic to the quotient $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}/\mathcal{I}_0$, where $\mathcal{I}_0$ is the left ideal generated by $(\widetilde{\Box}_{\underline{l}})_{\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}}$ and $\check{E}$.
\item There exists the following $R_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}$-linear isomorphism
\[
H^0\left(\Omega^{\bullet +r+e}_{Y \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ / \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}[z],zd -d_yF \wedge \right) \simeq {_0\!}{^\circ\!}QM_{A}
\]
where ${_0\!}{^\circ\!}QM_{A} = \Gamma(\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ,{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A})$.
\item
There is a non-degenerate flat $(-1)^d$-symmetric pairing
$$
P:\left(\mcq\mcm_A\right)_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z^* \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ} \otimes \iota^*\left(\mcq\mcm_A\right)_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^*_z\times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}.
$$
\item
$P({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A} ,{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A} )\subset z^d \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z\times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}$,
and $P$ is non-degenerate on ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First notice that the map $\widetilde{\psi}$ factorizes as $(id \times \psi_\mathfrak{s}) \circ ( id \times \psi_\mathfrak{c})$. The map $(id \times \psi_\mathfrak{s})$ is non-characteristic with respect to ${^{\circ\!\!}}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}$ since the singular locus of ${^{\circ\!\!}}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}$ is contained in $(\{0,\infty\} \times \Lambda^\circ)$ and the map $(id \times \psi_\mathfrak{c})$ is non-characteristic with respect to any coherent $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}}$-module since $(id \times \psi_\mathfrak{c})$ is smooth. Hence the inverse image is nothing but the inverse image in the category of meromorphic connections. The inverse image of the lattice ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\widehat{\mcm}_{A}$ is then simply given by the formula \eqref{eq:invImLat}.
The second point follows by base change and the fact that $\widetilde{\psi}^*= (id \times \psi_\mathfrak{c})^* \circ (id \times \psi_\mathfrak{s})^*$ is exact. The third and fourth point follow from Proposition \ref{cor:PairingPUp}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:facBox}$ $\\[-1.5em]
\begin{enumerate}
\item The $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}}$-module $\mcq\mcm_A$ is isomorphic to the quotient $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{T}}/ \mathcal{I} $ where $\mathcal{J}$ is the left ideal generated by $\check{E}$ and
\begin{align}
\Box^X_{\underline{l}} := &\prod_{a=1 \atop p_a(\underline{l}) > 0}^r \chi_a^{p_a(\underline{l})} \prod_{i=1 \atop l_i < 0}^m \prod_{\nu =0}^{-l_i-1}(\mathscr{D}_i - \nu z) \prod_{i=m+1 \atop l_i < 0}^{m+e} \mathscr{D}_i^{-l_i}
- \prod_{a=1 \atop p_a(\underline{l})}^r \chi_a^{-p_a(\underline{l})} \prod_{i=1 \atop l_i > 0}^m \prod_{v=0}^{l_i-1} (\mathscr{D}_i - \nu z) \prod_{i=m+1 \atop l_i >0}^{m+e}\mathscr{D}_i^{l_i} \notag
\end{align}
where
\[
\mathscr{D}_i = \begin{cases}\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} m_{ia}z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a} & \text{for}\; i=1,\ldots,m\\ z\partial_{\chi_{i-m+r}} & \text{for}\; i = m+1,\ldots , m+e\, . \end{cases}
\]
\item The $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}$-module ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}$ is isomorphic to the quotient $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ} /\mathcal{J}_0$ where $\mathcal{J}_0$ is the left ideal generated by $\Box^X_{\underline{l}}$ and $\check{E}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that we have the following identifications
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p_{r+i}(\underline{l}) =[D_{m+i}](\underline{l}) = l_{m+i}$ for $i=1,\ldots,e$,
\item $m_{m+i,a} = \delta_{r+i,a}$
\end{enumerate}
where the second point follows from formula \ref{eq:charmia}. We can therefore write
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\Box}_{\underline{l}}&=\!\!\!\prod_{a:p_a(\underline{l})>0}\!\!\!\! {\chi_a}^{p_a(\underline{l})}\! \prod_{i:l_i<0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{-l_i-1} (\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} m_{ia} z\chi_a\partial_{\chi_a} -\nu z) -
\!\!\!\prod_{a:p_a(\underline{l})<0}\!\!\!\! {\chi_a}^{-p_a(\underline{l})}\! \prod_{i:l_i>0}
\prod_{\nu=0}^{l_i-1} (\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} m_{ia} z\chi_a\partial_{\chi_a} -\nu z) \notag \\
&= \prod_{a=1 \atop p_a(\underline{l})>0}^r \chi_a^{p_a(\underline{l})} \prod_{i=1 \atop l_{m+i} > 0}^e \chi_{r+i}^{l_{m+i}} \prod_{i=1 \atop l_i < 0}^{m} \prod_{\nu=0}^{-l_i-1}(\mathscr{D}_i - \nu z)\prod_{i=1 \atop l_{m+i} < 0}^e \chi_{r+i}^{-l_{m+i}}\prod_{i=m+1 \atop l_{i} < 0}^{m+e} \mathscr{D}_i^{-l_i} \notag \\
&- \prod_{a=1 \atop p_a(\underline{l})<0}^r \chi_a^{-p_a(\underline{l})} \prod_{i=1 \atop l_{m+i} < 0}^e \chi_{r+i}^{-l_{m+i}} \prod_{i=1 \atop l_i > 0}^{m} \prod_{\nu=0}^{l_i-1}(\mathscr{D}_i - \nu z)\prod_{i=1 \atop l_{m+i} > 0}^e \chi_{r+i}^{l_{m+i}}\prod_{i=m+1 \atop l_{i} > 0}^{m+e} \mathscr{D}_i^{l_i} \notag\\
&= \prod_{i=1}^e \chi_{r+i}^{|l_{m+i}|}\cdot\Box^X_{\underline{l}}\, . \notag
\end{align}
Since the $\chi_a$ are invertible on $\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}$ this shows the first and second point.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Logarithmic extension}
Let $Y$ be a smooth variety and $D$ be a reduced normal-crossing divisor in $Y$. Denote by $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times Y}(log D)$ the subsheaf of $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times
Y}$ generated by $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times Y}$, $z^2 \partial_z$ and $z\cdot p^{-1}Der(log D)$, where $p : \mathbb{C}_z \times Y \rightarrow Y$ is the canonical projection and $Der(logD)$ the sheaf of logarithmic vector fields along $D$.\\
Recall the definition of the base space $\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} = \Hom(NE^e(X),\mathbb{C}^*) \simeq (\mathbb{C}^*)^{r+e}$ of the Landau-Ginzburg model from section \ref{ssec:LocalLG}.. The choice of a basis $p_1,\ldots,p_{r+e}$ determines a partial compactification $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X} \simeq \mathbb{C}^{r+e}$. Let $D_\mathcal{X} \subset \overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X}$ be the normal crossing divisor given by $\chi_1 \cdots \chi_{r} = 0$.
Denote by $\Delta := \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} \setminus \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^\circ$ and let $\overline{\Delta}$ be the closure of $\Delta$ in $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X}$. Define $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X}^\circ := \overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X} \setminus \overline{\Delta}$. We denote by $p_\mathcal{X}$ the point with coordinates $\chi_1 = \ldots = \chi_{r+e} = 0$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:lvminM}
The point $p_\mathcal{X}$ is contained in $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X}^\circ$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows with an easy adaption of the proof in \cite[Appendix 6.1]{Ir2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{defn}
Let ${_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}}$ be the quotient $\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X}^\circ}(log D_X)/\mathcal{I}_X$ where $\mathcal{I}_X$ is the ideal generated by $(\Box^X_{\underline{l}})_{\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}}$ and $\check{E}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:latcoh}
There is a Zariski open subset $\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}\subset \overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X}^\circ$ containing the point $p_\mathcal{X}$ such that ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}} := {{_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}}}_{\mid \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}$ is $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}$-coherent.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X})$ be the sheaf associated to the ring
\[
\mathbb{C}[z,\chi_1, \ldots , \chi_r]\langle z\chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}, \ldots , z \chi_r \partial_{\chi_r}, z\partial_{\chi_{r+1}}, \ldots, z\partial_{\chi_{r+e}}\rangle.
\]
Notice that ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}}$ carries a natural $\mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X})$-module structure. We denote the corresponding $\mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X})$-module by $For_{z^2 \partial_z}( {\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})$. Notice that it is enough to prove the coherence at the point $p_\mathcal{X}$ for $For_{z^2 \partial_z}({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})$ since it is isomorphic to ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}}$ as a $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{U}_X}$-module.\\
Because of the operator $\check{E} = z^2 \partial_z + \sum_{a=1}^{r+e} \sum_{i=1}^{m+e}m_{ia} z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}$ the module $For_{z^2 \partial_z}({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X}) / (\Box^X_{\underline{l}})_{\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}}$. Now consider on $\mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X})$ the natural filtration $F_\bullet$ given by the orders of operators, i.e. the filtration $F_\bullet \mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X})$ is given on the level of global sections by
\[
F_k \mathbb{C}[z, \chi_1, \ldots , \chi_r]\langle z\chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}, \ldots , z \chi_r \partial_{\chi_r}\rangle := \left\lbrace P \mid P = \sum_{|\underline{s}| \leq k} g_{\underline{s}}(z,\underline{\chi})(z \chi_1\partial_{\chi_1})^{s_1}\cdot \ldots \cdot (z \chi_r\partial_{\chi_r})^{s_r}\right\rbrace\, .
\]
This filtration induces a filtration $F_{\bullet}$ on $For_{z^2 \partial_z}({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})$ which is good, i.e.
\[
F_k \mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X}) \cdot F_l For_{z^2 \partial_z}({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}}) = F_{k+l}For_{z^2 \partial_z}({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})\, .
\]
We have a natural identification
\[
gr_{\bullet}^F(\mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X})) = \pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times T^* \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}(log D_\mathcal{X})}
\]
where $T^* \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}(log D_\mathcal{X})$ is the total space of the vector bundle associated to the locally free sheaf $\Omega^1_{\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}(log D_\mathcal{X})$ and $\pi: \mathbb{C}_z \times T^* \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}(log D_\mathcal{X}) \rightarrow \mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}$ is the projection. The symbols of all operators $\Box^X_{\underline{l}}$ for $\underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}$ cut out a subvariety $\mathbb{C}_z \times S$ of $\mathbb{C}_z \times T^*\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}(log D_\mathcal{X})$.
It will be sufficient to show that the fiber over $\underline{\chi} = 0$ of $S \rightarrow \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}$ is quasi-finite since this implies that $S \rightarrow \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}$ is quasi-finite in a Zariski open neighborhood of $\underline{\chi} = 0$. Since $S$ is homogeneous this shows that $S$ is equal to the zero section of $T^*\mathcal{U}_X(log D_\mathcal{X})$ over this neighborhood. Adapting a well-known argument from the theory of $\mathcal{D}$-modules (see, e.g. \cite{Ph1}) we see that the filtration $F_\bullet$ will become eventually stationary and we conclude by the fact that all $F_k For_{z^2 \partial_z}({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})$ are stationary in this neighborhood.\\
Therefore, it remains now to prove that that the fiber over $z = \underline{\chi} = 0$ of $S \rightarrow \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}$ is quasi-finite.\\
First notice that in the limit $z= \underline{\chi} = 0$ the operators
\[
\mathscr{D}_i = \begin{cases}\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} m_{ia}z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a} & \text{for}\; i=1,\ldots,m\\ z\partial_{\chi_{i-m+r}} & \text{for}\; i = m+1,\ldots , m+e \end{cases}
\]
in $\mathcal{R}'(log D_\mathcal{X})$ degenerate to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:degDi}
\mathbf{D}_i = \begin{cases}\sum_{a=1}^{r} m_{ia}z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a} & \text{for}\; i=1,\ldots,m\\ z\partial_{\chi_{i-m+r}} & \text{for}\; i = m+1,\ldots , m+e\, . \end{cases}
\end{equation}
Since the fan $\Sigma$ is simplicial, we have for each $a_j$, $j=m+1,\ldots, m+e$ a cone relation $\underline{l}_{C_j}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conerelinpro}
\sum_{i=1}^m l_i a_i - l_j a_j = 0
\end{equation}
with $l_i , l_j \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$.
Because of $p_1, \ldots , p_r \in \theta(\mathcal{K}) \subset \theta(Pic(X))$ and the definition of the map $\Theta$ one easily sees that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vanConerel}
p_a(\underline{l}) = 0
\end{equation}
for all cone relations $\underline{l}$. Hence the corresponding Box operator is
\[
\Box^X_{\underline{l}_{C_j}} = (\mathscr{D}_j)^{l_j} - \prod_{i=1}^m \prod_{\nu = 0}^{l_i-1}(\mathscr{D}_i - \nu z)\, .
\]
Because $\deg(a_i) = 1$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$ and $\deg(a_j) \leq 1$ by Lemma \ref{lem:degai} we get from \eqref{eq:conerelinpro} the inequality $l_j \geq \sum_{i=1}^m l_i$. Hence the symbol of $\Box^X_{\underline{l}_{C_j}}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SigmaCone}
\sigma(\Box^X_{\underline{l}_{C_j}}) = \begin{cases}\sigma(\mathscr{D}_j)^{l_j} & \text{if}\; \deg(a_j) < 1 \\ \sigma(\mathscr{D}_j)^{l_j} - \prod_{i=1}^m \sigma(\mathscr{D}_i)^{l_i} & \text{if} \deg(a_j) = 1 \end{cases}
\end{equation}
which degenerates to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SigmaConedeg}
\sigma(\Box^X_{\underline{l}_{C_j}})_{z=\underline{\chi}=0} = \begin{cases}\sigma(\mathbf{D}_j)^{l_j} & \text{if}\; \deg(a_j) < 1 \\ \sigma(\mathbf{D}_j)^{l_j} - \prod_{i=1}^m \sigma(\mathbf{D}_i)^{l_i} & \text{if} \deg(a_j) = 1\, . \end{cases}
\end{equation}
Now suppose that $\{a_i \mid i \in I\}$ for $I \subset \{1,\ldots ,m\}$ is a primitive collection. Denote by $\underline{l}_I \in \mathbb{L}$ a primitive relation
\[
\sum_{i\in I} a_i - \sum_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I}^{m+e} l_j a_j = 0
\]
where $\sigma_I$ is the unique minimal cone containig $\sum_{i \in I} a_i$ (notice that $\underline{l}_I$ is not unique).
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ineq1}
p_a(\underline{l}_I) \geq 0 \qquad \text{for} \quad a=1,\ldots,r\, .
\end{equation}
Recall that $p_a \in \mathcal{K}$ and that $\mathcal{K}$ is the image of $\Theta(CPL(\Sigma))$. Let $\varphi_a \in CPL(\Sigma)$ be a convex, piece-wise linear function such that $\Theta(\varphi_a)$ is a preimage of $p_a$. By the definition of $\Theta$ (cf. \eqref{def:Theta}) we have
\begin{align}
p_a(\underline{l}_I) &= \sum_{i \in I} \varphi_a(a_i) - \sum_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I} l_j \varphi_a(a_j) = \sum_{i \in I} \varphi_a(a_i) - \varphi_a(\sum_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I}l_j a_j) \notag \\
&\geq \varphi_a(\sum_{i \in I} a_i) - \varphi_a(\sum_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I}l_j a_j) = 0\, . \notag
\end{align}
Additionally, the following inequality
\[
\# I = \sum_{i \in I} 1 \geq \sum_{l_j <0} l_j
\]
is true for the relation $\underline{l}_I$ , because again $\deg(a_i) =1$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$ and $\deg(a_j) \leq 1$ for $j=1,\ldots,m+e$ holds. Therefore the symbol of a box operator with respect to a generalized primitive collection is
\begin{align}
\sigma(\Box^X_{\underline{l}_I}) &= \prod_{a= 1}^r \chi_a^{p_a(\underline{l})} \prod_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I}^{m+e}\sigma(\mathscr{D}_j)^{l_j} - \prod_{i \in I} \sigma(\mathscr{D}_i) \notag
\end{align}
if $\# I = \sum_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I}^{m+e}$ and
\begin{align}
\sigma(\Box^X_{\underline{l}_I}) &= -\sum_{i \in I} \sigma(\mathscr{D}_i) \notag
\end{align}
if $\# I > \sum_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I}^{m+e}$. For $\underline{\chi} = (\chi_1,\ldots, \chi_{r+e}) = 0$ this gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SigmaPrim}
\sigma(\Box^X_{\underline{l}_I})_{\mid z = \underline{\chi} = 0} = -\sum_{i \in I} \sigma(\mathbf{D}_i)
\end{equation}
in both cases.
Notice that for $i=1,\ldots,r$ the $\mathbf{D}_i$, and therefore also the $\sigma(\mathbf{D}_i)$ satisfy
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=i}^m a_{ki} \mathbf{D}_i &= \sum_{i=1}^m a_{ki} \sum_{a=1}^{r} m_{ia} z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}
= \sum_{a=1}^r \left(\sum_{i=1}^m a_{ki} m_{ia} \right) z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}
= \;0\, . \label{eq:SigmaEuler}
\end{align}
If we keep Remark \ref{rem:classcoho} in mind, identify $\mathfrak{D}_i$ with $\sigma(\mathbf{D_i})$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$ and use the relations \eqref{eq:SigmaCone}, \eqref{eq:SigmaEuler}, \eqref{eq:SigmaPrim} we see that
\[
\dim_\mathbb{C}(S_{\mid z = \underline{\chi} = 0}) \leq H^*(X(\Sigma),\mathbb{C})\cdot \prod_{j=m+1}^{m+e} l_j
\]
where here we denote by $l_j$ the $j$-th component of $\underline{l}_{C_j}$.
In conclusion, this shows that the variety $S$ over $\underline{\chi} = 0$ is zero dimensional, since its coordinate ring is a finite-dimensional vector space. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:ReseqCoh}
Let ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X}$ be the $\mathcal{R}$-module defined above. We have the following isomorphism of finite-dimensional commutative algebras:
\[
{{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X}}_{\mid z= \underline{\chi} =0} \simeq H_{orb}^{*}(X,\mathbb{C})\, .
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $l \in \mathbb{L}$ be a cone relation. The corresponding box operator in the limit $z=\underline{\chi}=0$ is equal to
\begin{align}
(\Box^X_{\underline{l}})_{\mid z=\underline{\chi} = 0} := & \prod_{i=1 \atop l_i < 0}^{m+e} \mathbf{D}_i^{-l_i}
- \prod_{i=1 \atop l_i >0}^{m+e}\mathbf{D}_i^{l_i} \label{eq:ConeRelLim}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that for a cone relation $\underline{l}$ we have $p_a(\underline{l})=0$ for $a=1, \ldots ,r$.\\
Now suppose that $I \subset\{1, \ldots, m+e\}$ is a generalized primitive collection and consider a primitive relation $\underline{l}_I$:
\[
\sum_{i \in I} a_i - \sum_{j=1 \atop a_j \in \sigma_I}^{m+e} l_j a_j = 0\, .
\]
Notice that we have $p_a(\underline{l}_I) \geq 0$ for $a=1,\ldots,r$ which can be shown similarly to \eqref{eq:ineq1}.
We now claim that there exists an $a \in 1, \ldots ,r$ such that $p_a(\underline{l}_I) > 0$. Notice that the kernel of the map
\begin{align}
\mathbb{L} &\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^r\, , \notag \\
\underline{l} &\mapsto (p_1(\underline{l}),\ldots, p_r(\underline{l}))\, . \notag
\end{align}
is $e$-dimensional, since $p_1, \ldots, p_r$ is part of a basis of $Pic^e(X)$. Because the $p_a$ vanish on all cone relations for $a=1,\ldots ,r$ (cf. \eqref{eq:vanConerel} and the space of cone relations has rank $e$, the claim follows by dimensional reasons. We therefore get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PrimRelLim}
(\Box^X_{\underline{l}_I})_{\mid z=\underline{\chi} = 0} = - \prod_{i\in I}\, . \mathbf{D}_i
\end{equation}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:orbcoho} and the formulas \eqref{eq:SigmaEuler}, \eqref{eq:ConeRelLim} and \eqref{eq:PrimRelLim} we get the following surjective map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mapCohQuot}
H^*_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C}) \twoheadrightarrow {{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X}}_{\mid z= \underline{\chi} =0} \, ,
\end{equation}
by sending $\mathfrak{D}_i$ to $\mathbf{D}_i$.\\
Notice that ${{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X}}$ is coherent by the theorem above and its generic rank is equal to $vol(Q)$ by Proposition \ref{prop:PropLattice}. Since $H^*_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$ is also $vol(Q)$-dimensional and the dimension of the fibers of a coherent sheaf is upper-semi-continuous, we conclude that the map above is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:locfree}
The $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}$-module ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X}$ is locally free of rank $\mu$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $D_\mathcal{X} \subset \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}$ is a normal crossing divisor it carries a natural stratification $\{S_i\}_{i \in I}$ by smooth subvarieties. The restriction of ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X}$ to $S_i$ is equipped with a $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbb{C}_z^* \times S_i}$-module structure, so that it must be locally free. Since each stratum contains $p_X$ in its closure the claim follows again by semi-continuity of the dimension of the fibers of a coherent sheaf and from Proposition \ref{prop:ReseqCoh} above.
\end{proof}
Let $\mathcal{E}_\mathcal{X}$ be the restriction $({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times \{\underline{\chi}=0\}}$ and let $E_\mathcal{X} = \Gamma(\mathbb{C}_z, \mathcal{E}_\mathcal{X})$ be its module of global sections.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:extriv}
There is a canonical isomorphism
\begin{align}
\alpha_\mathcal{X}: \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z} \otimes_\mathbb{C} H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) &\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{E}_\mathcal{X}\, . \notag
\end{align}
It comes equipped with a connection
\begin{align}
&\nabla^{res,\underline{\chi}}: \mathcal{E}_\mathcal{X} \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}_\mathcal{X} \otimes z^{-2} \Omega^1_{\mathbb{C}_z} \notag
\end{align}
induced by the residue connection of $\nabla$. Let $\pi_\mathcal{X}: {_0}{\!\!^\circ}QM^{log,\mathcal{X}}_A \rightarrow E_\mathcal{X}$ be the canonical projection. Let $F_\mathcal{X} := \pi_\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{C}[z \chi_1\partial_{\chi_1}, \ldots, z \chi_{r} \partial_{\chi_{r}}, z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}}, \ldots , z \partial_{\chi_{r+e}}]$ and denote by $\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{X}\subset \mathcal{E}_\mathcal{X}$ the corresponding sheaf a $\mathbb{C}$-vector spaces. Then $\alpha_X(1 \otimes H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})) = \mathcal{F}_\mathcal{X}$. The connection operator $\nabla^{res,\underline{\chi}}_{\partial_z}$ sends $\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{X}$ into $z^{-2}\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{X} \oplus z^{-1} \mathcal{F}_\mathcal{X}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $E_\mathcal{X}$ is a quotient of $\mathbb{C}[z, z \chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}, \ldots z \chi_{r} \partial_{\chi_{r}}, z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}}, \ldots , z\partial_{\chi_{r+e}}]$ and $E_\mathcal{X} /z E_\mathcal{X}$ is canonically isomorphic to $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$. Denote by $w_1, \ldots , w_\mu$ a basis of $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$ which can be represented as monomials in $\mathbb{C}[z \chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}, \ldots z \chi_{r} \partial_{\chi_{r}}, z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}}, \ldots , z\partial_{\chi_{r+e}}]$ of degree $d_1, \ldots , d_\mu$. Denote by $(E_\mathcal{X})_{(0)}$ the localization of $E_\mathcal{X}$ at $0$. By Nakayama's lemma the basis $w_1, \ldots , w_\mu$ lifts to a basis in $(E_\mathcal{X})_{(0)}$ and hence provides a basis in a Zariski open neighborhood of $0\in \mathbb{C}_z$. Since the $(w_i)$ are global sections we have to show that they are nowhere vanishing.
From the presentation of ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}}$ we see that
\begin{align}
&(z^2 \nabla^{res,\underline{\chi}}_{\partial_z})\prod_{a=1}^{r}(z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a})^{k_a} \cdot \prod_{b=r+1}^{r+e}(z \partial_{\chi_b})^{k_b} \notag \\
=&(z^2 \partial_z)\prod_{a=1}^{r}(z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a})^{k_a} \cdot \prod_{b=r+1}^{r+e}(z \partial_{\chi_b})^{k_b} \notag \\
=& \prod_{a=1}^{r}(z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a})^{k_a} \cdot \prod_{b=r+1}^{r+e}(z \partial_{\chi_b})^{k_b} \cdot \left( (z^2 \partial_z) + \sum_{c=1}^{r+e} k_c \cdot z \right) \notag \\
=&\! \left(\! -\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} \sum_{i=1}^{m}m_{ia} z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}\! +\! z \cdot\! \left(\sum_{a=1}^{r} k_a + \sum_{b=r+1}^{r+e} k_b \cdot \left(1- \sum_{i=1}^{m+e} m_{ib} \right) \right) \right)\prod_{a=1}^{r}(z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a})^{k_a} \cdot \prod_{b=r+1}^{r+e}(z \partial_{\chi_b})^{k_b}\, . \notag
\end{align}
Hence, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq: connlvl}
(z^2 \nabla_{\partial_z}^{res,\underline{\chi}})(\underline{w}) = \underline{w} \cdot (A_0 + z A_{\infty})
\end{equation}
where $A_0,A_\infty \in M(\mu \times \mu,\mathbb{C})$ and $A_\infty$ is a diagonal matrix with $d_1, \ldots , d_\mu$. Since the connection has no singularities in $\mathbb{C}_z^*$ we conclude that $\underline{w}$ is nowhere vanishing, hence is a $\mathbb{C}[z]$-basis of $E_X$. This contruction gives the isomorphism $\alpha_X$ which is of course independent of the choice of the basis $\underline{w}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:DeligneExt}
Write $\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}}$for the restriction $({_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}})_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z^* \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}$. Then for any $a \in \{1,\ldots ,r\}$ the residue endomorphisms
\[
z\chi_a \partial_{\chi_a} \in \mathcal{E} nd_{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z^*}}((\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}})_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z^* \times \{\underline{\chi}=0\}})
\]
are nilpotent.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Under the identification of $({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})_{z=\underline{\chi} = 0}$ with $H^*_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$ the action of the operator $z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}$ corresponds to the cup product with $\mathfrak{D}_a$. Hence the class of $z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}$ is nilpotent in $End_\mathbb{C}(({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})_{\mid z=\underline{\chi}=0})$. On the other hand, the class of $z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}$ gives rise to a well-defined element of $\mathcal{E} nd_{\mathcal{O}_z}\left( ({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}})_{\underline{\chi}=0}\right)$, which is flat on $\mathbb{C}_z^*$ with respect to the residue connection. Its eigenvalues are algebraic functions on $\mathbb{C}_z$ which are constant on $\mathbb{C}_z^*$ and take the value zero at the origin. This implies that the eigenvalues are zero over all of $\mathbb{C}_z$, hence the residue endomorphisms are nilpotent as required.
\end{proof}
Denote by $D_\mathcal{X}$ the reduced normal-crossing divisor in $\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}$ given by $\{\chi_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot \chi_r = 0\}$ and denote its components by $D_a$ for $a =1,\ldots,r$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:logpair}
There is a non-degenerate flat $(-1)^n$-symmetric pairing
\[
P: {\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}} \otimes \iota^* {\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}} \longrightarrow z^n \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}
\]
i.e. $P$ is flat on $\mathbb{C}_z^* \times (\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X} \setminus D_\mathcal{X})$ and the induced pairings
\[
P: ({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log})_{\mid z=0} \otimes \iota^* ({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log})_{\mid z=0} \longrightarrow z^n \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{U}}
\]
and $P: ({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log})_{\mid D_a} \otimes \iota^* ({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log})_{D_a} \longrightarrow z^n \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times D_a}$ are non-degenerate.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $M_a$, $a=1,\ldots,r$, the unipotent monodromy automorphism corresponding to a counter-clockwise loop around the divisor $\mathbb{C}^*\times D_a$ and by $M_z$ the monodromy automorphisms corresponding to a counter-clockwise loop arround $z=0$. Denote by $M_{z,u}$ resp. $M_{z,s}$ their unipotent and semi-simple part. We set $N_a=\log M_a$ and $N_z = \log M_{z,u}$. Denote by $H^\infty$ the space of multi-valued flat sections on which the monodromy operators $M_a$ and $M_z$ act.
Let $f_1,\ldots,f_\mu$ be a basis of flat multi-valued sections of ${\mcq\mcm_A}_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z^* \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}$ which is adapted to the generalized eigenspace decomposition of the space $H^\infty$ with respect to the automorphisms $M_z$ and $M_a$. We define the single-valued sections
\[
s_i = e^{-\log z (\rho_i +\frac{N_z}{2 \pi i})} \prod_{a=1}^r e^{-\log q_a \frac{N_a}{2\pi i}} f_i
\]
for some $\rho_i$ such that $e^{2\pi i \rho_i}$ is the generalized eigenvalue of $f_i$ with respect to $M_z$. These sections provide a basis for ${{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{\log,\mathcal{X}}}_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z^* \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}}$. Notice that $P(s_i,s_j)$ is holomorphic on $\mathbb{C}_z^*
\times (\mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X} \setminus D_\mathcal{X})$. By the flatness of $P$ we get that $P(s_i,s_j) = z^{-\rho_i - \rho_j}P(f_i,f_j)$ which shows that $P(s_i,s_j)$ extends over $\mathbb{C}_z^* \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}$ and is non-degenerate. Together with Proposition \ref{prop:PropzExt} we get a non-degenerate pairing on the restriction ${{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}}}_{\mid (\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}) \setminus \{0\} \times D }$. Since, $\{0\} \times D_\mathcal{X}$ has codimension two in $\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{U}_\mathcal{X}$, $P$ extends to a non-degenerate pairing on ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,\mathcal{X}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
The induced pairing $P: E_X \otimes \iota^*E_X \rightarrow z^n \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z}$, restricts to a pairing $P: F_X \times F_X \rightarrow z^n \mathbb{C}$. The pairing $z^{-n}P$ on $F_X$ coincides under the identification made in Lemma \ref{lem:extriv} with the orbifold Poincar\'{e} pairing on $H^*_{orb}(X, \mathbb{C})$ up to a non-zero constant. The corresponding statement holds if we replace $X$ by $Z$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{d_0,\ldots, d_t\} = \{q \in \mathbb{Q} \mid H^{2q}_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) \neq 0\}$ where $d_i < d_j$ for $i < j$. Set $r_k = dim H^{2d_k}_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$ and notice that $d_0 = 0$, $d_t = n$ and $r_0 = r_t = 1$. Choose a homogeneous basis
\[
w_{1,d_0},w_{1,d_1}, \ldots, w_{r_1,d_1},\ldots,w_{1,d_{t-1}},\ldots,w_{r_{t-1},d_{t-1}},w_{1,d_t}
\]
where $w_{i,d_k} \in H^{2d_k}_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$. Denote by $s_{1,d_0},s_{1,d_1}, \ldots, s_{r_1,d_1},\ldots,s_{1,d_{t-1}},\ldots,s_{r_{t-1},d_{t-1}},s_{1,d_t}$ the corresponding sections of $\mathcal{E}_\mathcal{X}$ under the isomorphism $\alpha_\mathcal{X}$ of Lemma \ref{lem:extriv}. By Lemma \ref{lem:DeligneExt} we can find sections $\tilde{s}_{1,d_0},\tilde{s}_{1,d_1}, \ldots, \tilde{s}_{r_1,d_1},\ldots,\tilde{s}_{1,d_{t-1}},\ldots,\tilde{s}_{r_{t-1},d_{t-1}},\tilde{s}_{1,d_t}$ which satisfy $(\tilde{s}_{i,d_k})_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times \{\underline{\chi} = 0 \}} = s_{i,d_k}$ and
\begin{align}
\nabla_{z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}} \left(\prod_{c=1}^r e ^{\log \chi_c \frac{N_a}{2 \pi i}} \tilde{s}_{i,d_k}\right) &= 0 \qquad \text{for} \quad a =1, \ldots ,r\, ,\notag \\
\nabla_{z \partial_{\chi_b}} \left(\prod_{c=1}^r e ^{\log \chi_c \frac{N_a}{2 \pi i}} \tilde{s}_{i,d_k}\right) &= 0 \qquad \text{for} \quad b = r+1, \ldots ,r+e\, .\notag
\end{align}
From the definition of the sections $\tilde{s}_{i,d_k}$ and the flatness of $P$ then follows
\[
P(\tilde{s}_{i,d_k},\tilde{s}_{j,d_l})(z,\underline{\chi}) = P (s_{i,d_k},s_{j,d_l})(z)
\]
and therefore
\begin{align}
0 &= z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a} P(\tilde{s}_{i,d_k},\tilde{s}_{j,d_l}) = P(\nabla_{z \chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}} \tilde{s}_{i,d_k},\tilde{s}_{j,d_l}) - P(\tilde{s}_{i,d_k}, \nabla_{z\chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}} \tilde{s}_{j,d_l})\, , \notag
\\
0 &= z \partial_{\chi_b} P(\tilde{s}_{i,d_k},\tilde{s}_{j,d_l}) = P(\nabla_{z \partial_{\chi_b}} \tilde{s}_{i,d_k},\tilde{s}_{j,d_l}) - P(\tilde{s}_{i,d_k}, \nabla_{z \partial_{\chi_b}} \tilde{s}_{j,d_l})\, . \notag
\end{align}
By continuity this holds on $\mathbb{C}_z \times \{\underline{\chi} = 0\}$.
This shows the multiplication invariance of the corresponding pairing on $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$. It follows from equation \ref{eq: connlvl} that
\begin{align}
z \nabla_{\partial_z}^{\mathit{res},\underline{q}}(w_{i,d_k}) &= d_k \cdot w_{i,d_k} + \frac{1}{z} \sum_{m=1}^{r_{k+1}}\Theta_{m,i,k} w_{m,d_k+1} \quad \text{for} \quad k < n\, , \notag \\
z \nabla_{\partial_z}^{\mathit{res},\underline{q}}(w_{1,d_t}) &= n \cdot w_{1,d_t \notag}\, ,
\end{align}
where $\Theta_{m,i,k} := (\check{A}_0)_{u,v}$ with $u= m + \sum_{l=1}^{k}r_l$ and $v = i + \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}r_l$ and $\check{A}_0$ is the matrix with respect to the basis $w_{1,0}, \ldots, w_{1,n}$ of the endomorphism $-c_1(X) \cup$. Since the pairing is multiplication invariant it is enough to show that $P(w_{1,d_0},w_{1,d_t}) \in z^n \mathbb{C}$. We have
\begin{align}
z \partial_z P(w_{1,d_0},w_{1,d_t}) &= P (0 \cdot w_{1,d_0} + \frac{1}{z} \sum_{m=1}^{r_{l}}\Theta_{m,i,1} w_{m,d_1+1} , w_{1,d_t}) + P(w_{1,d_0} , n \cdot w_{1,d_t}) \notag \\
&= 0 + n \cdot P(w_{1,d_0},w_{1,d_t})\, . \notag
\end{align}
This shows $(z \partial_z -n) P(w_{1,d_0},w_{1,d_t}) = 0$ and therefore $P(w_{1,d_0},w_{1,d_t})$ takes values in $z^n \mathbb{C}$.
It remains to show that the pairing $z^{-n}P$ coincides, under the isomorphism $\alpha:1\otimes H^*_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})\rightarrow F$ and possibly up to a
non-zero constant, with the Poincar\'e pairing on the cohomology algebra. First notice that by construction, $z^{-n}P$, seen as defined
on $H^*_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$ is again multiplication invariant. It suffices now
to show that $P(1,a)$ equals the value of the Poincar\'e pairing on $1$ and $a$. But as we have seen above, $P(1,a)$ can only be non-zero
if $a\in H^{2n}_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$. Since $dim H^{2n}_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C}) =1$, the $P$ on $H^*_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$ is entirely determined by the non-zero complex number $P(w_{1,d_0},w_{1,d_t})$.\\
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:ExtensionInftyAtZero}
Consider the $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z}$-module $\mathcal{E}_X$ with the connection $\nabla^{\mathit{res},\underline{\chi}}$ and the subsheaf $\mathcal{F}_X \subset \mathcal{E}_X$ from
lemma \ref{lem:extriv}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Let $\widehat{\mathcal{E}}_X:=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z\times\{\underline{0}\}} \otimes_\mathbb{C} F_X $
be an extension of $\mathcal{E}_X$ to
a trivial $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle. Then the connection $\nabla^{\mathit{res},\underline{\chi}}$ has a logarithmic pole at $z=\infty$ with spectrum (i.e.,
set of residue eigenvalues) equal to the (algebraic) degrees of the cohomology classes of $H^*_{orb}(X,\mathbb{C})$.
\item
The pairing $P$ on $\mathcal{E}_X$ extends to a non-degenerate
pairing $P:\widehat{\mathcal{E}}_X\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}} \iota^*\widehat{\mathcal{E}}_X \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(-n,n)$,
where $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(a,b)$ is the subsheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(*\{0,\infty\})$ consisting of meromorphic
functions with a pole of order $a$ at $0$ and a pole of order $b$ at $\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The formula \ref{eq: connlvl} shows that the connection $\nabla^{res,\underline{\chi}}$ has a logarithmic pole at $z= \infty$ and has residue eigenvalues which are equal to the degrees of the cohomology classes of $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$. This shows the first point. The second point follows from Proposition \ref{prop:logpair} and the definition of $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_X$.
\end{proof}
Set $j_{\frac{1}{z}}:\mathbb{C}^*_{z} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_z\setminus\{0\}$ and $E^{\infty} := \psi_{\frac{1}{z}} j_{\frac{1}{z},!}( \mathcal{E}_X^{an})^{\nabla^{res,\chi}}_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z^*}$ (where $\psi_{\frac{1}{z}}$ is the nearby cycle functor at $z = \infty$). It is known (cf. e.g. \cite[Lemma 7.6, Lemma 8.14]{He3} that there is a correspondance between logarithmic extensions of flat bundles and filtrations on the corresponding local system of flat sections. With respect to the connection $(z^2 \nabla_{\partial_z}^{res,\underline{\chi}})(\underline{w}) = \underline{w} \cdot (A_0 + z A_{\infty})$, the isomorphism
\begin{equation}
F_X \overset{\simeq}\longrightarrow E^\infty
\end{equation}
is given by multiplication with $z^{-A_\infty} z^{-A_0}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:resEndo}
The filtration $F_\bullet$ on $F_X$ is given by
\[
F_{p} = \sum_{|k| \geq -p} \mathbb{C} \left( (z\chi_1\partial_{\chi_1})^{k_1}\cdot \ldots \cdot (z \chi_r \partial_{\chi_r})^{k_r} \cdot (z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}})^{l_1} \cdot \ldots (z \partial_{\chi_{r+e}})^{l_e}\right)\, .
\]
The residue endomorphism $N_a$ of $\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}}$ along $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times D_a$ acts on $E^\infty$ and satisfies $N_a F_\bullet \subset F_{\bullet-1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The first claim follows from the identification of $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$ with $F_X$ and the computation of the residue connection $(z^2 \nabla_{\partial_z}^{res,\underline{\chi}})(\underline{w})$ in Lemma \ref{lem:extriv}. The second claim is immediate since the residue endomorphism is induce by left multiplication with $z\chi_a \partial_{\chi_a}$.
\end{proof}
The next result gives an extension of ${_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{log}$ to a family of trivial $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundles, possibly after restricting
to a smaller analytic open subset inside $U^{an}$. Set $r:= \inf\{\mid \!\!\underline{\chi}\!\! \mid\, : \underline{\chi} \not \in \overline{\mathcal{M}}_\mathcal{X}^\circ\}$ and let $B:= B_r(0) \subset \mathcal{U}^{an}_X$ the open ball with radius $r$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:LogTrTLEP}
There is an analytic open subset $V_X\subset \mathcal{U}_X^{an}$ still containing the point $p_X$ and a trivial holomorphic bundle ${_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_z\times V_X$
such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $({_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X})_{|\mathbb{C}_z \times V_X} \cong (({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,})^{an})_{|\mathbb{C}_z \times V_X}$,
\item $({_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X})_{|\mathbb{P}^1_z\times \{0\}} \cong (\widehat{\mathcal{E}}_X)^{an}$,
\item The connection $\nabla$ has a logarithmic pole along $\widehat{D}_X$ on ${_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X}$,
where $\widehat{D}_X$ is the normal crossing divisor $\left(\{z=\infty\}\cup\bigcup_{a=1}^{r} \{\chi_a=0\}\right)\cap \mathbb{P}^1_z\times V_X$,
\item
The given pairings $P:{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X} \otimes \iota^*{\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X} \rightarrow z^n\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z\times \mathcal{U}_X^\circ}$ and $P:\widehat{\mathcal{E}}_X\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z}} \iota^*\widehat{\mathcal{E}}_X \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z}(-n,n)$ extend to a non-degenerate pairing
\[
P: {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z\times V_X}} \iota^* {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z\times V_X}(-n,n)\, ,
\]
where the latter sheaf is
defined as in point 3. of proposition \ref{prop:ExtensionInftyAtZero},
\item
The residue connection along $\frac{1}{z} = \tau = 0$
$$
\nabla^{\mathit{res},z=\infty}:{_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X}/\tau \cdot {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X} \longrightarrow {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X}/\tau \cdot {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X}\otimes\Omega^1_{\{\infty\}\times V_X}(\log(\{\infty\}\times D)).
$$
has trivial monodromy around $\{\infty\}\times D$ and the element of $1 \in F\subset H^0(\mathbb{P}^1_z\times U^0, {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm_A}^{log,X})$ is horizontal for $\nabla^{res,z = \infty}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Set $\tilde{D}:= \bigcup_{a=1}^{r} \{\chi_a=0\}\cap B$. A logarithmic extension of $(\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}})^{an}_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times( B \setminus \tilde{D})}$ over\\ $(\{z=\infty\} \times B) \cup (\mathbb{P}^1_z \setminus \{0\} \times \tilde{D})$ is given by a $\mathbb{Z}^{r+1}$-filtration on the local system $\mathcal{L} = (\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}})^{an,\nabla}_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times( B \setminus \tilde{D})}$, which is split iff the extension is locally free (cf. \cite[Lemma 8.14]{He3}.\\
We are looking for an extension $\widehat{\mcq\mcm_A} \rightarrow (\mathbb{P}^1_z \setminus\{0\}) \times B$ which should satisfy two constraints. First, $\widehat{\mcq\mcm_A}$ should restrict to
$({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X})_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times B}$ on $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times B$ and second
it should restrict to $(\hat{\mathcal{E}}_X)_{\mid \mathbb{P}_z^1\setminus \{0\}}$ over $\mathbb{P}_z^1 \setminus \{0\} \times \{\underline{\chi} = 0\}$.
The $\mathbb{Z}^r$-filtration $P_\bullet$ corresponding to the extension over $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \tilde{D}$ is trivial since its the Deligne extension due to Lemma \ref{lem:DeligneExt}. Let $L^\infty$ be the space of multi-valued flat sections of $(\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}})^{an}_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times( B \setminus \tilde{D})}$ and let $E^\infty$ be the space of multi-valued flat sections of $\mathcal{E}^{an}_X$ from above.
We have an isomorphism $L^\infty \rightarrow E^\infty$ which is given by multiplication with $\prod_{a=1}^r \chi_a^{N_a}$, where $N_a$ is the logarithm of the (uni-potent part of the ) monodromy, and restriction to $\{\underline{\chi} = 0 \}$. This allows us to shift the filtration $F_\bullet$ on $E^\infty$ (resp. $F_X$) to a filtration $F'_\bullet$ on $L^\infty$, which we denote by the same letter. This gives a $\mathbb{Z}^{r+1}$-filtration $(F_\bullet, P_{\bullet})$ which is split, since $P_\bullet$ is trivial. The corresponding extension $\widehat{\mcq\mcm_A}$ has logarithmic poles along $(\{ z = \infty\} \times B) \cup (\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus \{0 \} \times \tilde{D})$ and restricts to $({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X})_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times B}$ on $\mathbb{C}_z^* \times B$ resp. $(\hat{\mathcal{E}}_X)_{\mid \mathbb{P}^1_z \setminus \{0\}}$ on $\mathbb{P}^1_z \setminus \{0\} \times \{\underline{\chi} = 0\}$. We therefore can glue $\widehat{\mcq\mcm_A}$ and $({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X})_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times B}$ to a holomorphic bundle on $\mathbb{P}^1_z \times B$, which is trivial on on $\mathbb{P}^1_z \times \{\underline{\chi} = 0\}$ since its restriction is isomorphic to $\mathcal{E}_X$. Since triviality is an open condition there exists a subset $V_X \subset B$ such that the restriction of the glued bundle to $\mathbb{P}^1_z \times V_X$ is trivial. This shows the points 1. to 3. . For the fourth point notice that the flat pairing $P$ gives rise to a pairing on $L^\infty$ which in turn gives rise to a pairing on $E^\infty$. The pole order property of this pairing on $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_X$ at $z= \infty$ can be encoded by an orthogonality property of the filtration $F_\bullet$ with respect to that pairing (see .e.g. \cite[Theorem 7.17, Definition 7.18]{He4}). Hence the same property must hold for $P$ and $F_\bullet$ seen as defined on $L^\infty$, so we conclude $P: {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z\times V_X}} \iota^* {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z\times V_X}(-n,n)$ as required.
The last statement follows from the fact that the residue connection $\nabla^{res, z = \infty}$ defined on ${_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X} / z^{-1} {_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X}$ has trivial monodromy around $D_X \cap \{z=\infty\} \times B$ if for any $a=1 ,\ldots ,r$ the nilpotent part $N_a$ of the monodromy of $\mathcal{L}$ kills $gr^{F'}_\bullet$, i.e. $N_a F_\bullet \subset F_{\bullet -1}$. Using the identification $(L^\infty, F'_\bullet)$ with $(E^\infty,F^\bullet)$ this has been shown in Lemma \ref{lem:resEndo}.
From this follows that the element $1$ is a global sections over $\mathbb{P}^1_z \times V_X$ and flat with respect to the residue connection.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Frobenius structures}
We begin with a definition from \cite{Re1} which formalizes the structure which we obtained in Proposition \ref{prop:LogTrTLEP}.
\begin{defn} Let $M$ be a complex manifold of dimension bigger or equal than one and $D \subset M$ be a simple normal crossing divisor.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A $\TEPlog$-structure on $M$ is a holomorphic vector bundle $\mathcal{H} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}_z^1\times M$ which is equipped with an integrable connection $\nabla$ with a pole of type one along $\{0\} \times M$ and a logarithmic pole along $(\mathbb{C}_z \times D)$ and a flat, $(-1)^n$-symmetric, non-degenerate pairing
$P:\mathcal{H} \otimes \iota^*\mathcal{H} \rightarrow z^n \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z\times M}$.
If $D$ is empty we will simply denote it as a $\TEP$-structure.
\item A $\trTLEPlog$-structure on $M$ is a holomorphic vector bundle $\widehat{\mathcal{H}} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}_z^1\times M$ such that $p^*p_* \widehat{\mathcal{H}} = \widehat{\mathcal{H}}$ (where $p:\mathbb{P}_z^1\times M \twoheadrightarrow M$ is the projection) which is equipped with an integrable connection $\nabla$ with a pole of type $1$ along $\{0\}\times M$ and a logarithmic pole along $(\mathbb{P}^1_z \times D) \cup (\{\infty\}\times M)$ and a flat, $(-1)^n$-symmetric, non-degenerate pairing
$P:\widehat{\mathcal{H}} \otimes \iota^*\widehat{\mathcal{H}} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z\times M}(-n,n)$.
If $D$ is empty we will simply denote it as a $\trTLEP$-structure.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}
Let $\mathcal{X}(\mathbf{\Sigma})$ be a projective toric Deligne-Mumford stack with an $S$-extended stacky fan $\mathbf{\Sigma}^e$ with $S = Gen(\Sigma)$ and let $W:Y \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} \longrightarrow \mathbb{C} \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}$ the corresponing Landau-Ginzburg model. Then the tuple $({_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X}, \nabla, P)$ from Proposition \ref{prop:LogTrTLEP} is a $\trTLEPlog$-structure on $V_X \subset \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^{an}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition \ref{prop:LogTrTLEP}.
\end{proof}
The following theorem which is a combination of Proposition 1.20 and Theorem 1.22 in \cite{Re1} gives sufficient conditions when a given $\trTLEPlog$-structure can be unfolded to a logarithmic Frobenius manifold.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:ReUnfold}
Let $(M,0)$ be a germ of a complex manifold and $(D,0) \subset (M,0)$ be a normal crossing divisor. Let $(\mathcal{H},0),\nabla.P)$ be a germ of a $\trTLEPlog$-structure on $\mathbb{P}^1 \times (M,0)$. Suppose that there is a section $\xi \in H^0(\mathbb{P}^1 \times (N,0), \mathcal{H})$ whose restriction to $\{\infty\} \times(N,0)$ is horizontal for the residue connection $\nabla^{res}: \mathcal{H} /z^{-1} \mathcal{H} \rightarrow \mathcal{H} / z^{-1} \mathcal{H} \otimes \Omega^1_{\{\infty\} \times N}(log(\infty\} \times D))$ and which satisfies the conditions
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(IC)] The map $\Theta(log D)_{\mid 0} \rightarrow p_*\mathcal{H}_{\mid 0 }$ induced by $[Z \nabla_\bullet](\xi): \Theta(log D) \rightarrow p_* \mathcal{H}$ is injective.
\item[(GC)] The vector space $p_* \mathcal{H}_{\mid 0}$ is generated by $\xi$ and its images under iteration of the maps $\mathcal{U}$ and $[z\nabla_X]$ for any $X \in \Theta(log) D$.
\item[(EC)] $\xi$ is an eigenvector for the residue endomorphism $\mathcal{V} \in \mathcal{E} nd_{\mathcal{O}_{\{\infty\} \times M}}(\mathcal{H} / z^{-1} \mathcal{H})$.
\end{enumerate}
Then there exists a unique (up to canonical isomorphism) gern of a logarithmic Frobenius manfold on $(\tilde{M},\tilde{D})$ with a unique embedding $i: M \hookrightarrow \tilde{M}$ with $i(M) \cap \tilde{D} = i(D)$ and a unique isomorphism $\mathcal{H} \rightarrow p^*\Theta_{\tilde{M}}(log \tilde{D})_{\mid i(M)}$ of $\trTLEPlog$-structures.
\end{thm}
Using the theorem above we are now able to construct a logarithmic Frobenius manifold from the Landau-Ginzburg model corresponding to a projective toric Deligne-Mumford stack.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:logfrobB}
Let $W: Y \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \times \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}$ be the Landau-Ginzburg model corresponding to a projective toric Deligne-Mumford stack. Then there exists a canonical logarithmic Frobenius manifold on $(V_X \times \mathbb{C}^{\mu -r},0)$ with logarithmic pole along $(D \times \mathbb{C}^{\mu-r},0)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In order to apply Theorem \ref{thm:ReUnfold} to the $\trTLEPlog$-structure obtained in Proposition \ref{prop:LogTrTLEP} we define the section $\xi$ to be the class of $1$. Because of Proposition \ref{prop:LogTrTLEP} 5. this section is flat with repsect to the residue connection along $\frac{1}{z} = \tau = 0$. The conditions $(IC)$ and $(GC)$ follow from the identification of $({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X})_{\mid 0}$ with the cohomology ring $(H^{*}_{orb}(X_\Sigma,\mathbb{C}), \cup)$ (cf. Proposition \ref{prop:ReseqCoh} and Formula \ref{eq:mapCohQuot}), the definition of the $\mathbf{D}_i$ for $i=1,\ldots, n$ (cf. Formula \ref{eq:degDi}) and the representation of $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X}_\Sigma,\mathbb{C})$ in Lemma \ref{lem:orbcoho}. The condition $(EC)$ follows from Proposition \ref{prop:ExtensionInftyAtZero} 1.
\end{proof}
\section{Orbifold Quantum cohomology}\label{sec:QC}
In this section we review some constructions from orbifold quantum cohomology.
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a smooth proper Deligne-Mumford stack over $\mathbb{C}$. The inertia stack of $\mathcal{X}$ is defined
\[
I\mathcal{X} := \mathcal{X} \times_{\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X}} \mathcal{X}
\]
with respect to the diagonal morphism $\Delta: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X}$. A geometric point on $I \mathcal{X}$ is given by a geometric point $x \in \mathcal{X}$ and an element $g \in Aut(\mathcal{X})$ of the isotropy group. We call $g$ the stabilizer of $(x,g) \in I \mathcal{X}$. The inertia stack is a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack but different components will in general have different dimensions. Let $T$ be the the index set of the components of $I \mathcal{X}$. Let $0 \in T$ be the distinguished element corresponding to the trivial stabilizer. We thus have
\[
\mathcal{I} = \bigsqcup_{v \in T} \mathcal{X}_v\, .
\]
The orbifold cohomology of $\mathcal{X}$ is defined, as a vector space, by $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) := H^*(I \mathcal{X}, \mathbb{C})$, hence we have
\[
H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X}, \mathbb{C}) = H^*(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) \oplus \bigoplus_{v \in T'} H^*(\mathcal{X}_v, \mathbb{C})
\]
where $T' := T \setminus \{ 0\}$ is the index set of the twisted sectors.
In order to define a grading on the orbifold cohomology , we associate to any $v \in T$ a rational number called the age of $\mathcal{X}_v$.
The genus zero Gromov-Witten invariants with descendants are defined by
\[
\langle \alpha_1 \psi_1^{k_1},\ldots, \alpha_l \psi_l^{k_l}\rangle_{0,n,d} := \int_{[\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(\mathcal{X},d)]^{vir}} \prod_{i=1}^l ev^*_i(\alpha_i)\psi_i^{k_i}
\]
where $\alpha_i \in H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$, $d \in H_2(X,\mathbb{Z})$, $k_i$ is a non-negative integer, $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,l}(\mathcal{X},d)$ is the moduli stack of genus zero, $l$-pointed stable maps to $\mathcal{X}$ of degree $d$, $[\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,l}(\mathcal{X},d)]^{vir}$ is the virtual fundamental class, $ev_i$ is the evaluation map at the $i$-th marked point
\[
ev_i: \overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,l}(\mathcal{X},d) \rightarrow I \mathcal{X}
\]
and $\psi_i = c_1(L_i)$ where $L_i$ is the line bundle over $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,l}(\mathcal{X},d)$ whose fiber at a stable map is the cotagent space of the coarse curve at the $i$-th marked point. The correlator $\langle \alpha_1 \psi_1^{k_1},\ldots, \alpha_l \psi_l^{k_l}\rangle_{0,n,d}$ is non-zero only if $d \in \text{Eff}_\mathcal{X} \subset H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$, where $\text{Eff}_\mathcal{X}$ is the semigroup generated by effective stable maps.
We choose a homogeneous basis $T_0,\ldots, T_s$ of $H^{\ast}_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$, where $T_0 =1 \in H^0(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$, $T_1,\ldots, T_r \in H^{2}(\mathcal{X})$ and $T_i \in \bigoplus_{k \neq 0,2}H^{k}(\mathcal{X}) \oplus \bigoplus_{v \in T'} H^{*}(\mathcal{X}_v)$. We denote by $T^0,\ldots, T^s$ the basis of $H^*(\mathcal{X})$ which is dual with respect to the orbifold Poincar\'{e} pairing.
Let $\alpha, \beta , \tau \in H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$ and write $\tau = \tau' + \delta$ where $\delta \in H^2(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$ and $\tau' \in \bigoplus_{k \neq 2} H^{k}(\mathcal{X}) \oplus \bigoplus_{v \in T'} H^*(\mathcal{X}_v)$. We define the the big orbifold quantum product $\circ_\tau$ as the formal family of commutative and associative products on $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X}) \otimes \mathbb{C}\llbracket \text{Eff}_\mathcal{X} \rrbracket$:
\begin{align}
\alpha \circ \gamma &:= \sum_{d \in \text{Eff}_\mathcal{X}} \sum_{l,k \geq 0} \frac{1}{l!}\langle \alpha,\gamma, \underbrace{\tau,\ldots,\tau}_{l- \text{times}},T_k\rangle_{0,l+3,d}\,T^k Q^d \notag \\
&= \sum_{d \in \text{Eff}_\mathcal{X}} \sum_{l,k \geq 0} \frac{e^{\delta(d)}}{l!}\langle \alpha,\gamma, \underbrace{\tau',\ldots,\tau'}_{l- \text{times}},T_k\rangle_{0,l+3,d}\,T^k Q^d \notag
\end{align}
where the last equality follows from the divisor axiom. The Novikov ring $\text{Eff}_\mathcal{X}$ was introduced to split the contribution of the different $d\in \textup{Eff}_\mathcal{X}$. However, we will make the following assumption:
\begin{assumption}
The orbifold quantum product $\circ_\tau$ is convergent over an open subset $U \subset H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$:
\[
U = \{\tau \in H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X}) \mid \Re(\delta(d)) < -M, \forall d \in \text{Eff}_\mathcal{X} \setminus \{0\}, ||\tau'|| <e^{-M}\}
\]
for some $M \gg 0$ (here $||\cdot||$ is the standard hermitan norm on $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$).
\end{assumption}
Using this assumption, we can set $Q=1$. We will denote this product on $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$ parametrized by $\tau \in U$ by $(H^*(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}),\circ_\tau)$.
Let $t_0,\ldots, t_s$ be the coordinates on $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$ determined by the homogeneous basis.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:givconn}
The Givental connection is the tuple $(\mathcal{F}^{big},\nabla^{Giv}, P)$ which consists of the trivial holomorphic vector bundle $\mathcal{F}^{big} := H^*(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) \times (U \times \mathbb{P}^1_z)$, the connection $\nabla^{Giv}$
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\partial_{t_k}} &:= \frac{\partial}{\partial_{t_k}} - \frac{1}{z} T_k \circ_\tau\, , \notag \\
\nabla_{z \partial_z} &:= z\frac{\partial}{\partial_z} + \frac{1}{z}E \circ_{\tau} + \mu \notag
\end{align}
where $\mu: H^{*}_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) \rightarrow H^{*}_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})$ is the grading operator given by $\mu(T_k) =deg(T_k)/2$ and the holomorphic Euler vector field $E$ is given by
\[
c_1(T\mathcal{X}) + \sum_{k=1}^N\left(1-\frac{deg(T_i)}{2} \right)t_k T_k
\]
and the pairing
\begin{align}
P: \mathcal{F}^{big} \otimes \iota^* \mathcal{F}^{big} &\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_z \times U}(-n,n)\, , \notag \\
(a,b) &\mapsto z^n(a(z),b(-z))_{orb}\notag
\end{align}
where $\iota(z,\underline{t}) = (-z,\underline{t})$ and $(-,-)_{orb}$ is the Orbifold Poincar\'{e} pairing.
\end{defn}
Notice that the connection $\nabla^{Giv}$ is flat (\textit{cf.}\kern.3em. \cite[$\S$ 2.2]{Ir2}) and the pairing $P$ is non-degenerate, $(-1)^n$-symmetric and $\nabla^{Giv}$-flat.\\
Let $H^{gen}_{orb}(\mathcal{X}) \supset H^2(\mathcal{X})$ be a minimal homogeneous subspace which generates $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$ with respect to the orbifold cup-product. We write $H^{gen}_{orb}(\mathcal{X}) = H^2(\mathcal{X}) \oplus H'_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$.
\begin{defn}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $\alpha, \gamma \in H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$ and $\tau \in H^{gen}_{orb}(\mathcal{X}) \cap U$. Define the semi-small quantum product as the restricton of the quantum product to parameter space $H^{gen}_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$:
\[
\alpha \circ \gamma
= \sum_{d \in \text{Eff}_\mathcal{X}} \sum_{l,k \geq 0} \frac{e^{\delta(d)}}{l!}\langle \alpha,\gamma, \underbrace{\tau',\ldots,\tau'}_{l- \text{times}},T_k\rangle_{0,l+3,d}\,T^k Q^d
\]
for $\tau = \delta + \tau' \in H^2(\mathcal{X})\, \oplus\, H'_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$.
\item The semi-small Givental connction $(\mathcal{F}^{ss},\nabla^{Giv},P)$ is the restriction of the Givental connection to $(H^{gen}_{\orb}(\mathcal{X}) \cap U) \times\mathbb{P}^1_z$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Let $L_\xi \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ be a orbifold line bundle corresponding to $\xi \in Pic(\mathcal{X})$. For any point $(x,g) \in \mathcal{X}_v \subset \mathcal{I} \mathcal{X}$ the stabilizer $g$ acts on the fiber $L_x$ by a rational number. This number depends only on the sector $v$, hence we denote the number by $f_v(\xi)$ and call it the age of $L_\xi$ along $\mathcal{X}_v$.
Iritani defined an action of $Pic(\mathcal{X})$ on $(\mathcal{F}^{big}, \nabla^{Giv},P)$ and showed that it is equivariant with respect to this action:
\begin{prop
For each $\xi \in Pic(\mathcal{X})$ there is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{G}^{big}$
\begin{align}
H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) \times (U \times \mathbb{C}) &\longrightarrow H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C}) \times (U \times \mathbb{C})\, , \notag \\
(\alpha,\tau,z) &\mapsto (dG(\xi)\alpha,G(\xi)\tau,z) \notag
\end{align}
which preserves the connection $\nabla^{Giv}$ and the pairing $P$, where $G(\xi),dG(\xi):H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X}) \longrightarrow H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$ are defined by
\begin{align}
G(\xi)(\tau_0 + \sum_{v \in T'} \tau_v) &= (\tau_0 - 2\pi i \xi_0) + \sum_{v \in T'}e^{2 \pi i f_v(\xi)} \tau_v\, , \notag \\
dG(\xi)(\tau_0 + \sum_{v \in T'} \tau_v) &= \tau_0 + \sum_{v \in T'} e^{2 \pi i f_v(\xi)} \tau_v \notag
\end{align}
where $\tau_v \in H^*(\mathcal{X}_v)$ and $\xi_0$ is the image of $\xi$ in $H^2(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Q})$.
\end{prop}
It follows from the Proposition above that the Givental connection is invariant under the action of $Pic(\mathcal{X})$, however, as observed in \cite{Douai-Mann}, the functions $t_0,\chi_1=e^{t_1},\ldots \chi_r=e^{t_r},t_{r+1},\ldots , t_s$ are not coordinates on $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{C})/ Pic(\mathcal{X})$. Therefore we mod out only a subgroup namely the subgroup $Pic(X)$ of line bundles with zero age , i.e.
$f_v(\xi)= 0$. The set $U$ is invariant under the action of $Pic(X)$.\\
Let $V$ be the quotient of $U$ by the action of $Pic(X)$ and denote by $\pi : U \rightarrow V$ the natural projection. Set $\chi_i = e^{t_i}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,r$, then $t_0,\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_{r},t_{r+1},\ldots , t_s$ are coordinates for $V$.
\begin{lem}$ $\\[-1em]
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a trTLEP(n)-structure $(\mathcal{G}^{big}, \nabla^{Giv},P)$ on $V$ s.t. $\pi^*(\mathcal{G}^{big},\nabla^{big},P) = (\mathcal{F}^{big}, \nabla^{big},P)$.
\item Set $V_{gen} := \pi(H^{gen}_{\orb}(\mathcal{X}) \cap U)$. There is a trTLEP(n)-structure $(\mathcal{G}^{ss},\nabla^{Giv},P)$ on $V_{gen}$ s.t. $\pi^*(\mathcal{G}^{ss},\nabla^{Giv},P) = (\mathcal{F}^{ss},\nabla^{Giv},P)$ and $(\mathcal{G}^{ss},\nabla^{Giv},P) = (\mathcal{G}^{big},\nabla^{Giv},P)_{\mid V_{gen}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The statements are a direct consequence of Proposition 4.4. The connection of $(\mathcal{G}^{big},\nabla^{big},P)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\partial_{t_k}} &:= \frac{\partial}{\partial_{t_k}} - \frac{1}{z} T_k \circ_\kappa\, , \notag \\
\nabla_{\chi_j \partial_{\chi_j}} &:= \chi_j\frac{\partial}{\partial_{\chi_j}} - \frac{1}{z} T_j \circ_\kappa \qquad \text{for} \quad j = 1,\ldots ,r\, ,\label{eq:logconn} \\
\nabla_{z \partial_z} &:= z\frac{\partial}{\partial_z} + \frac{1}{z}E \circ_{\kappa} + \mu \notag
\end{align}
for $\kappa \in V$.
\end{proof}
Let $T_0,\ldots, T_s$ be a homogeneous basis of $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$ as above. We assume that $1=T_0\in H^0(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Z})$, $T_1,\ldots, T_r \in H^2(\mathcal{X})$ and $T_{r+1}, \ldots , T_{s}$ is a basis of $\bigoplus_{k \neq 0,2} H^{k}(\mathcal{X})\oplus \bigoplus_{v \in T'} H^*(\mathcal{X}_{(v)})$.
Additionally we assume that $T_1,\ldots , T_{r}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $Pic(X)\subset H^2(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Z})$ and lies in the K\"ahler cone $\overline{\mathcal{K}} \subset H^2(\mathcal{X})$.\\
The choice of the basis $T_0,\ldots, T_s$ gives rise to an embedding $j:H^2(X,\mathbb{C})/Pic(X) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{C}^r$. Let $V'_{gen}$ resp. $V'$ be the closure of image of $j\times id$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:logFrobA}
There exist extensions $(\overline{\mathcal{G}}^{big},\hat{\nabla}^{Giv},P)$ resp. $(\overline{\mathcal{G}}^{ss}, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv},P)$ of $(\mathcal{G}^{big},\hat{\nabla}^{Giv},P)$ resp. $(\mathcal{G}^{ss}, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv},P)$ to a log-trTLEP(n)-structure on $V'$ resp. $V'_{gen}$. Moreover, there is a structure of a logarithmic Frobenius manifold on $V'$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The first statement follows from the form of the connection \ref{eq:logconn}.
The second statement follows from \cite[Proposition 1.10 and Proposition 1.11]{Re1}, where the vector $\xi$ in loc. cit. corresponds to $T_0 =1$ here.
\end{proof}
We now recall the fundamental solution of the Givental connection. Define
\[
L(\tau,z)\alpha := e^{-\delta/z} \alpha - \sum_{d \in Eff_\mathcal{X} \setminus \{0\} \atop l > 0, 0\leq k \leq s} \frac{1}{l!}\langle \frac{e^{-\delta/z}\alpha}{z+\psi},\tau',\ldots, \tau', T_k\rangle_{0,l+2,d}e^{\delta(d)}T^k
\]
where $\tau = \delta + \tau'$.
The following proposition summarizes the properties of the fundamental solution.
\begin{prop}[\protect{\cite[Proposition 2.4]{Ir2}}]
$ $\\[-1em]
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L(\tau,z)$ satisfies the following differential equations:
\[
\nabla_{\partial_{t_k}} L(\tau,z) \alpha = 0, \quad \nabla_{z \partial_z} L(\tau,z)\alpha = L(\tau,z)(\mu \alpha - \frac{\rho}{z}\alpha)
\]
where $\alpha \in H^*_{\orb}(\mathcal{X})$, $\rho := c_1(TX) \in H^2(\mathcal{X})$ and $\mu$ is the grading operator from Definition \ref{defn:givconn}. If we put $z^{-\mu}z^\rho := \exp(-\mu \log z) \exp(\rho \log z)$, then
\[
\nabla_{\partial_{t_k}} L(\tau,z) z^{-\mu}z^\rho \alpha = 0, \quad \nabla_{z \partial_z} L(\tau,z)z^{-\mu}z^\rho\alpha =0\, .
\]
\item $L(\tau,z)$ is convergent and invertible on $U \times \mathbb{C}^*$.
\item $(L(\tau,-z)\alpha, L(\tau,z)\beta)_{orb} = (\alpha,\beta)_{orb}$
\item $dG(\xi)L(G(\xi)^{-1}\tau,z)\alpha = L(\tau,z) e^{2\pi i \xi_0} e^{2\pi i f_v(\xi)} \alpha$ for $\alpha \in H^*(\mathcal{X}_v)$. In particular
\[
dG(\xi)L(G(\xi)^{-1}\tau,z)\alpha = L(\tau,z)\alpha
\]
for $\xi \in Pic(X)$.
\item Define $\tilde{L}(\tau,z) := L(\tau,z) z^{-\mu}z^\rho$, then
\[
\nabla_{\partial_{t_k}} \tilde{L}(\tau,z) \alpha = 0, \quad \nabla_{z \partial_z} \tilde{L}(\tau,z)\alpha = 0\, .
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Since $L$ and therefore also $\tilde{L}$ is invertible, then the sections $s_i:= \tilde{L}(T_i)$ are a basis of flat sections.
The $J$-function of $\mathcal{X}$ is given by $L(\tau,z)^{-1} 1 = L(\tau,z)^{-1} T_0$. We set
\[
\tilde{J}:= \sum_{i=0}^s \tilde{J}_i T_i := \sum_{i=0}^s (s_i,T_0)_{orb} T_i = \tilde{L}(\tau,z)^{-1}(T_0)
\]
and get the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jfuncterms}
1= T_0 = \sum_{i=0}^s \tilde{J}_i s_i \qquad \text{on} \quad \mathbb{C}_z^* \times U\, .
\end{equation}
\section{Mirror correspondance}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be projective, toric orbifold. In order to state the mirror theorem for toric orbifolds we have to introduce the $I$-function.
\begin{defn}
The $I$-function of a toric orbifold $\mathcal{X}$ is defined by
\[
I(\underline{\chi},z) = e^{\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} e^{\overline{p}_a} \log \chi_a/z}\sum_{d \in \mathbb{K}} \chi^d \frac{\prod_{\nu= \lceil \langle D_i,d \rceil}^\infty(\overline{D}_i +(\langle D_i,d \rangle -\nu)z)}{\prod_{\nu =0}^\infty (\overline{D}_i +(\langle D_i,d \rangle -\nu)z)}\mathbf{1}_{v(d)}\, .
\]
\end{defn}
We collect a few facts about the $I$-function.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:propI}$ $\\[-1em]
\begin{enumerate}
\item $e^{-\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} e^{\overline{p}_a} \log \chi_a/z}I(\underline{\chi},z) \in H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})[z,z^{-1}]\llbracket \chi_1,\ldots,\chi_r\rrbracket$.
\item The function $e^{-\sum_{a=1}^{r+e} e^{\overline{p}_a} \log \chi_a/z}I(\underline{\chi},z)$ is a convergent power series in $\chi_1,\ldots, \chi_r$ if and only if $\rho \in \mathcal{K}^e$. In this case, the $I$-function has the asymptotics
\[
I(\underline{\chi},z) = 1 + \frac{\tau(\underline{\chi})}{z} + o(z^{-1})\, .
\]
The function $\tau$, which take values in $H^{\leq 2}_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$, is a local embedding and is called the mirror map.
\item
Set $\tilde{I} := I z^{-\rho} z^{\mu}$ then
\[
\check{E} (\tilde{I}) = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \Box_{\underline{l}}^X (\tilde{I}) = 0 \quad \text{for} \quad \underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}\, . \notag
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The first point follows directly from the definition of the $I$-function. The second point is \cite[Lemma 4.2]{Ir2}. The third point follows from $\tilde{\Box}_{\underline{l}} = \prod_{i=1}^e \chi_{r+i}^{|l_{m+i}|}\cdot\Box^X_{\underline{l}}$ (cf. Lemma \ref{lem:facBox}) and the \cite[lemma 4.19]{Ir2} (Note that Iritani proves this for the equivariant $I$-function. In order to to get the statement one simply has to consider the equivariant limit $\lambda \rightarrow 0$).
\end{proof}
There is the following theorem which compares the $I$-function from above and the $J$-function which has been introduced in Section \ref{sec:QC}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:mirthm}
Let $\rho \in \mathcal{K}^e$, then the $I$-function and the $J$-function coincide up to a coordinate change given by the mirror map $\tau$,i.e.
\[
I(\underline{\chi},z) = J(\tau(\underline{\chi}),z)\, .
\]
\end{thm}
We can now identify the two $\trTLEPlog$-structures $({_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X}, \nabla, P)$ and $(\mathcal{G}^{ss},\nabla^{Giv},P)$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:isolog}
There exists a small analytic neighborhood $W_X$ of $0$ in $V_X$ such that there is an isomorphism
\[
\theta: ({_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X})_{\mid \mathbb{P}^1_z \times W_X} \longrightarrow (id_{\mathbb{P}^1_z} \times \tau)^* \mathcal{G}^{ss}_{\mid \mathbb{P}^1_z \times W_X}
\]
of $\trTLEPlog$-structures on $W_X$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As a first step we define a morphism of holomorphic vector bundles with meromorphic connections
\begin{align}
\gamma: \left(({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X})^{an}_{\mid\mathbb{C}_z \times W_X}, \nabla\right) &\longrightarrow (id_{\mathbb{C}_z} \times \tau)^* \left(\mathcal{G}^{ss}_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times W_X}, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv} \right)\, , \notag \\
1 &\mapsto 1 = T_0\, . \notag
\end{align}
We set $\tilde{\Box}^X_{\underline{l}} := (id_{\mathbb{C}_z }\times \tau)_* \Box^X_{\underline{l}}$ and $\tilde{E} := (id_{\mathbb{C}_z} \times \tau)_* \check{E}$. In order to show that the morphism above is well-defined, the following equations have to hold:
\begin{align}
\tilde{\Box}^X_{\underline{l}}(\chi_{1},\ldots,\chi_{r+e},z, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}}, \ldots, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \chi_r \partial_{\chi_r}}, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}}}, \ldots, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \partial_{\chi_{r+e}}}) (1) &= 0 \quad \text{for all} \; \underline{l} \in \mathbb{L}\, , \notag \\
\tilde{E}(\chi_{1},\ldots,\chi_{r+e},z, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}}, \ldots, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \chi_r \partial_{\chi_r}}, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}}}, \ldots, \hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \partial_{\chi_{r+e}}})(1) &= 0\, . \label{eq:mirwelldef}
\end{align}
We are using the presentation $1 = \sum_{i=1}^s \tilde{J}_i s_i$ of the section $1$ on $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times W_0$. Since the $s_i$ are flat sections the equations above are equivalent to
\begin{align}
\Box^X_{\underline{l}}(\chi_{1},\ldots,\chi_{r+e},z, {z \chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}}, \ldots, {z \chi_r \partial_{\chi_r}}, {z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}}}, \ldots, {z \partial_{\chi_{r+e}}}) ((id_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \tau})^* \tilde{J}_i) ((id_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \tau})^* \tilde{J}_i)
=\; &\;0\, , \notag \\
\check{E}(\chi_{1},\ldots,\chi_{r+e},z, {z \chi_1 \partial_{\chi_1}}, \ldots, {z \chi_r \partial_{\chi_r}}, {z \partial_{\chi_{r+1}}}, \ldots, {z \partial_{\chi_{r+e}}}) ((id_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \tau})^* \tilde{J}_i)
=\; &\;0\, . \notag
\end{align}
But this follows from Theorem \ref{thm:mirthm} and Lemma \ref{lem:propI}. Since the equations \eqref{eq:mirwelldef} hold on $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \times W_X$ the hold on $\mathbb{C}_z \times W_X$ by continuity. In order to show that they are isomorphic it is enough to prove this on the germs at $0$ (since we are allowed to shrink $W_X$ if necessary). By Nakayama's lemma it is even enough to show this on the fiber over $0$. But this is clear since both fibers are isomorphic to $H^*_{orb}(\mathcal{X})$ and the action of $\hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \chi \partial_{\chi_i}}$ and $\hat{\nabla}^{Giv}_{z \chi_j}$ resp. $z \chi \partial_{\chi_i}$ resp. $z \chi_j$ for $i=1,\ldots ,r$ and $j= r+1,\ldots ,r+e$ generate the fibers at $0$. It remains to show that this isomorphism extends to an isomorphism of $\trTLEPlog$-structures.
Denote by $D \subset W_X$ the normal-crossing divisor given by $\chi_1\cdot \ldots \cdot \chi_r = 0$. We will show that the extensions to $\{z = \infty\} \times \mathbb{P}^1_z \setminus \{0\} \times D$ coincide under the isomorphism $\gamma$. First notice that $\gamma$ gives an identification of local systems $(({\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}^{log,X})^{an}_{\mid\mathbb{C}^*_z \times W_X})^\nabla \simeq ((id_{\mathbb{C}^*_z} \times \tau)^* \mathcal{G}^{ss}_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times W_X})^\nabla$. The extension is then encoded by the $\mathbb{Z}^{r+1}$-filtrations $(F'_\bullet, P_{\bullet})$ resp. $(\tilde{F}'_\bullet, \tilde{P}_{\bullet})$. Since we already know that the extension over $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times D$ coincide we conclude that $P_{\bullet} = \tilde{P}_\bullet$. Hence it is enough to show $F'_{\bullet} = \tilde{F}'_\bullet$. Arguing as in Proposition \ref{prop:LogTrTLEP} it is enough to show that the extensions over $\mathbb{P}^1_z \times \{ \underline{\chi} = 0\}$ coincide. But this is clearly the case since the subspace $F_X$ which generates the extension of $\mathcal{E}_X$ is identified under $\gamma$ with the subspace $\mathbb{C}[T_1,\ldots,\ldots , T_{r+e}]$ which generates the extension of $\mathcal{G}^{ss}_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times \{\underline{\chi} = 0\}}$.
\end{proof}
Using the proposition above we can now deduce an isomorphism of logarithmic Frobenius manifolds.
\begin{thm}
There is a unique germ $Mir: (W_X \times \mathbb{C}^{s-(r+e)},0 ) \longrightarrow (V,0)$ which identifies the logarithmic Frobenius manifold coming from the big orbifold quantum cohomology (cf. Proposition \ref{prop:logFrobA} to the one coming from the Landau-Ginzburg model (cf. Theorem \ref{thm:logfrobB}). Its restriction to $W_X$ corresponds to the isomorphism $\theta$ of $\trTLEPlog$-structures.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition \ref{prop:isolog} and the uniqueness statement in Theorem \ref{thm:ReUnfold}.
\end{proof}
\section{Crepant resolutions and global $tt^*$-geometry}
In this section we will first recall the notion of a (pure and polarized) variation of TERP-structures. If a TERP-structure is pure and polarized it gives rise to $tt^*$-geometry on the underlying space. We will show that the quantum $\mathcal{D}$-module of a toric orbifold $X$ underlies such an variation pure and polarized TERP-structures. Our main result is that if $X$ admits a crepant resolution $Z$ than the pure and polarized TERP-structures glue which gives global $tt^*$-geometry.
\begin{defn}[\protect{\cite[Definition 2.12]{He4}, \cite[Definition 2.1]{HS1}}]
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a complex manifold and $n \in \mathbb{Z}$. A variation of $TERP$-structures on $\mathcal{M}$ of weight $n$ consists of the following set of data
\begin{enumerate}
\item A holomorphic vector bundle $\mathcal{H}$ on $\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}$
\item A $\mathbb{R}$-local system $\mathcal{L}$ on $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \mathcal{M}$, together with an isomorphism
\[
\mathcal{L} \otimes_\mathbb{R} \mathcal{O}^{an}_{\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \mathcal{M}} \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}^{an}_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times \mathcal{M}}
\]
such that the induced connection extends to a meromorphic connection $\nabla$ on $\mathcal{H}$ such that $\nabla$ has a pole of Poincar\'{e} rank 1 along $\{0\} \times \mathcal{M}$
\item A polarization $P: \mathcal{L} \otimes \iota^* \mathcal{L} \longrightarrow i^n \underline{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \mathcal{M}}$, which is $(-1)^n$ symmetric and which induces a non-degenerate pairing
\[
P: \mathcal{H} \otimes_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}} \iota^* \mathcal{H} \longrightarrow z^n \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathcal{M}}
\]
where non-degenerate means that the induced symmetric pairing $[z^{-w}P]:\mathcal{H}/z \mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{H} / z \mathcal{H} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_\mathcal{M}$ is non-degenerate.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
We now state the definition of a pure and polarized $TERP$-structure.
\begin{defn}
Let $(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{L},P,n)$ be a variation of $TERP$-structures on $\mathcal{M}$. Let $\overline{\mathcal{M}}$ be the complex manifold with the conjugate complex structure and $\gamma: \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathcal{M}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathcal{M}$ be the involution $(z,x) \mapsto (\overline{z}^{-1},x)$. Consider $\overline{\gamma^* \mathcal{H}}$ which is a holomorphic vector bundle on $(\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus \{ 0\}) \times \overline{\mathcal{M}}$ . Let $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1} \mathcal{C}^{an}_\mathcal{M}$ be the subsheaf of $\mathcal{C}^{an}_{\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathcal{M}}$ consisting of functions which are annihilated by $\partial_{\overline{z}}$. Define a locally free $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}\mathcal{C}^{an}_\mathcal{M}$-module $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ by glueing $\mathcal{H}$ and $\overline{\gamma^* \mathcal{H}}$ via the following identification on $\mathbb{C}^*_z \times \mathcal{M}$:
Let $x \in \mathcal{M}$ and $z \in \mathbb{C}^*_z$ and define
\begin{align}
c: \mathcal{H}_{\mid(z,x)} &\longrightarrow (\overline{\gamma^* \mathcal{H}})_{\mid (z,x)}\, , \notag \\
a\quad &\mapsto \quad \nabla\text{-parallel transport of } \overline{z^{-n} \cdot a}\, .\notag
\end{align}
Then $c$ is an anti-linear involution and identifies $\mathcal{H}_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times \mathcal{M}}$ with $\overline{\gamma^* \mathcal{H}}_{\mid \mathbb{C}^*_z \times \overline{\mathcal{M}}}$. The involution $c$ restricts to complex conjugation (with respect to $\mathcal{L}$) in the fibres over $S^1 \times \mathcal{M}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(\mathcal{H}, \mathcal{L},P,n)$ is called pure iff $\hat{\mathcal{H}} = p^* p_* \hat{\mathcal{H}}$, where $p: \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathcal{M} \rightarrow \mathcal{M}$.
\item Let $(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{L},P,n)$ be pure, then
\begin{align}
h: p_* \hat{\mathcal{H}} \otimes_{\mathcal{C}^{an}_\mathcal{M}} p_* \hat{\mathcal{H}} &\longrightarrow \mathcal{C}^{an}_\mathcal{M} \notag \\
(s,t) &\mapsto z^{-n} P(s,c(t)) \notag
\end{align}
is a hermetian form on $p_* \hat{\mathcal{H}}$. We call $(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{L},P,n)$ a pure and polarized $TERP$-structure if this form is positive definite.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:indTERP}
The restriction of the quantum $\mathcal{D}$-module $\mathcal{G}$ of a toric orbifold to $\mathbb{C}_z \times W_X \setminus D_X$ underlies a variation of pure and polarized $TERP$-structures of weight $n$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof carries over almost word for word from the manifold case in \cite[theorem 5.3]{RS1}. So we just give a sketch of the proof and refer the reader to loc. cit. for details. Using the mirror isomorphism $\theta: ({_0}\widehat{\mcq\mcm}_A^{log,X})_{\mid \mathbb{P}^1_z \times W_X} \rightarrow (id_{\mathbb{P}^1_z} \times \tau)^* \mathcal{G}^{ss}_{\mid \mathbb{P}^1_z \times W_X}$ it is enough to show that ${\,\,^{\circ\!\!\!\!\!}}{_0}\mcq\mcm_{A}$ underlies a variation of pure and polarized TERP-structures. Notice that the underlying $\mathcal{D}$-module ${^\circ}\mcq\mcm_A$ is isomorphic to $\FL^{loc}_{\mathcal{M}^\circ_\mathcal{X}}\mathcal{H}^0 W_+ \mathcal{O}_{Y \times \mathcal{M}^\circ_\mathcal{X}} $ by the description \eqref{eq:LGLaurent} and Proposition \ref{prop:RSDmodds} (2). The Riemann-Hilbert correspondence gives $DR(\mathcal{H}^0 W_+ \mathcal{O}_{Y \times \mathcal{M}^\circ_\mathcal{X}}) \simeq {^p}\mathcal{H}^0 RW_* \underline{\mathbb{C}}_{Y \times \mathcal{M}^\circ_\mathcal{X}}$. Therefore $DR(\mathcal{H}^0 W_+ \mathcal{O}_{Y \times \mathcal{M}^\circ_\mathcal{X}})$ carries a real structure ${^p}\mathcal{H}^0 RW_* \underline{\mathbb{R}}_{Y \times \mathcal{M}^\circ_\mathcal{X}}$. It follows from \cite[Theorem 2.2]{Sa1} that the local system of flat sections of $({^\circ}\mcq\mcm_A,\nabla)$ is equipped with a real structure. That $({^\circ}\mcq\mcm_A$ is pure and polarized follows from \cite[Theorem 4.10]{Sa2}.
\end{proof}
The proof of the theorem above shows that variation of pure and polarized TERP-structures exists on a Zariski open subset of the complexified K\"ahler moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}$. In the remaining part of the paper we glue the complexified K\"ahler moduli space of a toric orbifold $X$ to the complexified K\"ahler moduli space of a crepant resolution and show that the corresponding variation of TERP-structures also glue on the common domain of definition. This gives the global $tt^*$ geometry.\\
Let $X$ be a simplical, numerical-effective toric variety with fan $\Sigma_X$ and denote by $\mathbf{\Sigma} = (N,\Sigma_X, \mathfrak{a})$ be the canonical stacky fan with corresponding Deligne-Mumford stack $\mathcal{X}$. As above we denote by $a_1 ,\ldots, a_{m+e}$ the images of the standard generator $e_i$ under the map $\mathfrak{a}: \mathbb{Z}^{m+e} \rightarrow N$. Recall that $a_1,\ldots, a_m$ are the primitive generators of the $1$-dimensional cones of $\Sigma_X$ and that $Gen(\Sigma_X) = \{a_{m+1}, \ldots, a_{m+e}\}$ (cf.Section \ref{subsec:Exstacky}). Assume that there exists a crepant toric resolution$\pi: Z \rightarrow X$ of $X$. We denote by $\Sigma_Z$ the corresponding fan. The rays of $\Sigma_Z$ are denoted by $\rho_1, \ldots , \rho_{m}, \rho_{m+1}, \ldots ,\rho_{t}$ and the primitive integral generators by $b_1, \ldots, b_{m},b_{m+1}, \ldots ,b_t$, where we can assume that $a_i = b_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$ since $Z$ is a resolution of $X$.
The following lemma is well-known, but the authors could not find a suitable reference.
\begin{lem}
We have the following equivalence
\[
\pi: Z \longrightarrow X \quad \text{is crepant} \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad b_{m+1}, \ldots , b_s \in \; \partial \textup{conv}(a_1,\ldots,a_m)
\]
where $\textup{conv}(a_1,\ldots, a_m)$ is the convex hull of $a_1,\ldots, a_m$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The exceptional divisor of $\pi$ is the divisor $\sum_{i=m+1}^s D_i$, where $D_i$ is the torus invariant divisor corresponding to $\rho_i$. We write
\[
K_Z = \pi^* K_X + \sum_{i=m+1}^{s} d_i D_i\,
\]
where the $d_i$ are the discrepancies of $\pi$, i.e. $\pi$ is crepant if $d_i=0$ for all $i \in\{m+1, \ldots , s\}$. Denote by $\psi_{K_X}: N_\mathbb{Q} \longrightarrow \mathbb{Q}$ the piece-wise linear function corresponding to the $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier divisor $K_X$. The pullback of $K_X$ along $\pi$ is represented by the same piece-wise linear function, i.e. $\psi_{\pi^* K_X} = \psi_{K_X}$. Now fix some $k \in \{m+1, \ldots , s\}$. Since $\Sigma_X$ is a complete fan there is a unique minimal cone $\sigma(b_k) \in\Sigma_X(k)$ containing $b_k$. Since the fan $\Sigma_X$ is simplicial we can write uniquely
\[
b_k = \sum_{b_i \in \sigma(b_k)} \kappa_{i} a_{i}\, .
\]
We have $\psi_{\pi^*(K_X)}(b_k)= \sum_{a_i \in \sigma(b_l))} \kappa_{i}$, hence for the discrepancy $d_l$ we get
\[
d_k = \sum_{a_i \in G(\sigma(b_k))} \kappa_{i} -1.
\]
This shows $b_k$ lies in the convex hull of $\{a_i : a_i \in \sigma(b_k)\}$ if and only if $d_l = 0$. Since we assumed $X$ to be nef we have $\partial \textup{conv}(a_1,\ldots,a_m) = \bigcup_{\sigma \in \Sigma_X} \textup{conv}\{a_i \mid a_i \in \sigma\}$, which shows the claim.
\end{proof}
The crepantness of $\pi$ puts several restrictions on $X$.
\begin{lem}
Assume that $\pi: Z \rightarrow X$ is a crepant resolution, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ is an $SL$-orbifold.
\item $Gen(\Sigma_X) = \{b_{m+1}, \ldots , b_{m+e}\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}$ $\\[-1em]
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $c \in N$ be arbitrary and let $\sigma(c)$ be the unique minimal cone of $\Sigma_X$ containing $c$. As above we can write uniquely $c = \sum_{a_j \in \sigma(c)} \kappa_{j} a_{j}$. The claim is equivalent to the fact that $deg(c) := \sum _{a_j \in \sigma(c)} a_{j} \in \mathbb{N}$. Since $\Sigma_Z$ is a subdivision of $\Sigma_X$, hence also complete, we can find a unique minimal cone $\sigma'(c)\in \Sigma_Z(k')$ containing $c$ and with $\sigma'(c) \subset \sigma(c)$. Because $\Sigma_Z$ is regular we can uniquely write $c = \sum_{b_i \in \sigma(c') } \kappa'_{i} b_{i}$ with $\kappa'_i \in \mathbb{N}$. Hence we have
\[
c = \sum_{b_i \in \sigma'(c)} \kappa'_i b_i = \sum_{b_i \in \sigma'(c)} \kappa'_i (\sum_{a_j \in \sigma(b_i)}\kappa_{ji} a_j)\, .
\]
Because the $\sigma(c)$ was chosen to be minimal and because of the lemma above, this gives
\[
deg(c) = \sum_{b_i \in \sigma'(c)} \kappa'_i (\sum_{a_j \in \sigma(b_i)}\kappa_{ji}) = \sum_{b_i \in \sigma'(c)} a'_i \cdot 1 \in \mathbb{N}\, .
\]
\item Let $\sigma$ be a cone of $\Sigma_X$. First notice that the degree $deg(c)$ of an element $c$ is additive inside a fixed cone, i.e. for $c,c' \in \sigma$ we have $deg (c+c') = deg(c) + deg(c')$. Because of the first point this shows that $\{b_{m+1}, \ldots , b_{m+e}\} \subset Gen(\Sigma_X)$, since their degree is minimal. Now assume that $c \in Gen(\Sigma_X)$. Because $\Sigma_Z$ is a regular fan, there exists a cone $\sigma' \in \Sigma_Z$ such that $c = \sum_{b_i \in \sigma'} \kappa_i b_i$ with $\kappa_i \in \mathbb{N}$. Since $deg(c) =1$, there exists is exactly one $i_0$ with $a_{i_0} = 1$. Since $c \in Gen(\Sigma_X)$, we conclude that $c = b_{i_0}$ for some $i_0 \in \{m+1, \ldots ,m+e\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
We get the following statement from $\deg(a_i) =1 $ for $i =m+1,\ldots, m+e$.
\begin{cor}
The orbifold cohomology $H^*_{orb}(X)$ is $H^2_{orb}$-generated.
\end{cor}
The lemma above shows that $a_i =b_i$ for $i=1,\ldots ,m+e$. Consider the sequence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exse5}
0 \longrightarrow \mathbb{L} \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{m+e} \longrightarrow N \longrightarrow 0\, .
\end{equation}
Since $Z$ is smooth, we get the exact sequence
\[
0 \longrightarrow N^\star \longrightarrow (\mathbb{Z}^{m+e})^\star \simeq PL(\Sigma_Z) \longrightarrow \mathbb{L}^\star \simeq Pic(Z) \longrightarrow 0
\]
when we apply $Hom(-,\mathbb{Z})$ to sequence \eqref{eq:exse5}.\\
We get the following commutative diagram with exact rows:
\[
\xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & N^* \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d]& PL(\Sigma_X) \ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^\Theta & Pic(X) \ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^\theta & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & N^* \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d]& PL(\Sigma_X^e) \ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & Pic^e(X) \ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & N^* \ar[r] & PL(\Sigma_Z) \ar[r] & Pic(Z) \ar[r] & 0}
\]
The image of the K\"ahler cone $\overline{\mathcal{K}}_X$ under the embedding $Pic(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \overset{\theta}{\longrightarrow} Pic^e(X)\otimes \mathbb{Q} \simeq Pic(Z) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$, which we denote by $\mathcal{K}_X$ is a face of the K\"ahler cone $\mathcal{K}_Z$ by \cite[Theorem 2.5]{OP}. We need the following lemma
\begin{lem}
The images of $D_i \in (\mathbb{Z}^{m+e})^\star \simeq PL(\Sigma_Z)$ for $i=m+1,\ldots, m+e$ do not lie in $\mathcal{K}_Z$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The element $D_i$ seen as a piece-wise linear function on $N$ is given by $D_i(b_j) = \delta_{ij}$. We have $b_i = \sum_{a_j \in \sigma(b_i)} \kappa_j a_j$ wher $\sigma(b_i)$ is the minimal cone in $\Sigma_X$ containing $b_i$. Therefore $1 = D_i(b_i) = D_i(\sum_{b_j \in \sigma(b_i)} \kappa_j b_j) > \sum_{b_j \in \sigma(b_i)} \kappa_j D_i(a_j) = 0$ which shows that $D_i \not \in CPL(\Sigma_Z)$ for $i=m+1,\ldots,m+e$. Since we have $N^\star \subset CPL(\Sigma_Z)$ we see that $[D_i] \in \mathcal{K}_Z$.
\end{proof}
The lemma above shows that we get two $r+e$ dimensional cones in $Pic(Z) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$, namely $\mathcal{K}_Z$ and $\mathcal{K}_X^e$ which intersect along the face $\mathcal{K}_X$. Now consider the lattice $Pic^e(X)$ inside $Pic(Z) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$. We will choose
two different $\mathbb{Z}$-bases for $Pic^e(X)$. The first one is $p_1,\ldots , p_{r+e}$ with the property that $p_1, \ldots , p_r$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of the image
of $\theta$ and $[D_{m+i}] = p_{r+i}$ for $i =1,\ldots ,e$.
The second basis $q_1, \ldots, q_{r+e}$ is chosen such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p_i = q_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$,
\item $q_i$ lies in $\mathcal{K}_Z$ for $i=1,\ldots, r+e$.
\end{enumerate}
Denote the cones generated by $p_1,\ldots, p_{r+e}$ resp. $q_1,\ldots,q_{r+e}$ by $C_X$ resp. $C_Z$.
Let $\Sigma_\mathcal{M}$ be the fan (with respect to the lattice $Pic^e(X)$) generated by the cones $C_X$ and $C_Z$ together with its faces. The \emph{global K\"ahler moduli space} $\mathcal{M}$ is the smooth toric variety corresponding to the fan $\Sigma_\mathcal{M}$. This space is covered by two charts $\mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}\simeq \mathbb{C}^{r+e}$ resp. $\mathcal{M}_Z\simeq \mathbb{C}^{r+e}$ corresponding to the cones $C_X$ resp. $C_Z$.\\
If we apply the results of Section \ref{sec:LG} to the toric orbifold $X$ resp. toric manifold $Z$ we get the following isomorphisms of variations of (pure and polarized) $TERP$-structures from Proposition \ref{prop:isolog} and Theorem \ref{thm:indTERP}:
\begin{align}
({_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{log,Z})_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times (W_Z\setminus D_Z)} \longrightarrow (id_{\mathbb{C}_z} \times \tau_Z)^* \mathcal{G}^{ss}_{Z\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times (W_Z \setminus D_Z)}\, ,\notag \\
({_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{log,\mathcal{X}})_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times (W_\mathcal{X}\setminus D_\mathcal{X})} \longrightarrow (id_{\mathbb{C}_z} \times \tau_\mathcal{X})^* \mathcal{G}^{ss}_{\mathcal{X}\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times (W_\mathcal{X} \setminus D_\mathcal{X})}\notag
\end{align}
where $W_Z\subset \mathcal{M}_Z^{an}$ resp. $W_\mathcal{X} \subset \mathcal{M}_\mathcal{X}^{an}$ are analytic neighborhoods of $p_Z$ resp. $p_\mathcal{X}$.
\begin{rem}
Notice that there is a small caveat here. We have choosen the basis $q_1,\ldots, q_{r+e}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $Pic^e(X)\subset Pic(Z)$. In order to apply the results of Section \ref{sec:LG} and \ref{sec:QC} in the case $\mathcal{X} = Z$ we should choose a basis of $Pic(Z)$ instead of a basis which only generates a sublattice (of finite index). Notice that this requirement is actually not need and was only inserted for the ease of exposition.
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}
There exists a variation of TERP-structures ${_0}\mcq\mcm_A$ on the global K\"ahler moduli space $\mathcal{M}$ and analytic neighborhoods $W_Z, W_\mathcal{X} \subset \mathcal{M}^{an}$ of the large volume limits $p_Z, p_\mathcal{X}$ such that
\begin{align}
({_0}\mcq\mcm_A)_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times (W_Z \setminus D_Z)} \simeq (id_{\mathbb{C}_z} \times \tau_Z)^*\mathcal{G}^{ss}_{Z\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times(W_Z \setminus D_Z)}\, ,\notag \\
({_0}\mcq\mcm_A)_{\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times (W_\mathcal{X} \setminus D_\mathcal{X})} \simeq (id_{\mathbb{C}_z} \times \tau_\mathcal{X})^*\mathcal{G}^{ss}_{\mathcal{X}\mid \mathbb{C}_z \times(W_\mathcal{X} \setminus D_\mathcal{X})}\, .\notag
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from the fact that ${_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{Z} = {_0}\mcq\mcm_A^{\mathcal{X}}$ since the sequences $\eqref{eq:exse5}$ are equal for the fan $\Sigma_Z$ and the extended stacky fan $\Sigma^e_X$.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic flux tubes with vortex filaments at their core were discovered by Abrikosov in the Ginzburg-Landau theory of Type II superconductivity \cite{Abrikosov1957:spj}. In that context these extended string like objects are macroscopic and do not require an specific treatment in a quantum framework. Nielsen and Olesen, however, rediscovered identical extended objects in the relativistic Abelian Higgs model, see \cite{Nielsen1973:npb}, and proposed
for them to play a r$\hat{\rm o}$le in hadronic physics as dual strings. It is thus clear after the Nielsen-Olesen proposal that in this new framework the vortex filaments are of quantum nature and there is the need of
clarifying to what kind of quantum state they correspond. It was later shown by Bogomolnyi \cite{Bogomolny1976:sjnp,Prasad1975:prl} that Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen vortices, seen in a two dimensional space, belong to a special class of topological solitons when the masses of the scalar and vector particles in the AHM are equal, or, the correlation lengths of scalar and magnetic fields correspond to the critical point between Type I and Type II phases
in Ginzburg-Landau superconductors.
It is thus natural to try the understanding of quantum Bogomolnyi-Prasad-Sommerfield planar vortices in the framework of the general quantum theory of solitons. The first successful attempts in this direction were achieved by Vassilevich in \cite{Vassilevich2003:prd}, and Rebhan et al. in \cite{Rebhan2004:npb}, by attacking this problem in the $N=2$ supersymmetric AHM. Almost simultaneously Bordag and Drozdov in \cite{Bordag2003:prd}
computed the vacuum energy due to purely fermionic fluctuations on a Nielsen-Olesen vortex. Together with other colleague we performed similar calculations in the purely bosonic planar AHM in References \cite{Alonso2004:prd} and \cite{Alonso2005:prd}. We used the spectral heat kernel/zeta function regularization procedure to control the divergences, both ultraviolet and infrared, arising in the computation of vacuum energies caused by one-loop fluctuations of BPS vortices, as well as those associated to tadpole and self-energy graphs. Invented by Hawking \cite{Hawking1977:cmp} and Dowker et al \cite{Dowker1976:prd} to describe quantum fields in curved space-times this method was used for the first time in the analysis of quantum fluctuations of kinks and solitons by van Nieuwenhuizen et al in \cite{Bordag2002:prd} within a $N=2$ supersymmetric framework. We took profit of these ideas to calculate the quantum corrections to the masses of several types of topological kinks in scalar field models with different number of fields in References \cite{Alonso2002:npb,Alonso2002:npb2,Alonso2004:npb}.
The vortex Casimir energy is the main ingredient in the formula giving the vortex mass (2D) or string tension (3D) quantum corrections.
It is formally given by the trace, both in the matrix and the $L^2$-functional sense, of the square root of the matrix elliptic partial differential operator that governs the one-loop vortex fluctuations. This Hessian operator is a matrix second-order partial differential operator (PDO) of Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger type. Its square root is defined in the framework of complex powers of elliptic (pseudo) differential operators, a well developed and sound mathematical theory. The formal trace is then the spectral zeta function of the elliptic PDO exhibiting analytical properties in the complex $s$-plane of the exponent. Nevertheless, use of the zeta function with the purpose of regularizing divergences in QFT requires to dispose of more detailed information about its description. The usual strategy developed by the physicist's community is to take profit of the more tractable spectral heat function to pass to the zeta function via Mellin transform, see e.g. References \cite{Elizalde1994,Vassilevich2003:prc,Avramidi2002:npp}. In particular it is a common technique in dealing with quantum fields on curved spaces and/or extended/solitonic backgrounds to start from the high-temperature (short time) asymptotic expansion of the heat equation kernel following the seminal works of deWitt \cite{deWitt1965} and Gilkey \cite{Gilkey1975:jdg} {\footnote{A lucid discussion of the differences between deWitt and Gilkey approaches may be found in the textbook \cite{Vassilevich2011} by Fursaev and Vassilevich.}}. All this machinery is well behaved if the field fluctuations are strictly $L^2$. In QFT, however, two characteristics of the spectrum of the PDO at the stake disturb this naif picture:
(1) First, usually there are fluctuations belonging to the continuous spectrum. To cope with this problem one put the system in a normalization box and impose periodic boundary conditions on the fields. Equivalently, a toric variety is taken as space and only at the end the volume is allowed to go to infinity. (2) Second, much more dangerous is the existence of massless particles and/or zero mode fluctuations. These long range fluctuations do not disappear in the low temperature (long time) regime and use of the high temperature asymptotics is made dubious. Barvinsky and Vilkovisky proposed to introduce non-local terms to treat this problem in covariant perturbation theory, see e.g. Reference \cite{Barvinsky1990:npb}, an idea that was put at work by Gusev and Zelnikov \cite{Gusev2000:prd} to compute the effective action in dilatonic two-dimensional gravity. Recall that effective actions are related to determinants of elliptic PDO, susceptible of being regularized by means of the derivative of the spectral zeta function at the origin of the $s$-complex plane.
E. Weinberg in \cite{Weinberg1979:prd} showed an index theorem in the open $\mathbb{R}^2$-plane for the deformation operator arising from the linear perturbations of the first-order partial differential equations
satisfied by self-dual/BPS vortices. The theorem, see also \cite{Weinberg2012}, stated that the algebraic kernel of the deformation operator has dimension $2 N$ where $N$ is the number of quanta of magnetic flux (vorticity) carried by the vortex solution. This means that there exist $2 N$
zero modes of fluctuation around BPS vortices linearly independent. Our main goal in this paper is to compute the quantum correction to the BPS vortex string tension induced by the vortex fluctuations taking into account
the existence of these vortex zero modes. Essentially we shall follow an strategy similar to that developed in \cite{Barvinsky1990:npb} and \cite{Gusev2000:prd} but we shall adapt our treatment to the heat kernel/zeta function procedure
as applied in quantum theory of solitons. Specifically, our new technique is tailored in order to incorporate the impact of zero modes in the infrared in the Gilkey-deWitt heat kernel expansion. In fact, in Reference \cite{Alonso2012:epjc} we proposed and tested the improved heat kernel expansion, with the impact of zero modes under control, in scalar one-field theory models in order to
compute one-loop kink mass shifts. Limitations in the use of the standard GdW procedure arise when zero modes enter the game because the asymptotic low temperature behaviour of the heat function
cannot be reproduced and we were forced to restrict the Mellin transform to a finite range near the high temperature regime. The contributions of the low energy fluctuations to the spectral zeta function are thus almost suppressed. In this sense the question about if the quantum fluctuations induce forces between the BPS vortices remained unsolved because of the lack of control on the previously mentioned source of errors.
The idea to repair this difficulty was to include in the heat kernel expansion a (non local) term that takes care of the effect of zero modes surviving in the low temperature range. The new term induced by the zero modes depends of an arbitrary a priori function of the (fictitious) temperature which is chosen by demanding two properties: (1) The known behaviour of the heat kernel not only at high but also at low temperature are reproduced. (2) The solution of the recurrence relations implied by the asymptotic expansion is minimally perturbed by the arbitrary function. This modification allowed a much more precise evaluation of the Mellin's transform of the heat trace to obtain the spectral zeta extending the integration interval to all the temperature range. By this token we are able to fix not only the zeta function near the poles but also the entire part. Because in the kink case many exact evaluations of kink mass quantum corrections are known we were able to check that the improved heat kernel expansion offered much closer approximations to the exact results as compared with the results obtained by using the standard GdW method. Moreover, in Reference \cite{Alonso2014:jhep} we extended the procedure to many
component scalar field theory. In these type of models there are families of BPS kinks in such a way than other kink zero modes besides the translational zero mode arises. The results also were much more precise than those previously obtained using the standard GdW expansion, see e.g. \cite{Alonso2006:hepth} and \cite{Mateos2009:pos}. More interesting, in this last paper we do not only consider the problem in $(1+1)$-dimensional space-time but we analyzed the one-loop fluctuations in a three dimensional perspective where kinks become domain walls. In Reference \cite{Rebhan2002:njp} the same problem was addressed over standard supersymmetric kink domain walls relying on dimensional regularization procedures.
Our method consequently also works for extended objects of $p$-brane type and, in the case of the model we studied, an interesting phenomenon was unveiled: within a family of classically degenerate BPS kinks repulsive forces were induced by the quantum fluctuations that broke the classical degeneracy. We plan to address an identical issue in the moduli space of BPS vortices in the Abelian Higgs model. Jaffe and Taubes showed in \cite{Jaffe1980} that the vortex moduli space is the set of $N$ unordered points in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
As a consequence vortices with one quantum of magnetic flux move freely without any interaction. The $2N$ vortex zero modes obey to this freedom in the critical point between Type II and Type I superconductivity phases, in the first case surge repulsive whereas in the second case attractive forces between vortices. We shall discuss wether or not this classical picture is maintained at one-loop order after the effect of vortex fluctuations is accounted for. We shall perform the pertinent calculations generalizing the improved GdW heat kernel procedure developed previously for scalar field theories to Abelian gauge theories with spontaneous symmetry breaking. The analysis will be first focused in the planar AHM where the BPS vortices are topological solitons. After that we shall move to study the same problem in a three dimensional space, where we find BPS vortices magnetic tubes or vortex strings. To perform this task, evaluation of the quantum corrections to BPS vortices by using the modified GdW expansion we need a detailed information of the spectrum of the matrix second-order PDO
that governs the vortex fluctuations. All the information needed about vortex zero modes and bound states is collected in our recent papers \cite{Alonso2016:plb} and \cite{Alonso2016:jhep} where pertinent References can be found.
The organization of the paper is as follows: In Section \S.2 we thoroughly address the problem described above in the planar system. Subsection \S.2.1 summarize the well known facts about planar BPS fluctuations, in sub-Section \S.2.2 the modified or improved GdW heat kernel expansion is generalized to planar
Abelian gauge systems with spontaneous symmetry breaking by one scalar field, and finally, in sub-Section \S.2.3 the one-loop mass shifts of rotationally symmetric planar BPS vortices are computed. The new one-loop mass vortex shifts performed in this work, although qualitatively compatible with those obtained in \cite{Alonso2005:prd}, are of much greater precision because the new technique is able to incorporate also the effect of zero modes in the spectral zeta function. Section \S.3 is fully devoted to describe the quantum corrections at one loop order of the BPS vortex string tensions in the three dimensional Abelian Higgs model. These results are completely new. Some conclusions about the new approach developed here and the induction of repulsive forces between BPS due to their quantum fluctuations offered in Section \S.4, where further comments on possible generalizations/extensions of this problem to other physical scenarios are elaborated.
\section{One-loop mass shifts of rotationally symmetric planar BPS vortices}
\subsection{Quantum fluctuations of BPS vortices in the planar Abelian Higgs model}
The Abelian Higgs model describes the minimal coupling between an $U(1)$-gauge field and a complex scalar field in a phase where the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken. In terms of non-dimensional variables, $x^\mu \rightarrow \frac{1}{e v}x^\mu$, and fields, $\phi\rightarrow v\phi$, $A_\mu \rightarrow v A_\mu$, where $e$ and $v$ are respectively the gauge coupling and the modulus of the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field, the action functional for the AHM in (2+1)-dimensions reads
\begin{equation}
S[\phi,A]=\frac{v}{e}\int d^3x \left[ -\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu \nu} + \frac{1}{2} (D_\mu \phi)^* D^\mu \phi -\frac{\kappa^2}{8} (\phi^* \phi-1)^2 \right] \, \, \, .
\label{action1}
\end{equation}
The main ingredients entering this formula are: the complex scalar field $\phi=\phi_1+i\phi_2$, the vector gauge potential $A=(A_0,A_1,A_2)$, the covariant derivative $D_\mu \phi = (\partial_\mu -i A_\mu)\phi$ and the field tensor $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$. We choose a systems of units where $c=1$, but $\hbar$ has dimensions of length$\times$mass. The metric tensor in the Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{(2,1)}$ is chosen as $g_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1)$ with $\mu,\nu=0,1,2$. The parameter $\kappa^2=\frac{\lambda}{e^2}$, where $\lambda$ is the quartic self-coupling of the scalar field, measures the ratio between the square of the masses of the Higgs, $M^2=\lambda v^2$, and the vector particles, $m^2=e^2 v^2$. Bogomolnyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (self-dual) vortices arise when the parameter $\kappa^2$ is set to unity, $\kappa^2=1, $ in the action (\ref{action1}). These vortices are solitonic topological defects (static and spatially localized solutions of the field equations) for which the static energy density functional
\[
V[\phi,A]=v^2\int d^2 x \Big[ \frac{1}{4} F_{ij} F_{ij} + \frac{1}{2} (D_i\phi)^* D_i\phi + \frac{1}{8} (\phi^*\phi-1)^2 \Big]
\]
is finite. A Bogomolnyi arrangement of $V[\phi,A]$
\begin{equation}
V[\phi,A]=\frac{v^2}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, \left\{\Big(F_{12}\pm\frac{1}{2}(\phi^*\phi-1)\Big)^2+\big\vert D_1\phi\pm i D_2 \phi\vert^2\right\}+\frac{v^2}{2} \,\,\Big\vert \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, F_{12}\Big\vert \label{bogs}
\end{equation}
leads us to conclude that solutions of the first-order PDE system
\begin{equation}
D_1\phi \pm i D_2 \phi =0 \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} F_{12}\pm \frac{1}{2} (\phi^*\phi -1)=0 \label{pde1}
\end{equation}
complying with the asymptotic boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
\phi^* \phi|_{S_\infty^1}=1 \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{0.5cm} D_i\phi|_{S_\infty^1}=0 \hspace{0.5cm} \equiv \hspace{0.5cm}
\phi |_{S^1_\infty}=e^{i N \theta} \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{0.5cm} A_i|_{S^1_\infty}=-i N\phi^*\partial_i \phi|_{S^1_\infty} \label{asymptotic}
\end{equation}
where $\theta =\arctan \frac{x^2}{x^1}$, $S_r^1= \{(x^1,x^2): x^1 x^1+x^2 x^2=r^2 \}$ and $S_\infty^1=\lim_{r\to +\infty} S_r$, have a classically quantized magnetic flux: $\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\, dx^1dx^2 \, F_{12}(x^1,x^2)=N\in\mathbb{Z}$.
It is clear from (\ref{asymptotic}) that the vector field $A_i$ is asymptotically purely vorticial. Jaffe and Taubes, showed, see \cite{Jaffe1980}, that the solutions are determined from $N$ points freely located in the $\mathbb{R}^2$ plane, around each of which the vector field $A_i$ is a quantized vortex, the total magnetic charge being equal to $N$. It is well known that these magnetically charged objects are also solutions of the second-order static field equations and, because they satisfy the PDE system (\ref{pde1}), the BPS vortices are absolute minima of the action in the different topological sectors characterized by $N$. Therefore, these BPS or self-dual vortices are stable. The upper signs in (\ref{pde1}) refer to the topological defects with a positive winding number, $N>0$, (vortices), of the map from the $\mathbb{R}^2$ boundary circle $S_\infty^1$ at infinity to the vacuum circle $S^1_1$ determined by the asymptotic behaviour of the complex field, see (\ref{asymptotic}). Solutions of (\ref{pde1}) with the lower signs are topological defects with negative winding number, $N<0$, (anti-vortices).
Without loss of generality, we shall focus in this paper on solutions with positive magnetic charge, although an identical analysis could be easily developed for anti-vortices. We shall denote by
\[
\psi(\vec{x};N)=\psi_1(\vec{x};N) + i \, \psi_2(\vec{x};N) \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} V(\vec{x};N)=(V_1(\vec{x};N),V_2(\vec{x};N))
\]
the scalar and vector fields of the BPS vortex solutions; the vorticity number, the magnetic charge, will be specified if necessary. Perturbations of these vortex classical solutions in the form
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{A}_i(\vec{x};N)= V_i(\vec{x};N) +\epsilon \, a_i(\vec{x}) \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} \widetilde{\phi}_i(\vec{x};N)=\psi_i(\vec{x};N) + \epsilon\, \varphi_i(\vec{x}) \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} i=1,2 \label{perturbed}
\end{equation}
respond to small fluctuations around the topological defects and open a window to observe the behaviour of these objects in the quantum world up to the semi-classical or one-loop order.
The analysis of the physics of the BPS vortex small fluctuations starts by assembling them in a four-component column which we write as the transpose of the four-component field vector
\[
\xi(\vec{x})=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}a_1(\vec{x}) & a_2(\vec{x}) & \varphi_1(\vec{x}) & \varphi_2(\vec{x}) \end{array} \right)^{\rm t}\, \, .
\]
In order to avoid spurious pure gauge fluctuations we impose the background gauge condition
\begin{equation}
B(a_k,\varphi,\phi)=\sum_{k=1}^2 \partial_k a_k-(\psi_1 \varphi_2-\psi_2\varphi_1)=0
\label{backgroundgauge}
\end{equation}
which can be generated as a field equation by adding to the action the following gauge fixing term:
\[
S^{(GF)}=\frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x [B(a_k,\varphi,\psi)]^2 \, \, .
\]
The expansion of the action up to quadratic order in the fluctuations plus the gauge fixing term reads
\[
\delta^{(2)}S+S^{(GF)}= -\frac{v}{e}\int_{\mathcal{R}^{2,1}} \, dx^0 dx^1 dx^2\,\left\{ \xi^{\rm t}(x^0,\vec{x})\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (x^0)^2}+{\cal H}^+\right] \xi(x^0,\vec{x})\right\}+o(\xi^3)
\]
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}^+= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\Delta + |\psi|^2 & 0 & -2D_1 \psi_2 & 2 D_1 \psi_1 \\
0 & -\Delta +|\psi|^2 & -2 D_2 \psi_2 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 \\
-2 D_1 \psi_2 & -2 D_2\psi_2 & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1)+V_kV_k & -2 V_k \partial_k -\partial_k V_k \\
2D_1\psi_1 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 & 2V_k \partial_k + \partial_k V_k & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1) + V_kV_k
\end{array} \right) \label{operator1}
\end{equation}
is the Hessian or second-order fluctuation operator and terms of third and quartic order in the perturbations are neglected. In the operator ${\cal H}^+$ we denote: $D_1\psi_1 = \partial_1 \psi_1 + V_1 \psi_2$, $D_2\psi_1 = \partial_2 \psi_1 + V_2 \psi_2$, $D_1\psi_2 = \partial_1 \psi_2 - V_1 \psi_1$ and $D_2\psi_2 = \partial_2 \psi_2 - V_2 \psi_1$.
In this background gauge the classical energy up to the quadratic order in the small fluctuations is now easily derived:
\[
H^{(2)}+H^{(GF)}=\frac{v^2}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\, dx^1dx^2 \, \left\{\frac{\partial\xi^t}{\partial t}(\vec{x},t)\frac{\partial\xi}{\partial t}(\vec{x},t)+\xi^t(\vec{x},t){\cal H}^+\xi(\vec{x},t)\right\} +o(\xi^3)\, .
\]
We impose finiteness of the norm on the static fluctuations, equivalently the fixed time perturbations, $\xi(\vec{x})$: $\|\xi(\vec{x})\|^2 = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2x [ (a_1(\vec{x}))^2 + (a_2(\vec{x}))^2 + (\varphi_1(\vec{x}))^2 + (\varphi_2(\vec{x}))^2 ] < +\infty$. Thus, the four component vectors of real functions $\xi(\vec{x})$ belong to the Hilbert space of square integrable vector functions, $\xi(\vec{x})\in \oplus_{a=1}^{4}\, L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)$. A previous step to quantize this system is to perform
the \lq\lq normal mode\rq\rq{} expansion, i.e., use the eigenvectors of ${\cal H}^+$ as a base to expand the fluctuations:
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}^+ \xi_\omega(\vec{x})=\omega^2 \xi_\omega(\vec{x}) \, \, , \, \, \omega^2\geq 0 \quad , \qquad \quad \xi(\vec{x},t)= \int[d\omega] \, e^{i \omega t} a^t(\omega) \, \xi_\omega(\vec{x}) \label{fluctspec} \, \, .
\end{equation}
It is well known, see \cite{Alonso2016:jhep} and References quoted therein to find a summary, that the ${\cal H}^+$ operator has a kernel of dimension $2 N$, i.e., there are $2 N$ lineally independent eigenfunctions of zero eigenvalue in the spectrum of ${\cal H}^+$. There is also a discrete set of eigenfunctions with positive eigenvalues but lesser than one: $0<\omega^2<1$. These are eigenfunctions of ${\cal H}^+$ where the positive fluctuations are trapped in bound states at the vortex core. Finally, there are eigenfunctions in the continuous spectrum of ${\cal H}^+$ with threshold precisely at $\omega^2=1$. In formula (\ref{fluctspec}) the $a^t(\omega)$-coefficients describe the four-vector normal modes of fluctuation and the integration symbol $\int [d\omega]$ means that the expansion encompasses both fluctuations in the pure point spectrum and those in the continuous spectrum.
It is interesting at this point to summarize a heat function proof of the Atiyah-Singer-Weinberg index theorem \cite{Weinberg1979:prd,Weinberg2012}. Weinberg showed the existence of $2N$ linearly independent zero modes $\xi_0(\vec{x})$ of ${\cal H}^+$ (eigenfunctions with zero eigenvalues). Weinberg's proof rely on a supersymmetric structure built on perturbations of solutions of (\ref{pde1}) which are still solutions. Perturbing the PDE (\ref{pde1}) system of three equations together with the background gauge
one finds that new solutions arise, complying with the background gauge, if and only if the perturbations belong to the kernel of the
deformation operator ${\cal D}$:
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-2cm}{\cal D}= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\partial_2 & \partial_1 & \psi_1 & \psi_2 \\
-\partial_1 & -\partial_2 & -\psi_2 & \psi_1 \\
\psi_1 & -\psi_2 & -\partial_2 + V_1 & -\partial_1 -V_2 \\
\psi_2 & \psi_1 & \partial+V_2 & -\partial_2 + V_1
\end{array} \right) \quad ,\quad \quad \hspace{1cm}{\cal D}\xi_0(\vec{x})=0 \label{zeromode1} \, \, .
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that the Hessian ${\cal H}^+$ factorizes as the product of the ${\cal D}$ operator times its adjoint: ${\cal H}^+={\cal D}^\dagger \, {\cal D}$. Besides of showing that the four-vector columns $\xi_0(\vec{x})$ are zero modes of ${\cal H}^+$, this factorization hides a supersymmetric quantum mechanical structure where the partner Hamiltonian of ${\cal H}^+$ is:
\[
{\cal H}^- = {\cal D} \, {\cal D}^\dagger= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\Delta + |\psi|^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\Delta +|\psi|^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (|\psi|^2+1)+V_kV_k & -2 V_k \partial_k -\partial_k V_k \\
0 & 0 & 2V_k \partial_k + \partial_k V_k & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (|\psi|^2+1) + V_kV_k
\end{array} \right)
\]
${\cal H}^+$ and ${\cal H}^-$ are isospectral operators (although the spectral densities in the continuous spectra may differ). Thus, the index of ${\cal D}$, regularized by means of the spectral heat functions of ${\cal H}^\pm$,
\[
{\rm ind}\,{\cal D}= {\rm dim}\,{\rm Ker}\,{\cal D}-{\rm dim}\,{\rm Ker}\,{\cal D}^\dagger={\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^+} - {\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^-} \ \, ,
\]
where $\beta$ is a fictitious inverse temperature, is independent of $\beta$. It is possible to evaluate the difference between the functional traces in the $\beta=0$ limit having in mind that
the operators ${\cal H}^\pm$ have the structure of Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger operators: ${\cal H}^\pm = {\cal H}_0+ \vec{\mathbf{Q}}(\vec{x})\cdot \vec{\nabla} + \mathbf{U}^\pm(\vec{x})$, where ${\cal H}_0$ is the Helmoltz operator times the $4\times 4$ unit matrix and the matrix potentials read:
{\small\begin{equation}
\mathbf{U}^\pm(\vec{x})= \left(\begin{array}{cccc}\vert\psi\vert^2-1 & 0 & -(D_1\psi_2\pm D_1 \psi_2) & D_1\psi_1\pm D_1 \psi_1\\ 0 & \vert\psi\vert^2-1 & -(D_2\psi_2\pm D_2 \psi_2) & D_2\psi_1\pm D_2 \psi_1\\ -(D_1\psi_2\pm D_1 \psi_2) & -(D_2\psi_2\pm D_2\psi_2) & (1\pm\frac{1}{2})(\vert\psi\vert^2-1)+V_kV_k & 0 \\ D_1\psi_1\pm D_1 \psi_1 & D_2\psi_1\pm D_2 \psi_1 & 0 & (1\pm\frac{1}{2})(\vert\psi\vert^2-1)+V_kV_k
\end{array}\right). \label{vspot}
\end{equation}}
Use of the high-temperature heat trace asymptotic expansions,
\[
{\rm Tr}_{L^2}{\rm exp}(-\beta{\cal H}^\pm)\simeq \frac{e^{-\beta}}{4\pi} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, {\rm tr} [ c_n({\cal H}^\pm)]\beta^{n-1}
\]
leads to estimate the index in the form:
\[
{\rm ind}\,{\cal D}=\lim_{\beta\to 0} \left({\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^+} - {\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^-} \right)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left({\rm tr} [ c_1({\cal H}^+)]-{\rm tr}[ c_1({\cal H}^-)] \right).
\]
Here ${\rm tr}$ refers to the conventional $(4\times 4)$-matrix trace and the divergent ${\rm tr} [c_0({\cal H}^\pm)]$ terms have been discarded because they cancel each other in the index formula. We shall see that
\begin{equation}
{\rm tr}[ c_1({\cal H}^\pm)]=-{\rm tr} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, U^\pm(\vec{x}) \, \, , \quad \, \, \mbox{henceforth}, \, \, \, \, \quad
{\rm ind}\,{\cal D}=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, \left(1-\vert \psi\vert^2\right)= 2 N \label{vind} \, \, .
\end{equation}
But ${\cal H}^-$ is a positive definite operator such that ${\rm dim}\,{\rm Ker}\,{\cal D}^\dagger=0$, which means that ${\cal H}^+$ has $2N$ zero modes.
\subsection{BPS vortex heat kernel asymptotic expansion: impact of zero modes}
One of the main goals in this paper is to compute one-loop vortex mass shifts. In References \cite{Alonso2004:prd,Alonso2005:prd,Alonso2008:npb}, see also the reviews \cite{Alonso2006:hepth,Mateos2009:pos}, we performed these calculations by applying the spectral zeta function regularization procedure to the second-order small vortex fluctuation operator ${\cal H}^+$ both in the Abelian Higgs model and in Semilocal Abelian gauge systems. The scheme developed by our group was based in the standard Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel asymptotic expansion. An important obstacle found in developing this program is that the Gilkey-de Witt approach is well established only for operators with strictly positive spectrum and the operator ${\cal H}^+$ exhibits zero modes. In the papers \cite{Alonso2012:epjc,Alonso2014:jhep} two of us improved on the Gilkey-de Witt expansion by showing how to generalize the method to cope with the existence of zero modes. Application of the generalized Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel asymptotic expansion to the computation of one-loop kink mass shifts showed a remarkably better precision and unveiled the appearance of forces between kinks of pure quantum nature.
In this Section, having in the back of the mind computations of BPS vortex mass shifts, we shall generalize the standard Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel expansion to operators with zero modes in its spectrum within the class of the BPS vortex Hessian operator ${\cal H}^+$. The new development is one of the main novel proposals in this paper. With this objective in mind, but looking at a larger class of operators containing ${\cal H}^+$, we consider a general second-order $D\times D$ matrix PDO of the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = - \textbf{I} \, \Delta + \textbf{u}^2 + \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} \label{generaloperator}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{I}$ is the $D\times D$ identity matrix, $\Delta= \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}$ is the 2D Laplacian, $\textbf{u}= {\rm diag}\,\{u_1,\dots,u_D\}$ is a constant $D\times D$ diagonal matrix determined by the asymptotic behaviour, $\vert \vec{x}\vert\to \infty$, of ${\cal H}$ and $\textbf{U}(\vec{x}) = (U_{ab}(\vec{x}))_{D\times D}$ with $a,b=1,2, \dots, D$, is a $D\times D$-matrix potential well. Besides $\vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) =(\textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x}),\textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x}))$ is a vector field of matrices such that the last term in (\ref{generaloperator}) reads
\[
\vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} = \Big(\sum_{i=1}^2 [\textbf{Q}_i(\vec{x})]_{ab} \, \partial_i\Big)_{D\times D}
\]
We assume that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\vert\vec{x}\vert\rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) = \textbf{0} \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} \lim_{\vert\vec{x}\vert\rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{Q}(\vec{x}) = \textbf{0} \label{generaloperator0}
\end{equation}
which implies that the operator (\ref{generaloperator}) asymptotically behaves as the PDO ${\cal H}_0=- \textbf{I} \, \Delta+ \textbf{u}^2 $. It is direct to check that the second-order small vortex fluctuation operator is encompassed in formula (\ref{generaloperator}) for $D=4$ and the following assignments of vacuum diagonal matrix and first-order PDO vector field
\[
\textbf{v}={\rm diag}\,\{1,1,1,1\} \quad , \quad \quad
\textbf{Q}_k(\vec{x})= \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -2V_k \\ 0 & 0 & 2V_k & 0 \end{array} \right)\, \, ,
\]
whereas the $4\times 4$-matrix potential well is defined in (\ref{vspot}).
The Gilkey-de Witt approach aims to construct a power series expansion of the ${\cal H}$-spectral heat trace $h_{\cal H}(\beta) = {\rm Tr}_{L^2} \, e^{-\beta \, {\cal H}}$
by taking advantage of the fact that this function can be obtained from integration all over the plane of the diagonal ${\cal H}$-heat equation kernel:
\begin{equation}
h_{{\cal H}}(\beta) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\, d^2 x \,\, {\rm tr}\, \textbf{K}_{\cal H} (\vec{x},\vec{x};\beta) \label{heatfunction0}
\end{equation}
i.e., the trace in both the $L^2$-functional and $D\times D$-matrix senses of the integral kernel of the ${\cal H}$-heat equation:
\begin{equation}
\Big( \frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} + {\cal H} \Big) \mathbf{K}_{\cal H} (\vec{x},\vec{y},\beta) =0 \hspace{0.5cm} , \hspace{0.5cm} \mathbf{K}_{\cal H}(\vec{x},\vec{y};0)=\delta^{(2)}(\vec{x}-\vec{y} ) \, \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \, \, . \label{heatequation}
\end{equation}
Completeness of the eigenfunctions of ${\cal H}$ allows to write the fundamental solution of equation (\ref{heatequation}) as the expansion
\begin{equation}
\textbf{K}_{\cal H}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) + \sum_{n=1}^{N_B} \Xi_n(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_n^\dagger (\vec{y}) e^{-\beta \omega_n^2} + \int [dk_1 dk_2] \, \Xi_{\vec{k}}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{\vec{k}}^\dagger(\vec{y}) \, e^{-\beta \omega^2(\vert\vec{k}\vert)} \label{integralkernel01}
\end{equation}
Here $N_{\rm zm}$ denotes the number of zero modes $\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})$, $N_{\rm zm}$ linearly independent functions belonging to the algebraic kernel of ${\cal H}$, $N_B$ is the number of bound states $\Xi_n(\vec{x})$ in ${\rm Spec}({\cal H})$, and $\Xi_{\vec{k}}(\vec{x})$ are the continuous spectrum eigenfunctions of the operator ${\cal H}$. They are $D$-component functions and form an orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space $\oplus_{a=1}^D L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)$. The $\beta=0$ (infinite temperature) condition in (\ref{heatequation}) is derived from the completeness of the set of ${\cal H}$-eigenfunctions.
The standard Gilkey-de Witt cunning strategy is based in using the knowledge of the ${\cal H}_0$ heat kernel. In a normalizing square of
area $L^2$ it reads:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} (\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \frac{l^2}{4\pi \beta} \, e^{-\frac{\|\vec{x}-\vec{y}\|^2}{4\beta}} \, e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2} \hspace{0.5cm}, \hspace{0.5cm} e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2}= {\rm diag}\,\{e^{-\beta u_1^2}, \dots, e^{-\beta u_D^2}\} \, \, \, , \, \, \, l=mL\label{hk0}
\end{equation}
and therefore in this context the ${\cal H}$ heat kernel is assumed to follow the factorization:
\begin{equation}
\textbf{K}_{\cal H}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) \, \textbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} ( \vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) \label{factorizacion0}
\end{equation}
Plugging this ansatz into the heat equation (\ref{heatequation}) another equation for $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ (usually called transfer equation) arises that is solved by expanding $\textbf{A}$ as a power series in $\beta$.
This procedure is well behaved if the spectrum of the operator ${\cal H}$ is strictly positive provided that the infinite temperature condition $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};0)=\textbf{I}_{D\times D}$ is fixed. However, if the operator exhibits zero modes the factorization (\ref{factorizacion0}) is inconsistent because the left and right members in (\ref{factorizacion0}) behave in different ways at zero temperature, see (\ref{integralkernel01}) and (\ref{hk0}):
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{K}_{{\cal H}} (\vec{x},\vec{y}; \beta) = \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \quad , \qquad \quad \lim_{\beta\rightarrow +\infty} \mathbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} (\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)=0 \label{Kinfinity} \, \, ,
\end{equation}
due to the fact that $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ grows as a power of $\beta$ when $\beta\to +\infty$. In order to amend this discrepancy we replace the factorization (\ref{factorizacion0}) by the following one:
\begin{equation}
\textbf{K}_{{\cal H}}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) \, \mathbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} ( \vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) + \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} e^{-\frac{\|\vec{x}-\vec{y}\|^2}{4\beta}} \, \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \,\, \textbf{G}(\beta) \, \, .
\label{factorizacion1}
\end{equation}
Good agreement between the zero temperature regime when zero modes are present, together the usual conditions at infinity temperature not affected by zero modes, are guaranteed provided that the matrix function $\textbf{G}(\beta)$ and the matrix density $\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ satisfy:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{G}(\beta)= \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \quad , \quad \quad \lim_{\beta\to 0} \textbf{G}(\beta)=0 \qquad \quad , \qquad \quad \lim_{\beta\to 0}\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \label{initialconditionC}
\end{equation}
The matrix density $\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$, like $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ in the standard GdW method, relates the positive part of ${\rm Spec}{\cal H}$ to ${\rm Spec}{\cal H}_0$ in the ${\cal H}$-heat kernel, whereas the second term in the right hand side of (\ref{factorizacion1}) encodes the contribution of zero modes.
The power series expansion
\begin{equation}
\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) \, \beta^n \label{expansion5}
\end{equation}
together with the factorization (\ref{factorizacion1}) is plugged into the heat equation (\ref{heatequation}) as in the standard GdW procedure. The PDE (\ref{heatequation}) is converted thereafter into the following relations between the coefficients of the modified GdW expansion and their derivatives:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& -\,\frac{1}{2\beta} \,(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \sum_{n=0}^\infty \Big[(n+1)\textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \Delta \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})+ (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \nonumber \\ && + \, \textbf{U}(\vec{x})\, \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + [\textbf{u}^2,\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})] + \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \frac{1}{2} \,(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\,\textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) \Big] \beta^n + \nonumber \\ && +\, \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} 4 \pi \Big[ \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \Big( \beta \frac{d\textbf{G}}{d\beta}(\beta) + \textbf{G}(\beta) \Big) + (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \, \textbf{G}(\beta) - \nonumber\\ && -\,\frac{1}{2}\, (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \, \textbf{G} (\beta) \Big] e^{\beta \textbf{u}^2} =\textbf{0} \, . \label{mgdwrr}
\end{eqnarray}
Taking into account that eventually we shall take the limit $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ we can neglect the contribution of the first term in this relation. Before of attempting to solve (\ref{mgdwrr}) there is the need of selecting $\textbf{G}(\beta)$. Restricted by the zero and infinite temperature behaviours (\ref{initialconditionC}) and looking for optimizing the structure of (\ref{mgdwrr}) we choose:
\begin{equation}
\textbf{G}(\beta)=1-e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2} \, \, . \label{zmgfunction}
\end{equation}
Substituting this $\textbf{G}(\beta)$ function into (\ref{mgdwrr}), expanding the lower two rows in (\ref{mgdwrr}) as a power series in $\beta$ and equalizing terms of the same power of $\beta$, a recurrence relation for the matrix densities $\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ arises. We obtain
\begin{equation}
\textbf{c}_1(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \Delta \textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_1(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\textbf{0} \label{recurrence0}
\end{equation}
for the first coefficient and
\begin{eqnarray}
&& (n+1)\,\textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \Delta \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + [\textbf{u}^2,\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})] + \nonumber \\ && + \,\vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \frac{1}{2} \, (\vec{x}-\vec{y}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x})\,\, \textbf{c}_{n+1} (\vec{x},\vec{y}) + 4 \pi \Big[ \Big(\delta_{n1}+\frac{1}{n!} \Big) \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}}\,\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) + \label{recurrence1} \\ && + \,\frac{1}{n!}\, \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) - \frac{1}{2 \, (n!\,)} (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot\vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\,\Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \, \Big] \, \textbf{u}^{2n}=\textbf{0}\nonumber \, .
\end{eqnarray}
for the remaining ones. Note that the $n=0$ equation has been written separately because, given the choice of $\textbf{G}(\beta)$, zero modes do not enter at this order. Thus, the densities $\textbf{c}_{n}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ for $n=1,2,3,\dots$ can be identified recursively using (\ref{recurrence0}) and (\ref{recurrence1}) in terms of the zero order density $\textbf{c}_{0}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$, which is fixed by the infinite temperature condition (\ref{initialconditionC}) and the definition (\ref{expansion5}), to be the constant $D\times D$
identity matrix: $\textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\textbf{I}_{D\times D}$.
Evaluation of the ${\cal H}$-spectral heat trace (\ref{heatfunction0}) requires to take the limit $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ of the densities before of integrating them. But sending the densities to the diagonal $\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{x})$ and solving simultaneously the recurrence relations is a very subtle manoeuvre. The reason is that going to the $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ limit and computing partial derivatives with respect to $x_i$ as required in (\ref{recurrence0}) and (\ref{recurrence1}) are not mutually commuting operations. To handle this situation we introduce the $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$-order densities
\begin{equation}
{}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) = \lim_{\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2} }{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2}}\left(\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})\right) \label{mayuscoef}
\end{equation}
where the partial derivatives are calculated first and the limit is taken later. Calculation of the partial derivative of the relations (\ref{recurrence0}) and (\ref{recurrence1}) of order $\alpha_1$ with respect to $x_1$ and order $\alpha_2$ with respect to $x_2$ and taking consecutively the limit $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ provide us with the recurrence relations for these diagonal magnitudes ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})$. The
partial derivatives of the first Seeley diagonal density ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x})$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1} \Big\{ {}^{(\alpha_1+2,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) + {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2+2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) - \nonumber \\ && - \, \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{U}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) \,\,-\,\, [\textbf{u}^2,{}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x})] \,\,- \label{recurrence2} \\ && -
\sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \Big[ \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}}\,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1+1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) \Big] + \nonumber \\ && - \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \Big[ \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\,{}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2+1)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) \Big] + \nonumber \\ && + \frac{\alpha_1}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1-1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1-1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\,{}^{(\alpha_1-k_1-1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) + \nonumber \\ && + \frac{\alpha_2}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2-1} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2-1 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}}\,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2-1)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) \Big\} \nonumber \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
while the subsequent, $n>1$, derivatives of the diagonal Seeley densities verify the formula
{\small\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_{n+1}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{n+\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1} \Big\{ {}^{(\alpha_1+2,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) + {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2+2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) - \nonumber\\ && - \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{U}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) \,\, -\,\, [\textbf{u}^2,{}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})] \,\,- \nonumber \\ && -
\sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \Big[ \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}}\,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1+1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) + \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2+1)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) \Big] + \nonumber \\ && + \,\, \frac{\alpha_1}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1-1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1-1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1-1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_{n+1}(\vec{x}) + \nonumber \\ && + \,\, \frac{\alpha_2}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2-1} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2-1 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\,{}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2-1)} \textbf{C}_{n+1}(\vec{x})-\label{recurrence3} \\ && -\,\, 4\pi \Big( \delta_{n1}+\frac{\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1}{n!}\Big) \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2}} \,\,\,\Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^{2n} + \nonumber \\ && +\,\,\frac{2\pi\alpha_1}{n!} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1-1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1-1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-k_1-k_2-1}\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1-k_1-1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2-k_2}} \,\,\,\Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^{2n}\, + \nonumber \\ && +\,\,\frac{2\pi\alpha_2}{n!} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2-1} {\alpha_1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2-1 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-k_1-k_2-1}\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1-k_1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2-k_2-1}}\,\,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^{2n} \,\,
\Big\} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}}
Again, the choice of $\textbf{G}(\vec{x})$ implies that derivatives of the first diagonal Seeley density ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x})$ are not affected by the presence of the zero modes in the spectrum of ${\cal H}$. These recurrence relations start from the, constant, zero order Seeley densities:
\begin{equation}
{}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) = \delta_{\alpha_1 0} \,\, \delta_{\alpha_2 0}\,\, \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \label{initialcondition3}
\end{equation}
which are directly identified from the infinite temperature condition and the definition (\ref{mayuscoef}). From (\ref{recurrence2}) and (\ref{recurrence3}) together with (\ref{initialcondition3}) we easily derive low order diagonal densities:
\begin{eqnarray}
{}^{(0,0)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) &=& - \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) \label{Seeley1}\\
{}^{(0,0)} \textbf{C}_2(\vec{x}) &=& -\frac{1}{6}\, \Delta \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \frac{1}{6} \, (\vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \, \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \frac{1}{12} \, \vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) -\frac{1}{6} \, (\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}))\, \, \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{1}{2} \,\, \textbf{U}^2(\vec{x}) + \frac{1}{2}\,\, [\textbf{u}^2,\textbf{U}(\vec{x})] - 4 \pi \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^2 \label{Seeley2} \, \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we observe that the impact of zero modes start at second order. In fact, all the new densities are the sum of the old Seeley densities plus terms induced by the zero modes proportional to $\textbf{u}^{2n-2}$. We remark that in this formula the vectorial notation $\vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) = \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})^2 + \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})^2$ has been used.
In the solution of the recurrence relations (\ref{recurrence2}) and (\ref{recurrence3}), e.g., up to order $n$, one needs to compute all the lower than $n$ densities and their derivatives. For instance, in order to obtain ${}^{(0,0)} C_6^{ab}(\vec{x})$ for ${\cal H}^+$ there is the need of knowing the diagonal densities and their derivatives ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} C_5^{ab}(\vec{x})$ for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2=0,1,2$ as data, which in turn demands the knowledge of ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} C_4^{ab}(\vec{x})$ for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2=0,1,2,3,4$, etcetera. It can be checked that the estimation of the Seeley densities ${}^{(0,0)} C_n^{ab}(\vec{x})$ at order $n$ demands the calculation of $\frac{8}{3}(n+1)(n+2)(4n+3)$ densities and their derivatives with lower $n$ of that type, a challenging task for a Mathematica program.
Formulas (\ref{factorizacion1}) and (\ref{expansion5}) allow us to write the diagonal of the heat integral kernel in the $\oplus_{a=1}^4 L_a^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$ Hilbert space as an asymptotic series in $\beta$:
\begin{equation}
\textbf{K}_{{\cal H}}(\vec{x},\vec{x};\beta) = \lim_{\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}} \textbf{K}_{{\cal H}}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \sum_{n=0}^\infty {}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) \,\, \beta^{n-1}\,\, e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2} + \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})\,\ \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{G} (\beta) \label{mgdwhk1}
\end{equation}
where, of course, ${}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) = \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{x})$ by definition. Spatial integration over $\mathbb{R}^2$ and taking the matrix trace of all the summands in (\ref{mgdwhk1})
offer us the asymptotic high temperature expansion
\begin{equation}
h_{{\cal H}}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0} (\beta) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^D \, [\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}
)]_{aa} \,\, e^{-\beta u_a^2} \,\, \beta^{n-1} + \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^D \, [f_\ell({\cal H})]_{aa} \,\, (1-e^{-\beta u_a^2}) \label{asymptoticseries0}
\end{equation}
for the difference between the spectral heat traces of the ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal H}_0$ operators. Here, we denote as
\begin{eqnarray*}
{} [c_n({\cal H})]_{aa} &=& \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \, \, [{}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})]_{aa} = \Big\langle [{}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})]_{aa} \Big\rangle \\
{} [f_\ell({\cal H})]_{aa} &=& \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \, \, (\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}))_{a} (\Xi_{0\ell}^*(\vec{x}))_{a}= \Big\langle (\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}))_{a}(\Xi_{0\ell}^*(\vec{x}))_{a} \Big\rangle \, \, \, ,
\end{eqnarray*}
the diagonal elements in the matrix sense of the Seeley coefficients, coming from integration of the diagonal elements in the functional sense of the Seeley densities.
The convention $\langle f(x) \rangle =\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \, f(\vec{x})$ will be used in some expressions later in the paper in order to alleviate the notation.
Another important spectral function is the generalized zeta function, formally defined as:
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s) ={\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, {\cal H}^{-s} \, \, \mbox{\lq\lq}="
\sum_n \frac{1}{\omega_n^{2s}} \label{zetadef}
\end{equation}
which will play an essential r$\hat{\rm o}$le in the computation of the vortex mass quantum corrections. The spectral zeta function is a meromorphic function of the complex variable $s$ defined via analytic continuation following the Riemann zeta function pattern. Connection between the heat trace $h_{{\cal H}}(\beta)$ and the spectral zeta function $\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s)$ is established via Mellin transform,
\[
\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s) = \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \int_0^\infty d\beta \, \beta^{s-1} \, h_{{\cal H}} (\beta) \, \, .
\]
Application of this transformation to the asymptotic expansion (\ref{asymptoticseries0}) of the heat trace leads to the formula
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s)-\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s) = \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^D \, [c_n({\cal H})]_{aa} \, (u_a^2)^{1-n-s} \, \Gamma[s+n-1] - \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^D \, [f_\ell({\cal H})]_{aa} \, (u_a^2)^{-s} \label{asymptoticseries1} \, \, \, ,
\end{equation}
which explicitly shows the meromorphic structure of this difference of generalized zeta functions with isolated poles located at the poles of the Euler Gamma function $\Gamma(s+n-1)$ and the singularities due to the zero modes regularized in the last term in (\ref{asymptoticseries1}). The residua at the poles are also easily identified.
\subsection{Spectral zeta function regularization of one-loop vortex mass shifts}
Standard lore in the semiclassical quantization of solitons tells us that the one-loop vortex mass shift $\Delta E_V$ in the AHM is the sum of two terms: (1) First, one computes the vortex Casimir energy, which is the energy of the state where all the vortex modes of fluctuation are unoccupied measured with respect to the energy of the state where the vacuum fluctuation modes are also unoccupied. {\footnote{This physical phenomenon is akin to the Casimir effect where the energy of photons in vacuum is subtracted from the energy of photons in presence of two conducting plates.}} (2) Second, the contribution of the mass renormalization counterterms up to one loop order is added in such a way that the remaining divergence in the Casimir energy, after subtraction of the zero point vacuum energy, is cancelled out. Identification of the mass renormalization counterterms in the Lagrangian is achieved in perturbation theory. Because we plan to renormalize particle masses we shall work the Feynman rules in the Feynman-'t Hooft renormalizable $R$-gauge. This gauge is the vacuum sector counterpart of the background gauge for fluctuations around the vortices. The $R$-gauge induces a complex ghost field $\chi(\vec{x},t)$ in the action functional needed to restore the unitarity lost after adding the gauge fixing term. The ghost degrees of freedom give rise to its own Casimir energy and mass renormalization couterterms, which is subtracted -the ghosts are fermionic particles- to the corresponding energies coming from the bosonic field fluctuations. This routine is well established and standardized in the physical literature, see \cite{Alonso2004:prd,Alonso2005:prd,Alonso2006:hepth, Mateos2009:pos, Alonso2008:npb}. We shall denote the total contribution of the Casimir energies to the vortex classical energy as $\Delta E_V^C$, that of the mass renormalization counterterms as $\Delta E_V^R$, while the total vortex mass shift will be: $\Delta E_V= \Delta E_V^C + \Delta E_V^R$.
The self-dual vortex energies up to one-loop order in the AHM are the sum of the classical energies plus the energies of the fluctuations $\xi$. Choosing the background gauge and
accounting only the fluctuations at one-loop or quadratic order the vortex energy reads:
\[
E_V = \pi |n| v^2 + \frac{\hbar m}{2} \int d^2 x \,\, [\xi^T(\vec{x}) \,{\cal H}^+ \,\xi(\vec{x}) ] + o(\xi^3) \quad , \quad m=ev \, .
\]
The energy of ghosts, which is negative due to the fermionic character of these fictitious particles, is the sum of one quadratic and one interacting term:
\[
\Delta E_V^{\rm ghost}+ E_{\rm I}^{\rm ghost}=- \frac{\hbar m}{2} \int d^2 \vec{x} \,\, [ \,\chi^* (\vec{x})\, {\cal H}^G \,\chi(\vec{x})] - \frac{\hbar^2 e^2}{2}\int d^2 \vec{x}[ (\psi^*(\vec{x}) \varphi(\vec{x}) + \psi(\vec{x})\varphi^*(\vec{x})) \, \chi^*(\vec{x}) \chi(\vec{x})\,].
\]
The PDO operator ${\cal H}^G$ entering in the quadratic ghost term is
\[
{\cal H}^G = - \Delta + |\psi|^2 \, \, ,
\]
an ordinary Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger operator that governs one-loop ghost fluctuations around the vortex, in contrast to ${\cal H}^+$ which is the matrix PDO (\ref{operator1}).
Thus, $\Delta E_V^C$ is the sum of the vortex Casimir energies of the bosonic $a_1,a_2,\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ fluctuations minus the Casimir energy of the fermionic fluctuation $\chi$. In sum, the vortex Casimir energy is given by the formal formula
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_V^C = \frac{\hbar m}{2} \Big[ \, {\rm Tr}_{\oplus_{a=1}^4 L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)} \, ({\cal H}^+)^\frac{1}{2} - {\rm Tr}_{\oplus_{a=1}^4 L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)} \, ({\cal H}_0)^\frac{1}{2} - [{\rm Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}\,({\cal H}^{\rm G})^\frac{1}{2} - {\rm Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}\,({\cal H}_0^{\rm G})^\frac{1}{2}\,] \, \Big] \label{Casimir1}
\end{equation}
where we recall that ${\cal H}_0 = -{\textbf I} \Delta + {\rm diag}\,(1,1,1,1)$ and ${\cal H}_0^G = -\Delta + 1$ are the corresponding second-order vacuum fluctuation operators.
The zeta function regularization procedure takes profit of the analytical continuation of the divergent quantity $\Delta E_V^C$ (\ref{Casimir1}) to the $s$-complex plane and assigning to the vortex Casimir energy its finite value at a regular point. This strategy is justified from the general theory about the analytical structure of spectral zeta functions of positive operators, in our problem we shall consider the spectral zeta functions of the PDO ${\cal H}^+$, ${\cal H}_0$, ${\cal H}^{\rm G}$, and ${\cal H}_0^{\rm G}$. Thus, we shall regularize the vortex Casimir energy in the form:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_V^C(s) = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{ \zeta_{{\cal H}^+}(s) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s) - \Big( \zeta_{{\cal H}^G}(x) -\zeta_{{\cal H}_0^G}(s) \Big) \Big\} \, ,\label{Casimir0}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a parameter of dimension $L^{-1}$ needed to keep correct the physical dimensions of energy away from the physical value $s=-\frac{1}{2}$: $ \Delta E_V^C= \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \Delta E_V^C(s)$.
The spectral heat kernel/zeta function control of divergences in QFT is a procedure that encompasses several different but related aspects.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Ultraviolet divergences arising in fluctuating topological defects are regularized by using the spectral zeta function of the Hessian operator. In odd dimensional spaces the zeta function giving the Casimir energy falls in a pole at $s=-\frac{1}{2}$ and one must go away from the pole in the $s$-complex plane to obtain a regularization of $\Delta E^C$, but in even dimensions the spectral zeta function is directly finite at the value of $s=-\frac{1}{2}$.
\item The meromorphic structure of the spectral zeta function is clarified when it is obtained via Mellin transform of the heat kernel high temperature expansion. Poles appear in Euler Gamma functions $\Gamma(s+n-\frac{d}{2})$, i.e., at negative integers or zero values of $s+n-\frac{d}{2}$. Also, infrared divergences appear in the lower Seeley coefficients. Integration of low densities over the whole space gives rise to divergences proportional to the volume, or, the logarithm of the volume, etcetera. Regularization of these divergences requires to restrict the system to a cube of volume $V=l^d=(mL)^d$.
\item After these regularizations were performed some renormalizations have to be done. In $(1+1)$- or $(2+1)$-dimensional space-times,
where QFT models are usually superrenormalizable, zero point and mass renormalization, taming the divergences due to the tadpoles and self-energy graphs, are enough.
\item It remains to deal with the delicate question of finite renormalizations. We shall stick to the heat kernel renormalization criterion,
tantamount to the vanishing of the tadpole graph. In the limit of infinite particle masses there are no quantum fluctuations, thus there should be no quantum corrections. This means that the contribution of all the coefficients multiplied by non negative powers of mass must be
exactly cancelled in the renormalization process. In one and two spatial dimensions only $\textbf{c}_0$ and $\textbf{c}_1$ survive when the particles become infinitely heavy and the annihilation of their contribution fixes our renormalization criterion.
\item Zero modes, however, respond to rigid motions which survive in the infinite mass regime and the above criterion does not apply to their contributions.
\end{enumerate}
The heat kernel/zeta function technology applied in the computation of (\ref{Casimir1}) requires to write (\ref{asymptoticseries1}) for both the ${\cal H}={\cal H}^+$ and ${\cal H}={\cal H}^G$ operators arising in the Abelian Higgs model. The difference between the spectral zeta functions of the PDO's ${\cal H}^+$ and ${\cal H}_0$ reads:
\[
\zeta_{{\cal H}^+}(s) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s) = \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4 \, \frac{[c_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2n+2s-2}} \, \Gamma[s+n-1] - \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^4 \, [f_\ell({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} u^{-2s} \,
\]
where, although the $\vert\vec{x}\vert\to +\infty$ asymptotics of the matrix potential in ${\cal H}^+$ is $\textbf{u}={\rm diag}\,\{1,1,1,1\}$, we have written $u_a=u$, $a=1,2,3,4$, in order to later analyze the $u\to +\infty$, infinite particle masses, limit. We remark that the subtraction of $\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s)$ corresponds exactly to zero point renormalization:
\[
\lim_{s\to -\frac{1}{2}}\, \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{a=1}^4\, \frac{c_0[{\cal H}^+]_{aa}}{u^{2s-2}}\Gamma[s-1]=u^3\frac{l^2}{\pi}\Gamma[-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}]=\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \, \, .
\]
The lower Seeley coefficients are easily obtained from (\ref{Seeley1}) and (\ref{Seeley2}):
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{a=1}^4 [c_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} &=& \Big\langle 5(1-|\psi|^2) - 2 V_kV_k \Big\rangle \\
\sum_{a=1}^4 [c_2({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} &=& \Big\langle -\frac{5}{6} \Delta |\psi|^2 -\frac{1}{3} \Delta(V_kV_k) + 4 \sum_{i,j=1}^2 (D_i \psi_j)^2 + \frac{13}{4} (1-|\psi|^2)^2 -\\ && -2V_kV_k(1-|\psi|^2) + \frac{1}{3} (V_kV_k)^2 \Big\rangle -4 \pi \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^4 \, [f_\ell({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}u^2 \, \, ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we observe also that the new Seeley coefficients are the sum of the old coefficients plus the last term induced by the zero modes.
Simili modo, the ghost spectral zeta function regularizes the ghost Casimir energy:
\[
\zeta_{{\cal H}^{\rm G}}(s) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0^{\rm G}}(s) = \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, \frac{c_n({\cal H}^{\rm G})}{u^{2s+2n-2}} \, \Gamma[s+n-1] - \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}^G} \, f_\ell({\cal H}^{\rm G}) \, u^{-2s}
\]
Again, we leave free the asymptotic value of $U^{\rm G}(\vec{x})$ to ponder the heat kernel renormalization criterion, although we know that $U^{\rm G}(\vec{x})=\vert\psi \vert^2(\vec{x})\, \, \, \equiv \, \, \, u=1$ for the vortex. $N_{\rm zm}^{\rm G}$ denotes the zero mode number in the ${\cal H}^{\rm G}$-spectrum. The first and second ghost Seeley coefficients are:
\[
c_1( {\cal H} ^{\rm G}) = \left\langle 1- |\psi|^2 \right\rangle \hspace{0.5cm}\mbox{and}\hspace{0.5cm} c_2( {\cal H} ^{\rm G}) = \left\langle -{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}} \Delta |\psi|^2 + {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(|\psi|^2-1)^2 \right\rangle -4 \pi \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}^G} \, f_\ell({\cal H}^{\rm G}) u^2
\]
Because zero modes $\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})$ are orthogonal to each other and normalized it is clear that:
\[
\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^4 \, [f_\ell({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} = N_{\rm zm} \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{0.5cm} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}^G} \, f_\ell({\cal H}^{\rm G}) = N_{\rm zm}^{\rm G} \, .
\]
But the vortex zero mode number is $2N$, twice the vorticity, and $0$ for the ghost fluctuation operator ${\cal H}^{\rm G}$ which is a positive operator. Thus, $N_{\rm zm}=2N$ and $N_{\rm zm}^{\rm G}=0$ and the total BPS vortex Casimir energy (\ref{Casimir0}) is
\begin{equation}
\lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \Delta E_V^C(s) = \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{ \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4\frac{[\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-2}} - \frac{c_n({\cal H}^G)}{u^{2n+2s-2}} \Big) \, \Gamma[s+n-1] -2N u^{-2s}\, \Big\} \, \, \, . \label{vortcas}
\end{equation}
Note that the first summand in (\ref{vortcas}) is proportional to $u$:
\[
\frac{\hbar m}{2}\frac{1}{4\pi\Gamma(-\frac{1}{2})}\Big(\sum_{a=1}^4\, c_1({\cal H}^+)_{aa}-c_1({\cal H}^{\rm G})\Big)\Gamma(-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) u=
\frac{\hbar m}{4\pi}\cdot \Big\langle 2(1-\vert\psi\vert^2)-V_kV_k\Big\rangle \cdot u \, .
\]
Therefore the contribution of this term must be exactly annihilated in a renormalization procedure adjusted to suppress it without leaving any finite remnants. The next term is proportional to $1/u$ and, thus, is susceptible to be kept, as well as all the higher order than $2$ terms.
In fact, the only renormalization, after control of the zero point divergences, remaining in the planar AHM is the mass renormalization. In References \cite{Alonso2004:prd} and \cite{Alonso2006:hepth}, together with other collaborators, we identified the energy induced by the counterterms needed to
tame the tadpoles and self-energy divergent graphs in a minimal renormalization scheme, i.e., only subtracting the infinities arising in these graphs. The divergent mass renormalization energy is:
\[
\Delta E_V^R = 2 \,\hbar\, m \,I(u) \, \Big\langle\Sigma_1(\psi,V_k)\Big\rangle
\]
where
\[
\Big\langle\Sigma_1(\psi,V_k)\Big\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \Big[ 1-|\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \Big] = \Big\langle 1-|\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \Big\rangle \quad ,
\]
obviously proportional to $\sum_{a=1}^4\, c_1({\cal H}^+)_{aa}-c_1({\cal H}^{\rm G})$, and $I(u)$ is the divergent integral
\[
I(u)=\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2+u^2}}
\]
arising in closed loop propagators. The idea is to regularize also $I(u)$ by means of the zeta function procedure:
\[
I(u,s)=\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{1}{(k_1^2+k_2^2+u^2)^{s+1}} = \frac{1}{2}\zeta_{-\Delta +u^2} (s+1) \, \, ,
\]
which implies that:
\[
I(u)=I(u,-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})= \lim_{s\to -\frac{1}{2}} \, \zeta_{-\Delta +u^2} (s+1)= \zeta_{-\Delta +u^2}({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})\, .
\]
Recall that ${\cal H}_0$ is a $4\times 4$ diagonal matrix PDO whose components are Helmoltz operators: $-\Delta+u^2$. Thus, $\zeta_{-\Delta+u^2}(\frac{1}{2})= \frac{1}{4} \,\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(\frac{1}{2})$. Moreover, we knew that,
\[
\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\Gamma[s-1]}{\Gamma[s]} u^{2-2s} \hspace{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{1cm} \zeta_{{\cal H}_0^{\rm G}}(s)=\frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{\Gamma[s-1]}{\Gamma[s]} u^{2-2s} \, \, ,
\]
therefore, the regularized mass renormalization energy reads:
\[
\Delta E_V^R = \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \Delta E_V^R(s)= \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \frac{\hbar \mu}{4 \pi} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{\Gamma[s]}{\Gamma[s+1]} \cdot\, u^{-2s} \cdot\, \Big\langle\Sigma_1(\psi, V_k)\Big\rangle \, .
\]
The sum of the analytical continuations of the Casimir and mass renormalization energies $\Delta E_V^C(s) + \Delta E_V^R(s)$ is:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \hspace{-0.7cm}\Delta E_V^C(s) + \Delta E_V^R(s)= \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{ \frac{1}{4\pi} \Big\langle 5(1-|\psi|^2)- 2 V_kV_k\Big\rangle u^{-2 s}- \frac{1}{4\pi} \left\langle 1-|\psi|^2 \right\rangle u^{-2s}\\ && +\frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2n+2s-2}} \Gamma[s+n-1] -2N u^{-2s} - \frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{c_n({\cal H}^G)}{u^{2s+2n-2}} \Gamma[s+n-1] + \\ && + \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{1}{s} \left\langle 1-|\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \right\rangle \cdot u^{-2s}
\Big\} = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{\Big( \frac{1}{\pi} + \frac{1}{2\pi s} \Big) \left\langle 1- |\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \right\rangle \cdot u^{-2s} + \\
&& + \frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[c_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-2}} - \frac{c_n({\cal H}^G)}{u^{2s+2n-2}} \Big) \Gamma[s+n-1] - 2N u^{-2s} \Big\} \, \, ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used $\Gamma(s+1)=s\Gamma(s)$. The key observation is that, according to the heat kernel renormalization criterion, the contribution of the first order Seeley coefficients is exactly cancelled by the
minimal subtraction scheme chosen in our mass renormalization prescription. This statement can be easily checked by looking at the first term in the last equality at the physical value $s=-\frac{1}{2}$.
Therefore, the one-loop BPS vortex mass shift is obtained in this approach by the asymptotic formula:
\[
\Delta E_V = \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} [\Delta E_V^C(s) + \Delta E_V^R(s)]
\]
which provides us with the final response
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_V = -\frac{\hbar m}{16 \pi^\frac{3}{2}} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4 [\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} - c_n({\cal H}^G) \Big) \, \Gamma[n-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}] - \hbar m N \label{quantumshift} \, \, .
\end{equation}
\subsection{One-loop mass shifts of BPS rotationally symmetric vortices: surge of weak quantum forces}
Use of formula (\ref{quantumshift}) guides us towards the computation of one-loop mass shifts for BPS circularly symmetric vortices, solutions of the PDE system (\ref{pde1}) of the form
\[
\psi(x_1,x_2)=f_N(r) \, e^{iN\theta} \hspace{0.5cm};\hspace{0.5cm} V_r(r,\theta)=0 \, \, \, , \, \, \, V_\theta(r,\theta)= \frac{N}{r} \, \beta_N(r)
\]
where $r=\sqrt{x^1x^1+x^2x^2}$ and $\theta={\rm arctan}\frac{x^2}{x^1}$ are polar coordinates in the plane. In this case the just mentioned PDE system becomes the ODE system:
\begin{equation}
f_N'(r)=\frac{N}{r} f_N(r) [1-\beta_N(r)]\hspace{0.5cm};\hspace{0.5cm} \beta_N'(r)=\frac{r}{2N}[1-f_N^2(r)] \label{ode1} \, \, .
\end{equation}
The subindex $N$ in $f_N(r)$ and $\beta_N(r)$ reminds us that the radial profiles depend on the vorticity $N$, i.e., they are different in different topological sectors. The well known procedure for finding solutions of these ordinary equations proceed in three steps: (1) Solving the (\ref{ode1}) near $r=0$ one finds $f_N(r)\simeq_{r\to 0} D_N r^N$ and $\beta_N(r)\simeq_{r\to 0} E_N r^2$, where $D_N$ and $E_N$ are integration constants, that are regular solutions near the origin. (2) The asymptotic conditions (\ref{asymptotic}) demand that $f_N(r)\rightarrow 1$ and $\beta_N(r)\rightarrow 1$ in the $r\rightarrow \infty$ limit. One solves then the (\ref{ode1}) system very far from the origin. An smooth sewing between the two regimes requires a precise choice of $D_N$ and $E_N$. (3) This shooting procedure is numerically implemented to build interpolating solutions to (\ref{ode1}) at intermediate distances. In this way the circularly symmetric BPS $N$-vortex solutions are obtained, and these $N$-vortex profiles are basic ingredients in the one-loop BPS vortex mass shift formula (\ref{quantumshift}).
The remaining ingredients needed in formula (\ref{quantumshift}) are the $2N$ orthonormal zero mode fluctuations of the circularly symmetric $N$-vortices of the form, see \cite{Alonso2016:jhep},
{\small\begin{equation}
\xi_0(\vec{x},N,k)= r^{N-k-1} \left( \begin{array}{c} h_N(r) \, \sin[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ h_N(r) \, \cos[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ - \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \cos(k\theta) \\ - \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \sin(k\theta) \end{array} \right)
\,
, \, \, \, \xi_0^\perp(\vec{x},N,k)= r^{N-k-1} \left( \begin{array}{c} h_N(r) \, \cos[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ -h_N(r) \, \sin[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ - \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \sin(k\theta) \\ \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \cos(k\theta) \end{array} \right) \, , \label{zeromode4}
\end{equation}}
where $k=0,1,2,\dots,N-1$, and the zero mode radial profile $h_N(r)$ verifies the ODE
\begin{equation}
-r \, h_N''(r)+[1+2k-2N\,\beta_N(r)]\,h_N'(r) + r \,f_N^2(r)\, h_N(r)=0 \label{ode5}
\end{equation}
with boundary conditions $h_N(0)\neq 0$ and $\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} h_N(r)=0$. Again a numerical approach applied to solve (\ref{ode5}) with the just prescribed conditions at the origin and at infinity offer us quite precise knowledge of the $2N$ zero mode fluctuations of a BPS vortex solution with vorticity $N$ \cite{Alonso2016:jhep}. All this information allows us to use the recurrence relations (\ref{recurrence2}) and (\ref{recurrence3}) in order to obtain the Seeley coefficients $\sum_{a=1}^4 [\textbf{c}_k({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}$ and $c_k({\cal H}^G)$ entering in the vortex mass quantum correction formula (\ref{quantumshift}). The practical use of (\ref{quantumshift}) involves the truncation of the series at a finite order $n_T$, i.e., replacing the series by the partial sum:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_V = -\frac{\hbar m}{16 \pi^\frac{3}{2}} \sum_{n=2}^{n_T} \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4 [\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} - c_n({\cal H}^G) \Big) \, \Gamma[n-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}] - \hbar m N \label{truncaquantumshift} \, \, .
\end{equation}
We estimate the vortex mass quantum correction by applying (\ref{truncaquantumshift}) with $n_T=6$. Computation of the lower six Seeley coefficients requires the calculation of 4043 functional coefficients ${}^{(\alpha,\gamma)}C_n^{ab}(\vec{x})$. We develope this program by using the symbolic software platform \textit{Mathematica}. The code of this task can be found in the web page http//:campus.usal.es/$\sim$mpg/General/MathematicaTools.htm. Estimation of the matrix and functional traces of these densities provides us with the previously mentioned Seeley coefficients. The results are displayed in Table 1 and Table 2.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{${\rm tr}([\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)])$} \\ \hline
$n$ & $N=1$ & $N=2$ & $N=3$ & $N=4$ & $N=5$ \\ \hline \hline
$2$ & $5.20990655$ & $10.75849898$ & $14.59990245$ & $17.58450757$ & $20.05604942$ \\
$3$ & $0.60457807$ & $0.64034809$ & $-1.43031758$ & $-5.93852744$ & $-13.0290730$ \\
$4$ & $0.10055209$ & $-0.23427492$ & $-1.42368210$ & $-3.57770210$ & $-6.70544685$ \\
$5$ & $0.02634327$ & $-0.11250983$ & $-0.50804216$ & $-1.20295070$ & $-2.21121000$ \\
$6$ & $0.00468414$ & $-0.03251509$ & $-0.12931186$ & $-0.29574333$ & $-0.53589538$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\it Values of the $n$-th Seeley coefficients for the small $N$-vortex fluctuation operator ${\cal H}^+$ entering in the planar vortex mass quantum correction (\ref{quantumshift}).}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{${\rm tr}([\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^G)])$} \\ \hline
$n$ & $N=1$ & $N=2$ & $N=3$ & $N=4$ & $N=5$ \\ \hline \hline
$2$ & $2.60573638$ & $6.80907379$ & $11.49149074$ & $16.45567556$ & $21.55628055$ \\
$3$ & $0.31910464$ & $1.34189515$ & $2.60714103$ & $4.00530969$ & $5.48466835$ \\
$4$ & $0.02297681$ & $0.20498547$ & $0.46776735$ & $0.77192241$ & $1.10205597$ \\
$5$ & $0.00122645$ & $0.02380029$ & $0.06735758$ & $0.12074591$ & $0.18031589$ \\
$6$ & $0.00006965$ & $0.00219104$ & $0.00800451$ & $0.01580181$ & $0.02478549$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\it Values of the $n$-th Seeley coefficients for the ghost operator ${\cal H}^G$ entering in the planar vortex mass quantum correction (\ref{quantumshift}).}
\end{table}
In Table 3 we display the response of this formula up to $n_T=6$. The last row offers the best estimation of the BPS $N$-vortex mass quantum correction. In the graphic we observe that the mass shift of a circularly symmetric vortex of vorticity $N$ is greater (less negative) than the mass shift of $N$ quanta of magnetic flux infinitely appart from each other. This means that one-loop fluctuations induce (very weak) repulsive forces between vortices, or, equivalently, that BPS vortices are pushed by quantum fluctuations towards a Type II superconductivity phase.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
$n_T$ & $\rule[-0.3cm]{0cm}{0.9cm} \frac{\Delta E_V^{N=1}}{\hbar m}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=2}}{\hbar m}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=3}}{\hbar m}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=4}}{\hbar m}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=5}}{\hbar m}$ \\ \hline\hline
$2$ & $-1.0518$ & $-2.0786$ & $-3.0618$ & $-4.0225$ & $-4.9701$ \\
$3$ & $-1.0546$ & $-2.0716$ & $-3.0217$ & $-3.9235$ & $-4.7860$ \\
$4$ & $-1.0558$ & $-2.0650$ & $-2.9935$ & $-3.8586$ & $-4.6695$ \\
$5$ & $-1.0567$ & $-2.0599$ & $-2.9720$ & $-3.8093$ & $-4.5803$ \\
$6$ & $-1.0573$ & $-2.0554$ & $-2.9541$ & $-3.7686$ & $-4.5071$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}\hspace{1cm}\begin{tabular}{c} \includegraphics[height=3cm]{quantumcorrection2d}\end{tabular}
\caption{\it Estimation of the quantum correction to the $N$-vortex mass up to vorticity $N=5$ computed from the $2\leq n_T \leq 6$ partial sums of the series (\ref{quantumshift}).}
\end{table}
\section{One-loop string tension shifts for cylindrically symmetric BPS vortex filaments}
In this Section we shall try to compute one-loop BPS vortex tension shifts in the (3+1)-dimensional AHM. The BPS planar vortex solutions assuming cylindrical symmetry, i.e., infinitely repeated in the new dimension, become
the famous self-dual Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen magnetic filaments or tubes. The AHM action functional in $(3+1)$ Minkowski space-time at the BPS point is:
\[
S[\phi,A]=\frac{1}{e^2}\int d^4 x \Big[ - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} + \frac{1}{2} (D_\mu \phi)^* D^\mu \phi -\frac{1}{8} (\phi^*\phi-1)^2 \Big] \, \, .
\]
The differences with respect to the planar AHM action are: (1) $d^4x=dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3$; (2) $\vec{x}=x^1\vec{e}_1+x^2\vec{e}_2+x^3\vec{e}_3$ where $\vec{e}_i\cdot\vec{e}_j=\delta_{ij}$, $i,j=1,2,3$; (3) $g_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ with $\mu, \nu=0,1,2,3$; (4) the gauge connection has four components: $A_\mu=(A_0,A_1,A_2,A_3)$ and (5) the antisymmetric EM tensor field $F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial A_\nu}{\partial x^\mu} -\frac{\partial A_\mu}{\partial x^\nu}$ encompasses $6$ independent components: $3$ components of the electric field $E_i(\vec{x})= F_{0i}(\vec{x})$ and $3$ components of the magnetic field $B_i(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{ijk} F_{jk}(\vec{x})$.
Static cylindrically symmetric field configurations are independent of $x^0$ and $x^3$: $\phi=\phi(x_1,x_2)$, $A_\alpha=A_\alpha(x_1,x_2)$. To make this restriction gauge invariant we choose the temporal and axial gauges: $A_0=A_3=0$. For configurations with these symmetries the first-order PDE (\ref{ode1}) system still admit BPS vortex solutions. Seen in three dimensions, the BPS vortices become cylindrical magnetic tubes with the axis along the third dimension $x^3$ and, therefore the planar solutions are the cross sections at $x^3$ fixed of these stringy topological defects. Like in the previous Sections, we are interested in studying the one-loop fluctuations around these infinitely long BPS vortex filaments. The main novelty here are the fluctuations in the third dimension, i.e., the fluctuations are functions also of $x^3$: $\varphi(x^1,x^2,x^3)$. Moreover, although the axial gauge has been chosen to fix the BPS vortex solutions, perturbations in the third component of the gauge potential must be taken into account:
\[
\phi(\vec{x})=\psi(x^1,x^2)+\varphi(\vec{x}) \qquad , \qquad A_\alpha(\vec{x})=V_\alpha(x^1,x^2)+a_\alpha(\vec{x}) \, \, \, , \alpha=1,2 \, \, \, , \, \, \, A_3(\vec{x})=a_3(\vec{x})
\]
The vortex filament fluctuations are assembled in a five component column vector $\xi(\vec{x})$ that includes also fluctuations in the third component of the vector potential $a_3(\vec{x})$:
\[
\xi(x^1,x^2,x^3)=\left( \begin{array}{ccccc} a_1(x^1,x^2,x^3) & a_2(x^1,x^2,x^3) & a_3(x^1,x^2,x^3) & \varphi_1(x^1,x^2,x^3) & \varphi_2(x^1,x^2,x^3) \end{array} \right)^t \, .
\]
To exclude spurious pure gage fluctuations we impose the background gauge
\[
B(a_k,\varphi,\phi)=\sum_{j=1}^3 \partial_j a_j(\vec{x}) -\left[ \psi_1(x^1,x^2) \varphi_2(\vec{x}) - \psi_2(x^1,x^2) \varphi_1(\vec{x}) \right]=0
\]
Expanding the classical action plus the gauge fixing term up to the quadratic order in $\xi$ we unveil the second-order fluctuation operator:
{\small\begin{equation}
{\cal L}= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
-\Delta + |\psi|^2 & 0 & 0 & -2D_1 \psi_2 & 2 D_1 \psi_1 \\
0 & -\Delta +|\psi|^2 & 0 & -2 D_2 \psi_2 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 \\
0 & 0 & - \Delta + |\psi^2| & 0 & 0\\
-2 D_1 \psi_2 & -2 D_2\psi_2 & 0 & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1)+V_k V_k & -2 V_k \partial_k -\partial_k V_k \\
2D_1\psi_1 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 & 0 &2V_k \partial_k + \partial_k V_k & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1) + V_k V_k
\end{array} \right) \label{operatorL}
\end{equation}}
We remark that in $3$D the three-dimensional Laplacian enters : $\Delta=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2}$. The structure of the matrix PDO (\ref{operatorL}) shows that the $a_3$-fluctuations are decoupled and do not mix with the other four fluctuations. Therefore, one-loop string tension shifts to be extracted from the spectrum of ${\cal L}$-fluctuations come from the spectra of the two operators
\[
{\cal K}= - \mathbf{I}_{4\times 4} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2} + {\cal H}^+ \hspace{0.8cm},\hspace{0.8cm} {\cal L}_3= - \Delta + |\psi^2|
\]
accounted for separately. The matrix PDO ${\cal K}$ is in turn obtained by adding to the 1D Laplacian along the $x_3$-axis times the $4\times 4$ unit matrix the old Hessian operator (\ref{operator1}) working in the $(2+1)$D AHM, fully analyzed in previous Sections. It is clear that the eigenvalues of the ${\cal K}$ operator, ${\cal K} F_n(\vec{x})= \varepsilon_n^2 F_n(\vec{x})$ are of the form
\[
\varepsilon_n^2 = \omega_n^2 + k_3^2
\]
where $\omega_n^2$ are the eigenvalues of ${\cal H}^+$. $k_3\in \mathbb{R}$ belongs to the continuous spectrum of the
$1$D Laplacian and has spectral density $\rho(k_3)=\frac{l}{2\pi}$ when particle motion in the third spatial dimension $x_3$ is confined to an interval of (non dimensional) length $2l=2 m L$, which eventually will go to infinity. The ${\cal K}$-heat function $H_{\cal K}(\beta)$, after subtraction of the ${\cal K}_0$-heat function where ${\cal K}_0$ is obtained by replacing ${\cal H}^+$ with ${\cal H}_0$, is essentially obtained from $h_{{\cal H}^+}(\beta)$ and $h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_{\cal K}(\beta)- H_{{\cal K}_0}(\beta) &=& {\rm Tr}_{{\rm L}^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal K}}- {\rm Tr}_{{\rm L}^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal K}_0} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dk_3 \frac{l}{2\pi} \Big[ h_{{\cal H}^+}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta) \Big] e^{-\beta k_3^2} = \\&=& \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \beta^{-\frac{1}{2}} [h_{\cal H}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta) ] \, \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
The Mellin transform allows us to calculate the difference between the spectral zeta functions ${\cal Z}_{\cal K}(s)- {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0}(s)$ of the ${\cal K}$ and ${\cal K}_0$ operators:
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal Z}_{\cal K}(s)- {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0}(s) &=& \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \int_0^\infty d\beta \beta^{s-1} [H_{\cal K}(\beta)-H_{{\cal K}_0}(\beta)] = \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \int_0^\infty d\beta \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \beta^{s-\frac{3}{2}} [h_{\cal H}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta)]= \\ &=& \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \frac{ l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \Gamma[s-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}] \Big[ \zeta_{\cal H}(s-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] \, \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
Following the same pattern as in Section \S.2 we regularize the $3$D vortex Casimir energy $\Delta E_V^C$ by using the spectral zeta function at a regular point in the $s$-complex plane
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_V^C({\cal K})(s) = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \Big[ {\cal Z}_{\cal K}(s) - {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0}(s) \Big] = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{\cal H} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) -\zeta_{{\cal H}_0} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] \label{rvsts}
\end{equation}
in such a way that in the limit $s\rightarrow - \frac{1}{2}$, which is a pole of $\Delta E_V^C({\cal K})(s)$, the physical response is recovered. Moreover, the contribution of the fermionic ghost particles, encoded in the spectrum of the PDO,
\[
{\cal H}^{G} = - \Delta + |\psi^2| = - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2} - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2} + |\psi^2| \, \, ,
\]
must be subtracted, whereas fluctuations are accounted for, and must be added, by the spectrum of ${\cal L}_3$. Thus, the $3$D regularized vortex Casimir energy is the sum of these three contributions:
\[
\Delta E_V^C(s) = \Delta E_V^C({\cal K})(s) - \Delta E_V^C({\cal H}^G)(s) + \Delta E_V^C({\cal L}_3)(s)
\]
coming from the ${\cal K}$, ${\cal L}_3$ and ${\cal H}^G$-fluctuations. By regularizing also the contributions of the ghost and $a_3$ fluctuations by means of their spectral zeta functions
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta E_V^C({\cal K}^{\rm G})(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \Big[ {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}^G}(s) - {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0^G}(s) \Big] =
\frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{{\cal H}_0^G} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) - \zeta_{{\cal H}^G} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] \\
\Delta E_V^C({\cal L}_3)(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \Big[ {\cal Z}_{{\cal L}_3}(s) - {\cal Z}_{{\cal L}_{30}}(s)\Big] = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{{\cal L}_3} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) -\zeta_{{\cal L}_{30}} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big]
\end{eqnarray*}
we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta E_V^C(s)&=&\frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{\cal H} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) -\zeta_{{\cal H}_0} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] = \nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{\hbar \mu l}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4\frac{ [\mathbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-3}} \Gamma[s+n-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}]-2 N u^{-2s+1}\Big] \label{divregce}
\end{eqnarray}
because ${\cal H}^G$ and ${\cal L}_3$ are identical PDO's and thus the ghost and the third component vector potential fluctuations annihilate each other. We recall that $N$ is the vorticity of the vortex string.
Once we have derived (\ref{divregce}), a renormalization process must be implemented in order to tame the divergences of $\Delta E_V^C (s)$ at the physical limit $s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}$. Within the zeta function regularization procedure the more severe divergences appear in the lower three terms of the asymptotic expansion. To put into practice the renormalization procedure we distinguish between the contributions to
$\Delta E_V^C (s)$ of divergent and finite terms:
\[
\Delta E_V^C (s) = \Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s) + \Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s) + \Delta E_V^{C_3}(s) + \Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s) \, \, .
\]
Here
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu l }{16\pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[\mathbf{c}_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s-1}} \\
\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu l}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s+\frac{1}{2}]}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[\mathbf{c}_2({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+1}}
\end{eqnarray*}
refer respectively to the contribution of the first and second Seeley coefficients in the asymptotic series formula of the vortex Casimir energy $\Delta E_V^C(s)$. Of course, the contribution of the ${\rm tr}\,\textbf{c}_0({\cal H}^+)$ would be even more divergent, but it does not appear in the vortex Casimir energy because it is canceled by the contribution of the vacuum zeta function ${\cal Z}({\cal H}_0)(-1/2)$, i.e., by zero point renormalization. The interesting facts to be pointed out about the divergences of the $3$D vortex string Casimir energy are: (1) $\Delta E_V^{C(1)}(-1/2)$
has a divergence proportional to $\Gamma(-1)$. (2) The divergence of $\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(-1/2)$ arises as the pole of $\Gamma(s)$ at $s=0$. (3) Factors respectively of $u^2$ and $u^0$ in these lower two terms of the series tell us that these contributions would survive in the infinite mass limit. Therefore, the divergences coming from massive fluctuations, i.e., appearing in factors of the old Seeley coefficients, must be exactly cancelled according to the heat kernel renormalization criterion. Moreover, the exponents of $u$ encode in the spectral zeta function the standard divergences of QFT: for instance, divergences coming from the $c_1$ coefficients correspond to quadratic divergences in the Feynman graphs when a momentum cutoff is used, those appearing in $c_2$ contributions come from QFT logarithmic divergences{\footnote{The stronger divergences, quartic in $3$D, are associated with vacuum energies, i.e., with $c_0$ coefficients that are proportional to $u^4$. Note also that in the zeta function regularization procedure these quartic divergences reappear in the disguise of $\Gamma(-2)$. Fortunately, these quartic divergences are supressed by zero point renormalization.}}.
The remaining summands in the series, however,
\[
\Delta E_V^{C_3}(s) = \frac{\hbar \mu l }{16\pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot\frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=3}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[c_n({\cal H})]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-3}} \Gamma[s+n- {\textstyle\frac{3}{2}} ]
\]
are finite at $s=-1/2$ and proportional to negative powers of $u$, a fact that tells us that they escape from the need of renormalization. The zero mode contribution, however, survives even in the infinite mass limit
but it is divergent at the physical value of the $s$ complex parameter. Indeed,
\[
\Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s) = -\frac{\hbar \mu l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \, N \, u^{-2s+1}
\]
is divergent at $s=-1/2$ because $\Gamma(s-1/2)$ has a pole there. It is of note that this contribution is proportional to twice the vorticity $2N$, a number that counts the zero modes.
In order to fix the renormalizations needed it is convenient a closer analysis of the vortex Casimir energy divergences near the dangerous pole at $s=-1/2$. A power expansion of the divergent contributions in the neighborhood of this point shows the just mentioned structure:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s) &=& \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \sum_{a=1}^4 [c_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} u^2 \\
\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s) &=& \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{-1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{\gamma+\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \Big( \Big\langle \Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha)\Big\rangle -8\pi N u^2 \Big) \\
\Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s) &=& -\hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{2 \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \,N u^2
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\gamma$ is the Euler Gamma constant and $\psi(s)$ is the Digamma function. The second Seeley coefficient has been split into two summands
\[
\sum_{a=1}^4 [c_2({\cal H^+})]_{aa} =\Big\langle\Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha)\Big\rangle-8\pi N u^2
\]
distinguishing between the zero mode contribution $-8\pi N$ and the contribution of the vortex fields expressed in terms of the old second Seeley coefficient, that is, derived in the standard GdW procedure, proportional to $\Big\langle \Sigma_2 (\psi, V_\alpha)\Big\rangle$ where $\Sigma_2$ is:
{\small\[
\Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha) = -\frac{5}{6} \Delta |\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{3} \Delta (\sum_{\alpha=1}^2V_\alpha V_\alpha) + 4 \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^2 (D_\alpha \psi_\beta)^2 + \frac{13}{4} (1-|\psi|^2)^2 - 2\sum_{\alpha=1}^2V_\alpha V_\alpha(1-|\psi|^2) + \frac{1}{3} (\sum_{\alpha=1}^2V_\alpha V_\alpha)^2 \, \, .
\]}
All the singular contributions to the vortex Casimir energy can be rearranged in the form:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s)+\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s)+ \Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s)\simeq_{s\to -1/2} \\
&& \simeq_{s\to -1/2} \left\{ \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \sum_{a=1}^4 [c_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} u^2 + \right. \\ && + \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{-1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{\gamma+\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \Big\langle \Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha)\Big\rangle- \\ && \left. -\hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{2 \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}}- \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})}+ \frac{\gamma+\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}}+ o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \,N u^2 \right\}
\end{eqnarray*}
There appear three types of singularities that need to be cancelled: (1) In the first line the divergences appear in the contribution to the vortex Casimir energy of the first Seeley coefficients. The heat kernel renormalization criterion
demands exact cancellation of this divergent term proportional to $u^2$ by subtracting the appropriate contribution to the energy of some mass renormalization counter-terms. In particular a minimal renormalization scheme must be implemented to tame the quadratic
divergences of the Higgs tadpole plus the self-energy graphs of all the scalar and vector bosons, as well as the fermionic ghosts. Use of the vacuum spectral zeta function is convenient to regularize the pertinent divergent graphs. We will not develop this delicate procedure
here, see \cite{Alonso2004:prd,Alonso2005:prd,Alonso2006:hepth, Mateos2009:pos, Alonso2008:npb} to see how this renormalization works in the superenormalizable, henceforth, easier planar AHM. Simply we shall take equal to zero
the contribution written in the first line legitimated by the heat kernel renormalization criterion {\footnote{We remark that ${\rm tr} \,\textbf{c}_1({\cal H}^+)$, like ${\rm tr} \, \textbf{c}_0({\cal H}^+)$, is infrared divergent, although only as $\log L^2$. Mass renormalization takes care also of this infrared divergence.}}. (2) The same situation happens with the divergent contributions in the second line coming from the old second Seeley coefficient because it is proportional to $u^0$ and survives in the infinite mass limit. The divergences, even being smoother, are more involved. One must cope now with the subdominant logarithmic divergences of the graphs just mentioned plus the logarithmic divergences of one-loop graphs with three Higgs legs plus all the one-loop graphs with four external legs of the fields working in the AHM. This means that we shall use the energies
due to the counter-terms arising in the coupling constant and wave function {\footnote{The terms which are field derivatives in $\Sigma_2$ are exactly canceled by wave function renormalization of the scalar and vector massive particles.}} renormalizations adjusted to exactly cancel the contribution in the second line. (3) In the third line we observe an exact cancelation between the divergences due to the zero modes. There is, however, a finite remnant that must be kept because the heat kernel renormalization criterion does not apply to massless fluctuations.
Finally the one-loop vortex mass shift per length unit is obtained by taking the limit $s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}$ in the sum of the finite remnant of the whole zero mode contribution plus the partial sum up to $n_T$ order
in the series of finite terms $\Delta E_V^{C_3}(s)$ taking of course the physical value $u=1$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta E_V^{C}}{L} = - \frac{\hbar m^2}{32\pi^2} \sum_{n=3}^{n_T} \sum_{a=1}^4 [c_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} \Gamma[n- 2 ] -\frac{\hbar m^2}{4\pi } \,N \label{quantumshift3} \, \, .
\end{equation}
This energy per unit length is precisely the one-loop string tension shift induced in the BPS vortices by quantum fluctuations.
In Table 4 we display the responses obtained from this formula up to $n_T=6$ for several values of the vorticity $N$. The last row offers the best estimations of the $N$-vortex string tension quantum corrections. The necessary Seeley coefficients were previously displayed in Table 1.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
$n_T$ & $\rule[-0.3cm]{0cm}{0.9cm} \frac{\Delta E_V^{N=1}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=2}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=3}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=4}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ & $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=5}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ \\ \hline\hline
$3$ & $-0.0815$ & $-0.1612$ & $-0.2342$ & $-0.2995$ & $-0.3566$ \\
$4$ & $-0.0818$ & $-0.1604$ & $-0.2297$ & $-0.2882$ & $-0.3354$ \\
$5$ & $-0.0820$ & $-0.1597$ & $-0.2265$ & $-0.2806$ & $-0.3214$ \\
$6$ & $-0.0821$ & $-0.1591$ & $-0.2240$ & $-0.2749$ & $-0.3112$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}\hspace{1cm}\begin{tabular}{c} \includegraphics[height=3cm]{quantumcorrection3d}\end{tabular}
\caption{\it Estimation of the quantum correction to the $N$-vortex filament string tension up to vorticity $N=5$ computed from the $3\leq n_T\leq 3$ partial sums of the series (\ref{quantumshift3}).}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions and further comments}
From the results in this work we draw two main conclusions:
\begin{itemize}
\item The modified Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel expansion designed in References \cite{Alonso2012:epjc} and \cite{Alonso2014:jhep} to control the impact
of zero modes in the calculations of quantum corrections to kink masses and domain wall surface tensions due to one-loop fluctuations
in scalar field theory has been successfully generalized to analyze one-loop fluctuations of both planar and cylindrical BPS vortices in the Abelian Higgs model.
\item The new estimations are more precise than those obtained in \cite{Alonso2004:prd} and \cite{Alonso2005:prd} by using the standard Gilkey-deWitt expansion. The archive of new data clearly suggests that weak repulsive forces between BPS vortices arise caused by the one-loop vortex fluctuations. In extended $N=2$ supersymmetry, however, the one-loop vortex mass shift and the central charge are adjusted in such a way that one may say the BPS bound is preserved at the quantum level, see \cite{Rebhan2004:npb}. Thus, one may conclude that some degree of extended supersymmetry is needed in order to preserve the BPS character of topological solitons in the quantum domain.
\end{itemize}
We stress that our calculations have been performed over a dilute gas of vortices with a few number of quanta of magnetic flux spread over the whole plane. In Reference \cite{Ferreiros2014:prd}, however, a different arrangement of vortices has been analyzed. The authors addressed the quantization of a bunch of magnetic flux quanta in a parallelogram, a normalization square, such that the Bradlow limit was almost reached. This means that, after imposing quasi-periodic boundary conditions on the fluctuations, the magnetic flux of the vortex configuration is very close to the area of the equivalent genus one Riemann surface. Exactly at the Bradlow limit the zero modes form the first Landau level of the Landau problem posed in this Riemann surface and a reshaping of the work of Ferreiros at al from the point of view proposed in this paper will be probably rewarding. Although the new technique has been designed to deal with one-loop fluctuations or vacuum energies of low dimensional topological solitons one may speculate with its application to other extended objects supporting zero modes of fluctuation. For instance, it is tempting to try this quantization method on the BPS magnetic monopoles of the bosonic sector in the ${\cal N}=2$ SUSY gauge theory of Seiberg and Witten, see \cite{Seiberg1994:npb}, and compare the results obtained with those achieved in the supersymmetric framework in \cite{Rebhan2006:jhep}.
We have successfully applied the improved zeta function procedure in calculations of domain wall surface tension \cite{Alonso2014:jhep} and in the regularization of tunnel determinants in quantum mechanics, see \cite{Alonso2014:aip}. It seems plausible that the new method may be also effective in the analysis of tunnel determinants appearing in connection with Yang-Mills and/or gravitational instantons, see \cite{Hawking1977:cmp,Belavin1975:plb,Hooft1986:pr,Gibbons1978:plb,Eguchi1978:plb}. Other objects of the greatest physical interest as black holes may be understood as solitons, see e.g. \cite{Salam1976:plb}. Thus, our method is of potential interest in dealing with quantum fields in the background of solitonic black holes. To finish, one might think about the applicability of the improved Gilkey-deWitt expansion to more exotic topological solitons as, for instance, the BPS vortices of two species arising in the gauged non-linear $\mathbb{CP}^N$ \cite{Alonso2015:jhep}, or, to compactons appearing in models with higher-order kinetic terms, see \cite{Bazeia2015:prd} where one-loop correction to their classical masses have been computed.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge the Spanish Ministerio de Econom\'{\i}a y Competitividad for financial support under grant MTM2014-57129-C2-1-P. They are also grateful to the Junta de Castilla y Le\'on
for financial help under grant VA057U16.
|
\section{Introduction}
A classical result in graph theory is Mantel's Theorem~\cite{mantel:1907}, which states
that every triangle-free graph on $n$ vertices has at most $\lfloor n^2/4
\rfloor$ edges, and this result is tight. In other words, a graph with $n$
vertices and $\lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor+1$ edges must contain a triangle.
But can we guarantee something stronger than just one triangle?
In 1941, Rademacher proved that such graphs contain at least $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ triangles,
and in 1992, Erd\H os, Faudree and Rousseau~\cite{ERDOS199223} showed that such graphs have
at least $2\lfloor n/2 \rfloor + 1$ edges that occur in a triangle.
Both results are tight simply by adding one edge into the complete balanced bipartite graph.
Erd\H os~\cite{Erdos199781} also considered analogous questions for longer odd
cycles in graphs with $n$ vertices and $\lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor+1$ edges, where
clearly adding an extra edge into the complete balanced bipartite graph is not optimal.
He showed that every such graph contains at least $2n^2/9$ edges that occur in
some odd cycle. This number is best possible, and it can be achieved by the following construction.
\begin{construction}\label{cstn:cliquebip}
Let $G_1$ be an $n$-vertex graph with the following two $2$-connected blocks that overlap on exactly one vertex:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a complete graph on $\lfloor \frac{2n+4}{3}\rfloor$ vertices, and
\item a complete balanced bipartite graph on $\lfloor \frac{n+1}{3} \rfloor$ vertices.
\end{enumerate}
\end{construction}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.25, very thick]
\coordinate (AB) at (0,-2);
\coordinate (AT) at (0,0);
\coordinate (BB) at (2,-2);
\coordinate (BT) at (2,0);
\draw[fill=gray,gray] (AT) -- (BT) -- (BB) -- (AB);
\draw[fill=gray] (+3.9,-1) ellipse (1.5 and 1.9);
\draw[fill=white] (0,-1) ellipse (.4 and 1);
\draw[fill=white] (2,-1) ellipse (.4 and 1);
\draw (+2.4,-1) node[inner sep=3pt, outer sep=0pt, circle, fill] {};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The graph $G_1$ from Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip}. Gray areas represent all the possible edges.}
\label{fig:cliquebip}
\end{figure}
Erd\H os, Faudree and Rousseau~\cite{ERDOS199223} conjectured that
Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip} provides an extremal example
also if we minimize the number of edges that occur only in copies of $C_{2k+1}$ for a fixed $k \ge 2$.
Again, we minimize over all $n$-vertex graphs with $\lfloor n^2/4\rfloor + 1$ edges.
The case of $C_5$ is Problem 11 in Erd\H os' paper \cite{Erdos199781} with interesting problems.
\begin{conj}[Erd\H os-Faudree-Rousseau~\cite{ERDOS199223}]\label{conj:erdos}
Fix an integer $k\ge 2$. Every graph with $n$ vertices and $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4
\rfloor+1$ edges contains at least $\frac29 n^2 - O(n)$ edges that occur in
$C_{2k+1}$.
\end{conj}
Very recently, F\"uredi and Maleki~\cite{bib:FurMal} constructed the following $n$-vertex graph
with $\lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor+1$ edges, out of which only $\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}\cdot n^2 + O(n)
\approx 0.2134 n^2$ occur in $C_5$,
which disproves Conjecture~\ref{conj:erdos} for $k=2$.
\begin{construction}\label{cstn:c5}
Let $G_2$ be an $n$-vertex graph whose vertex-set is divided into
four parts $A,B,C$ and $D$ of sizes $\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{4}\cdot n, \frac{n}{4}, \frac{n}{4}$ and $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\cdot n$, respectively.
The edge-set of $G_2$ consists of all the edges between the parts $A$ and $B$, $B$ and $C$, $C$ and $D$, and all the edges inside the part $D$.
In other words, $G_2$ is a non-balanced blowup of a path on four vertices, where one of the endpoints of the path has a loop.
\end{construction}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5, very thick]
\coordinate (AB) at (0,-1.5);
\coordinate (AT) at (0,-0.5);
\coordinate (BB) at (2,-2);
\coordinate (BT) at (2,0);
\coordinate (CB) at (4,-2);
\coordinate (CT) at (4,0);
\coordinate (DB) at (6,-2.3);
\coordinate (DT) at (6,0.3);
\draw[fill=gray,gray] (AT) -- (BT) -- (CT) -- (DT) -- (DB) -- (CB) -- (BB) -- (AB) -- (AT);
\draw[fill=white] (0,-1) ellipse (.3 and 0.5);
\draw[fill=white] (2,-1) ellipse (.4 and 1);
\draw[fill=white] (4,-1) ellipse (.4 and 1);
\draw[fill=gray] (6,-1) ellipse (.6 and 1.3);
\node [below] at (0,-2.4) {$A$};
\node [below] at (2,-2.4) {$B$};
\node [below] at (4,-2.4) {$C$};
\node [below] at (6,-2.4) {$D$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The graph $G_2$ from Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}.
Gray areas represent all the possible edges.
The respective sizes are $\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{4}\cdot n$, $\frac{n}{4}$, $\frac{n}{4}$, and $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\cdot n$.}
\label{fig:counterexample}
\end{figure}
In~\cite{bib:FurMal}, F\"uredi and Maleki developed a new version
of Zykov's symmetrization method, and obtained the following asymptotic
solution to this problem for all odd cycles of length at least five.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{bib:FurMal}]\label{thm:FurMal}
For every $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
if a graph $G$ on $n>n_0$ vertices has $\left(\frac14+\varepsilon\right)n^2$ edges,
then $G$ contains at least $\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}\cdot n^2$ edges that occur in $C_5$.
Moreover, for any fixed $k\ge3$, $G$ contains at least $\frac29 n^2$ edges that occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
\end{theorem}
Our first two results answer a conjecture of F\"uredi and Maleki
that the assumption on the number of edges of $G$ can be
lowered to $\lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor + 1$, which is indeed best possible.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:c5}
If an $n$-vertex graph has $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4\rfloor + 1$ edges, then it contains
at least $\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16} \cdot n^2-O\left(n^{15/8}\right)$ edges that occur in $C_5$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:c7+}
For every integer $k \ge 3$, if an $n$-vertex graph has $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4\rfloor
+1$ edges, then it contains at least $\frac29 n^2 - O(n)$ edges that occur in
$C_{2k+1}$.
\end{theorem}
In the case of odd cycles of length at least $7$ and $n$ sufficiently large,
we determine the exact value of the number of edges that occur in $C_{2k+1}$,
which indeed matches the value given by Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip},
which answers another conjecture of F\"uredi and Maleki~\cite[Conjecture 8]{bib:FurMalTria}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:c7++}
There exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that the following is true for any $n$-vertex
graph $G$ with $n \ge n_0$. If $G$ has $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4 \rfloor + 1$ edges, then
it contains at least $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4 \rfloor + 1 - \lfloor \frac{n+4}6 \rfloor \lfloor \frac{n+1}6
\rfloor$ edges that occur in
$C_{2k+1}$. \end{theorem}
The main tool in our proofs is the semidefinite method from flag algebras,
which we apply in a specific two-colored setting. This approach has an
unfortunate by-product, that we lose track of the additional edge that is
needed to guarantee even an existence of a single copy of $C_{2k+1}$. In order
to overcome this, we apply a trick inspired by techniques used in the area of
so-called finitely forcible graph limits. This allows us to obtain a tight
bound from flag algebras conditioned by having a positive triangle density, and
then handle the (almost) triangle-free case using a standard stability
argument. A closely related difficulty of our approach arises from the fact
that the flag algebra formulation of the problem has significantly larger set
of tight examples. Nevertheless, we were still able to obtain a tight result in
this setting. To best of our knowledge, this is the first application of the
semidefinite method to a problem with such a rich class of tight examples.
We guided our method to establish a slightly stronger flag algebra claims which yield also the corresponding stability results:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:c5uniq}
For every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exist $\delta > 0$ and $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$
such that the following is true for any $n > n_0$.
If $G$ is an $n$-vertex graph with $\left(\frac14 \pm \delta\right)n^2$ edges out of which
$\left(\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16} \pm \delta\right)n^2$ occur in $C_5$,
then the edge set of $G$ can be modified on at most $\varepsilon n^2$
pairs so that the resulting graph is isomorphic to Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:c7+uniq}
Fix an integer $k\ge3$. For every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exist $\delta > 0$ and $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$
such that the following is true for any $n > n_0$.
If $G$ is an $n$-vertex graph with $\left(\frac14 \pm \delta\right)n^2$ edges out of which $\left(\frac29 \pm \delta\right)n^2$ occur in
$C_{2k+1}$, then the edge set of $G$ can be modified on at most $\varepsilon n^2$
pairs so that the resulting graph is isomorphic to Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip}.
\end{thm}
Using the above stability results, we fully describe all the sufficiently large
graphs that contain the minimum value of edges that occur in odd cycles of
length at least $5$. The description of the tight graphs in the case of
pentagons is given by Theorem~\ref{thm:c5exact}. For all the longer odd cycles,
the description is provided by Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+exact}, which in turn proves~both Theorems~\ref{thm:c7+} and~\ref{thm:c7++}.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:prelim}, we describe
the notation and introduce parts from the flag algebra framework we are going to use.
In Section~\ref{sec:c5}, we present
our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5}, and in Section~\ref{sec:c7+}, we adapt the
approach to cope with odd cycles of length at least $7$.
Section~\ref{sec:stability} is devoted to the corresponding stability results
of the Constructions~\ref{cstn:cliquebip} and~\ref{cstn:c5}. Finally, in Sections~\ref{sec:c5exact} and \ref{sec:c7+exact} we provide the exact description of the tight extremal graphs.
Section~\ref{sec:remarks} concludes the paper with remarks and related open
problems.
\section{Notation and preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}
We start with the definition of the \emph{induced density} of a $k$-vertex
(small) graph $F$ in an $n$-vertex (large) graph $G$, which we denote by $p(F,G)$.
If $n \ge k$, then $p(F,G)$ is the probability that a randomly chosen
$k$-vertex induced subgraph of $G$ is isomorphic to $F$.
In the case when $k > n$, the value of $p(F,G)$ is simply equal to zero.
In order to distinguish the edges that occur in some copy of $C_5$ (or
more generally $C_{2k+1}$ for some fixed $k\ge2$) in graphs $G$ in question, we will
work with edge-colorings of $G$ where the edges are colored using two
colors -- \emph{red} and \emph{blue}.
With a slight abuse of notation, we will use $G$ both to refer to the underlying
graph and to the edge-colored graph, whenever it will be clear from the context
which variant we intend to use. A graph $G$ with edges colored by red and blue will be
called a \emph{red/blue-colored graph}.
Through the whole paper, we will use a convention that
none of the blue edges of $G$ can occur in a copy of $C_{2k+1}$ for a given $k \ge 2$.
Let us emphasize that we do not put any restriction on the red edges of $G$,
so in particular any graph $G$ can be completely colored with red.
The definition of the induced density $p(F,G)$ naturally generalizes to the
edge-colored setting. For convenience, we extend the definition of $p(F,G)$
also to graphs $F$ where we allow the edges to be colored with three colors --
red, blue or black (the edges of $G$ will always be colored only with red and
blue). The interpretation of an edge of $F$ being black will be that we
do not care whether $G$ contains a copy of $F$ where the edge is colored red
or blue. Therefore, for a $k$-vertex red/blue/black-colored graph $F$
and an $n$-vertex red/blue-colored graph $G$, the value of $p(F,G)$
is the probability that a random $k$-vertex subgraph of $G$ is isomorphic to
one of the graphs that can be obtained from $F$ by recoloring each of its
black edges to either red or blue.
We depict red/blue/black-colored graphs in the following way. We draw black edges
using solid lines, for blue edges we used dashed lines, and finally red edges will
be depicted using dotted lines; see Figure~\ref{fig:edges}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.5,page=19]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2cm
\includegraphics[scale=1.5,page=3]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2cm
\includegraphics[scale=1.5,page=4]{EiC-fig}
\end{center}
\caption{Our convention used for depicting black, blue and red edges -- black edges are drawn with
solid lines, blue edges with dashed lines and red edges with dotted lines.}
\label{fig:edges}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\emph{F}-free graphs and sequences of almost \emph{F}-free graphs}
We will also use the following notion of \emph{$F$-free graphs} and \emph{sequences of almost $F$-free graphs}.
For a $k$-vertex graph $F$ and a graph $G$, we say that a graph $G$ is \emph{$F$-free},
if $G$ does not contain $F$ as a subgraph.
For a sequence of graphs $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, where the $i$-th graph $G_i$ has $n_i$ vertices,
we say that $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is almost $F$-free, if $G_i$ contains only $o\left(n_i^k\right)$ copies of $F$.
This notion naturally generalizes to the red/blue-colored setting.
If $\mathcal{F}$ is a finite collection of graphs, we say that $G$ is $\mathcal{F}$-free
and $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is almost $\mathcal{F}$-free, if $G$ is $F$-free for every $F \in \mathcal{F}$
and $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is almost $F$-free for every $F \in \mathcal{F}$, respectively.
We also extend the notion of being $F$-free to red/blue/black-colored
graphs $F$, where being $F$-free corresponds to being $\mathcal{F}(F)$-free, where $\mathcal{F}(F)$
denotes the family of red/blue-colored graphs consisting of all the possible recolorings of the black
edges in $F$ by red or blue. Analogously, we extend the notion of being almost $F$-free,
and the notions of $\mathcal{F}$-free and almost $\mathcal{F}$-free for finite families $\mathcal{F}$ consisting of red/blue/black-colored graphs.
Now let us recall a classical generalization of the theorem of K\H{o}vari, S\'os and Tur\'an
to $r$-uniform hypergraphs (or just \emph{$r$-graphs} for short) which is due to Erd\H{o}s~\cite{Erdos:1964}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:erdosKST}
If $H$ is an $r$-graph on $n$ vertices with no copy of the complete $r$-partite $r$-graph that has all the parts of size $\ell$,
then the number of $r$-edges in $H$ is at most $O\left(n^{r-1/\ell^{(r-1)}}\right)$.
\end{thm}
A standard averaging argument together with Theorem~\ref{thm:erdosKST} yields the following result on supersaturation in dense graphs,
which will be one of the ingredients we will use in the proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:c5} and~\ref{thm:c7+}.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:supersat}
Fix $F$ an $h$-vertex red/blue-colored graph and a positive integer $b$.
If $G$ is an $n$-vertex red/blue-colored graph that does not contain the $b$-blowup of $F$ as a subgraph,
then the number of copies of $F$ in $G$ is $O\left(n^{h-1/b^{(h-1)}}\right)$.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Flag Algebras}
The framework of flag algebras plays a crucial role in our proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:c5} and~\ref{thm:c7+}.
It was introduced by Razborov~\cite{Razborov:2007} as a general tool to approach questions from extremal combinatorics.
Flag algebras have been very successful in tackling various problems.
To name some of the applications, they were applied for attacking the
Caccetta-H\"aggkvist conjecture~\cite{HladkyKN:2009,RazborovCH:2011},
various Tur\'an-type problems in graphs~\cite{DasHMNS:2012, Grzesik:2011,Hatami:2011,Hirst:2014,Nikiforov:2011, PikhurkoR:2012,PikhurkoV:2013,Razborov:2008,Reiher:2012,Sperfeld:2011},
hypergraphs~\cite{BaberT:2011,Falgas:2012,Falgas:2011,GlebovKV:2013,Pikhurko:2011}
and hypercubes~\cite{Baber:2012,BaloghHLL:2014},
extremal problems in a colored environment~\cite{BaberT:2013,CummingsKPSTY:2012,HatamiJKNR:2012,KralLSWY:2012}
and also to problems in geometry~\cite{Kral:2011} or extremal theory of permutations~\cite{BaloghHLPUV:2014}.
For more details on these applications, see a recent survey of Razborov~\cite{Razborov13}.
In this subsection, we describe parts of the flag algebra framework that will be relevant for our exposition.
We follow the notation from~\cite{Razborov:2007} with a few minor alternation that are specific for sequences of almost $\mathcal{F}$-free graphs.
The central object of interest in flag algebras are so-called \emph{convergent sequences} of finite discrete objects,
for example finite graphs.
In this paper, we apply the framework to sequences of red/blue-colored almost $\mathcal{F}$-free graphs, for two certain
choices of $\mathcal{F}$ (the two families will be specified in Sections~\ref{sec:c5} and~\ref{sec:c7+}, respectively).
Let us start by defining an \emph{algebra $\mathcal{A}$} on formal linear combinations of
red/blue-colored graphs, and closely related algebras $\mathcal{A}^{\sigma}$, where $\sigma$ is a fixed
red/blue-colored graph with a fixed labelling of its vertex-set.
These algebras will be called \emph{flag algebras}.
In order to precisely describe these algebras, we need to introduce some
additional notations.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be the set of all finite red/blue-colored graphs up to isomorphism.
Next, for every $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\mathcal{H}_\ell\subset \mathcal{H}$ be the set of all such graphs of order $\ell$.
Let $\mathbb{R}\mathcal{H}$ be the set of all formal linear combinations of the elements of
$\mathcal{H}$ with real coefficients. Furthermore, let $\mathcal{K}$ be the linear subspace of
$\mathbb{R}\mathcal{H}$ generated by all the linear combinations of the form
\[H-\sum_{H'\in\mathcal{H}_{v(H)+1}}p(H,H')\cdot H'.\]
Finally, we set $\mathcal{A}$ to be the space $\mathbb{R}\mathcal{H}$ factored by $\mathcal{K}$, and
the element corresponding to $\mathcal{K}$ in $\mathcal{A}$ the zero element of $\mathcal{A}$.
The space $\mathcal{A}$ comes with a natural definition of an addition and a multiplication by a real number.
We now introduce the notion of a product of two elements from $\mathcal{A}$.
We start with the definition for the elements of $\mathcal{H}$. For $H_1, H_2 \in \mathcal{H}$, and $H\in\mathcal{H}_{v(H_1)+v(H_2)}$,
we define $p(H_1, H_2; H)$ to be the probability that a randomly chosen subset of $V(H)$
of size $v(H_1)$ and its complement induce in $H$ red/blue-colored subgraphs isomorphic
to $H_1$ and $H_2$, respectively.
We define \[H_1 \times H_2 := \sum_{H\in\mathcal{H}_{v(H_1)+v(H_2)}}p(H_1,H_2;H) \cdot H.\]
The multiplication on $\mathcal{H}$ has a unique linear extension to $\mathbb{R}\mathcal{H}$, which yields
a well-defined multiplication also in the factor algebra $\mathcal{A}$.
Note that the one-vertex graph $\vc{\includegraphics[page=1,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \in \mathcal{H}$ is, modulo $\mathcal{K}$, the neutral element of the product in $\mathcal{A}$.
Having defined the algebra $\mathcal{A}$, let us now move to the definition of algebras $\mathcal{A}^\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is
a finite red/blue-colored graph with a fixed labelling of its vertices.
The labelled graph $\sigma$ is usually called a~{\em type}.
We follow the same lines as in the definition of $\mathcal{A}$.
Let $\mathcal{H}^{\sigma}$ be the set of all finite red/blue-colored graphs $H$ with a
fixed {\em embedding} of $\sigma$, i.e., an injective mapping $\theta$ from
$V(\sigma)$ to $V(H)$ such that $\theta$ is an isomorphism between $\sigma$ and $H[\im(\theta)]$.
The elements of $\mathcal{H}^{\sigma}$ are called {\em $\sigma$-flags} and
the subgraph induced by $\im(\theta)$ is called the {\em root} of a $\sigma$-flag.
For every $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$, we define $\mathcal{H}^{\sigma}_\ell\subset \mathcal{H}^{\sigma}$ to
be the set of all $\ell$-vertex $\sigma$-flags from $\mathcal{H}^{\sigma}$.
For two $\sigma$-flags $H \in \mathcal{H}^\sigma$ and
$H' \in\mathcal{H}^{\sigma}$ with the embeddings of $\sigma$ given by $\theta$ and $\theta'$,
respectively, we set $p(H,H')$ to be the probability that a randomly chosen
subset of $v(H)-v(\sigma)$ vertices in $V(H')\setminus\theta'(V(\sigma))$
together with $\theta'(V(\sigma))$ induces a $\sigma$-flag that is isomorphic to $H$
through an isomorphism $f$ that preserves the embedding of $\sigma$. In other words,
the isomorphism $f$ has to satisfy $f(\theta') = \theta$.
Let $\mathbb{R}\mathcal{H}^{\sigma}$ be the set of all formal linear combinations of elements
of $\mathcal{H}^\sigma$ with real coefficients, and let $\mathcal{K}^\sigma$ be the linear subspace
of $\mathbb{R}\mathcal{H}^\sigma$ generated by all the linear combinations of the form
\[H-\sum_{H'\in\mathcal{H}^\sigma_{v(H)+1}}p(H,H')\cdot H'.\]
We define $\mathcal{A}^\sigma$ to be $\mathbb{R}\mathcal{H}^\sigma$ factored by $\mathcal{K}^\sigma$ and,
analogously to the case for the algebra $\mathcal{A}$, we let the element corresponding
to $\mathcal{K}^\sigma$ to be the zero element of $\mathcal{A}^\sigma$.
We now define the product of two elements from $\mathcal{H}^\sigma$.
Fix two integers $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ and let $\ell := {\ell_1+\ell_2-v(\sigma)}$.
Let $H_1 \in \mathcal{H}^\sigma_{\ell_1}, H_2\in \mathcal{H}^\sigma_{\ell_2}$ and $H\in \mathcal{H}^\sigma_\ell$ be
$\sigma$-flags, and let $\theta$ be the fixed embedding of $\sigma$ in $H$. Similarly to the definition
of the multiplication for $\mathcal{A}$, we define $p(H_1, H_2; H)$ to be the probability
that a randomly chosen subset of $V(H)\setminus \theta(V(\sigma))$ of size
$\ell_1-v(\sigma)$ and its complement in $V(H)\setminus \theta(V(\sigma))$ of
size $\ell_2-v(\sigma)$, extend $\theta(V(\sigma))$ in $H$ to $\sigma$-flags
isomorphic to $H_1$ and $H_2$, respectively.
We set
\[H_1 \times H_2 := \sum_{H\in\mathcal{H}^\sigma_{v(H_1)+v(H_2)-v(\sigma)}}p(H_1,H_2;H) \cdot H.\]
As in the case for the algebra $\mathcal{A}$, the definition of the product for the
elements of $\mathcal{H}^\sigma$ naturally extends to $\mathcal{A}^\sigma$, and the unique $\sigma$-flag of size $v(\sigma)$,
modulo $\mathcal{K}^\sigma$, represents the neutral element of the product in $\mathcal{A}^\sigma$.
We have introduced the flag algebras $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\sigma$ on red/blue-colored graphs.
It is easy to see that the same exposition can be used to define flag algebras
$\mathcal{A}_\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\sigma_\mathcal{F}$ on $\mathcal{F}$-free red/blue-colored graphs,
where $\mathcal{F}$ is a fixed finite family of red/blue-colored graphs, simply by
replacing $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H}^\sigma$ with the set of all red/blue-colored $\mathcal{F}$-free graphs
and all $\mathcal{F}$-free $\sigma$-flags, respectively.
Consider an infinite sequence $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of red/blue-colored almost $\mathcal{F}$-free
graphs with increasing orders. We say that the sequence $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is {\em convergent} if the
probabilities $p(H,G_i)$ converge for every $H\in\mathcal{H}$. It follows that every
infinite sequence $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ has a convergent subsequence.
Fix a convergent sequence $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of red/blue-colored almost $\mathcal{F}$-free graphs with increasing orders.
For every $H\in\mathcal{H}$, we set $\phi(H) = \lim_{i\to\infty} p(H,G_i)$, and then linearly extend $\phi$ to the elements of $\mathcal{A}$.
We usually refer to the mapping $\phi$ as to the {\em limit} of the sequence.
The obtained mapping $\phi$ is an algebra homomorphism from $\mathcal{A}$ to $\mathbb{R}$, see~\cite[Theorem~3.3a]{Razborov:2007}.
Moreover, for every $H\in \mathcal{H}$, it holds that $\phi(H)\geq 0$.
Let $\Hom^+(\mathcal{A}, \mathbb{R})$ be the set of all such homomorphisms, i.e., the set of all homomorphisms
$\psi$ from the algebra $\mathcal{A}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ such that $\psi(H)\ge0$ for every $H\in\mathcal{H}$.
It is interesting to see that this set is exactly the set of all the limits of
convergent sequences~\cite[Theorem~3.3b]{Razborov:2007}.
Since the convergent sequence $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is almost $\mathcal{F}$-free,
it follows that $\phi(F) = 0$ for any $F \in \mathcal{F}$. Therefore,
the algebra homomorphism $\phi: \mathcal{A} \to \mathbb{R}$ is supported only on $\mathcal{F}$-free graphs,
and hence it can be viewed also as an element of $\Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}},\mathbb{R}\right)$,
where $\Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}},\mathbb{R}\right)$ is the set of all algebra homomorphisms
from $\mathcal{A}_\mathcal{F}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ that are non-negative on all the red/blue-colored $\mathcal{F}$-free graphs.
Recall $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a convergent sequence of red/blue-colored almost
$\mathcal{F}$-free graphs and $\phi \in \Hom^+(\mathcal{A}_\mathcal{F}, \mathbb{R})$ is its limit.
For an $\mathcal{F}$-free type $\sigma$ and an embedding $\theta$ of $\sigma$ in $G_i$,
we define $G_i^\theta$ to be the red/blue-colored graph rooted on the copy of $\sigma$ that corresponds to $\theta$.
For every $i\in\mathbb{N}$ and $H^\sigma \in \mathcal{H}^\sigma$, let
$p^\theta_i(H^\sigma)=p(H^\sigma,G_i^\sigma)$.
Picking $\theta$ at random gives rise to a probability distribution ${\bf P}_{\bf i}^\sigma$ on mappings
from $\mathcal{A}^{\sigma}$ to $\mathbb{R}$, for every $i\in\mathbb{N}$.
Since $p(H,G_i)$ converge for every $H\in\mathcal{H}$,
the sequence of these probability distributions on mappings from $\mathcal{A}^{\sigma}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ weakly converges
to a Borel probability measure on $\Hom^+(\mathcal{A}^\sigma,\mathbb{R})$, see~\cite[Theorems 3.12 and 3.13]{Razborov:2007}.
We denote the limit probability distribution by ${\bf P}^\sigma$.
In fact, for any $\sigma$ such that $\phi(\sigma) > 0$, the homomorphism $\phi$
itself fully determines the probability distribution ${\bf
P}^\sigma$~\cite[Theorem 3.5]{Razborov:2007}.
Furthermore, since the sequence is almost $\mathcal{F}$-free, any mapping $\phi^\sigma$ from the support of the distribution ${\bf P}^\sigma$ is in fact an algebra
homomorphism from $\mathcal{A}^{\sigma}_\mathcal{F}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ such that
$\phi^\sigma(H^\sigma) \ge 0$ for any $\sigma$-flag $H^\sigma$.
The last notion we introduce is the \emph{averaging operator} (also called the \emph{downward operator})
$\unlab\cdot{\sigma}: \mathcal{A}^{\sigma}_\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{A}_\mathcal{F}$, that relates the algebras $\mathcal{A}_\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\sigma_\mathcal{F}$.
It is the linear operator defined on the~$\sigma$-flags $H^\sigma$ by
\[\unlab{H^\sigma}{\sigma} := p_H^\sigma \cdot H,\] where
$H$ is the (unlabelled) red/blue-colored graph from $\mathcal{H}$ corresponding to $H^\sigma$ after unlabeling all its vertices,
and $p_H^\sigma$ is the probability that a random injective mapping
from $V(\sigma)$ to $V(H)$ is an embedding of $\sigma$ in $H$ yielding a $\sigma$-flag isomorphic to $H^\sigma$.
The key relation between $\phi$ and ${\bf P}^\sigma$ is the following
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:flag:averaging}
\forall A^\sigma\in\mathcal{A}^\sigma_\mathcal{F},\quad \phi\left(\unlab{A^\sigma}{\sigma}\right)=
\phi\left(\unlab\sigma\sigma\right) \cdot \int \phi^\sigma(A^\sigma)
,
\end{equation}
where the integration is with respect to the probability measure given
by the random distribution ${\bf P}^\sigma$.
A proof of~(\ref{eq:flag:averaging}) can be found in~\cite[Lemma 3.11]{Razborov:2007}.
The relation~(\ref{eq:flag:averaging})
implies that if $\phi^\sigma(A^\sigma)\ge 0$ with probability one for some $A^\sigma \in \mathcal{A}^\sigma$,
then $\phi\left(\unlab{A^\sigma}{\sigma}\right)\ge 0$.
In particular, for every homomorphism $\phi \in \Hom^+(\mathcal{A}_\mathcal{F},\mathbb{R})$ and
every linear combination $A^\sigma\in\mathcal{A}^\sigma_\mathcal{F}$, it holds that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:flag:cauchyschwarz}
\phi\left(\unlab{A^\sigma \times A^\sigma }{\sigma}\right)\ge 0.
\end{equation}
\section{Edges that occur in pentagons --- proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5}}
\label{sec:c5}
We start the proof by formulating the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5}
into the language of red/blue-colored graphs. This statement is
convenient for the flag algebra framework, which we intend to apply.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:c5c}
If $G$ is a red/blue-colored graph on $n$ vertices with $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4 \rfloor + 1$ edges
and no blue edge occur in $C_5$, then $G$ contains at least $\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}\cdot n^2 - O(n^{15/8})$ red edges.
\end{thm}
It is straightforward to check that the statements of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5} and Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} are equivalent.
In the rest of the section, we give a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c}. We split the proof into the following two cases: either
$G$ contains many triangles and then we apply flag algebras, or,
$G$ contains only a small number of triangles in which case we use stability to
show that $G$ is close to the complete bipartite graph.
Since the number of edges in $G$ is more than $n^2/4$, it follows
that in the second case $G$ must have many red edges (in fact, much more than Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} asks for).
\subsection{Case 1 --- Graphs with many triangles}
\label{sec:c5case1}
We first prove the theorem for graphs $G$ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} that contains $\Omega\left(n^3\right)$
triangles. This will be the only case where we use flag algebras, and the reason for that is the following.
In order to apply flag algebras, we pass the asymptotic statement to the limit. As we already mentioned in the
introduction, an unfortunate consequence is that we completely lose control on having the additional edge that
is needed to contain even a single copy of $C_5$. However, in the situation that $G$ contains about $n^2/4$ edges
and only a small number of triangles, a stability argument yields that $G$ must be very close to the complete balanced bipartite
graph. Such a situation will be analyzed in Section~\ref{sec:c5case2}.
Therefore, the statement we prove with flag algebras states that for every
$G$ that satisfies the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c}, at least one of
the following is true:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G$ has at least $\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16} \cdot n^2 - O(n^{15/8})$ red edges, or,
\item $G$ contains $o\left(n^3\right)$ triangles.
\end{enumerate}
Let us now describe the precise setting of flag algebras we are going to use. Clearly, every $G$
from Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} is $B_5$-free, where $B_5$ is the $5$-cycle with one blue and four black edges.
But we can say more. Let $F$ be a red/blue-colored graph such that the $b$-blowup of $F$, for some positive integer $b$, contains $C_5$
with at least one blue edge. By Corollary~\ref{cor:supersat}, $G$ can contain only $O\left(n^k\right)$ copies
of such a graph $F$, where $k$ is a rational strictly smaller than $v(F)$ and depends only on $F$ and $b$.
For example, since the $2$-blowup of the graph $B_3$ depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:FC5graphs}
contains a $C_5$ with at least one blue edge, $G$ contains only $O\left(n^{3-1/4}\right)$ copies of $B_3$.
That also means that all but $O\left(n^{11/4}\right)$ triangles in $G$ have only red edges.
Analogously, the $2$-blowup of the graph $B_3^+$, which is also depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:FC5graphs},
contains $C_5$ with at least one blue edge. Therefore, $G$ contains only $O\left(n^{31/8}\right)$ copies of $B_3^+$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=11]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2.5cm
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=12]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2.5cm
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=14]{EiC-fig}
\end{center}
\caption{The family of graphs $\mathcal{F}_{{\rm C5}}$ used in the construction of the $\mathcal{F}_{{\rm C5}}$-free flag algebra $\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C5}}$.}
\label{fig:FC5graphs}
\end{figure}
Let $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C5} := \left\{B_3, B_3^+, B_5 \right\}$.
For brevity, we will write $\mathcal{A}_{\rm C5}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\sigma_{\rm C5}$ instead of $\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}_{\rm C5}}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\sigma_{\mathcal{F}_{\rm C5}}$.
Suppose, for a contradiction, that Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} is false.
Then there exist a sequence of red/blue-colored graphs
$(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of increasing orders $n_i$ such that for $i$ big enough every $G_i$ has
at~most~\hbox{$\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}\cdot n_i^2 - \omega\left(n_i^{15/8}\right)$} red edges.
Without loss of generality, the sequence is convergent.
Furthermore, by the reasoning from the previous paragraph, the sequence $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is
almost $\mathcal{F}_{{\rm C5}}$-free. Therefore, the sequence converges to
a limit $\phi_0$, which is an element of the set $\Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{\rm C5},\mathbb{R}\right)$.
It is straightforward to check that the edge-density of $\phi_0$ is equal to $1/2$.
The following lemma states that such a limit $\phi_0$ must have triangle density equal to zero.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:c5flag}
Let $\delta > 0$ and $\phi \in \Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C5}},\mathbb{R}\right)$.
If $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \,+\, \vc{\includegraphics[page=3,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge \frac12$ and $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=5,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge \delta$,
then $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge \frac{2+\sqrt{2}}8$.
Moreover,
if $G$ is an $n$-vertex red/blue-colored graph with $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4 \rfloor + 1$ edges,
at least $\delta \cdot n^3$ triangles and no blue edge occur in $C_5$,
then $G$ contains at least $\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}\cdot n^2 - O(n^{15/8})$ red edges.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We apply the semidefinite method in order to prove that for every
$\psi \in \Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C5}},\mathbb{R}\right)$ satisfies $\psi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \,+\, \vc{\includegraphics[page=3,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge 1/2$,
it holds that
\begin{equation}
\psi \left( \vc{\includegraphics[page=5,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \,\times\, \left( 8\cdot\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} - {2-\sqrt{2}} \right) \right) \ge 0
\mbox{.}
\label{eq:c5flag}
\end{equation}
It immediately follows that if the first factor of the product on the left-hand
side, i.e., the triangle density in $\psi$, is at~least $\delta > 0$, then
inequality (\ref{eq:c5flag}) yields that the second factor must be non-negative. In other words,
the density of red edges is at~least $\left(2+\sqrt{2}\right)/8$.
Our proof of inequality (\ref{eq:c5flag}) was obtained by a computer-assisted application
of the semidefinite method operating on densities of $6$-vertex red/blue-colored $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C5}$-free subgraphs.
From now on, the proof more or less follows a standard flag algebra approach, and we postpone
the presentation of its details to Appendix~\ref{apx:c5flag}.
The moreover part of the lemma follows from a standard $O\left(n^{-1}\right)$ error estimate in the semidefinite method
(for details, see, for example, \cite{Oleg}), and the $O\left(n^{-1/8}\right)$ estimate on the densities of $B_3$ and $B_3^+$
in $G$.
\end{proof}
Recall that $(G_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of $n_i$-vertex graphs with at
most~\hbox{$\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16} \cdot n_i^2 - \omega\left(n_i^{15/8}\right)$}
red edges. Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:c5flag} to $(G_i)$ readily implies that
$G_i$ must contain $o\left(n_i^3\right)$ triangles.
\subsection{Case 2 --- Graphs with small number of triangles}
\label{sec:c5case2}
It remains to verify Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} for graphs $G$ that
contain less than $\delta n^3$ triangles for an arbitrary $\delta > 0$.
As we have already mentioned, in this case our plan is to use stability of triangle-free
graphs to show that $G$ must be close, in the so-called \emph{edit-distance}, to a complete
bipartite graph. Since the number of edges in $G$ is strictly more than
$n^2/4$, the graphs we are dealing with are essentially almost complete bipartite graphs plus an additional
edge in one of the parts. Therefore, we will be able to show that nearly all
the edges of $G$ occur in $C_5$. This is summarized in the following lemma,
which actually holds for any odd cycle of length at least five.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:stab}
For every integer $k\ge 2$, there exists $\delta_k > 0$ such that the following is true.
If $G$ is an $n$-vertex graph with $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4\rfloor+1$ edges and
at most $\delta_k \cdot n^3$ triangles,
then $G$ has at least ${0.236} n^2$ edges that occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
\end{lem}
We note that we did not optimize the constants in the statement of the lemma
and in the claims inside its proof, and a more careful analysis would yield that all but $o\left(n^2\right)$
edges of $G$ occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
Before proving Lemma~\ref{lem:stab}, let us recall the triangle removal lemma, which is due to Ruzsa and Szemer\'edi~\cite{ruzszem:1978}.
\begin{thm}
For any $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}>0$ there exists $\delta_{{\rm RL}}>0$ such that any
$n$-vertex graph $G$ with at most $\delta_{{\rm RL}} \cdot n^3$ triangles can be
made triangle-free by removing at most $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\cdot n^2$ edges.
\end{thm}
We are now ready to prove the main lemma of this subsection.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:stab}]
Let $\delta_{{\rm RL}}$ be the positive real from the triangle removal lemma applied with $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}} = 10^{-14}$,
and let $\delta_k := \min\{\delta_{{\rm RL}} , 1/(250k)^3 \}$. Note that since $G$ must
contain a triangle, the choice of $\delta_k$ implies that $n \ge 250k$.
We begin the proof with finding a large bipartite subgraph of $G$.
\begin{claim}
The graph $G$ contains a bipartite subgraph on at least $0.999n$ vertices that has minimum degree at least $0.498n$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $G$ contains at most $\delta_{{\rm RL}}n^3$ triangles, by the triangle removal lemma we can find a triangle-free subgraph
$G'$ with at least $\left(1/4-\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\right)n^2$ edges. A result
of F\"uredi~\cite{furedi:2015} states that such a $G'$ has a biparite subgraph $G''$ with at least $(1/4-2\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}})n^2$ edges.
First observe that both parts of $G''$ contain at least $(1/2 - 2\sqrt{\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}})n$ vertices,
as otherwise $G''$ would have less than $(1/2 - 2\sqrt{\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}}) \cdot (1/2 + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}})n^2 = (1/4-4\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}})n^2$
edges. Let $L$ be the set of vertices whose degree in $G''$ is smaller than $0.499n$. Since the maximum degree
in $G''$ is at most $(1/2 + 2\sqrt\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}})n$, it follows that
\[
\sum_{v \in V(G'')} \frac{\deg(v)}n\le
\left(n-|L|\right) \cdot \left(\frac12 + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}}\right) + 0.499\cdot|L|
\le \frac{n}2 + 2n\sqrt{\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}} - 0.001\cdot|L|
\mbox{.}
\]
On the other hand, since $\sum \deg(v)$ is equal to two times the number of
edges and $G''$ contains at least $\left(1/4 - 2\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\right)n^2$ edges,
we conclude that
\[
|L| \le 1000 \cdot \left(2\sqrt{\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}} + 4\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\right)n \le 3000 \cdot \sqrt{\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}} \cdot n.
\]
Since $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}} = 10^{-14}$, the size of $L$ is less than $0.001n$. It is straightforward to check
that the subgraph of $G''$ induced by $V(G'') \setminus L$ has all the desired properties.
\end{proof}
Let $G_0$ be a bipartite subgraph of $G$ with maximum number of vertices that has the minimum degree at least $0.498n$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be the parts of $G_0$ and let $L := V(G) \setminus V(G_0)$.
Clearly, both $A$ and $B$ have sizes between $0.498n$ and $0.502n$, and the previous claim yields that $|L| < 0.001n$.
Therefore, $G_0$ has many edges between any two large subsets of $A$ and $B$.
\begin{claim}
Let $A' \subseteq A$ and $B' \subseteq B$ be two sets of vertices of size at least $0.49n$.
The number of edges in $G_0$ between the sets $A'$ and $B'$ is at least ${0.236} n^2$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $e$ be the number of edges between $A'$ and $B'$.
Since $G_0$ has at least $0.999n$ vertices and its minimum degree is at least $0.498n$, the total
number of edges in $G_0$ is more than $0.248n^2$.
On the other hand, the number of edges in $G_0$ can be upper bounded by
\[
e + |A\setminus A'|\cdot|B| + |B\setminus B'|\cdot|A| \le e + 0.012n \cdot \left(|A|+|B|\right) \le e + 0.012n^2
\mbox{.}
\]
Therefore, $e \ge {0.236} n^2$.
\end{proof}
Since $G_0$ is a subgraph of $G$, any edge of $G_0$ is also an edge in $G$. In the next two claims,
we show how to find two large sets $A' \subseteq A$ and $B' \subseteq B$ such that any edge between
them occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
\begin{claim}
If $G$ contains an edge $e_A \in \binom{A}2$ or an edge $e_B \in \binom{B}2$,
then at least ${0.236} n^2$ edges of $G$ occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, $G$ contains an edge $e_A = \{v_1,v_2\}$.
Let $V_0\subseteq B$ be the neighborhood of $v_1$ in $G_0$.
On the other hand, let $v_2,v_3,\dots,v_{2k-1}$ be any path in $G_0$ that does not contain
the vertex $v_1$, and let $V_{2k}\subseteq A$ be the neighborhood of $v_{2k-1}$ in $G_0$.
Since the minimum degree of $G_0$ is at least $0.498n$ and $2k \le 0.008n$, both $V_0$ and $V_{2k}$ contain at least
$0.49n$ vertices that are disjoint from $\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{2k-1}\}$.
Let $A' := V_{2k} \setminus \{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{2k-2}\}$
and $B' := V_{0} \setminus \{v_3,\dots,v_{2k-1}\}$.
By the previous claim, there are at least ${0.236} n^2$ edges $\{v_0,v_{2k}\}$ between the sets $A'$ and $B'$.
On the other hand, each such an edge encloses a cycle $v_0,v_1,\dots,v_{2k}$ in $G$ of length $2k+1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
If there is a vertex $v_L \in L$ that is adjacent both to a vertex $v_A \in A$ and a vertex $v_B \in B$
in $G$, then at least ${0.236} n^2$ edges of $G$ occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We proceed similarly as in the previous claim.
Let $V_{2k-1}\subseteq B$ be the neighborhood of $v_A$ in $G_0$,
and $v_B,v_2,\dots,v_{2k-3}$ any path in $G_0$ that does not contain
the vertex $v_A$. We set $V_{2k-2}\subseteq A$ to be the neighborhood of $v_{2k-3}$ in $G_0$,
$A' := V_{2k-2} \setminus \{v_2,\dots,v_{2k-2},v_A\}$
and $B' := V_{2k-1} \setminus \{v_B,v_3,\dots,v_{2k-3}\}$.
It follows that $|A'| \ge 0.49n$ and $|B'| \ge 0.49n$, and hence
there are at least ${0.236} n^2$ edges $\{v_{2k-2},v_{2k-1}\}$ between the sets $A'$ and $B'$.
Each such an edge encloses a $(2k+1)$-cycle in $G$, which is of the form
$v_L,v_B,v_2,\dots,v_{2k-1},v_A$.
\end{proof}
The final claim states that we can always apply at least one of the last two claims.
\begin{claim}
The graph $G$ contains at least one such a vertex $v_L$, or an edge $e_A$, or an edge $e_B$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the claim is false. Then by the maximality of $G_0$, the graph $G$ has at most
\[
\frac{(n-|L|)^2}4 + \binom{|L|}2 + 0.498n \cdot |L| \le \frac{n^2}4 - 0.002n \cdot |L| + 0.75 \cdot |L|^2
\] edges. The right-hand side is at most $n^2/4$ (recall that $|L| < 0.001n$), a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Combining the last three claims together yields that $G$ contains at least ${0.236} n^2$ edges
that occur in $C_{2k+1}$, which finishes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Recall that if Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} is false, then by Lemma~\ref{lem:c5flag} there exists a limit
$\phi_0 \in \Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{\rm C5},\mathbb{R}\right)$ such that
$\phi_0\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=5,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) = 0$ and
$\phi_0\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \le \left(2+\sqrt{2}\right)/8 < 0.427$.
However, Lemma~\ref{lem:stab} yields that $\phi_0\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge 0.472$.
So there is no such $\phi_0$, and the proof Theorem~\ref{thm:c5c} is now finished.
\section{Edges that occur in longer odd cycles --- proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+}}
\label{sec:c7+}
We adapt the approach presented in the previous section and give a proof of an
asymptotic version of Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+}. The exact version will be obtained
in Section~\ref{sec:c7+exact}, where we find a description of all the sufficiently
large extremal constructions.
We start with stating the main
result of this section using the language of red/blue-colored graphs.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:c7+c}
For every $\varepsilon > 0$ and integer $k \ge 3$, there exists $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
if $G$ is a red/blue-colored graph on $n>n_0$ vertices with $\lfloor \frac{n^2}4 \rfloor + 1$ edges
and no blue edge occur in $C_{2k+1}$, then $G$ contains at least $\left(\frac29 -\varepsilon\right)n^2$ red edges.
\end{thm}
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+c}.
First, we define a class of graphs $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$ such that, for a fixed integer $k\ge3$,
the following is true. If a sequence $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of red/blue-colored graphs is such that no blue edge occurs in $C_{2k+1}$,
then $(G_i)$ is almost $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$-free.
Analogously to the $C_5$ case, a $k$-blow of any graph $F \in \mathcal{F}_{\rm C5}$ contains a copy of $C_{2k+1}$ with at least one blue edge.
Similarly, a $k$-blowup of either the graph $B_3^*$ or the graph $B_5^+$, which are both depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:FC7graphs},
contains a copy of $C_{2k+1}$ with at least one blue edge.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=11]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2cm
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=12]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2cm
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=13]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2cm
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=14]{EiC-fig}
\hskip 2cm
\includegraphics[scale=1,page=15]{EiC-fig}
\end{center}
\caption{The family of graphs $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$ used in the construction of the $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$-free flag algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rm C7}$.}
\label{fig:FC7graphs}
\end{figure}
Let $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7} := \left\{B_3,B_3^+,B_3^*,B_5,B_5^+\right\}$. As we have just observed, any sequence of graphs
satisfying the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+c} is almost $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$-free. We use the class $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$
to construct the corresponding flag algebras. Again, we refer to them $\mathcal{A}_{\rm C7}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\sigma_{\rm C7}$ instead
of $\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\sigma_{\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}}$. The main lemma of this
section, which we again prove using the semidefinite method, is the following.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:c7+flag}
Let $\delta > 0$ and $\phi \in \Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C7}},\mathbb{R}\right)$.
If $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \,+\, \vc{\includegraphics[page=3,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge \frac12$ and $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=5,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge \delta$,
then $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge \frac49$.
\end{lem}
Let us first show how this lemma implies Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+c}. If Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+c} would be false,
then there exists some absolute constant $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ and a convergent sequence of red/blue-colored
almost $\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$-free graphs $(G_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ of increasing orders $(n_i)$
such that every $G_i$ has at most $(2/9 -\varepsilon_0) \cdot \left(n_i\right)^2$ red edges.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:stab}, the limit of the triangle densities in the sequence is positive.
However, Lemma~\ref{lem:c7+flag} yields that, for a sufficiently large $i$, the graph $G_i$
has strictly more than $(2/9 -\varepsilon_0) \cdot \left(n_i\right)^2$ red edges; a contradiction.
We conclude this section with the proof of the main lemma.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:c7+flag}]
We use the semidefinite method to show the following.
If $\psi \in \Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C7}},\mathbb{R}\right)$ such that $\psi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \,+\, \vc{\includegraphics[page=3,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) \ge 1/2$,
then
\begin{equation}
\psi \left( \vc{\includegraphics[page=5,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \,\times\, \left( 9\cdot\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} - 4 \right) \right) \ge 0
\mbox{.}
\label{eq:c7+flag}
\end{equation}
Since the triangle density in $\phi$ is at~least $\delta > 0$,
the density of red edges is at~least $4/9$.
The proof of inequality (\ref{eq:c7+flag}) is again computer-assisted.
Analogously to the proof of (\ref{eq:c5flag}) in Lemma~\ref{lem:c5flag},
inequality (\ref{eq:c7+flag}) is established by a standard application of the
semidefinite method to the $6$-vertex densities of red/blue-colored
$\mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$-free subgraphs. The details are given in
Appendix~\ref{apx:c7+flag}.
\end{proof}
\section{Stability of Constructions~\ref{cstn:cliquebip} and~\ref{cstn:c5}}
\label{sec:stability}
In this section, we show the corresponding stability for the extremal results
presented in Sections~\ref{sec:c5} and~\ref{sec:c7+} and prove Theorems~\ref{thm:c5uniq} and~\ref{thm:c7+uniq}.
Let us start by recalling the following edge-colored variant of the induced graph removal lemma,
which is a direct consequence of~\cite[Theorem 1.5]{AusTao:2010}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:RL}
For any $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}>0$ and a finite family of red/blue-colored graphs $\mathcal{F}$, there exists $\delta_{{\rm RL}}>0$ such that
the following is true:
If $G$ is an $n$-vertex red/blue-colored graph with at most $\delta_{{\rm RL}} \cdot n^{v(F)}$ induced copies of $F$
for all $F \in \mathcal{F}$, then the edge set of $G$ can be modified on at most $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\cdot n^2$ pairs so that
no induced subgraph of the resulting graph is isomorphic to an element of $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{thm}
Since the structure of Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip} is simpler than the structure of Construction~\ref{cstn:c5},
we begin with proving Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+uniq}.
\subsection{Odd cycles of length at least seven --- stability of Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip}}
The whole subsection is devoted to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+uniq}.
Recall that our task is, given an integer $k\ge3$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, to find an integer $n_0$ and $\delta > 0$
so that for any graph $G$ with $n\ge n_0$ vertices and $\left(1/4 \pm \delta\right)n^2$ edges out of which $\left(2/9 \pm \delta\right)n^2$ occur in
$C_{2k+1}$, it holds that $G$ is $\varepsilon n^2$-close in the edit-distance to Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip}.
Since Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip} is $O(n)$-close to a disjoint union of $2n/3$-vertex clique
and complete balanced bipartite graph on the remaining $n/3$ vertices, we show that $G$ is $\varepsilon n^2$-close
to this construction.
Fix such a graph $G$.
Following the notation from the previous sections, we color the edges of $G$ that occur in some
copy of $C_{2k+1}$ red, and the other edges of $G$ blue.
Since $G$ has only $\left(2/9 \pm \delta\right)n^2$ red edges, Lemma~\ref{lem:stab} yields
that $G$ contains at least $\delta_k \cdot n^3$ triangles.
Without loss of generality, we may assume $\varepsilon \ll \delta_k$.
Through the whole proof, we will use two auxiliary positive constants $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}$ and $\delta_{{\rm RL}}$,
which will be determined during the proof, obeying the hierarchy
$\delta \ll \delta_{{\rm RL}} \ll \varepsilon_{{\rm RL}} \ll \varepsilon$.
By Corollary~\ref{cor:supersat}, we can choose $n_0$ to be a large enough integer
so the graph $G$ contains only $\delta n^{v(F)}$ copies of $F$ for all $F \in \mathcal{F}_{\rm C7}$.
We continue our exposition by showing that $G$ cannot contain too many
induced paths on four vertices.
Let $\mathcal{P}_4$ be the set of all the six possible red/blue-colorings of the $4$-vertex path; see also Figure~\ref{fig:P4}.
The following lemma directly follows from Claim~\ref{cl:c7+flag} from Appendix~\ref{apx:c7+flag}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hfill
\foreach \n in {22,...,27}{ \includegraphics[scale=0.95,page=\n]{EiC-fig}\hfill}
\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The family $\mathcal{P}_4$ containing all the $6$ non-isomorphic red/blue-colorings of $P_4$.}
\label{fig:P4}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:c7+uniq}
If $\phi \in \Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C7}},\mathbb{R}\right)$ satisfies $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) = \frac49$ and $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=3,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) = \frac1{18}$,
then~$\phi\left(P\right) = 0$ for every $P \in \mathcal{P}_4$.
\end{lem}
Let $n_0$ be large enough so that the limit identity proven by flag algebras
in Claim~\ref{cl:c7+flag} holds with an error of order $O(\delta)$ for
any graph in question with at least $n_0$ vertices.
Therefore, for any $F \in \mathcal{P}_4$, it holds that $p(F,G) = O(\delta) \ll \delta_{{\rm RL}}$.
Set $\mathcal{F}$ to be the family containing
\begin{itemize}
\item all the red/blue-colored triangles with at least one blue edge, i.e, the graphs from $B_3$,
\item all the $4$-vertex red/blue-colored graphs that contain a copy of $B_3^+$,
\item all the $5$-vertex red/blue-colored graphs that contain a copy of $B_3^*$, and
\item the six elements of $\mathcal{P}_4$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\delta_{{\rm RL}}$ be the constant from Theorem~\ref{thm:RL} applied with the constant $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}$ and the family $\mathcal{F}$.
Since $\delta \ll \delta_{{\rm RL}}$, the induced removal lemma yields a graph $G'$ with no induced copy of $F$ for all $F \in \mathcal{F}$,
and differs from the original graph $G$ on at most $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\cdot n^2$ pairs.
In other words, $G'$ contains no induced path on $4$ vertices and no (not necessarily induced) copy
of $B_3$, $B_3^+$ or $B_3^*$. It follows that the number of edges in $G'$ is $\left(1/4 \pm 2\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\right) n^2$.
By choosing $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}$ to be much smaller than $\varepsilon$, it is enough to
show that $G'$ is $\left(\varepsilon/2 \cdot n^2\right)$-close to
Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip}.
Let $B$ be the set of vertices of $G'$ that are incident to at least one blue edge
or have a neighbor that is incident to a blue edge,
$H$ the subgraph induced by $B$, and $A$ the vertices of $G'$ that are not in $B$.
Now we prove the following three claims describing the structure of $G'$ in terms of $A$ and $B$.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:stab7bipH}
The graph $H$ is bipartite.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction there is an odd cycle in $H$. Since $H$ does not
contain any induced path on four vertices, $H$ must contain a triangle $xyz$.
Since $H$ is $B_3$-free, all the three edges of the triangle must be red.
Also, neither $x$ nor $y$ nor $z$ is incident to a blue edge, because $H$ is $B_3^+$-free.
However, any of the three vertices, say $x$, is incident to a vertex $w$ such that $w$ is then
incident to a blue edge so $H$ fails to be $B_3^*$-free; a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:stab7sizeA}
$A$ has size at least $\delta_k \cdot n$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The number of triangles in $G'$ is at least $\left(\delta_k - \varepsilon_{\rm RL} \right) n^3$.
Since triangles in $G'$ can lie only inside the set $A$, $|A| \ge \left(\delta_k - \varepsilon_{\rm RL} \right)^{1/3} \cdot n > \delta_k \cdot n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:stab7noABedge}
There are no edges between $A$ and $B$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there is an edge connecting two vertices $u \in A$ and $v \in B$.
Since $u \notin B$, the vertex $v$ is not incident to any blue edge, however,
it has a neighbor $w$, which then has a neighbor $x$ such that the edge $\{w,x\}$ has
blue color. Since $H$ is bipartite, $x$ is not connected to $v$. Hence
$\{u,v,w,x\}$ induces a $4$-vertex path in $G'$, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Let $a := |A|/n$ and $b := 1-a = |B|/n$. In Claims~\ref{cl:stab7bipH}-\ref{cl:stab7noABedge}, we have shown
that the set $B$ induces a bipartite graph and there are no edges in $G'$ between $A$ and $B$.
Therefore, the edge-density of $G'$ is bounded by a function $f(a) := a^2 + (1-a)^2/2$.
The following observation directly follows from continuity of $f$, $f$ having
no local maximum on $(0,1)$, and compactness of $[0,1]$.
\begin{obs}
\label{obs:c7+stabopt}
The function $f(a)$ for $a \in [\delta_k, 2/3]$
has a unique maximum $1/2$ for $a=2/3$. Moreover, if the value of the function
for $a \in \left[\delta_k , 2/3+O(\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}})\right]$ is close to $1/2$, then the value of $a$ is close to $2/3$.
\end{obs}
Since the number of edges of $G'$ is $\left(1/4 \pm 2\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\right) n^2$, Observation~\ref{obs:c7+stabopt} yields that $a$ must be close to $2/3$.
It follows that $|A| = \left(2/3 \pm O(\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}})\right) n$ and $|B| = \left(1/3 \pm O(\varepsilon_{\rm RL})\right) n$.
Moreover, the bipartite graph $H$ must have parts of sizes $\left(1/6 \pm O(\varepsilon_{\rm RL})\right) n$, and all but $O(\varepsilon_{\rm RL}) n^2$ pairs between
the parts are joined by an edge. Finally, the number of non-adjacent pairs with both endpoints in $A$ is at most $O(\varepsilon_{\rm RL}) n^2$.
Since $\varepsilon_{\rm RL} \ll \varepsilon$, we can easily modify $\varepsilon/2 \cdot n^2$ pairs of $G'$ in order to obtain Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip}.
This finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+uniq}.
\subsection{The pentagon case --- stability of Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}}
We proceed very similarly as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+uniq}, but this
time, the arguments are tailored to Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}.
The graph $G$ has less than $0.22n^2$ red edges so Lemma~\ref{lem:stab} yields
existence of at least $\delta_2 \cdot n^3$ triangles in $G$.
Without loss of generality, we may assume $\varepsilon \ll \delta_2$.
As in the previous subsection, we will use two constants $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}} > 0$ and $\delta_{{\rm RL}} > 0$,
and we assume they obey the hierarchy
$\delta \ll \delta_{{\rm RL}} \ll \varepsilon_{{\rm RL}} \ll \varepsilon$.
Let $C_4^X$ be the red/blue-colored $4$-cycle with exactly one blue edge $\{u,v\}$ and a pendant red edge adjacent neither to $u$ nor to $v$,
and $\mathcal{P}_5$ the set of all the ten possible red/blue-colorings of the $5$-vertex path; see also Figure~\ref{fig:C4X:P5}.
Claim~\ref{cl:c5flag} from Appendix~\ref{apx:c5flag} yields the following lemma.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9,page=28]{EiC-fig}
\foreach \n in {29,...,38}{ \hfill \includegraphics[scale=0.9,page=\n]{EiC-fig}}
\end{center}
\caption{The red/blue-colored graph $C_4^X$ and the family $\mathcal{P}_5$ containing all the $10$ non-isomorphic red/blue-colorings of $P_5$.}
\label{fig:C4X:P5}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:c5uniq}
If $\phi \in \Hom^+\left(\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C5}},\mathbb{R}\right)$ that satisfy
$\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=4,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) = \frac{\left(2+\sqrt{2}\right)}8$ and $\phi\left(\vc{\includegraphics[page=3,scale=0.7]{EiC-fig}} \right) = \frac{2-\sqrt{2}}8$,
then $\phi\left(P\right) = 0$ for every $P \in \left\{C_4^X\right\} \cup \mathcal{P}_5$.
\end{lem}
Let $n_0$ be a large enough integer so that the graph $G$ contains only $\delta n^{v(F)}$ copies of $F$ for all $F \in \mathcal{F}_{\rm C5}$,
and the limit identity proven by flag algebras in Claim~\ref{cl:c5flag} holds with an error of order $O(\delta)$ for
any graph with at least $n_0$ vertices.
Set $\mathcal{F}$ to be the family containing
\begin{itemize}
\item all the red/blue-colored triangles with at least one blue edge,
\item all the $4$-vertex red/blue-colored graphs that contain a copy of $B_3^+$,
\item all the $5$-vertex red/blue-colored graphs that contain a copy of $B_5$,
\item the red/blue-colored graph $C_4^X$ and the ten elements of $\mathcal{P}_5$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\delta_{{\rm RL}}$ be the constant from Theorem~\ref{thm:RL} applied with the constant $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}$ and the family $\mathcal{F}$.
Since $\delta \ll \delta_{{\rm RL}}$, by induced removal lemma there is a graph $G'$ differing from
$G$ on at most $\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\cdot n^2$ pairs that has no induced copy of $F$ for all $F \in \mathcal{F}$.
Clearly, $G'$ has $\left(1/4 \pm 2\varepsilon_{{\rm RL}}\right) n^2$ edges.
It remains to show that $G'$ is $\left(\varepsilon/2 \cdot n^2\right)$-close to
Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}.
We begin with partitioning the vertices of $G'$ into three parts $X,Y,Z$ based
on their distance to vertices incident to blue edges.
Let $X$ be the set of vertices of $G'$ that are incident to at least one blue edge,
$Y$ the vertices that are incident only to red edges and have at least one neighbor
in $X$, and $Z$ the vertices of $G'$ that are neither in $X$ nor in $Y$.
We define $H$ to be the subgraph of $G'$ induced by $X \cup Y$.
Furthermore, let $X_0 \subseteq X$ be the set of all the vertices $x$
such that the connected component of $G'$ containing $x$ contains no
vertex from $Z$. Analogously, $Y_0 \subseteq Y$ are all the vertices
such that their connected component does not contain any vertex from $Z$.
Set $X_1 := X\setminus X_0$ and $Y_1 := Y\setminus Y_0$.
Having in mind the aim is to prove that $G'$ is close to Construction~\ref{cstn:c5},
we proceed with the following series of claims that describe the structure of $G'$.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:stab5bipH}
The graph $H$ is bipartite.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction $H$ contains an odd cycle. Since $H$ does not
contain any induced $P_5$, $H$ contains either a triangle, or an induced pentagon.
In both cases, all the edges of the cycle must be red.
First, suppose that $H$ contains a triangle $u,v,w$. If at least one of the
three vertices is incident to a blue edge, we would have found a copy of $B_3^+$,
which is not possible. Therefore, $\{u,v,w\} \subseteq Y$.
Let $x_u \in X$ be a neighbor of $u$. If $v$ would be a neighbor of $x_u$ as well,
then $u,v,x_u$ and a blue edge going out from $x_u$ would create a copy of $B_3^+$.
Therefore, $\{x_u,v\}$ is not an edge. By the same reasoning,
$\{x_u,w\}$ is not an edge and the vertex $v$ has neighbor
$x_v \in X$ such that neither $\{x_v,u\}$ nor $\{x_v,w\}$ are edges.
Now let $x \in X$ be a vertex connected to $x_u$ by a blue edge.
Since $H$ is $B_3$-free, $x$ is not a neighbor of $u$,
and since $H$ is $B_5$-free, $x$ is neither a neighbor of $v$ nor $x_v$ nor $w$.
The path $x,x_u,u,v,x_v$ cannot be induced and therefore there is an edge
between $x_u$ and $x_v$. But then the vertices $w,v,x_v,x_u,x$ span an induced
$P_5$, which is a contradiction.
For the rest of the proof, we will assume that $H$ is triangle-free.
Now suppose $H$ has an induced pentagon $u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5$
so that one of its vertices, say $u_1$, is incident to a blue edge.
Let $x_1 \in X$ be one of the neighbors of $u_1$ that is joined to $u_1$ by a
blue edge. If $x_1$ would be joined by an edge either to $u_2$ or $u_5$, then
we have found a copy of $B_3$. Since $H$ is also $B_5$-free, the vertex $x_1$
cannot be joined by an edge to $u_3$ or $u_4$. Therefore, $x_1,u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4$
is an induced path of length four, a contradiction.
Finally, suppose there is an induced pentagon $u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5$ such that all
the edges incident to the five vertices are red. The vertex $u_1$ must have a neighbor,
say $x_1$, that is incident to a blue edge. We already know that $H$ is triangle-free,
so $x_1$ is adjacent neither to $u_2$, nor to $u_5$. Also, if $x_1$ would be a neighbor
of $u_3$, then $u_1,x_1,u_3,u_4,u_5$ is a $5$-cycle with one endpoint incident to a blue
edge, which we already excluded in the previous paragraph. Analogously, $x_1$ is not adjacent
to $u_4$, and hence $x_1,u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4$ is an induced path of length four; a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
$Z$ has size at least $\delta_2/2 \cdot n$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
As in Claim~\ref{cl:stab7sizeA}, the number of triangles in $G'$ is at least $\left(\delta_2 - \varepsilon_{\rm RL} \right) n^3$.
Since every triangle has at least one vertex in $Z$, $|Z| \ge \left(\delta_2 - \varepsilon_{\rm RL} \right) \cdot n > \delta_2/2 \cdot n$.
\end{proof}
Let $H_1$ be the subgraph of $H$ induced by $X_1$. We continue in our exposition and find a good bipartition of $H_1$.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:noblueedge}
If $u$ and $v$ are two vertices from $X_1$ that are joined by a blue edge, then at most one of the two vertices has a neighbor in $Y_1$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction there are two such vertices $u$ and $v$.
Since $H$ is bipartite and has no induced $P_5$, at least one of the two vertices
is within distance exactly two to a vertex $z \in Z$. Without loss of generality,
let $u$ be the vertex, and let $y_u$ be the middle vertex on a shortest path
between $u$ and $z$.
Let $y_v \in Y_1$ be a neighbor of $v$.
Since $H$ is bipartite, neither $y_u$ is a neighbor of $v$, nor $y_v$ is a neighbor of $u$.
Also, $G'$ is $B_5$-free, hence the vertex $z$ is not a neighbor of $y_v$,
and by definition, there are no edges between $Z$ and $X_1$.
So either $y_u$ and $y_v$ are not joined by an edge and $y_v,v,u,y_u,z$
induces a path, which contradicts that $G'$ does not contain an induced $P_5$. Or, $\{y_u,y_v\}$ is an edge, but then the vertices
induces $C_4^X$; a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
Let $u\in X_1$ and $v \in X_1$ be two vertices from the same connected component of $H_1$.
If both $u$ and $v$ have a neighbor in $Y_1$,
then there exists a vertex $w \in V(H_1)$ such that both $\{u,w\}$ and $\{w,v\}$ are edges in $H_1$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Analogously to the previous claim, we may assume that one of the two vertices, say $u$,
has a neighbor $y \in Y_1$ such that $y$ is adjacent to a vertex $z \in Z$.
On the other hand, since $v \in X_1$, it must have a neighbor $t \in X_1$ such that $\{t,v\}$ is blue.
By Claim~\ref{cl:noblueedge}, $t \neq u$.
If $\{t,u\}$ or $\{v,y\}$ is an edge, we are done by letting $w:=t$ or $w:=y$, respectively.
For the rest of the proof, we assume that neither $\{t,u\}$ nor $\{v,y\}$ is an edge.
Also, Claim~\ref{cl:noblueedge} yields that $t$ has no neighbor in $Y_1$, so in particular,
$\{t,y\}$ is not an edge.
Now we show that $u$ is not adjacent to $v$.
Suppose there is an edge between $u$ and $v$. By Claim~\ref{cl:noblueedge}, the edge must be red.
Recall that the vertex $y$ has a neighbor $z \in Z$.
There are no edges between $Z$ and $X_1$ so the vertices $t,v,u,y,z$ induces $P_5$, which is a contradiction.
Suppose there is no $w \in V(H_1)$ such that $u,w,v$ is a path of length two.
Since $H_1$ does not contain any induced path of length four, there exist vertices $x_u \in V(H_1)$ and $x_v \in V(H_1)$
such that $u,x_u,x_v,v$ is a path of length three.
The vertex $t$ must be connected to $x_u$,
as otherwise $u,x_u,x_v,v,t$ is an induced $P_5$.
However, $H$ is bipartite so the path $v,t,x_u,u,y$ must be induced; a contradiction.
\end{proof}
The last claim immediately yields the following corollary.
\begin{cor}
There exists a partition of the set $X_1$ into two parts $A_1$ and $B_1$ such
that both $A_1$ and $B_1$ are independent sets in $G'$, and there are no edges
between $A_1$ and $Y_1$.
\end{cor}
This also implies that the set $Y_1$ must be independent.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:stab5indepY1}
The set $Y_1$ is an independent set in $G'$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there is an edge between two vertices $u \in Y_1$ and $v \in Y_1$.
By definition, there exist two vertices $b_u \in B_1$ and $b_v \in B_1$ that are adjacent
to $u$ and $v$, respectively. The two vertices are distinct and none of them
can be adjacent to both $u$ and $v$.
Let $a \in A_1$ be a neighbor of $b_u$ such that $\{a,b_u\}$ is a blue edge.
The vertex $a$ cannot be adjacent to $b_v$, which yields that $a,b_u,u,v,b_v$
is an induced path of length four; a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Now let $(A_0,B_0)$ be the color classes of an arbitrary $2$-coloring of the
bipartite graph induced by $X_0 \cup Y_0$. We define the following four sets
that partition the set $V(G')$:
$A:= A_0 \cup A_1$, $B:= B_0 \cup B_1$, $C:= Y_1$, and $D:=Z$.
Claims~\ref{cl:stab5bipH}-\ref{cl:stab5indepY1} yield that $G'$ must have the following structure.
\begin{cor}
$\{A,B,C,D\}$ is a partition of the vertex-set of $G'$,
the sets $A$, $B$ and $C$ are independent sets in $G'$, and every edge $e$ of
$G'$ goes either between $A$ and $B$, or $B$ and $C$, or $C$ and $D$,
or inside $D$. Moreover, if $e$ is blue, then $e$ must go between $A$ and $B$.
\end{cor}
Let $a:=|A|/n$, $b:=|B|/n$, $c:=|C|/n$ and $d:=|D|/n$.
The edge-density of $G'$ can be upper-bounded by $f(a,b,c,d) := 2ab+2bc+2cd+d^2$.
Let us analyze the maximum value of $f$ under constraints on $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$
that we have already established. All of that is summarized in the following optimization
problem:
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\textbf{maximize: } & 2ab+2bc+2cd+d^2 \\
\textbf{subject to: } & a\ge0, \quad b\ge0, \quad c \ge 0, \\
& d=1-a-b-c, \\
& ab \ge \left(2 - \sqrt2\right)/16,\\
& d \ge \delta_2/2 .\\
\end{alignat*}
Clearly, if the values of $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ are equal to those coming from Construction~\ref{cstn:c5},
then $f(a,b,c,d) = 1/2$. The following proposition shows that there is no other
point $(a',b',c',d') \in \mathbb{R}^4$ that would satisfy the constraints and also attain the value $1/2$.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:stab5opt}
The optimization problem has a unique solution at the point
\[\left(a_m,b_m,c_m,d_m\right) = \left(\frac12 - \frac{\sqrt2}4, \frac14, \frac14, \frac{\sqrt2}4 \right),\]
Moreover, if a point $(a',b',c',d')$ satisfies all the constraints and $f(a',b',c',d')$
is close to $1/2$, then $(a',b',c',d')$ is close to $(a_m,b_m,c_m,d_m)$.
\end{claim}
This claim immediately yields that $G'$ is close to Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}, hence proving
the claim finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5uniq}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim~\ref{cl:stab5opt}]
Let $\left(a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0\right)\in \mathbb{R}^4$ be a point that satisfies the constraints and maximizes the objective function.
First, we show that $a_0b_0 = \left(2 - \sqrt2\right)/16$.
Indeed, if $a_0b_0 > \left(2 - \sqrt2\right)/16$, then let $\alpha:=a_0 - \frac{2-\sqrt2}{16\cdot b_0}$.
It follows that \[f(a_0-\alpha,b_0,c_0+\alpha,d_0) = f\left(a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0\right) + \alpha \cdot d_0,\]
and the point $(a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0)$ was not an optimal solution.
We continue by bounding $b_0$ away from $1/2$. Since \[
f\left(a,b,c,d\right) = 2ab + 2(b+d)(1-a-b-d) + {d}^2
= 2b(1-b) - {d}^2 + 2d\left(1-a-2b\right) ,
\]
it holds that $\left(1-a_0-2b_0\right) = \left(1-\frac{2-\sqrt2}{16\cdot b_0}-2b_0\right) > 0$.
Therefore, \[b_0 < \frac{2+2^{3/4}}8 < 0.47.\]
Also, it follows that the maximum value of $2b(1-b)$ is less than $0.499$. On the other hand, the maximum
value of $\left(1-\frac{2-\sqrt2}{16\cdot b_0}-2b_0\right)$ is less than $1/2$, hence $d_0 > 0.001$.
Suppose now that $b_0 \neq c_0$. If $b_0 < c_0$,
then \[
f\left(a_0,b_0,c_0-\alpha,d_0+\alpha\right) - f\left(a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0\right) = 2(c_0-b_0)\alpha + \alpha^2
,\] where $\alpha = c_0-b_0$; a contradiction.
On the other hand, if $c_0 < b_0$, then \[
f\left(a_0,b_0,c_0+\alpha,d_0-\alpha\right) - f\left(a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0\right) = 2(b_0-c_0)\alpha - \alpha^2 \ge \alpha^2
,\] where this time $\alpha = \min(b_0 - c_0,d_0 - 0.001)$.
We conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stab5finalf}
f\left(a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0\right) = \frac{2-\sqrt2}8 + 2{c_0}^2
+ 2c_0 \cdot \left(1-\frac{2-\sqrt2}{16\cdot c_0}-2c_0\right)
+ \left(1-\frac{2-\sqrt2}{16\cdot c_0}-2c_0\right)^2
.
\end{equation}
Since swapping the values of $a_0$ and $b_0$ changes the objective function by $c_0(a_0 - b_0)$, it holds that $b_0 \ge a_0$.
In particular, $c_0 = b_0 \ge \left(\sqrt{2-\sqrt2}\right)/4 > 0.19$. The right-hand side of (\ref{eq:stab5finalf})
depends only on $c_0$ and $c_0 \in [0.19,0.47]$. It is straightforward to check that the value of (\ref{eq:stab5finalf})
is at most $1/2$, and the unique point where the value is attained is $c_0 = 1/4$. Therefore, $b_0 = 1/4$, $a_0 = \frac{2 - \sqrt2}4$
and $d_0 = \frac{\sqrt2}4$.
By continuity of $f(a,b,c,d)$ and compactness of $[0,1]^4$, it also follows that if $f(a',b',c',d')$ is close to $1/2$,
then $(a',b',c',d')$ is close to $\left(a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0\right)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Exact result for pentagons}
\label{sec:c5exact}
For a graph $G$, we define $\mathcal{C}_5(G)$ to be the set of all edges of $G$
that occur in a copy of $C_5$ in $G$. In other words,
\[\mathcal{C}_5(G) = \bigcup\limits_{H \subseteq G, H \cong C_5} E(H) .\]
Let $\mathcal{E}_n$ be the set of all $n$-vertex graphs with exactly $\lfloor
n^2/4\rfloor +1$ edges, and define
\[F(n) := \min\limits_{G \in \mathcal{E}_n}|\mathcal{C}_5(G)|.\]
For convenience, we set $\widetilde{F}(n) := \lfloor n^2/4\rfloor +1 - F(n)$.
Next, let $\mathcal{E}'_n$ be the set of all $n$-vertex graphs with
at least $\lfloor n^2/4\rfloor +1$ edges. It immediately follows that for any $G \in
\mathcal{E}'_n$, it holds $|\mathcal{C}_5(G)| \ge F(n)$, and if $|\mathcal{C}_5(G)| = F(n)$, then $G \in
\mathcal{E}_n$.
Finally we define $\mathcal{G}_n \subseteq \mathcal{E}'_n$ to be the set of all $G \in \mathcal{E}'_n$ with $|\mathcal{C}_5(G)| = F(n)$.
We call a quadruple of non-negative integers $(a,b,c,d)$ $n$-extremal,
if the following is satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item $a+b+c+d=n$,
\item $a \cdot b = \widetilde{F}(n)$, and
\item $a \cdot b + b\cdot c + c \cdot d + \binom{d}{2} > \frac{n^2}4$.
\end{itemize}
The main theorem of this section is the following:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:c5exact}
There exists an integer $n_0$ such that the following holds for any $n \ge n_0$.
If $G \in \mathcal{G}_n$, then $V(G)$ can be partitioned
into four sets $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item the quadruple $(|A|,|B|,|C|,|D|)$ is $n$-extremal,
\item the $A$, $B$ and $C$ are independent sets of $G$,
\item $\{u,v\} \in E(G)$ for any $u \in A$ and $v \in B$,
\item $\{u,v\} \notin E(G)$ for any $u \in A$ and $v \in C \cup D$, and
\item $\{u,v\} \notin E(G)$ for any $u \in B$ and $v \in D$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
An immediate consequence of this theorem is
that $(a,b,c,d)$ is $n$-extremal if and only if it solves
the following integer quadratic program:
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\textbf{maximize: } & a \cdot b \\
\textbf{subject to: } & a\in \mathbb{N}, \quad b\in\mathbb{N}, \quad c \in \mathbb{N}, \quad d \in \mathbb{N}, \\
& a \cdot b + b\cdot c + c \cdot d + \binom{d}{2} > \frac{n^2}4,\\
& a+b+c+d = n. \\
\end{alignat*}
Since the exact solution of this maximization problem for a given integer $n$
depends on errors in rounding expressions like $\sqrt{2}n/4$, we leave it in
this form. Approximate values of $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ are indeed given by
Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:c5exact}]
Theorems~\ref{thm:c5} and~\ref{thm:c5uniq} immediately yield that
for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists an integer $n_0$ so that if $n \ge n_0$,
then by adding or removing $\varepsilon n^2$ edges in a graph $G \in \mathcal{G}_n$
we obtain the graph from Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}.
Moreover, the value of $n_0$ will be large enough so that Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}
yields that $F(n) = ((2+\sqrt{2})/16\pm\varepsilon)n^2$
and $\widetilde{F}(n) = ((2-\sqrt{2})/16\pm\varepsilon)n^2$ for every $n \ge n_0$.
Fix an integer $n \ge n_0$ and any graph $G \in \mathcal{G}_n$, and let $V$ be the vertex-set of $G$.
Clearly, for any $\varepsilon' > 0$, we can find $\varepsilon > 0$ small enough
so that $V$ can be partitioned into five sets $A_0, B_0, C_0, D_0$ and $X$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $|A_0| = (1/2-\sqrt{2}/4 \pm \varepsilon')\cdot n$,
$|B_0| = (1/4 \pm \varepsilon') \cdot n$,
$|C_0| = (1/4 \pm \varepsilon') \cdot n$,
$|D_0| = (\sqrt{2}/4 \pm \varepsilon') \cdot n$,
\item $0 \le |X| \le \varepsilon' \cdot n$,
\item $\deg_{A_0}(u) \ge (1-\varepsilon')|A_0|$ for every $u \in B_0$,
\item $\deg_{B_0}(u) \ge (1-\varepsilon')|B_0|$ for every $u \in A_0 \cup C_0$,
\item $\deg_{C_0}(u) \ge (1-\varepsilon')|C_0|$ for every $u \in B_0 \cup D_0$,
\item $\deg_{D_0}(u) \ge (1-\varepsilon')|D_0|$ for every $u \in C_0$, and
\item the induced subgraph $G[D_0]$ has edge-density at least $1-\varepsilon'$.
\end{itemize}
In other words, the stability result from Section~\ref{sec:stability} yields
an approximate structure of $G$. In the following series of claims, we will
show that the extremality of $G$ allows us to ``clean up'' this description to
the one claimed in the statement of the theorem.
For the rest of the proof, we will assume $\varepsilon' > 0$ is sufficiently small ($\varepsilon' < 10^{-4}$ would be enough).
For a set $S \subseteq V$, we denote by $E(S)$ the set of edges of the subgraph
induced by $S$, i.e., $E(S) = E(G[S])$. For two disjoint $X, Y \subseteq V$,
we denote by $E(X,Y)$ the set of edges in $G$ with exactly one endpoint in $X$
and the other endpoint in $Y$.
First, let us observe that every graph with more than $n^2/4$ edges has at most $\widetilde{F}(n)$ edges that
do not occur in $C_5$.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5duality}
There is no $n$-vertex graph $G' \in \mathcal{E}'_n$ with $|E(G') \setminus \mathcal{C}_5(G')| > \widetilde{F}(n)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, otherwise remove from $G'$ arbitrarily chosen $|E(G')| - \lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor - 1$ edges in $\mathcal{C}_5(G')$.
The obtained graph has less than $\lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor + 1 - \widetilde{F}(n) = F(n)$ edges that occur in $C_5$,
a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We continue with three simple claims that all the edges between the parts $B_0$ and $C_0$, $C_0$ and $D_0$,
and inside $D_0$ occur in a copy of $C_5$.
\begin{claim}
$E(B_0,C_0) \subseteq \mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix any $\{u,v\} \in E(B_0,C_0)$ with $u \in B_0$.
Let $v' \in C_0$ be a neighbor of $u$ in $C_0$ different from $v$.
Since both $v$ and $v'$ have more than $|D_0|/2$ neighbors in $D_0$ and the edge-density of $G[D_0]$ is $(1-\varepsilon')$,
there exist a vertex $w \in D_0$ connected to $v$, and vertex $w' \in D_0$ connected to $v'$ such that $\{w,w'\}$ is an edge.
Therefore, $uvww'v'$ forms a $C_5$ in $G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
$E(C_0,D_0) \subseteq \mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix any $\{u,v\} \in E(C_0,D_0)$ with $u \in C_0$.
Let $v' \in D_0$ be a neighbor of $u$ in $D_0$ different from $v$.
Since the edge-density of $G[D_0]$ is $(1-\varepsilon')$, there
exists a path of length three between $v$ and $v'$ in $G[D_0]$.
This path together with the edges $\{u,v\}$ and $\{u,v'\}$ forms a $C_5$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
$E(G[D_0]) \subseteq \mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $u$ and $v$ be two adjacent vertices from $D_0$.
Since the edge-density of $G[D_0]$ is $(1-\varepsilon')$, there
is a path of length four between $u$ and $w$,
which together with $\{u,v\}$ forms a $C_5$.
\end{proof}
Since $\left| E(B_0,C_0) \cup E(C_0,D_0) \cup E(G[D_0]) \right| \ge (2+\sqrt{2} - 3\varepsilon')n^2$,
we immediately conclude that
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:c5a0b0edge}
$\left| E(A_0,B_0) \cap \mathcal{C}_5(G) \right| < 5\varepsilon' n^2$.
\end{cor}
Let $E' := E(A_0,B_0) \cup E(B_0,C_0) \cup E(C_0,D_0) \cup E(G[D_0])$.
Since most of the edges between $A_0$ and $B_0$ do not occur in any $C_5$,
we now get much better control on the edges in $E \setminus E'$.
We start with the following two claims.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5noAvB}
There is no vertex $z \in V$ adjacent both to $u \in A_0$ and $v \in B_0$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction there is such a vertex $z$, and let $u \in A_0$
and $v \in B_0$ be its two neighbors. Let $v' \in B_0$ be a neigbor of $u$
different from $v$. Clearly, there are at least $(1-\varepsilon')|A_0|$ ways of
choosing $v'$. The vertices $v$ and $v'$ have at least $\deg_{A_0}(v) +
\deg_{A_0}(v') - |A_0| \ge (1-2\varepsilon')|A_0|$ common neigbors $u' \in A_0$. Each
such choice of $u'$ and $v'$ yields a copy of $C_5$ on the vertices $uzvu'v'$.
In particular the edge $\{u',v'\} \in E(A_0,B_0) \cap \mathcal{C}_5(G)$. However,
there are at least $(1-3\varepsilon')|A_0||B_0| > 0.03n^2$ choices of $\{u',v'\}$,
which contradicts Corollary~\ref{cor:c5a0b0edge}.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5noBvC}
There is no vertex $z \in V$ adjacent both to $u \in B_0$ and $v \in C_0$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose not, and let $u \in B_0$ and $v \in C_0$ be two neighbors of $z$.
Let $u' \in B_0$ be any of the $(1-\varepsilon')|B_0|$ neighbors of $v$ different from $u$.
Since $\deg_{A_0}(u) + \deg_{A_0}(u') - |A_0| \ge (1-2\varepsilon')|A_0|$,
there are at least $(1-2\varepsilon')|A_0| \cdot (1-\varepsilon')|B_0| > (1-3\varepsilon')|A_0||B_0|$
edges from $E(A_0,B_0)$ that occur in a $C_5$ (note that $uzvu'w$, where $w \in A_0$ is a common
neighbor of $u$ and $u'$, form a $C_5$); a contradiction.
\end{proof}
A direct consequence of the last two claims is the following.
\begin{cor}
The sets $A_0$, $B_0$ and $C_0$ are independent,
and $|E(A_0,C_0)| = |E(B_0,D_0)| = 0$.
\end{cor}
Now move our attention to paths of length at most two between $A_0$ and $D_0$.
Let $Y \subseteq A_0$ be the set of vertices $u \in A_0$ such that
there exist vertices $v \in V$ and $w \in D_0$ such that both
$\{u,v\} \in E(G)$ and $\{v,w\} \in E(G)$.
\begin{claim}
$|Y| < 21 \varepsilon' n$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
For each edge $\{y,v\}$ with $y \in Y$ and $v \in B_0$, consider
vertices $z \in V\setminus\{y,v\}$ and $x \in N_{D_0}(z)$ such that
$yzx$ is a $3$-vertex path in $G$. Note that such a path exists by the
definition of $Y$. Since $|N_{C_0}(x) \cap N_{C_0}(v)| > |C_0|/2$, we conclude
that $\{y,v\} \in \mathcal{C}_5(G)$. The edge $\{y,v\}$ can be chosen in at least $|Y|
\cdot (1-\varepsilon') |B_0|$ ways, so by Corollary~\ref{cor:c5a0b0edge} we conclude that
\[
|Y| \le \frac{5\varepsilon' n^2}{(1-\varepsilon')|B_0|} < \frac{20\varepsilon' n}{1-2\varepsilon'} < 21\varepsilon'n
.\]
\end{proof}
We set $A_0' := A_0 \setminus Y$ and $Z := X \cup Y$.
We continue our exposition by establishing a lower bound on the minimum degree of $G$.
We start with the following claim.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5clone}
There exists a vertex $u \in A_0'$ incident to at least $(1/4 - 191\varepsilon')n$ edges
not in $\mathcal{C}_5(G)$, and a vertex $u' \in B_0$ incident to at least
$((2-\sqrt{2})/4-93\varepsilon')n$ edges that are not in $\mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
There are at least $\widetilde{F}(n) - |Z|n \ge ((2-\sqrt{2})/16-23\varepsilon')n^2$ edges between $A_0'$ and $B_0$
that do not occur in $C_5$. Since $|A_0'| \le ((2-\sqrt{2})/4+\varepsilon')n$,
there is a vertex $u \in A_0'$ incident to at least $(1/4 - 191\varepsilon')n$ such edges.
Similarly, $|B_0| \le (1/4+\varepsilon')n$, which implies existence of $u' \in B_0$ incident
to at least $((2-\sqrt{2})/4-93\varepsilon')n$ edges in $E(G) \setminus \mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5mindeg}
For any $v \in V$, $\deg(v) \ge (1/4 - 191\varepsilon')n$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Otherwise consider the graph $G'$ obtained from $G$ by removing the vertex $v$ and cloning the
vertex $u$ from the previous claim. $G'$ has more edges that do not occur in $C_5$ than $G$
and also $|E(G')| > |E(G)|$, a contradiction with Claim~\ref{cl:c5duality}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
There is no vertex $z \in Z$ such that $N(z) \subseteq A'_0 \cup Z$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, any such $z$ would have
\[\deg(z) \le |A'_0|+|Z|=|A_0|+|X| \le ((2 - \sqrt{2})/4 + 2\varepsilon')n < 0.15n < (1/4-191\varepsilon')n,\]
which contradicts the previous claim.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to split the vertices $z \in Z$ based on their adjacencies to the vertices outside of $Z$.
First, let $Z' := \{z \in Z { \; \big\vert \; } \exists u \in B_0: \{z,u\} \in E(G) \}$.
Claims~\ref{cl:c5noAvB} and~\ref{cl:c5noBvC} yield that no vertex $z \in Z'$ has a neighbor in $A_0 \cup C_0$.
We define
\[C_1 := \{z \in Z' { \; \big\vert \; } \exists v\in V \land \exists w \in D_0: \{z,v\} \in E(G) \land \{v,w\} \in E(G) \},\]
and $A_1:=Z' \setminus C_1$. Note that $Y \subseteq C_1$, and if $z \in Z'$ has a neighbor in $D_0$, then $z \in C_1$.
Let us first focus on the set $A_1$.
\begin{claim}
For all $z \in A_1$, $\deg_{B_0}(z) > (1-214\varepsilon')|B_0|$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
If there exist a vertex $z\in A_1$
with $\deg_{B_0}(z) \le (1-214\varepsilon')|B_0|$,
then its total degree in $G$ is at most
\[\deg_{B_0}(z) + \deg_Z(z) < (1-214\varepsilon')(1/4+\varepsilon')n + |Z| \le (1/4 - 191\varepsilon') n,\]
a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
$A_1$ is an independent set in $G$.
\end{cor}
We set $A := A_0' \cup A_1$, and continue our exposition by analyzing the
vertices $B_1 := \{z \in Z { \; \big\vert \; } \exists u \in A: \{z,u\} \in E(G)\}$. Note
that $B_1 \cap Z' = \emptyset$.
By Claim~\ref{cl:c5noAvB} and definitions of the sets $A_0'$ and $A_1$,
we conclude that both $|E(B_1,B_0)| = 0$ and $|E(B_1,D_0)| = 0$.
In the following two claims, we study the edges between $B_1$ and $C_0 \cup A$.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5degB1C0}
For every $v \in B_1$, $\deg_{C_0}(v) > n/10$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We know that $v \in B_1$ can be adjacent only to the vertices from $A_0 \cup C_0 \cup X$.
Therefore, Claim~\ref{cl:c5mindeg} yields that $v$ has at least
\[(1/4-191\varepsilon')n - |A_0| - |X| \ge (\sqrt{2} - 1 -193\varepsilon')n > n/10 \]
neighbors in $C_0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5degB1A0}
For every $v \in B_1$, $\deg_A(v) \ge (1 - 800 \varepsilon')|A|$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
First observe that any edge $\{v,w\}$ with $w \in C_0$ is contained in $\mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
Indeed, consider a neighbor $w' \in N_{C_0}(v) \setminus \{w\}$ and two
adjacent vertices $x \in N_{D_0}(w)$ and $x'\in N_{D_0}(w')$.
Suppose for contradiction $\deg_A(v) < (1 - 800 \varepsilon')|A| < |A|-116\varepsilon'n$. In particular, $v$ is incident
to at most
\[\deg_{A}(v) + \deg_Z(v) < |A| - 94 \varepsilon'n \le \frac{2-\sqrt2}4 -93 \varepsilon'n \]
edges not in $\mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
Let $u' \in B_0$ be the vertex from Claim~\ref{cl:c5clone} with at least $\left((2-\sqrt{2})/4-93\varepsilon'\right)n$
incident edges that are not in $\mathcal{C}_5(G)$. Moreover,
$\deg(u') \ge |A| + |C_0| - 2 \varepsilon' n$.
Therefore, removing the vertex $v$ and adding a clone of the vertex $u'$ yield an
$n$-vertex graph with more than $n^2/4$ edges that contradicts Claim~\ref{cl:c5duality}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
$B_1$ is an independent set of $G$.
\end{cor}
Let $B:=B_0 \cup B_1$. Recall the definition of $C_1$, i.e.,
\[
C_1 = \{u \in Z { \; \big\vert \; } \deg_{B_0}(u) \ge 1 \land \exists v \in V, w \in D_0 : \{u,v\} \in E(G) \land \{v,w\} \in E(G) \}
.\]
By Claim~\ref{cl:c5noBvC}, there are no edges between $C_1$ and $C_0$, and by the definition of $B_1$,
there are no edges between $C_1$ and $A$. Let us now show that vertices $v \in C_1$ have
many neighbors in $B_0$.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5degC1B0}
For every $u \in C_1$, $\deg_{B_0}(u) \ge n/25$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
As noted above, $u$ can be adjacent only to the vertices in $B_0 \cup D_0 \cup Z$.
First observe that for every $z \in N_{D_0}(u)$, the edge $\{u,z\} \in \mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
Indeed, let $x \in N_{B_0}(u)$ and $y \in N_{C_0}(x)$ be chosen arbitrarily. Since $y \in C_0$
and $z \in D_0$, there exist a common neighbor of $y$ and $z$ which encloses a $C_5$.
Analogously, we show $\{u,x\} \in \mathcal{C}_5(G)$ for every $x \in N_{B_0}(u)$.
Consider the vertices $v \in V$ and $w \in D_0$ with $\{u,v\} \in E(G)$ and $\{v,w\} \in E(G)$
witnessing that $u \in C_1$. Since $x \in B_0$ and $w \in D_0$, the two vertices must have a common
neighbor which yields $\{u,x\} \in \mathcal{C}_5(G)$.
The last paragraph shows that $u$ is incident to at most $|Z| < 22 \varepsilon' n$
edges that do not occur in $C_5$. On the other hand,
$|Z\cup D_0| < (\sqrt{2}/4 + 23\varepsilon')n$. So if $\deg_{B_0}(v) < n/25$, then
\[ \deg(v) < 0.396n < \deg(u'),\]
where $u' \in B_0$ is the vertex from Claim~\ref{cl:c5clone}.
Therefore, the graph obtained by removing the vertex $u$ and cloning the vertex $u'$
contradicts Claim~\ref{cl:c5duality}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
$C_1$ is an independent set in $G$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for a contradiction there is an edge $\{u,u'\}$ with $u,u'\in C_1$.
There are at least \[\deg_{B_0}(u) \cdot \left(|A_0| - \varepsilon' n\right) > \frac
n{25} \cdot \left(\frac n4 -23\varepsilon'n\right) > \frac{n^2}{101}\] edges $\{v,w\}$
with $v \in N_{B_0}(u)$ and $w \in N_{A_0}(v)$. However, the vertices $w$ and
$u'$ have a common neighbor in $B_0 \setminus \{v\}$ and hence
$\left|E(A_0,B_0)\cap \mathcal{C}_5(G)\right| > n^2/101$; a contradiction with Corollary~\ref{cor:c5a0b0edge}.
\end{proof}
We define $C:=C_0 \cup C_1$, and $D_1 : = Z \setminus (A_1 \cup B_1 \cup C_1)$.
By the definition of the sets $A$, $B_1$ and $C_1$, every vertex $v \in D_1$ has no neigbors in $A \cup B_0$.
We now concentrate on the edges between $D_1$ and $C_0$.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c5degD1C0}
For every $v \in D_1$, $\deg_{C_0}(v) \ge n/25$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The vertex $v$ can be adjacent only to the vertices in $C_0 \cup D_0 \cup Z$,
and clearly every edge $\{v,w\}$ with $w \in C_0 \cup D_0$ occurs in $C_5$.
In particular, $v$ is incident to at most $22 \varepsilon' n$ edges that do not occur in $C_5$.
As in Claim~\ref{cl:c5degC1B0}, if $\deg_{C_0}(v) < n/25$ then $\deg(v) < |D_0|+|Z|+n/25 < 0.396n$.
Therefore, removing the vertex $v$ and cloning the vertex $u'$ from Claim~\ref{cl:c5clone}
result in a graph contradicting Claim~\ref{cl:c5duality}.
\end{proof}
So the only possible edges that could be in $G$ but not following the pattern
of Construction~\ref{cstn:c5} are those between $B_1$ and $D_1$. We rule them
out in the following claim.
\begin{claim}
$|E(B_1,D_1)| = 0$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction there is an edge $\{u,v\}$ with $u \in B_1$ and $v
\in D_1$. Since any vertex $x \in B_0$ has $\deg_{C_0}(x) > |C_0| - n/25$,
the vertices $v$ and $x$ have a common neighbor and hence
\[ \left|E(A_0,B_0) \cap \mathcal{C}_5(G)\right| \ge \deg_{A_0}(u) \cdot (1-\varepsilon')|B_0| > 0.03n^2,\]
which indeed contradicts Corollary~\ref{cor:c5a0b0edge}.
\end{proof}
Let $D := D_0 \cup D_1$. Putting everything together, we conclude that the edges in $G$ are as in
Construction~\ref{cstn:c5}.
\begin{cor}
$V(G) = A \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} B \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} C \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} D$ and
$E(G) \subseteq E(A,B) \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} E(B,C) \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} E(C,D) \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} \binom{D}{2}$.
\end{cor}
In particular, the set of edges $E(G) = \mathcal{C}_5(G) \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} E(A,B)$.
Since $G$ is minimizing $|\mathcal{C}_5(H)|$ among all graphs in $H \in \mathcal{E}'_n$, we immediately
conclude the following.
\begin{claim}
$|E(A,B)| = |A||B| = \widetilde{F}(n)$.
\end{claim}
Therefore, the quadruple $(|A|,|B|,|C|,|D|)$ is $n$-extremal which finishes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{Exact result for longer odd cycles}
\label{sec:c7+exact}
As in the previous section, for an integer $k\ge 3$ and a graph $G$ we define
$\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$ to be the set of all edges of $G$ that occur in a copy of
$C_{2k+1}$ in $G$. In other words,
\[\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G) := \bigcup\limits_{H \subseteq G, H \cong C_{2k+1}} E(H) .\]
Recall $\mathcal{E}_n$ and $\mathcal{E}'_n$ are the sets of all $n$-vertex graphs with exactly $\lfloor n^2/4\rfloor +1$ edges
and at least $\lfloor n^2/4\rfloor +1$ edges, respectively.
For any $k \ge 3$, let
\[F_{2k+1}(n) := \min\limits_{G \in \mathcal{E}_n}|\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)|,\]
and $\widetilde{F}_{2k+1}(n) := \lfloor n^2/4\rfloor +1 - F_{2k+1}(n)$.
Finally we define $\mathcal{G}^{2k+1}_n \subseteq \mathcal{E}'_n$ to be the set of all $G \in \mathcal{E}'_n$ with $|\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)| = F_{2k+1}(n)$.
As we will show, for any $k\ge \ell\ge3$, there exists a sufficiently large $n_0:=n_0(k)$
such that $\mathcal{G}^{2k+1}_n = \mathcal{G}^{2\ell+1}_n$ for all $n \ge n_0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:c7+exact}
For any integer $k \ge 3$ there exists an integer $n_0$ such that the following holds for any $n \ge n_0$.
If $G \in \mathcal{G}^{2k+1}_n$, then $V(G)$ can be partitioned
into four sets $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $|A|=\lfloor \frac{n-2}{6}\rfloor$, $|B|=\lfloor\frac{n+1}{6}\rfloor$, $|C|=1$ and $|D|=\lfloor \frac{2n+1}{3} \rfloor$.
\item $A$ and $B$ are independent sets of $G$,
\item $\{u,v\} \in E(G)$ for any $u \in A\cup C$ and $v \in B$,
\item $\{u,v\} \notin E(G)$ for any $u \in A$ and $v \in C \cup D$, and
\item $\{u,v\} \notin E(G)$ for any $u \in B$ and $v \in D$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, $F_{2k+1}(n) = \begin{cases}
2n^2/9+1 & \textrm{for } n \equiv 0 \mod 6,\\
2n^2/9+(n+13)/18 & \textrm{for } n \equiv 1 \mod 6,\\
2n^2/9-(n-22)/18 & \textrm{for } n \equiv 2 \mod 6,\\
2n^2/9+1 & \textrm{for } n \equiv 3 \mod 6,\\
2n^2/9+(n+22)/18 & \textrm{for } n \equiv 4 \mod 6,\\
2n^2/9-(n-13)/18 & \textrm{for } n \equiv 5 \mod 6.
\end{cases}$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $V:=V(G)$.
For any $\varepsilon >0$ there is a large enough constant $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such
that if $n \ge n_0$, then
the stability result proven in Theorem~\ref{thm:c7+uniq} and the fact $G \in
\mathcal{G}^{2k+1}_n$ yield the following:
There exists a partition of $V$ into four parts $A'$, $B'$, $C'$ and $D'$ that satisfies
\begin{itemize}
\item $|A'|=(1/6 \pm \varepsilon) \cdot n$, $|B'|=(1/6 \pm \varepsilon) \cdot n$, $|C'| < \varepsilon \cdot n$, $|D'| = (2/3 \pm \varepsilon) \cdot n$,
\item $E(A' \cup B',D') = 0$,
\item $\forall v\in A': \deg_{B'}(v) \ge (1/6-\varepsilon)n$,
\item $\forall v\in B': \deg_{A'}(v) \ge (1/6-\varepsilon)n$,
\item $\forall v\in D': \deg(v) \ge (2/3 - \varepsilon)n$.
\end{itemize}
Note that these properties yield that the induced subgraph $G[D']$ has edge-density at least $1-\varepsilon$,
and $|E(A',B')| \ge |A'||B'| - 4\varepsilon n^2$.
We start our exposition with a direct analogue of Claim~\ref{cl:c5duality}.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c7+duality}
There is no $n$-vertex graph $G' \in \mathcal{E}'_n$ with $|E(G') \setminus \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G')| > \widetilde{F}_{2k+1}(n)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
As otherwise removing from $G'$ arbitrarily chosen $|E(G')| - \lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor - 1$ edges in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G')$
yields an $n$-vertex graph with less than $F_{2k+1}(n)$ edges that occur in $C_{2k+1}$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We continue by showing that both $A'$ and $B'$ are in fact independent sets in $G$.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:c7+ABneighbors}
No $v \in V$ is adjacent to $u \in A'$ and $w \in B'$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
First observe that since $G[D']$ has edge-density at least $1-\varepsilon$, any
edge of $G[D']$ occurs in $C_{2k+1}$. On the other hand, if there exists a
vertex $v$ adjacent to $u \in A'$ and $w \in B'$, we can find a copy of
$C_{2k+1}$ containing any given edge $\{u',w'\}$ with $u' \in A' \setminus
\{u\}$ and $w' \in B' \setminus \{w\}$.
Indeed, let $u_0 \in A'$ be an arbitrary common neighbor of $w$ and $w'$,
and let $P$ be $(2k-3)$-vertex path between $u$ and $u'$ disjoint from $w$,
$w'$ and $u_0$. Note that such a path exists because every vertex in $A$ has
at least $|B| - 2\varepsilon n$ neighbors in $B$, and symmetrically every vertex in $B$
has at least $|A| - 2\varepsilon n$ neighbors in $A$.
Therefore, $vwu_0w'P$ is a copy of $C_{2k+1}$ in $G$ containing the edge $\{u',w'\}$.
It follows that $|E(G) \setminus \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)| \le \varepsilon n^2$,
which clearly contradicts the fact that $G \in \mathcal{G}^{2k+1}_n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
$A'$ and $B'$ are independent sets in $G$.
\end{cor}
Let $C \subseteq V$ be a minimum-size set so that $G-C$ is disconnected and one
of its connected components is a bipartite graph $(A,B)$ with minimum degree at
least $n/7$. Clearly, this is well defined because $C'$
has the bipartite graph $(A',B')$ as one of the components.
Moreover, among all such cuts $C$ of the minimum size, we choose such a $C$
that $|A|+|B|$ is as large as possible.
Let $D : = V \setminus (A \cup B \cup C)$. One can easily see that the partition $A \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} B \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} C \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} D$ of $V$
behaves very similarly to the original partition $A' \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} B' \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} C' \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} D'$.
In particular,
\begin{itemize}
\item $|A|=(1/6 \pm 2\varepsilon) n$,
\item $|B|=(1/6 \pm 2\varepsilon)n$,
\item $|C| < \varepsilon n$,
\item $|D \setminus D'| < \varepsilon n$, and
\item $E(D) \subseteq \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$.
\end{itemize}
Following the proof of Claim \ref{cl:c7+ABneighbors} we get also that there is no vertex $v \in V$ adjacent to $u \in A$ and $w \in B$.
Now let use an argument analogous to the one used in Section~\ref{sec:c5exact}
to show that $G$ must have a large minimum degree.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c7+clone}
There is a vertex $v \in A$ that is incident to at least $n/6 - 9\varepsilon n$ edges not in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose not, then the number of edges not in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$ is smaller than
\[|A| \cdot \left(\frac n6 - 9\varepsilon n\right) + |C| \cdot n \le \left(\frac n6 + 2\varepsilon n\right) \cdot \left(\frac n6 - 9\varepsilon n\right) + \varepsilon n^2 < n^2/36 - \varepsilon n^2/6.\]
Therefore, there are more than $2n^2/9 + \varepsilon n^2/6$ edges in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$,
contradicting the extremality of $G$ since Construction~\ref{cstn:cliquebip}
has at most $2n^2/9 + (n+22)/18$ edges that occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:c7+mindeg}
For any $v \in V$, $\deg(v) > n/6 - 9\varepsilon n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If there exist a vertex $w\in V$ of a smaller degree,
then by removing $w$ and adding a clone of the vertex $v$ from the above claim,
we improve the graph contradicting Claim~\ref{cl:c7+duality}.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
Every $u,w\in D$ have a common neighbor in $D$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
First observe that all pairs of vertices $u \in D'$ and $w \in D$ have a common neighbor in $D'$.
Suppose for a contradiction there exist two vertices $u,w \in D\setminus D'$ with no common neighbor in $D$.
Then consider the graph $G'$ obtained from $G$ by removing both $u$ and $w$, adding a new vertex $u'$ connected to the
whole set $D' \cap D$, and adding a new vertex $w'$ which will be a clone of the vertex $v$ from Claim~\ref{cl:c7+clone}.
We removed at most $|D| + 2\varepsilon n$ edges from $G$, and added
$\deg(u') + \deg(w') \ge |D| + n/6 - 10\varepsilon n$ new edges.
Moreover, all the removed edges were in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$, so $G'$ contradicts Claim~\ref{cl:c7+duality}.
\end{proof}
Now let us concentrate on the vertex-cut $C$.
Firstly, we observe that $C$ must be non-empty.
\begin{claim}
$G$ is a connected graph. In particular $|C| \ge 1$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ is disconnected, take any two connected components of $G$ and add
one edge between them. Clearly, the added edge does not occur in any cycle
contradicting $G \in \mathcal{G}^{2k+1}_n$.
\end{proof}
In the following series of claims, we will show that $|C| \le 1$. In order to
do so, we split the vertices of $C$ based on their adjacencies to $A$ and $B$
(recall no vertex can be adjacent to both $u \in A$ and $w \in B$).
Let $C_A := \{v \in C { \; \big\vert \; } \deg_A(v) > 0 \}$ and $C_B := C \setminus C_A = \{v \in C { \; \big\vert \; } \deg_B(v) > 0\}$.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:c7+Cbipartite}
$|E(C_A)| = |E(C_B)|=0$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the claim is false. Without loss of generality, there is an edge $\{v_1,v_2\} \in E(C_A)$.
Consider any two vertices $u_1 \in N_A(v_1)$ and $u_2 \in N_A(v_2)$, any vertex $w_1 \in N_B(u_1)$,
any vertex $u_3 \in N_A(w_1)\setminus \{u_1,u_2\}$, and a $(2k-3)$-vertex path $P$ between the vertices $u_2$ and $u_3$
with the internal vertices disjoint from $u_1$, $v_1$, $v_2$ and $w_1$. It follows that $v_1u_1w_1Pv_2$ yields a copy of $C_{2k+1}$ in $G$.
Therefore,
\[|E(A,B) \cap \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)| \ge \deg_B(u_1) \cdot \left(\deg_A(w_1)-2\right) > n^2/50, \]
and hence $|\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)| > 2n^2/9 + (n+22)/18$; a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Next, we study the edges between the sets $C$ and $D$.
\begin{claim}
For any set $X \subseteq C$, $|N_D(X)| > |X|$.
In particular, every vertex $v \in C$ have at least two neighbors in $D$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction that there exists $X \subseteq C$ with $|N_D(X)| \le |X|$,
and let $Y:=N_D(X)$.
By Corollary~\ref{cor:c7+mindeg}, $\deg_{A \cup B}(v) > n/6 - 9\varepsilon n > n/7$
for any $v \in X$.
Therefore, $(C \cup Y) \setminus X$ is a vertex-cut of size at most
$|C|$ and $G[A \cup B \cup X]$ is a bipartite graph (from Claim \ref{cl:c7+Cbipartite}) with a minimum degree at least $n/7$
contradicting the choice of $C$.
\end{proof}
Since every $v \in C$ have at least two neighbors in $D$, we conclude that every edge between
$C$ and $D$ occur in some $(2k+1)$-cycle, i.e., $E(C,D) \subseteq \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$.
\begin{claim}
\label{cl:c7+noC_A-D-C_Bedge}
$|N_D(u_a) \cap N_D(u_b)| = 0$ for any $u_a \in C_A$ and $u_b \in C_B$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there exists $w \in N_D(u_a) \cap N_D(u_b)$.
Let $v_a \in N_A(u_a)$ and $v_b \in N_B(u_b)$ be chosen arbitrarily,
and consider the bipartite subgraph $(A',B')$ with $A' := N_A(v_b)$ and $B' := N_B(v_a)$.
It follows that $|E(A,B) \setminus E(A',B')| < 4\varepsilon n^2$. On the other hand,
any edge $\{x,y\} \in E(A',B')$ occurs in $C_{2k+1}$ for all $k\ge3$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
$|C_A| \le 1$ and $|C_B| \le 1$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
By symmetry, it is enough to prove that $|C_A| \le 1$. Suppose for contradiction that $|C_A|\ge 2$.
We first consider the case when there are two vertices $u_1, u_2 \in C_A$ and
an edge $\{x_1,x_2\} \in E(D)$ with $x_1 \in N_D(u_1)$ and $x_2 \in N_D(u_2)$.
In other words, there is a $4$-vertex path with both of its endpoints in $C_A$.
Let $W := N_A\left(\{u_1,u_2\}\right)$. Note that $|W|\ge2$ as otherwise $(C
\cup W) \setminus \{u_1,u_2\}$ contradicts the minimality of $C$.
Since any two vertices $w_1,w_2 \in A$ have more than $2n/7 - |B| > 4|B|/7$
common neighbors in $B$, we conclude that $|E(W,B)\setminus \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)| < 3|B|/7
< n/13$. Also, $\deg(w) \le |B| + |C| < n/5$ for any $w \in A$. It follows that
the graph obtained from $G$ by removing the vertex-set $W$, adding $|W|-1$ new
vertices fully connected to $D$, and adding a clone of a~vertex~$v$ from
Claim~\ref{cl:c7+clone} yields a graph $G'$ with more than $n^2/4$ edges
and $|E(G') \setminus \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G')| > |E(G) \setminus \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)|$, a contradiction
with Claim~\ref{cl:c7+duality}.
For the rest of the proof, we may assume there is no $4$-vertex path with the
endpoints in $C_A$. Let us now focus on the edges between $C_A$ and $A$ that
are not in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$. Clearly, there are at most $|A|$ of them since any two
edges $e_1,e_2 \in E(C_A,A)$ with $e_1 \cap e_2 \in A$ occur in $C_{2k+1}$. Now
suppose there exist two vertices $u_1,u_2 \in C_A$ that both have less than
$n/24$ neighbors in $D$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:c7+mindeg}, it follows that
$|N_A(u_1) \cap N_A(u_2)| > |A|/3$. On the other hand, \hbox{$\deg(u_1) + \deg(u_2) < n/2$}.
Therefore, replacing the vertices $u_1$ and
$u_2$ with one new vertex adjacent to every vertex in $D$ and a clone of the
vertex $v$ from Claim~\ref{cl:c7+clone} again yields a contradiction with Claim~\ref{cl:c7+duality}
We conclude that if $|C_A| \ge 2$, then $|C_A|=2$ and it contains vertices
$u_1$, $u_2$ and $\deg_D(u_1) \ge n/24$. Note that $u_1$ or $u_2$ is incident
to at most $|A|/2$ edges that do not occur in $C_{2k+1}$. Let $u \in C_A$ be
this vertex and let $u' \in C_A$ be the other vertex. Since $\deg_D(u_2) \ge 2$
and therefore $\deg_D(u') \ge 2$, there are at least $2 \cdot \left(\deg_D(u_1)
- 2\right) > \deg_D(u)$ pairs of non-edges between $N_D(u)$ and $N_D(u')$.
Therefore, removing the vertex $u$, adding all the edges $\{w,w'\}$ with
$w \in N_D(u)$ and $w' \in N_D(u')$, and adding a clone of the vertex $v$ from
Claim~\ref{cl:c7+clone} contradicts Claim~\ref{cl:c7+duality}, which finishes
the proof of the claim.
\end{proof}
It remains to show that we cannot have both $|C_A|=1$ and $|C_B|=1$.
\begin{claim}
$|C| = 1$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction there are vertices $u_a \in C_A$ and $u_b \in C_B$.
Firstly, recall that $N_D(u_a) \cap N_D(u_b) = \emptyset$ by Claim~\ref{cl:c7+noC_A-D-C_Bedge}.
Now let us prove that both $|N_A(u_a)|$ and $|N_B(u_b)|$ must have quite small sizes, say less~than~$n/24$.
Suppose, without loss of generality, that $|N_A(u_a)| \ge n/24$.
Our aim now is to show that any edge incident to $u_b$ is contained in some $C_{2k+1}$.
Consider any vertex $v \in N_B(u_b)$. Since $\deg_A(v) > |A| - 11\varepsilon n$, the vertices $v$
and $u_a$ have a common neighbor $w \in A$. Therefore, $u_awvu_bP$ gives a
copy of $C_{2k+1}$, where $P$ is a $(2k-3)$-vertex path in $D$ between $x \in N_D(u_a)$ and $x' \in N_D(u_b) \setminus \{x\}$.
We conclude that every edge incident to $u_b$ is in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$. Moreover, there is at least one edge in $E(A,B) \cap \mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G)$.
But then consider a graph $G'$ obtained from $G$ by removing at most $|B|$ edges between $u_b$ and $B$, and adding at least $|D| > |B|$
missing edges between $C$ and $D$. Since no edge from $E(A,B)$ is in $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}(G')$, the graph $G'$ contradicts Claim~\ref{cl:c7+duality}.
It remains to consider the case when both $|N_A(u_a)|$ and $|N_B(u_b)|$ have sizes less~than~$n/24$.
But then removing all the edges from, say, $u_a$ to $A$, and adding all the missing edges between $u_b$ and $B$ yield
a graph $G'$ that again contradicts Claim~\ref{cl:c7+duality}.
\end{proof}
This gives us a complete information on the structure of the extremal graph.
\begin{cor}
$E(G) \subseteq E(A,B) \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} E(B,C) \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} E(C,D) \mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup} \binom{D}{2}$.
\end{cor}
It follows that all the edges that do not occur in $C_{2k+1}$ are incident to
vertices in $B$.
\begin{cor}
$E(A,B)=|A||B|$ and $|B|\ge|A|$.
Moreover, $F_{2k+1}(n) = \lfloor\frac{n^2}{4}\rfloor +1 - (|A|+1)|B|$.
\end{cor}
Finally, knowing the structure, it is straightforward to get the fact that $G \in \mathcal{G}^{2k+1}_n$ yields
that $|A| = \lfloor(n-2)/6\rfloor$, $|B| = \lfloor(n+1)/6\rfloor$ and $|D| = \lfloor(2n+1)/3\rfloor$.
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec:remarks}
For an $n$-vertex graph $G$ with $\lfloor n^2/4\rfloor + 1$ edges, we
determined the asymptotic minimum number of the edges of $G$ that occur in some
copy of $C_5$ in $G$, and for any $k\ge3$, the exact minimum number of the
edges that occur in $C_{2k+1}$.
Our results show that the pentagon case has a very different behavior compared
to all the longer odd cycles. These results confirm a conjecture of
F\"uredi and Maleki, who proved the optimal asymptotic bounds under a stronger
assumption that $G$ has $(1/4 + \varepsilon)n^2$ edges.
Our main tool was an application of techniques from finite forcibility in the
setting of flag algebras, combined with stability results on triangle-free
graphs. This was crucial for dealing with $n$-vertex graphs that have only
$\lfloor n^2/4\rfloor + 1$ edges.
We believe that our approach can be adapted to various other scenarios, and we
intend to investigate this direction further.
We were also able to guide flag algebras to give us additional structural
information for extremal configurations which yielded the corresponding
stability results. These stability results allowed us to fully describe the
structure of all the sufficiently large tight constructions.
If $G$ contains $\alpha n^2$ edges for some $\alpha > 1/4$, then a standard averaging
argument yields that $G$ must contain much more edges that occur in $C_{2k+1}$, for $k$ being fixed,
than Theorems~\ref{thm:c5} and~\ref{thm:c7+} guarantee for $\lfloor n^2/4\rfloor + 1$ edges.
However, the averaging argument yields only a weak improvement.
In~\cite{bib:FurMal}, F\"uredi and Maleki determined an asymptotically optimal
lower bound for this problem. Note that the corresponding approximate result
for triangles was proven by F\"uredi and Maleki in~\cite{bib:FurMalTria}.
F\"uredi and Maleki~\cite{bib:FurMal} also considered a more general question,
where instead of minimizing the number of edges that occur in odd cycles of a fixed length,
one minimizes the number of edges that occur in copies of $F$ for some fixed graph $F$.
If the graph $F$ has the chromatic number $\chi = 3$, they obtained an asymptotically tight solution to this question.
However, for graphs $F$ with the chromatic number $\chi \ge 4$, these questions are widely open.
All the problems we mentioned so far were concerned with the number of edges that occur in
copies of some fixed graph $F$. In~\cite{ERDOS199223}, Erd\H{o}s, Faudree and Rousseau
also determined what is the minimum number of vertices that occur in triangles
for $n$-vertex graphs with $\lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor + 1$ edges.
For odd cycles of longer length, they obtained asymptotically tight lower bound.
The second author together with Shagnik Das, Tibor Szab\'o and Tuan
Tran~\cite{bib:tiborping} recently obtained tight lower bounds also for graphs
that have at least $\lfloor n^2/4 \rfloor + 1$ edges.
\medskip
{\noindent \bf Acknowledgments.}
The authors thank Zoltan F\"uredi and Zeinab Maleki for discussing the results of~\cite{bib:FurMal}
and the relation to the results obtained in this paper, and to Shoham Letzter for her suggestions
regarding the results presented in Sections~\ref{sec:c5exact} and~\ref{sec:c7+exact}.
We also want to thank Jake Cooper and Dan Kr\'al' for fruitful discussions
at the beginning of this project.
All of these discussions greatly improved the presentation of our results.
\begingroup
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\linespread{0.97}\selectfont
|
\section{Introduction}
Leibniz algebras
are a non-antisymmetric generalization of Lie algebras. They were introduced in 1965
by Bloh in \cite{Bloh}, who called them $D$-algebras, and in 1993 Loday \cite{Lod} made them
popular and studied their (co)homology.
\begin{de} An algebra $(L,[-,-])$ over a field $\mathbb{F}$ is called a Leibniz algebra if for any $x,y,z\in L$, the so-called Leibniz identity
\[ \big[x,[y,z]\big]=\big[[x,y],z\big]-\big[[x,z],y\big] \]
holds.
\end{de}
Since first works about Leibniz algebras around 1993 several researchers have tried to find analogs of important theorems in Lie algebras.
For instance, the classical results on Cartan subalgebras \cite{AAO06,Omi}, Engel's theorem \cite{AyOm1}, Levi's decomposition \cite{Bar},
properties of solvable algebras with given nilradical \cite{CLOK2} and others from the theory of Lie algebras are also true for Leibniz algebras.
Namely, an analogue of Levi's decomposition for Leibniz algebras asserts that any Leibniz algebra is decomposed into a semidirect sum of its solvable radical and a semisimple Lie algebra.
Therefore, the main problem of the description of finite-dimensional Leibniz algebras consists of the study of solvable Leibniz algebras.
In fact, each non-Lie Leibniz algebra $L$ contains a non-trivial ideal (later denoted by $I$), which is the subspace spanned by the squares of the elements of the algebra $L$.
Moreover, it is easy to see that this ideal belongs to the right annihilator of $L$, that is $[L,I]=0$.
Note also that the ideal $I$ is the minimal ideal with the property that the quotient algebra $L/I$ is a Lie algebra (the quotient algebra is said to be the corresponding Lie algebra to the Leibniz algebra $L$).
One of the approaches to the investigation of Leibniz algebras is a description of such algebras whose quotient algebra with respect to the ideal $I$ is a given Lie algebra \cite{ACKO15,CCO16,ORT13,UKO15}.
The map $I \times (L / I) \to I$ defined as $(v,\overline{x}) \mapsto [v,x]$, $v \in I, \, x \in L$, endows $I$ with a structure of $(L /I)$-module.
If we consider the direct sum of vector spaces $Q(L) = (L / I) \oplus I$, then the operation $(-,-)$ defines a Leibniz algebra structure on $Q(L)$ with multiplication
\[[\overline{x},\overline{y}] = \overline{[x,y]}, \quad [\overline{x},v] = [x,v],
\quad [v, \overline{x}] = 0, \quad [v,w] = 0, \qquad x, y \in L, \ v,w \in I.\]
Therefore, for given a Lie algebra $G$ and a $G$-module $M$, we can construct a Leibniz algebra $L=G\oplus M$ by the above construction.
The real general Diamond Lie algebra $\mathfrak{D}_m$ is a $(2m+2)$-dimensional Lie algebra with basis
\[\{J,P_1,P_2,\dots,P_m,Q_1,Q_2,\dots,Q_m,T\}\]
and non-zero relations
\[
[J,P_k]=Q_k, \qquad [J,Q_k]=-P_k, \qquad [P_k,Q_k]=T, \qquad 1\leq k\leq m.
\]
The complexification (for which we shall keep the same symbol $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$) of the Diamond Lie
algebra is $\mathfrak{D}_m \otimes_\mathbb{R} \mathbb{C}$, and it shows the following (complex) basis:
\[P_k^{+} = P_k - iQ_k, \qquad Q_k^{-} = P_k + iQ_k, \qquad T, \qquad J, \qquad 1\leq k\leq m,\]
where $i$ is the imaginary unit, and whose nonzero commutators are
\begin{equation} \label{eq3}
[J,P_k^{+}] = iP_k^{+}, \qquad [J,Q_k^{-}] = - iQ_k^{-}, \qquad [P_k^{+},Q_k^{-}] = 2iT, \qquad 1\leq k\leq m.
\end{equation}
The Ado's theorem in Lie Theory states that every finite-dimensional complex Lie algebra can be represented as a matrix Lie algebra, formed by matrices. However, that result does not specify which is the minimal order of the matrices involved in such representations. In \cite{Bur98}, the value
of the minimal order of the matrices for abelian Lie algebras and Heisenberg algebras $\mathfrak{h}_m$,
defined on a $(2m + 1)$-dimensional vector space with basis $X_1, \dots , X_m, Y_1, \dots Y_m, Z$,
and brackets $[X_i, Y_i] = Z$, is found. For abelian Lie algebras of dimension $n$ the minimal order is $\lceil 2 \sqrt{n-1} \rceil$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Bur98}]\label{heis}
For the Heisenberg Lie algebras $\mathfrak{h}_m$, the minimal faithful matrix representation has order equal to $m+2$.
\end{lemma}
In this paper we find a minimal faithful representation of the $(2m+2)$-dimensional complex general Diamond Lie algebra, $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$,
which is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the special linear Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl}(m+2,\mathbb{C})$.
Moreover, we find a faithful representation of $\mathfrak{D}_m$ which is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the symplectic Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sp}(2m+2,\mathbb{R})$.
Then we construct Leibniz algebras with corresponding general Diamond Lie algebra and the ideal generated by the squares of elements in these faithful representations.
\section{Leibniz algebras associated with minimal faithful representation of general Diamond Lie algebras}
In this section we are going to study Leibniz algebras $L$ such that $L/ I \cong \mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$ and the
$\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$-module $I$ is a minimal faithful representation, that is, the
action $I \times \mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C}) \to I$ gives rise to a minimal faithful representation of $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$.
Moreover, this representation factorizes through $\mathfrak{sl}(m+2,\mathbb{C})$.
\begin{pr}
Let $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$ be a $(2m+2)$-dimensional general Diamond Lie algebra with basis
\[\{J,P_1^+,P_2^+,\dots,P_m^+,Q_1^-,Q_2^-,\dots,Q_m^-,T\}.\]
Then its minimal faithful
representation is given by
\begin{multline*}
\theta J+\sum\limits_{k=1}^m\alpha_kP_k^{+}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^m\beta_kQ_k^{-}+\delta T
\mapsto \\ \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{im}{m+2}\theta&\alpha_m&\alpha_{m-1}&\dots&\alpha_2&\alpha_1&-\frac{i}{2}\delta\\
0&-\frac{2i}{m+2}\theta&a_1&\dots&0&0&\beta_{m}\\
0&0&-\frac{2i}{m+2}\theta&\dots&0&0&\beta_{m-1}\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&0&\dots&-\frac{2i}{m+2}\theta&a_1&\beta_2\\
0&0&0&\dots&0&-\frac{2i}{m+2}\theta&\beta_1\\
0&0&0&\dots&0&0&\frac{im}{m+2}\theta
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{multline*}
\end{pr}
\begin{proof}
Consider the bilinear map $\varphi \colon \mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow\mathfrak{sl}({m+2},\mathbb{C})$ given by
\begin{align*}
\varphi(J) &= \frac{im}{m+2}e_{1,1}-\sum\limits_{s=2}^{m+1}\frac{2i}{m+2}e_{s,s}+\frac{im}{m+2}e_{m+2,m+2},\qquad \varphi(T) = -\frac{i}{2}e_{1,m+2},\\
\varphi(P_k^+) & =e_{1,m+2-k}, \qquad \varphi(Q_k^-)=e_{m+2-k,m+2}, \qquad 1 \leq k \leq m,
\end{align*}
where $e_{i,j}$ is the matrix whose ($i, j$)-th entry is a $1$ and all others $0$'s.
By checking $[\varphi(x),\varphi(y)]=\varphi(x)\varphi(y)-\varphi(y)\varphi(x)$ for all $x,y \in \mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$, we verify that $\varphi$ is an injective homomorphism of algebras. It is easy to see that $\mathfrak{D}_m \setminus J \cong \mathfrak{h}_m$. By Lemma~\ref{heis} we obtain that it is minimal.
\end{proof}
Let us denote by $V=\mathbb{C}^{m+2}$ the natural $\varphi(\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C}))$-module and endow it with a $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$-module structure,
$V \times \mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C}) \to V$, given by
\[(x, e) \coloneqq x \varphi(e),\]
where $x \in V$ and $e\in\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$.
Then we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(X_1,J) = \frac{im}{m+2} X_1, & \\[1mm]
(X_k,J) = -\frac{2i}{m+2} X_k, & 2 \leq k \leq m+1, \\[1mm]
(X_{m+2},J) = \frac{im}{m+2} X_{m+2}, & \\[1mm]
(X_1, P_k^+) = X_{m+2-k}, & 1 \leq k \leq m,\\[1mm]
(X_{m+2-k},Q_{k}^-) = X_{m+2}, & 1 \leq k \leq m,\\[1mm]
(X_1,T) = -\frac{i}{2}X_{m+2}, &
\end{array}\right.\end{equation}
and the remaining products in the action being zero.
Now we investigate Leibniz algebras $L$ such that $L/I \cong \mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$ and $I = V$ as a $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$-module.
\begin{teo} Let $L$ be an arbitrary Leibniz algebra with corresponding Lie algebra $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$ and $I$ associated with $\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})$-module defined by \eqref{eq6}.
Then there exists a basis \[\{J,P_1^+,P_2^+,\dots,P_m^+,Q_1^-,Q_2^-,\dots,Q_m^-,T,X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{m+2}\}\] of $L$ such that \[[\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C}),\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C})]\subseteq\mathfrak{D}_m(\mathbb{C}).\]
\end{teo}
\begin{proof}
Here we shall use the multiplication table \eqref{eq3} of the complex Diamond Lie algebra.
Let us assume that \[[J,J]=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m+2}\delta_kX_k.\] Then by
setting \[J' \coloneqq J+\frac{i(m+2)\delta_1}{m}X_1-\sum\limits_{k=2}^{m+1}\frac{i(m+2)\delta_i}{2}X_i+\frac{i(m+2)\delta_{m+2}}{m}X_{m+2},\] we can
assume that $[J,J]=0$.
Let us denote
\[[J,P_k^+]=iP_k^++\sum\limits_{s=1}^{m+2}\alpha_{k,s}X_s, \quad [J,Q_k^-]=-iQ_k^-+\sum\limits_{s=1}^{m+2}\beta_{k,s}X_s, \quad 1\leq k\leq m.\]
Taking the following basis transformation:
\[J^{\prime}=J, \quad P_k^{+\prime}=P_k^+-\sum\limits_{s=1}^{m+2}i\alpha_{k,s}X_s, \quad Q_k^{-\prime}=Q_k^-+\sum\limits_{k=2}^{m+2}i\beta_{k,s}X_s, \quad T'=-i/2[P_1^{+\prime},Q_1^{-\prime}], \quad 1\leq k\leq m, \]
we can assume that
\[[J,P_k^+]=iP_k^+, \quad [J,Q_k^-]=-iQ_k^-, \quad [P_1^+,Q_1^-]=2iT, \quad 1\leq k\leq m.\]
By applying the Leibniz identity to the triples $\{J,J,P_k^+\}, \ \{J,J,Q_k^-\}$, we derive
\[[P_k^+,J]=-[J,P_k^+], \qquad [Q_k^-,J]=-[J,Q_k^-], \qquad 1\leq k\leq m.\]
By considering Leibniz identity for the triples we have the following constraints.
\[\begin{array}{llll}
\text{ Leibniz identity }& & \text{ Constraints } &\\[1mm]
\hline \hline\\
\{P_1^+,J,Q_1^-\}&\Longrightarrow &[T,J]=0, & \\[1mm]
\{J,T,J\}&\Longrightarrow &[J,T]=0, & \\[1mm]
\{J,P_k^+,Q_s^-\}&\Longrightarrow &[P_k^+,Q_s^-]=-[Q_s^-,P_k^+], & 1\leq k,s\leq m,\\[1mm]
\{P_k^+,J,Q_s^-\}&\Longrightarrow &[P_k^+,Q_s^-]=0, & 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s,\\[1mm]
\{P_k^+,J,Q_k^-\}&\Longrightarrow &[P_k^+,Q_k^-]=2iT, & 2\leq k\leq m, \\[1mm]
\{P_k^+,J,P_s^+\}&\Longrightarrow &[P_k^+,P_s^+]=0, & 1\leq k,s\leq m,\\[1mm]
\{Q_k^-,J,Q_s^-\}&\Longrightarrow &[Q_k^-,Q_s^-]=0, & 1\leq k,s\leq m,\\[1mm]
\{J,P_k^+,T\}&\Longrightarrow &[P_k^+,T]=0, & 1\leq k\leq m, \\[1mm]
\{J,Q_k^-,T\}&\Longrightarrow & [Q_k^-,T]=0 & 1\leq k\leq m, \\[1mm]
\{P_k^+,P_k^+,Q_k^-\}&\Longrightarrow &[T,P_k^+]=0, & 1\leq k\leq m, \\[1mm]
\{Q_k^-,Q_k^-,P_k^+\}&\Longrightarrow & [T,Q_k^-]=0, & 1\leq k\leq m. \\[1mm]
\end{array}\]
\end{proof}
\section{Leibniz algebras constructed by representation of general Diamond algebra which is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $\mathfrak{sp}(2m+2,\mathbb{R})$}
In this section we are going to study Leibniz algebras $L$ such that $L/ I \cong \mathfrak{D}_m$ and the
$\mathfrak{D}_m$-module $I$ is a faithful representation. Moreover, this representation factorizes through $\mathfrak{sp}(2m+2,\mathbb{R})$.
\begin{pr}
Let $\mathfrak{D}_m$ be a $(2m+2)$-dimensional general Diamond Lie algebra with basis $\{J,P_1,P_2,\dots,P_m,Q_1,Q_2,\dots,Q_m,T\}$.
Then it is isomorphic to a subalgebra of $\mathfrak{sp}(2m+2,\mathbb{R})$ by
\begin{multline*}
a J+\sum\limits_{k=1}^mb_kP_k+\sum\limits_{k=1}^mc_kQ_k+d T \mapsto \\
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc|ccccc}
0&b_1&b_2&\dots&b_m&c_m&\dots&c_2&c_1&2d\\
0&0&0&\dots&0&0&\dots&0&-a&c_1\\
0&0&0&\dots&0&0&\dots&-a&0&c_2\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&0&\dots&0&-a&\dots&0&0&c_m\\ \hline
0&0&0&\dots&a&0&\dots&0&0&-b_m\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&a&\dots&0&0&\dots&0&0&-b_2\\
0&a&0&\dots&0&0&\dots&0&0&-b_1\\
0&0&0&\dots&0&0&\dots&0&0&0
\end{array}\right).
\end{multline*}
\end{pr}
\begin{proof}
Consider the bilinear map $\varphi \colon \mathfrak{D}_m \to \mathfrak{sp}(2m+2,\mathbb{R})$ given by
\begin{align*}
\varphi(J) & = -\sum\limits_{s=2}^{m+1}e_{k,2m+3-k}+\sum\limits_{s=m+2}^{2m+1}e_{k,2m+3-k},\qquad \varphi(T) = 2e_{1,2m+2},\\
\varphi(P_k) & =e_{1,1+k}-e_{2m+2-k,2m+2}, \qquad \varphi(Q_k)=e_{1,2m+2-k}+e_{k+1,2m+2}, \qquad 1 \leq k \leq m.
\end{align*}
By checking $[\varphi(x),\varphi(y)]=\varphi(x)\varphi(y)-\varphi(y)\varphi(x)$ for all $x,y \in \mathfrak{D}_m$, we verify that $\varphi$ is an injective hom+omorphism of algebras.
\end{proof}
Let us denote by $V=\mathbb{R}^{2m+2}$ the natural $\varphi(\mathfrak{D}_m)$-module and endow it with a $\mathfrak{D}_m$-module structure, $V \times \mathfrak{D}_m \to V$,
given by \[(x, e) \coloneqq x \varphi(e),\]
where $x \in V$ and $e\in\mathfrak{D}_m$.
Then we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq7}\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(X_k,J) = - X_{2m+3-k}, & 2 \leq k \leq m+1,\\[1mm]
(X_k,J) = X_{2m+3-k}, & m+2 \leq k \leq 2m+1,\\[1mm]
(X_1,P_k) = X_{k+1}, & 1 \leq k \leq m,\\[1mm]
(X_{2m+2-k},P_k) = - X_{2m+2}, & 1 \leq k \leq m,\\[1mm]
(X_1,Q_k) = X_{2m+2-k}, & 1 \leq k \leq m,\\[1mm]
(X_{k+1},Q_k) = X_{2m+2}, & 1 \leq k \leq m, \\[1mm]
(X_1,T) = 2X_{2m+2}, & 1 \leq k \leq m,\\[1mm]
\end{array}\right.\end{equation}
and the remaining products in the action being zero.
\begin{teo} An arbitrary Leibniz algebra with corresponding Lie algebra $\mathfrak{D}_m$ and $I$ associated with $\mathfrak{D}_m$-module defined by \eqref{eq7} admits a basis $\{J,P_1,P_2,\dots,P_m,Q_1,Q_2,\dots,Q_m,T,X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{2m+2}\}$ such that the multiplication table $[\mathfrak{D}_m,\mathfrak{D}_m]$ has the following form:
\[ \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
[J,J]=a_1X_{2m+2}, & [J,P_k]=-[P_k,J]=Q_k, \\[1mm]
[J,Q_k]=-[Q_k,J]=-P_k, & [P_k,Q_k]=-[Q_k,P_k]=T, \\[1mm]
[P_k,P_s]=[Q_k,Q_s]=b_{k,s}X_{2m+2}, & [P_k,Q_s]=[Q_k,P_s]=c_{k,s}X_{2m+2},
\end{array}\right.\]
with the restrictions
\[ b_{k,s}=-b_{s,k}, \qquad c_{k,s}=c_{s,k},\]
where $1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s$.
\end{teo}
\begin{proof}
Let us assume that \[[J,J]=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m+2}\delta_kX_k.\] Then by
setting \[J^{\prime}=J+\sum\limits_{k=2}^{m+1}\delta_{2m+3-k}X_k-\sum\limits_{k=m+2}^{2m+1}\delta_{2m+3-k}X_k,\] we can
assume that \[[J,J]=\delta_1X_1+\delta_{2m+2}X_{2m+2}.\]
Let us suppose that $[J,T]=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{2m+2}\rho_kX_k$ and considering the Leibniz identity to $\{J,T,J\}$, we get
\[\delta_1=0, \quad [J,T]=\rho_1X_1+\rho_{2m+2}X_{2m+2}.\]
By making the change of basis element $J'=J-\frac{1}{2}\rho_{2m+2}X_1$
we get the \[[J,T]=\rho_1X_1.\]
Let us suppose
\[[J,P_k]=Q_k+\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}\lambda_{k,s}X_s, \quad [J,Q_k]=-P_k+\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}\mu_{k,s}X_s, \quad 1\leq k\leq m.\]
Taking the following basis transformation:
\[J^{\prime}=J, \quad P_k^{\prime}=P_k-\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}\mu_{k,s}X_s, \quad Q_k^{\prime}=Q_k+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{2m+2}\lambda_{k,s}X_s, \quad T^{\prime}=[P_1^{\prime},Q_1^{\prime}], \quad 1\leq k\leq m, \]
we can assume that
\[[J,P_k]=Q_k, \qquad [J,Q_k]=-P_k, \qquad [P_1,Q_1]=T, \qquad 1\leq k\leq m.\]
By applying the Leibniz identity to the triples $\{J,J,P_k\}, \ \{J,J,Q_k\}$ we derive
\[[P_k,J]=-[J,P_k], \qquad [Q_k,J]=-[J,Q_k], \qquad 1\leq k\leq m.\]
By verifying the Leibniz identity on elements, we have the following the restrictions.
\[\begin{array}{llll}
\text{ Leibniz identity }& & \text{ Constraints } &\\[1mm]
\hline \hline\\
\{J,P_k,T\}&\Longrightarrow &[Q_k,T]=\rho_1X_{k+1}, & 1\leq k\leq m, \\[1mm]
\{J,Q_k,T\}&\Longrightarrow &[P_k,T]=-\rho_1X_{2m+2-k}, & 1\leq k\leq m, \\[1mm]
\{P_1,T,Q_1\}&\Longrightarrow &[T,T]=0, & \\[1mm]
\end{array}\]
We set
\[\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
[P_j,Q_j]=T+\sum\limits_{t=1}^{2m+2}\beta_{j,t}X_t, &[Q_k,P_k]=-T+\sum\limits_{t=1}^{2m+2}\gamma_{k,t}X_t, \\[1mm]
[P_k,P_s]=\sum\limits_{t=1}^{2m+2}\eta_{k,s,t}X_t, &[Q_k,Q_s]=\sum\limits_{t=1}^{2m+2}\theta_{k,s,t}X_t, \\[1mm]
[P_k,Q_s]=\sum\limits_{t=1}^{2m+2}\nu_{k,s,t}X_t, \ k\neq s, &[Q_k,P_s]=\sum\limits_{t=1}^{2m+2}\xi_{k,s,t}X_t, \ k\neq s,
\end{array}\right.\]
where \ $ 2\leq j\leq m, \ 1\leq k,s\leq m$.
By applying the Leibniz identity to $\{P_k,P_s,T\}$ and $\{Q_k,Q_s,T\}$, we obtain
\[\eta_{k,k,1}=\theta_{k,k,1}=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1, \qquad \eta_{k,s,1}=\theta_{k,s,1}=0, \qquad 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s. \]
By considering the next equality
\begin{align*}
\rho_1X_1 & =[J,T]=\big[J,[P_k,Q_k]\big]=\big[[J,P_k],Q_k\big]-\big[[J,Q_k],P_k\big]\\
{} &= [Q_k,Q_k]+[P_k,P_k]=\rho_1X_1+\sum\limits_{s=2}^{2m+2}(\eta_{k,k,s}+\theta_{k,k,s})X_s,
\end{align*}
we get \[ \theta_{k,k,s}=-\eta_{k,k,s}, \qquad 2\leq s\leq 2m+2, \ 1\leq k\leq m.\]
Analogously, by applying the Leibniz identity to $\{J,P_k,Q_s\},\{J,Q_k,Q_s\}$ and $\{J,P_k,P_s\}$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq8}[P_k,P_s]=-[Q_s,Q_k], \quad [P_k,Q_s]=[P_s,Q_k], \quad [Q_k,P_s]=[Q_s,P_k], \quad 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s.\end{equation}
By applying the Leibniz identity to $\{P_1,J,Q_1\}$ and $\{P_1,P_1,Q_1\}$,
we have
\[[T,J]=\sum\limits_{s=2}^{2m+2}2\eta_{1,1,s}X_s, \qquad [T,P_1]=\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_{2m+1}+\eta_{1,1,2}X_{2m+2}.\]
By the next identity
\begin{align*}
[Q_1,[J,P_1]]& =[[Q_1,J],P_1]-[[Q_1,P_1],J]=[P_1,P_1]-[-T+\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}\gamma_{1,s}X_s,J]\\
{} &=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1+\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}\eta_{1,1,s}X_s+\sum\limits_{s=2}^{2m+2}2\eta_{1,1,s}X_s+
\sum\limits_{s=2}^{m+1}\gamma_{1,s}X_{2m+3-s}-\sum\limits_{s=m+2}^{2m+1}\gamma_{1,s}X_{2m+3-s}\\
{} &=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1+\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}3\eta_{1,1,s}X_s+\sum\limits_{s=2}^{m+1}\gamma_{1,s}X_{2m+3-s}-\sum\limits_{s=m+2}^{2m+1}\gamma_{1,s}X_{2m+3-s}.
\end{align*}
On the other hand
\[[Q_1,[J,P_1]]=[Q_1,Q_1]=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1-\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}\eta_{1,1,s}X_s,\]
and from this we deduce
\[\gamma_{1,s}=-4\eta_{1,1,2m+3-s}, \qquad \gamma_{1,k}=4\eta_{1,1,2m+3-k}, \qquad \eta_{1,1,2m+2}=0,\]
with $ 2\leq s\leq m+1, \quad m+2\leq k\leq 2m+1$.
Now by considering the identity
\begin{align*}
T& =[P_1,Q_1]=[P_1,[J,P_1]]=[[P_1,J],P_1]-[[P_1,P_1],J]\\
{} &=-[Q_1,P_1] -[\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1+\sum\limits_{k=2}^{2m+1}\eta_{1,1,k}X_k,J]\\
{} &=T-\gamma_{1,1}X_1+\sum\limits_{k=2}^{m+1}4\eta_{1,1,2m+3-k}X_k-\sum\limits_{k=m+2}^{2m+1}4\eta_{1,1,2m+3-k}X_k\\
{}& \quad +\gamma_{1,2m+2}X_{2m+2}+\sum\limits_{k=2}^{m+1}\eta_{1,1,k}X_{2m+3-k}-\sum\limits_{k=m+2}^{2m+1}\eta_{1,1,k}X_{2m+3-k},
\end{align*}
we get \[\gamma_{1,1}=\gamma_{1,2m+2}=\eta_{1,1,k}=0, \quad 2\leq k\leq 2m+1.\]
By the next Leibniz identity
\begin{align*}
\rho_1X_2 & =[Q_1,T]=[Q_1,[P_1,Q_1]]=[[Q_1,P_1],Q_1]-[[Q_1,Q_1],P_1]\\
{}&=-[T,Q_1]-[\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1,P_1]=-[T,Q_1]-\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_2,
\end{align*}
we obtain \[[T,Q_1]=-\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_2.\]
Hence, we have \[\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
[T,J]=0, &[Q_1,P_1]=-T, \\[1mm]
[P_1,P_1]=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1, &[Q_1,Q_1]=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1, \\[1mm]
[T,P_1]=\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_{2m+1}, &[T,Q_1]=-\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_{2},
\end{array}\right.\]
By using the next Leibniz identity
\begin{align*}
-\rho_1X_{2m+2-k}&=[P_k,T]=[P_k,[P_k,Q_k]]=[[P_k,P_k],Q_k]-[[P_k,Q_k],P_k]\\
{}& =[\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1+\sum\limits_{s=2}^{2m+2}\eta_{k,k,s}X_s,Q_k]-[T+\sum\limits_{s=1}^{2m+2}\beta_{k,s}X_s,P_k] \\
{}&=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_{2m+2-k}+\eta_{k,k,k+1}X_{2m+2} -[T,P_k]-\beta_{k,1}X_{k+1}+\beta_{k,2m+2-k}X_{2m+2},
\end{align*}
we get
\[[T,P_k]=\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_{2m+2-k}-\beta_{k,1}X_{k+1}+(\beta_{k,2m+2-k}+\eta_{k,k,k+1})X_{2m+2}, \quad 2\leq k\leq m.\]
By applying the Leibniz identity to the elements $\{P_k,J,Q_k\}$ and $\{Q_k,J,P_k\}$, we get
\[\beta_{k,s}=\gamma_{k,s}=-2\eta_{k,k,2m+3-s}, \qquad \beta_{k,t}=\gamma_{k,t}=2\eta_{k,k,2m+3-t}, \qquad \eta_{k,k,2m+2}=0,\]
where $2\leq k\leq m, \quad 2\leq s\leq m+1, \quad m+2\leq t\leq 2m+1$.
By the next Leibniz identity applied to $\{P_k,J,P_k\}$, we have
\[\gamma_{k,1}=-\beta_{k,1}, \qquad \eta_{k,k,s}=0, \qquad 2\leq k\leq m, \quad 2\leq s\leq 2m+1.\]
Now, by considering
\begin{align*}
\rho_1X_{k+1}&=[Q_k,T]=[Q_k,[P_k,Q_k]]=[[Q_k,P_k],Q_k]-[[Q_k,Q_k],P_k]\\
{}&=[-T-\beta_{k,1}X_1,Q_k]
-[\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1,P_k]=-[T,Q_k]-\beta_{k,1}X_{2m+2-k}-\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_{k+1},
\end{align*}
we get
\[[T,Q_k]=-\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_{k+1}-\beta_{k,1}X_{2m+2-k}.\]
By using the Leibniz identity for $\{T,P_k,Q_k\}$,
we get \[\beta_{k,1}=0, \qquad 2\leq k\leq m.\]
So, we have
\[\left\{\begin{array}{l}
[P_k,Q_k]=-[Q_k,P_k]=T, \\[1mm]
[P_k,P_k]=[Q_k,Q_k]=\frac{1}{2}\rho_1X_1, \\[1mm]
[T,P_k]=\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_{2m+2-k}, \\[1mm]
[T,Q_k]=-\frac{3}{2}\rho_1X_{k+1},
\end{array}\right.\]
where $2\leq k\leq m$.
By verifying Leibniz identity on elements, we obtain the following restrictions.
\[\begin{array}{llll}
\text{ Leibniz identity }& & \text{ Constraints } &\\[1mm]
\hline \hline\\
\{P_k,P_s,T\}&\Longrightarrow &\eta_{k,s,1}=0, & 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s, \\[1mm]
\{Q_k,Q_s,T\}&\Longrightarrow &\theta_{k,s,1}=0, & 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s, \\[1mm]
\{P_k,Q_s,T\}&\Longrightarrow &\nu_{k,s,1}=0, & 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s, \\[1mm]
\{Q_k,P_s,T\}&\Longrightarrow &\xi_{k,s,1}=0, & 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s.
\end{array}\]
By applying the Leibniz identity to $\{P_k,P_s,J\}, \ \{Q_k,Q_s,J\}$, we get
\[[[P_k,P_s],J]=-[Q_k,P_s]-[P_k,Q_s], \qquad [[Q_k,Q_s],J]=[Q_k,P_s]+[P_k,Q_s],\]
it follows that
\[[[P_k,P_s],J]=-[[Q_k,Q_s],J],\]
hence \[\xi_{k,s,2m+2}=-\nu_{k,s,2m+2}, \quad \theta_{k,s,t}=-\eta_{k,s,t}, \quad 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ 2\leq t\leq 2m+1, \ k\neq s.\]
and \[\begin{array}{ll}
\nu_{k,s,t}+\xi_{k,s,t}=-\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t}&2\leq t\leq m+1,\\
\nu_{k,s,t}+\xi_{k,s,t}=\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t}&m+2\leq t\leq 2m+1.
\end{array}\]
Let us consider the identity
\[ [[Q_k,P_s],J]=[Q_k,[P_s,J]]+[[Q_k,J],P_s]=-[Q_k,Q_s]+[P_k,P_s]\]
We have that $\theta_{k,s,2m+2}=\eta_{k,s,2m+2}$ and
\[\begin{array}{ll}
\xi_{k,s,t}=-2\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t},& \qquad 2\leq t\leq m+1,\\
\xi_{k,s,t}=2\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t},& \qquad m+2\leq t\leq m+1,
\end{array}\]
and
\[\begin{array}{ll}
\nu_{k,s,t}=\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t}, & \qquad 2\leq t\leq m+1,\\
\nu_{k,s,t}=-\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t}, & \qquad m+2\leq t\leq 2m+1.
\end{array}\]
Analogously,by applying the Leibniz identity to $\{P_k,Q_s,J\}$, we get
\[\begin{array}{ll}
\nu_{k,s,t}=-2\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t},& \qquad 2\leq t\leq m+1,\\
\nu_{k,s,t}=2\eta_{k,s,2m+3-t},& \qquad m+2\leq t\leq 2m+1.
\end{array}\]
We get that $\nu_{k,s,t}=0, \ 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ 2\leq t\leq 2m+1, \ k\neq s$. It implies that $\eta_{k,s,t}=\xi_{k,s,t}=\theta_{k,s,t}=0$ for $1\leq k,s\leq m, \ 2\leq t\leq 2m+1, \ k\neq s$.
Hence, we have
\[\begin{array}{ll}
[P_k,P_s]=[Q_k,Q_s]=\eta_{k,s,2m+2}X_{2m+2}, & \qquad 1\leq k,s\leq m, \quad k\neq s, \\[1mm]
[P_k,Q_s]=[Q_k,P_s]=\nu_{k,s,2m+2}X_{2m+2}, & \qquad 1\leq k,s\leq m, \quad k\neq s.
\end{array}\]
By equation \eqref{eq8} we have the following restrictions \[\eta_{k,s,2m+2}=-\eta_{s,k,2m+2}, \qquad \nu_{k,s,2m+2}=\nu_{s,k,2m+2}, \qquad 1\leq k,s\leq m, \ k\neq s.\]
Finally, we apply the Leibniz identity to the elements $\{P_k,P_k,P_s\}$ with $k\neq s$ and we obtain $\rho_1=0$.
We denote again $(\delta_{2m+2},\eta_{k,s,2m+2},\nu_{k,s,2m+2})=(a_1,b_{k,s},c_{k,s})$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The observed accelerated expansion of the Universe presents cosmology with one of its biggest challenges. While this acceleration can be accommodated by the inclusion of a classical cosmological constant, quantum corrections from vacuum fluctuations are uncontrolled, leading to runaway values which exceed the observed energy-density by many orders of magnitude.
A compelling fundamental solution is so-far elusive, but cosmologists have proposed a large number of alternative low-energy effective theories, called dark energy models if they inhabit the matter sector and modified gravity if they are in the gravity sector, which aim to cast light on these new forces.
While solving the cosmic acceleration problem, such theories alter the growth of structure in the Universe leaving traces of these new forces
which may be detectable in galaxy clustering and weak lensing surveys. High accuracy observations are now needed to test the subtle differences in these dark energy and modified gravity theories to constrain the wide range of possibilities and to point the way to a more fundamental theory. Such high accuracies come from large-scale ground and space-based surveys, which will provide statistical accuracy but will be be limited by their systematic biases
(e.g., VST-KiDS\footnote{http://www.astro-wise.org/projects/KIDS}, DES\footnote{http://www.darkenergysurvey.org}, HSC\footnote{http://www.naoj.org/Projects/HSC/index.html}, LSST\footnote{http://www.lsst.org}, {\em Euclid}\footnote{ http://www.euclid-ec.org, Laureijs, et al. (2011),}, {\em WFIRST}\footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/wfirst/}).
For these surveys to be successful, systematic biases should be controlled to an unprecedented level -- to within the bounds set by the statistical uncertainty. The origin of these biases, and the accuracy to which they can be removed, will need to be studied at every step of the data analysis, from observation to parameter estimation.
In order to develop the required technology for surveys and data analysis, a rapid and accurate method is needed to assess the impact of systematic biases on cosmological studies and to determine which biases have the most potential to damage dark energy studies. In particular, dark energy and modified gravity models generically introduce scale-dependent deviations from $\Lambda$CDM structure formation which could have similarities to the systematic effects on different scales.
The development of studies of the effect of systematic biases on weak lensing power spectra studies has developed over the last decade (see for example: Ishak et al. 2005; Knox et al. 2006; Bernstein 2006; Huterer et al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2007; Kitching, Taylor \& Heavens 2008; Amara \& R{\'e}fr{\'e}gier 2008; Paulin-Henriksson et al. 2008; Kitching et al. 2009; Bernstein \& Huterer 2010; Kitching et al. 2012; Massey et al. 2013; Cropper et al. 2013; Cardone et al. 2013; Kitching et al. 2015)
The effect of scale-dependent systematic biases on cosmic shear power was first discussed by Huterer et al. (2006) who studied the impact of scale-dependent additive image distortions and a constant multiplicative bias on a range of cosmological parameters, along with the effect of biases in photometric redshifts.
Amara \& R{\'e}fr{\'e}gier (2008) also studied the bias due to image distortions arising from a scale-dependent additive bias, exploring a number of functional forms for the scale-dependence, and a constant multiplicative bias. They also investigated the effect of redshift-dependence in these biases.
These studies found that a constant multiplicative bias on shear should be kept below $\sim 10^{-3}$ and any additive bias shear power should be below $\sim 10^{-10}$, to prevent the bias dominating over noise.
Given that the cause of systematics was still poorly understood, Kitching et al. (2009) argued that instead of choosing a fixed functional form for systematics, one should average over all possible functional forms in a Monte-Carlo approach.
Building on the work of Paulin-Henriksson et al. (2008), who studied how constant biases in the Point Spread Function (PSF) affect the measurement of shear, Massey et al. (2013) showed how inaccuracies in the PSF, the measurement of galaxy shapes and weighting, and the effect of Charge Transfer Inefficiency (CTI) propagate into the bias and error on the estimated shear.
Using the shear power spectrum bias formalism introduced by Kitching et al. (2012) in the GREAT10 Challenge, with both scale-dependent multiplicative and additive shear power bias terms,
Massey et al. (2013) averaged over all functional forms for the scale-dependence of the biases and, based on their effects on the dark energy Figure-of-Merit, constrained their amplitude for space-based weak lensing surveys.
Cropper et al. (2013) subsequently took these constraints and propagated them back to constraints on individual sources of bias in shear measurement, assuming the bias and uncertainties were independent of scale.
In order to better understand the source of scale-dependency in image distortions, Kitching et al. (2015) simulated systematics in the PSF, CTI and shear estimation, and measured their effect on the shear power spectrum.
Using the multiplicative and additive bias power formalism, they propagated this into the bias and the covariance on measured cosmological parameters and found that a survey could minimise the impact of bias by randomising the observing strategy so that the systematic power became noise-like. They also investigated the removal of sharp spikes in the shear power due to discontinuities on CCD and field-of-view scales.
From the Kitching et al. (2015) study it became clear that the multiplicative and additive biases of the shear field are expected to be spatially variable and scale-dependent. However, spatial variations in the the shear distortion on the sky correspond to a convolution of the shear signal with the systematic bias in the Fourier domain, rather than a simple multiplicative factor. Hence the shear power spectrum will be convolved with the bias power, and so improved modelling is needed.
In addition, studies to-date have derived constraints on the size of any image bias effects by comparing the bias in the final cosmological parameter, or Figures-of-Merit, with the expected random error. This assumes that new algorithms can be developed which will mitigate these biases to the level required. However, in many cases the biases may be too complex to accurately model, or the modelling may be too slow for practical application. An alternative is that the bias is removed by calibration with external data, or by the survey itself, or through modelling in simulations. In this case the relevant factor is the accuracy to which the calibration can be carried out, and how this error propagates into dark energy studies.
In this paper we address these issues by developing a formalism to study how spatially varying systematics arising from image distortions affect the shear and the inferred convergence field (Section 2), and propagate them into the cosmic shear power spectrum (Section 3). We study how realistic biases in the shear power spectrum can be removed by calibration, and the resulting uncertainty marginalised over. The effect of this on parameter estimation and the impact on the dark energy Figure of Merit is explored (Section 4). Taking realistic examples of image distortions, we show how to optimise the constraints on the amplitudes of a set of systematic effects for a given shear survey, to minimise the effect on cosmological parameters (Section 5).
\section{Weak Lensing Bias}
The response of a measurement of cosmic shear, $\widehat{\gamma}$, to the true shear field, $\gamma$, which is of order a few percent, in the presence of image distortions can be characterised by a linear model with a local multiplicative factor, $m$, an additive term, $c$ (Heymans et al. 2006, Massey et al. 2007), and a non-local convolution term, $h$, such that
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\gamma} = (1+m) \gamma + h * \gamma + c.
\end{equation}
The multiplicative factor, $m$, is a spin-2 field representing a change in amplitude and a local rotation of the shear field, while the additive term is an arbitrary spin-2 shear-like distortion. A multiplicative bias can arise due to miscalibration of the shear measurement caused, for example, by incorrect modelling of the ellipticity or size of the PSF, residual CTI and noise-bias or shear estimation effects.
The spin-2 multiplication bias can be written
$
m(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})
= m_0(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}) e^{i 2 \phi_{\small m}({\small \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}})},
$
(Kitching, Taylor \& Heavens 2008)
where $\phi_m(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})$ is the local rotation of the phase and $m_0(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})$ is a local, scalar modulation of the shear amplitude. Massey et al. (2007) and Kitching et al. (2012) also investigated a quadratic distortion term, $(1+q) \gamma^2$, but found that second order terms were negligible.
The additive bias, $c$, can arise due to systematics in the ellipticity and shape of the PSF, or from CTI leaving residual streaks in the image.
The convolution term, $h$, represents a distortion which depends on the shear field at other positions, which may arise due to close packing or blending of galaxy images, and is again a spin-2 field.
Fourier transforming the measured shear field on a flat sky, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
\widehat{\gamma}(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) = \gamma(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) +
\int \! \frac{d^2 \mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}'}{(2\pi)^2}\, m (\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \gamma(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') + c(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}),
\end{equation}
where the spatially varying multiplicative bias on the sky now convolves the shear field. For simplicity we have absorbed the convolution distortion, $h$, into the multiplicative bias, $m$. The shear field can also be decomposed on the full curved sky in spherical harmonics (see, for example Brown, Castro \& Taylor, 2005), but for simplicity we use a flat-sky approximation here.
The shear signal can then be decomposed into even-parity convergence modes, $\kappa$, and odd-parity $\beta$-modes\footnote{From here on we shall refer to $B$-modes in lensing as $\beta$-modes, where $E$-modes correspond to the convergence field, $\kappa$.} by a rotation of the shear in the Fourier domain,
$
\kappa(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) + i \beta(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) = e^{-2i \varphi_\ell} \gamma(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}),
$
where $\varphi_\ell$ is the angle between the wavevector, $\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}$, and an arbitrary axis on the sky. Assuming only a scalar multiplicative bias, $m_0$,
the measured $\kappa$ and $\beta$ modes are distorted by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:3}
\Delta \kappa(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) \!\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\!\!
\int \!\! \frac{d^2 \ell'}{(2\pi)^2}\, \!
m_0(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \left(\kappa(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \cos 2 \varphi_{\ell\ell'} -
\beta(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \sin 2 \varphi_{\ell\ell'} \right)
\nonumber \\ &&
\!\!\!\!\!+ \, c_\kappa(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}),
\\
\label{eq:4}
\Delta \beta(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) \!\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\!\!
\int \!\! \frac{d^2 \ell'}{(2\pi)^2}\, \!
m_0(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \left(\beta(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \cos 2 \varphi_{\ell\ell'} +
\kappa(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \sin 2 \varphi_{\ell\ell'} \right)
\nonumber \\ &&
\!\!\!\!\!+ \, c_\beta(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta \kappa = \widehat{\kappa} - \kappa$ and $\Delta \beta = \widehat{\beta} - \beta$ are the changes in the convergence and $\beta$-fields, and $\varphi_{\ell\ell'}=\varphi_\ell - \varphi_{\ell'}$ is the angle between the Fourier modes. We have also decomposed the additive bias into even and odd parity modes, where $c_\kappa(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) + i c_\beta (\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) = e^{-2i \varphi_\ell}c(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) $. The mode-mixing effect of the full spin-2 multiplicative bias is slightly more complex and we present full expressions in Appendix A.
As discussed by Kitching et al. (2012), the effect of a spatially varying multiplicative bias is similar to that of a survey mask in the Pseudo-Cl (PCL) power spectrum formalism (Hivon et al., 2002) for CMB polarisation (Brown, Castro \& Taylor, 2005), and so we can easily generalise our results to a masked survey.
\section{Cosmic Shear Power}
The correlations of the different Fourier modes of the shear fields, $(X,Y)=(\kappa,\beta)$, for different $\ell$-modes is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5}
\langle X(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) Y^*\!(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}')\rangle = (2 \pi)^2 C^{XY}\!(\ell) \, \delta_D(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}'),
\end{equation}
where $C^{XY}\!(\ell)$ is the convergence, $\beta$-mode and cross-power spectrum. We assume all fields are statistically homogeneous and isotropic on a flat sky, and $\delta_D(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$})$ is the Dirac delta function.
The measured convergence power spectrum on a flat, finite patch of sky of area, $A$, is given by
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell)=
\frac{1}{A} \left\langle | \widehat{\kappa}(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) |^2 \right\rangle ,
\end{equation}
where we have approximated the zero-lag delta function by $ \delta_D(\mbox{\boldmath $0$}) = A/ (2 \pi)^2 $.
We denote the systematic bias fields on the sky by $Z(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})=(m,c_\kappa,c_\beta)$ for each of the multiplicative/convolution fields and the even and odd parity modes of the additive biases. These biases can be split into a constant term across the survey, $Z_0 = b_Z$, a spatially varying deterministic bias,
$
\Delta Z(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}),
$
around the mean which can arise from variations which can be modelled by a template,
and a stochastic term, $\delta Z(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})$, that arise from either noise in the measurement of the bias or other indeterminate aspects of the bias that can only be modelled statistically (e.g., Massey et al., 2013); hence
$
Z = b_Z + \Delta Z + \delta Z.
$
The correlations of the Fourier modes of the fluctuating part of the bias are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:7}
\langle \delta Z(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) \, \delta Z^{\!*}\!(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \rangle = (2 \pi)^2 \mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_Z(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}) \delta_D(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}'),
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_Z(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$})$ is the power spectrum of the bias fluctuations.
The assumption of statistical isotropy can be relaxed to allow for anisotropic effects such as, for example, from CTI or other effects aligning with the CCD pixels, and with other directional dependences.
Taking equations (\ref{eq:3}) and (\ref{eq:4}), and using equations (\ref{eq:5}) and (\ref{eq:7}), we can calculate the correlators of the measured convergence and $\beta$-modes. We present the full correlations of the observed Fourier modes of the convergence and $\beta$ fields for an arbitrary spin-2 multiplicative bias in Appendix \ref{Correlations of the observed Fourier modes}, equations (\ref{eq:conv_FFT_corr}) to (\ref{eq:conv_FFT_corr2}), from which we see that the observed convergence power is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:obs_conv}
\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) =
\left(1 +
b_{m} \right)^2 C^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell)
+
\int \! \frac{d^2 \ell'}{(2\pi)^2}
\mbox{$\mathcal{G}$} (\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}')
C^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell')
+ \mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell),
\end{equation}
where $b_m$ is a constant multiplicative bias,
the convolution kernel is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kernel}
\mbox{$\mathcal{G}$}(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') =
\left( \frac{1}{ A}
|\Delta b_m(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}')|^2
+
\mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_{m}(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}') \right) \cos^2 2 \varphi_{\ell \ell'},
\end{equation}
and the additive bias is
$
\mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) =
|\Delta b_{c_\kappa}(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$})|^2/A + \mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_{c_\kappa}(\ell).
$
Any constant additive bias appears only in the $\ell=0$ mode and can be ignored.
Similar expressions for the $\beta$-mode power spectrum are derived in Appendix \ref{B-mode power spectra}. From equation (\ref{eq:obs_conv}) we see that the constant bias over the survey, $b_m$, factors out into a multiplicative bias of the convergence power spectrum. The scale-dependence of the multiplicative bias, $\Delta b_m(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$})$, comes in only through the convolution term at second-order, and is weighted by the inverse survey area. Finally, the power spectrum of the indeterminate stochastic bias, $\mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_m(\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$})$, is also convolved with the convergence power spectrum, while the additive power is composed of the square of the additive shear bias variation and its power spectrum.
Following Kitching et al. (2015), we can model the effect of realistic bias power spectra.
If the bias power spectrum is a sharp peak at $\ell=\ell_0$, we can approximate it by a delta-function, $\mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_{m}(\ell)= (2\pi)^2 \mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_0 \delta_D(|\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}_0|)/\ell$.
The change in the measured shear power is then $\Delta \widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) = \mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_0 \, C^{\kappa\kappa}(|\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}-\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}_0|)$, which shifts the shear power origin to $\ell_0$, reflects about it and rescales the amplitude.
A spike of power centred at wave vector $\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}=\mbox{\boldmath $\ell$}_0$ would not induce $\beta$-modes, but here we have assumed an isotropic distribution localised about a single wavelength which will generate curl modes of similar amplitude.
For a constant noise-like bias power, $\mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_{m}(\ell) = C_{\rm N}$, the change in the shear power is $\Delta \widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell = C_{\rm N} \sigma^2_\kappa /2$, where the other half of the convolved noise power has been converted into a $\beta$-mode power spectrum (see Appendix \ref{B-mode power spectra}). Kitching et al. (2015) also found that sharp features in a weak lensing survey associated with biases on particular scale, $\theta$, such as the field of view, resulted in a sinc-like scale-dependent bias power, $C_{\rm S}(\ell \theta) \propto \mbox{$\rm{sinc}$} (\ell \theta)$. Since this is noise-like on large-scales, to a good approximation the change in the shear power is $\Delta \widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) = C_{\rm S}(\ell \theta) \, \sigma^2_\kappa /2$, where again a $\beta$-mode power of equal amplitude is generated.
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.3\columnwidth]{Figure1}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\em Convolution shear-convergence and $\beta$-mode power bias. In all panels the blue lines are the true convergence power spectrum signal, $C^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell$; in the top panels the orange lines are the multiplicative noise power, $\mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_m(\ell)$; yellow lines are the bias power numerically convolved with the convergence power, while the black dotted lines are the exact analytic convolution from Section 3, which are in good agreement with the numerical convolutions. Purple lines are the approximate convolution given by equation (\ref{eq:rapidvarV}), which provides a poor approximation. In the lower plots the orange lines are again the bias power spectra and yellow lines are the $\beta$-mode power generated by mode mixing.
%
{\bf Left Panels:} The convergence power is convolved with a sharp bias feature at $\ell =10^3 $, leading to an extended bias power, with good agreement between numerical and analytic convolutions. $\beta$-mode power is generated from power at $\ell_0$ (lower plot);
%
{\bf Middle Panels:} A constant noise-like bias leads to a constant convolution bias, suppressed by the shear variance, as predicted by the analytic results. A constant $\beta$-mode power spectrum is generated with the same amplitude as the bias convergence power (lower panel);
%
{\bf Right Panels:} A sinc-like bias power is convolved with the convergence power, where the shape and amplitude is well approximated by the analytic model of Section 3. We find a $\beta$-mode power of equal shape and amplitude (lower panel).
In all cases the convolved convergence and bias powers are
poorly modelled by the multiplicative bias approximation of equation (\ref{eq:rapidvarV}).
}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:1} shows the shear convergence power for a $\Lambda$CDM model with parameters taken from Planck (Planck 2015, XIII) along with the three generic, multiplicative scale-dependent biases:
a localised spike in bias power with $\mbox{$\mathcal{C}$}_0=1$, which may arise from residual corrections on a particular scale (Figure \ref{fig:1}, left panels); a constant noise-like power bias with $C_N=10^{-10}$, which may arise from random variations in a residual bias across the survey on all scales (Figure \ref{fig:1}, middle panels); and a sinc-like bias function (Figure \ref{fig:1}, right panels) of the form $C_S(\ell \theta_s) = 10^{-10} \mbox{$\rm{sinc}$}( \ell \theta_s)$, where $\theta_s =10^{-3} {\rm rad}$, which may arise due to a residual bias over a finite patch such as the CCD of field-of-view scales (Kitching et al. 2015). The convolution of each of these multiplicative biases with the shear power is also shown in each panel (yellow lines), along with the analytic expressions found above (black, dashed lines). In all cases we find that the analytic formula predict the numerical data well.
As expected the local bias spike leads to a bias spread out in $\ell$-space, although still highly peaked and centred around the spike, while the noise-like bias power convolution gives rise to a constant bias whose amplitude is suppressed by half of the shear-convergence variance, $\sigma^2_\kappa/2$. The convolved sinc-like power has the same form as the bias power, also suppressed by a factor of half the shear-convergence variance. There is an induced $\beta$-mode power for the sharp spike (Figure \ref{fig:1}, lower left panel), while the $\beta$-mode noise power is equal to the convergence noise power (Figure \ref{fig:1}, lower middle panel). We also find the $\beta$-mode power from the sinc-bias is the same as the convergence power (Figure \ref{fig:1}, lower right panel), as predicted.
A commonly-used model for bias in the shear power spectra is to assume a scale-dependent multiplicative term (Kitching et al. 2012, Massey et al. 2013, Kitching et al. 2015), where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Chat}
\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) = \big[1+\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}(\ell)\big] C^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) + \mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell).
\end{equation}
As we have argued, any local fluctuations in the calibration of the shear signal will lead to a convolution of the shear power or, if the bias is a constant, a constant multiplicative term. Only non-local spatial distortions will lead to a pure multiplicative term. The multiplicative shear power bias is likely to have a different response to a convolved shear power.
To see if we can approximate the convolution bias by a multiplicative bias we can assume the shear power varies less than the systematic power and, approximating the shear power by a constant, take it outside the convolution.
If the bias power is isotropic we can carry out the angular integration over the cosine-squared term to give a factor of $\pi$, while integrating over the radial $\ell$-modes yields
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rapidvarV}
\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) =
\left((1 + b_m )^2
+
\frac{1}{2} \sigma^2_m \right) C^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell)
+ \mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) ,
\end{equation}
where
$
\sigma^2_m
$
is the variance of the spatially varying multiplicative bias. In this limit the convolution by the spatially varying multiplicative bias becomes a constant multiplicative bias factor, $\sigma^2_m/2$, in the shear power. The other half of the variance contributes to the odd-parity $\beta$-mode power (see Appendix \ref{B-mode power spectra}, equation \ref{eq:Cbb}).
In this limit, we expect the multiplicative bias has only a weak scale dependence and that the main effect is to boost the amplitude of the shear power. In Figure \ref{fig:1} we compare this approximation (purple curves in the upper panels) with the spike, constant and sinc-like bias model power spectra, and find that the approximation is poor. The shape of the convolved shear bias is not well reproduced, tending to over-predict the amplitude of the bias on all scales and incorrectly predict the scale dependence. Hence, we advocate that modelling of the scale-dependence of a spatially varying multiplicative shear bias in the shear power uses our convolution model rather than a scale-dependent multiplicative term.
\section{Calibration and Removal of Cosmic Shear Bias }
In previous studies the effect of systematics in cosmic shear measurements has focussed on propagating the biases into the dark energy parameters and setting constraints such that either the biases are less than the measurement error (e.g. Amara \& R{\'e}fr{\'e}gier 2008), or that the Dark Energy Figure of Merit (DEFoM) is kept above some fixed value (e.g. Massey et al. 2013). This is useful if there is an algorithmic way to remove these biases.
However, in practice many systematics may be too complex to model to sufficient accuracy, and so they need to be removed by calibration to external data or simulations and the uncertainty on the calibration then marginalised over. This suggests that it is not sufficient to know how the bias affects the dark energy measurement - we also need to know how marginalisation over the uncertainty in the calibration propagates into the measurement.
We can explore the effect of calibration and marginalisation using the Fisher matrix formalism (e.g., Tegmark, Taylor \& Heavens 1997). Let us assume the
measured shear convergence power, $\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})$, given by equations (\ref{eq:obs_conv}) and (\ref{eq:kernel}), is Gaussian distributed, $\mbox{$\mathcal{P}$}_m \big(\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell | \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\big)$, and depends on a set of cosmological parameters, $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}$, whose likelihood function, $\mbox{$\mathcal{L}$}(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})=\big(\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell | \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\big)$, is also Gaussian distributed in parameter space. The expected cosmological parameter covariance matrix for this likelihood is $C = \langle \Delta \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} \Delta \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}^t\rangle = \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{-1}$,
where
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{4 \pi f_{\rm sky} }{2}
\int \!\frac{\ell d \ell}{2 \pi} \,
\big[\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell) + N\big]^{-2}
\frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell)}{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \theta_\alpha} \, \frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}\!(\ell)}{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \theta_\beta} ,
\end{equation}
is the Fisher matrix, $A=4 \pi f_{\rm sky}$ is the area of the survey, and $N =2 \pi f_{\rm sky}\sigma^2_e / N_{\rm g}$ is the shear noise power for $N_{\rm g}$ galaxies with intrinsic ellipticity dispersion $\sigma_e$.
We assume the convolved and additive bias power are functions of a set of bias parameters, $\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}$, so that $\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$},\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$})$ now depends on $\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}$ and has the distribution $\mbox{$\mathcal{P}$}_m \big(\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell | \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}, \mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}\big)$. These bias parameters can be estimated from external data or simulations, with the distribution
$\mbox{$\mathcal{P}$}(\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}|\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}_0,\widehat{C}_{\psi\psi'})$, with mean given by the true bias values, $\langle \mbox{\boldmath $\psi$} \rangle = \mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}_0$, and covariance matrix, $\widehat{C}_{\psi\psi'}$. We assume this distribution is also Gaussian.
The biased shear power distribution can now be corrected by marginalising over the calibration measurement distribution,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\mathcal{P}$}_m \big(\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell | \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}, \mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}_0,\widehat{C}_{\psi\psi'} \big) \!=\!\!
\int d \psi \, \mbox{$\mathcal{P}$}_m \big(\widehat{C}^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell | \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}, \mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}\big) \mbox{$\mathcal{P}$}\big(\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}|\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}_0,\widehat{C}_{\psi\psi'}\big),
\end{equation}
which will correct the bias and widen the shear likelihood.
Expanding the observed shear-convergence power to first order in the bias parameters, we can carry this marginalisation out analytically (Taylor \& Kitching 2010).
The cosmological parameter covariance matrix from this marginalised likelihood can be found from the inverse of the marginalised Fisher matrix, $C^M = [\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^M]^{-1}$, where the marginalised Fisher matrix is given by the Schur compliment of the cosmological and bias parameter Fisher matrix (e.g., Taylor \& Kitching 2010),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:marg}
\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^M_{\theta\theta'} = \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\theta\theta'} - \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\theta\psi} \big[\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\psi\psi'}+\widehat{C}^{-1}_{\psi\psi'}\big]^{-1} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\psi'\theta'}.
\end{equation}
As the accuracy of the external calibration increases, the second term vanishes and the parameter variance is unchanged.
However, even if the external calibration is removed the loss of accuracy in the parameters is finite, because we can self-calibrate the biases using the cosmic shear survey itself.
As well as the effect on the cosmological parameter covariance matrix, we can also estimate the effect on the Dark Energy Figure of Merit.
The DEFoM is defined as the inverse area of the $68.3\%$ confidence region of the dark energy 2-parameter space, $w=(w_0, w_a)$, after marginalising over all other cosmological parameters (Albrecht et al. 2006). For Gaussian distributed parameters this is given by the determinant of the dark energy Fisher matrix,
\begin{equation}
{\rm F}_{\rm oM}^{\rm DE} = \det \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{DE}_{w w'} ,
\label{eq:DEFoM}
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{DE}_{w w'}$ is the dark energy parameter Fisher matrix found by marginalising the cosmological parameter space over all other cosmological parameters. This is also given by the Schur complement of the full parameter Fisher matrix,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{DE}_{w w'} = \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{ww'} - \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{w \theta} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\theta \theta'}^{-1} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\theta' w'},
\label{eq:DEFisher}
\end{equation}
where, in this expression, $\theta$ are all the cosmological parameters excluding the dark energy $w$-vector.
The effect of calibration and marginalisation on the DEFoM can be calculated by replacing the Fisher matrices in equation (\ref{eq:DEFisher}) with marginalised ones from equation (\ref{eq:marg}).
We can estimate the effect of calibration on the DEFoM. The fractional change in the DEFoM from a change in the Fisher matrix, to first order, is
\begin{equation}
\Delta \ln {\rm F}_{\rm oM}^{\rm DE} = \mbox{\rm Tr} \, \left( \Delta \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{DE} [\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{\rm DE}]^{-1} \right),
\end{equation}
where
$
\Delta \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{DE}_{w w'} = \Delta \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{ww'} - \Delta [\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{w \theta} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\theta \theta'}^{-1} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\theta' w'}].
$
Following marginalisation over the calibration parameters, $\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}$, using equation (\ref{eq:marg}), the fractional change in the DEFoM is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DDEFOM}
\Delta \ln {\rm F}_{\rm oM}^{\rm DE} = - \big(\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^M_{\psi w} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{-1}_{ww'} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^M_{w' \psi'}\big)
\big[ \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\psi'\psi} +\widehat{C}^{-1}_{\psi' \psi} \big]^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $ \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^M_{\psi w} = \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\psi w} - \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\psi \theta} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{-1}_{ \theta \theta'} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\theta' w}$ is the joint Fisher matrix of dark energy and calibration parameters, marginalising over all other cosmological parameters. Equation (\ref{eq:DDEFOM}) shows explicitly the relationship between the calibration accuracy and degradation of the DEFoM. Again, if the accuracy of external calibration is high the DEFoM is unchanged, while if it is removed, self-calibration limits the reduction in the DEFoM.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{Figure2}
\caption{\em
The fractional decrease in the dark energy Figure-of-Merit (DEFoM), $\Delta \ln F^{\rm DE}_{\rm oM}$ as a function of the error on the external calibration of an additive bias and multiplicative (convolution) bias, owing to calibration and marginalisation. The functional form of the bias is the sum of the spike, noise and sinc-functions shown in Figure \ref{fig:1}, and we assume only the amplitude requires calibration. The axes are the external calibration variance, $\widehat{C}_{\psi\psi}$, where here the indices $\psi$ and are the amplitude of the multiplicative (convolutions) and additive biases. Beyond $\Delta \ln F^{\rm DE}_{\rm oM} = -0.3 $ the surface flattens as we reach the self-calibration regime.
}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
In dark energy studies we usually want the absolute contribution from the fractional DEFoM bias to be less than some threshold, $\nu$, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:req_B}
|\Delta \ln {\rm F}_{\rm oM} | \le \nu .
\end{equation}
As an example, if we consider a constant dark energy equation of state parameter, $w=w_0$, and one other cosmological parameter, $\theta$, and a single, constant multiplicative calibration parameter, $\psi={\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}} = 2 b_m+b_m^2$, with covariance $\widehat{C}_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}\M'} = \widehat{\sigma}^2_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}} I_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}\M'}$, the fractional decrease in the DEFoM is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DEFOMM}
\Delta \ln {\rm F}_{\rm oM}^{\rm DE} = -\left|\Delta \mu _{\!{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}} w_0 }\right|^2
\left(\frac{\widehat{\sigma}^2_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}}{ \widehat{\sigma}^2_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}} + \sigma^2_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}} \right),
\end{equation}
where
$
\Delta \mu_{\alpha\beta} =\mu_{\alpha \beta} - \mu_{\alpha \theta} \, \mu_{\theta \beta}
$,
with the implied summation over all other parameters, $\theta$;
$\mu_{\alpha\beta} = \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\alpha \beta} / \sqrt{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\alpha\alpha} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\beta\beta}}$ is the Fisher matrix correlation coefficient; $\sigma^2_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}= 1/\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}\M}$ is the self-calibration variance of $\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}$ measured from the survey itself; and $\widehat{\sigma}^2_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}$ is the external calibration variance.
The decrease in the DEFoM vanishes as the external error on $\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}$ vanishes, while for no external calibration the fractional change is equal to $-|\Delta \mu_{\alpha\beta}|^2$ and determined by the correlation of the bias parameters with the dark energy and cosmological parameters.
The variance of $\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}$ estimated from the survey is $\sigma_{\small\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}^2 = 1/N_{\rm eff}$,
where $N_{\rm eff}$ is the effective number of independent modes measured in the shear power spectrum.
If we require the contribution to the DEFoM from bias calibration to be less than $10\%$, so that $\nu \le 0.1$, and assume that the number of effective modes measured in the shear power spectrum is $N_{\rm eff} \approx 10^{5}$,
and $|\Delta \mu_{\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$} w_0}| \approx 1$,
then the error on the multiplicative calibration needs to be less than $0.1\%$, or $\widehat{\sigma}_{\! \small \mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}} < 10^{-3}$. However, if the Fisher correlation coefficient is less than unity this constraint will weaken.
Similarly the fractional bias in the DEFoM from a constant additive bias has the same form as equation (\ref{eq:DEFOMM}) with $\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$} \rightarrow \mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}$, where $\sigma^2_{\! \small \mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}} = \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}\calA}^{-1} = \Delta {\overline C}$ is the inverse-weighted mean power, which implies the calibration error on the additive bias power calibration should be $\widehat{\sigma}_{\small \mbox{$\mathcal{A}$}} < 10^{-12} \,{\rm rad}^2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{Figure3}
\caption{\em
The fractional decrease in the dark energy Figure-of-Merit, $\Delta \ln F^{\rm DE}_{\rm FoM}$, due to noise-like (green curves), sinc-like (red curves), and spike (blue curves) bias power calibration, removal and marginalisation, as a function of the prior calibration error in the bias power amplitude. Solid lines are for additive biases, while dotted lines are for convolutions biases. For a small external calibration error the change in $\Delta \ln F^{\rm DE}_{\rm FoM}$ vanishes. For larger bias error the DEFoM decreases until the data itself calibrates the bias at the cost of constraints on other cosmological parameters.
}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
As well as constant biases, we can investigate the more realistic cases of the spike, noise and sinc-like bias functions.
Using the bias power functions introduced in Section 3 and illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:1} with the same parameters, we can add them together to form a multiplicative/convolved bias and us the same function as an additive bias power. We can then vary the accuracy with which we can measure the amplitude of the multiplicative/convolved and additive bias powers, to see its effect on the change in the DEFoM.
Figure \ref{fig:3} shows the fractional change in the DEFoM as a function of the variance of the external calibration for constant multiplicative and additive biases from a numerical calculation of the DEFoM. As expected, as the external calibration accuracy decreases, the DEFoM is reduced and tends to a constant beyond $\Delta \ln F^{\rm DE}_{\rm FoM} = -0.3$, when the bias is self-calibrated by the survey. For an accurate calibration of the additive bias amplitude, we find the calibration accuracy on the multiplicative/convolution bias roughly agrees with our naive estimate,
where a $10\%$ change, $\Delta \ln F^{\rm DE}_{\rm FoM} = -0.1$, requires a calibration error of around $\widehat{\sigma}_{\rm multi} \approx 0.07$, estimated from Figure \ref{fig:3}. However, the additive calibration error is much higher at around $\widehat{\sigma}_{\rm add} \approx 10^{-8}{\rm rad}^2$. Both of these constraints from calibration appear to be weaker than the constraints derived from requiring an algorithmic bias correction (e.g. Massey et al. 2013).
Figure \ref{fig:4} shows the change in the DEFoM due to the calibration of each individual additive and multiplicative (convolution) bias spectra for spike, noise- and sinc-like functions, as a function of the external calibration error on each bias calibration. Again, we assume only the amplitude is to be calibrated with a fixed functional form.
The additive spike bias (solid blue line) has the smallest effect on the DEFoM, because the addition of a spike in the shear power has very little correlation with cosmological parameters. This agrees with the analysis of Kitching et al. (2015), who found a signifiant bias from an additive spike, but little increase in the $w_0, w_a$ error ellipse (see Figure 1 of Kitching et al., 2015).
However, convolution with the shear power extends this over a range of wavenumbers, and acquires a cosmological dependence (see Figure \ref{fig:1}, left panel). Removal of this bias requires only a modest accuracy, $\widehat{\sigma}_{\rm spike, add} \approx 1$.
As this cosmological dependence still does not mimic the effects on the true shear power, self-calibration with a shear survey works well, resulting in only a small reduction in the DEFoM.
The noise bias (green lines) has the highest calibration requirements, with the additive bias (solid green) requiring a high accuracy of $\widehat{\sigma}_{\rm noise,add} < 10^{-8}$ for removal, while self-calibration leaves the largest reduction in the DEFoM.
This can be understood from the noise power having greatest effect at high wavenumber, where the dark energy equation of state will have greatest effect. The multiplicative/convolution bias also requires a high accuracy to calibrate, as the resulting convolution is still noise-like and has a cosmological dependence.
The sinc-function bias power is like the noise-like bias power, with an effect on the DEFoM between the noise and spike bias power, with the oscillations dampening the bias power at high wavenumber, which de-correlates the bias and cosmological parameters. Again, the additive sinc bias requires more accurate calibration than the multiplicative/convolution bias.
Finally, we find the accuracy of the calibration scales with the amplitude of the bias, such that numerically we find $\widehat{C}_{\psi\psi} (\psi) \propto \psi^{-1}$, for all biases.
In summary, we find the calibration and removal of noise-like biases has the greatest impact on dark energy studies, followed by sinc-like biases. The effect of calibration and removal of spikes in the shear power spectrum has the least effect. Caveats to this study are that we consider only calibration of the amplitude of these bias effects. In detail, for the spike and sinc bias functions, we would also want to calibrate the scale at which the bias occurs, while the functional forms of the systematic power may require many more parameters to describe.
\section{Optimising bias calibration }
Since we can expect the calibration of any shear bias has a cost, either in the collection of external calibration data or the generation of realistic simulations, is is useful to have a guide for where to optimally allocate resources in investigating sources of bias, their calibration and removal.
Here we shall assume that any bias can be modelled through a simulation of the experiment, and that the accuracy on the measurement of any bias is limited only by the number of simulations that can be generated. A similar calculation can be done if the cost of the calibration arises from collecting external data. We assume these biases are independent, and work to first order in the external calibration error, $\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi$, so that the effect on the DEFoM can be written $\Delta \ln {\rm F_{oM}^{DE}} = -\Phi_\psi \widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi$, where $\Phi_\psi = \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^M_{\psi w} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^{-1}_{ww'} \mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}^M_{w' \psi}$ and there is no summation over repeated $\psi$ in this last expression.
If we further assume that each bias requires its own set of simulations for calibration, the total number of simulations needed to calibrate all biases with accuracy an of $\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi$ scales as
\begin{equation}
N_S = \sum_\psi \frac{\alpha_\psi}{\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_\psi$ is a parameter which normalises the number of simulations needed to calibrate each bias and depends on the properties of the bias. Our aim is to minimise the number of simulations needed for calibration, with the constraint that we do not exceed the desired fractional change in the DEFoM, $\nu= |\Delta \ln {\rm F_{oM}^{DE}}|$. We can calculate this by minimising the merit function,
\begin{equation}
S = N_S + \lambda \nu,
\end{equation}
with respect to $\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi$, where $\lambda$ is a Lagrangian multiplier to constrain the DEFoM. Minimising this with respect to the measured external calibration error, $\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi$, taking note that $\nu$ is the absolute value of the fractional change in the DEFoM, and using the identity $|x|=\sqrt{x^2}$, we find
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi = \left|\frac{\alpha_\psi}{\lambda \Phi_\psi} \right|^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Using the constraint on the DEFoM we can replace the Lagrangian multiplier, $\lambda$, with $\nu$,
to find that the minimum number of simulations is
\begin{equation}
N_S = \frac{1}{\nu}
\left(\sum_{\psi'} \alpha_{\psi' } \left|\frac{\Phi_{\psi'}}{\alpha_{\psi'}} \right|^{1/2} \right)
\left|\sum_{\psi''} \Phi_{\psi''} \left|\frac{\alpha_{\psi''}}{\Phi_{\psi''}} \right|^{1/2} \right|,
\end{equation}
which yields the error on the bias calibration,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi = \nu
\left| \frac{\alpha_\psi}{\Phi_\psi} \right|^{1/2}
\left| \left(\sum_{\psi'} \Phi_{\psi' } \left|\frac{\alpha_{\psi'}}{\Phi_{\psi'}} \right|^{1/2} \right)\right|^{-1}.
\end{equation}
As an example, let us assume that each simulation is of the entire survey, so that we can the calibrate a bias with an error $\sigma_\psi$. To reach the required calibration error, $\widehat{\sigma}_\psi$, we need $\sigma_\psi^2/\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi$ simulations per bias parameter, and the total number of simulations is $N_S = \sum_\psi \sigma_\psi^2/\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi$. Hence, $\alpha_\psi = \sigma_\psi^2$.
For a single dark energy parameter, $w=w_0$, a single cosmological parameter, $\theta$, and summing over all bias parameters, the fractional change in the DEFoM is
\begin{equation}
\Delta \ln {\rm F_{oM}^{DE}}=-\sum_\psi |\Delta \mu_{w \psi}|^2 \frac{ \widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi}{\sigma^2_\psi},
\end{equation}
so that $\Phi_\psi =|\Delta \mu_{w \psi}|^2 /\sigma^2_\psi $.
The number of simulations needed for calibration is then
\begin{equation}
N_S = \frac{1}{\nu} \left(\sum_{\psi} |\Delta \mu_{w \psi}| \right)^2.
\end{equation}
If the correlation between the bias and $w$ is zero, no simulations are required. When the correlation between the bias and $w$ is of order unity and the number of bias parameters is $N_{\rm bias}$, then the number of simulations we require is of order $N_S \approx N^2_{\rm bias}/\nu$.
For the simple example of the six bias normalisation parameters used in this paper, $N_{\rm bias} = 6$, and for $\nu =0.1$, we expect $N_S \approx 360$. With more detailed numerical studies using our Fisher Matrix formalism, and the spike, noise and sinc functional forms, we find $N_S \approx 100$. Given the quadratic scaling with the number of bias parameters, we can expect this number to rise rapidly. If we have 100 calibration parameters to measure we may need $N_S \approx 10^6$ simulations. However, these simulations may have the same underling simulation, adding on the effect of each systematic.
The resulting variance on the measured calibration is
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\sigma}^2_\psi =\frac{\nu \sigma^2_\psi}{|\Delta \mu_{w \psi}|}
\left(\sum_{\psi'} |\Delta \mu_{w \psi'}| \right)^{-1} ,
\end{equation}
so that the calibration error is inversely proportional to the marginalised Fisher correlation coefficient, $\Delta \mu_{w \psi}$. Again, if this is of order unity the external calibration error is $\widehat{\sigma}_\psi \approx \sigma_\psi \sqrt{\nu/N_{\rm bias}}$.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
In this paper we have extended the analysis of cosmic shear to include the effect of spatially varying image distortions on the sky; investigated the effect of calibration of biases from external data or simulations and internally from the same survey on cosmological parameter estimation and the dark energy Figure-of-Merit; and shown how to minimise the size of the calibration set for a given impact.
Spatially varying image distortions convolve the shear signal in Fourier space, and the shear power spectrum, mixing even-parity convergence and odd-parity $\beta$-mode signals. We have found analytic solutions for the biased shear-convergence and $\beta$-mode power from convolution with spike, noise and sinc-like bias power spectra, which can be generated in realistic cosmic shear surveys. In all cases we have studied, the bias power is equally distributed between convergence and $\beta$-mode power. We find that a scale-dependent multiplicative bias power spectrum model, which has commonly been used in previous studies, is not an accurate approximation.
Convolution and additive biases can be removed from the signal by calibration to external data, or from simulations of the effect of the bias, or by allowing the bias to be fit simultaneously to the data. In such a scenario the absolute value of the bias is unimportant since it will be removed and marginalised over, but the uncertainty in the calibration will propagate into the measurement of cosmological and dark energy parameters. We have carried out an analysis to show how removal and marginalisation of the bias, using calibration data and self-calibration from the data itself, will propagate into cosmological parameter estimation and then into the dark energy Figure-of-Merit. We have applied this to archetypal functions forms for the bias power, spike, noise and sinc-like functions, and show how each individually, and in combination, affect the dark energy Figure of Merit. We find that calibration and removal of the noise-like bias functions, which affects the largest range of scales, has the greatest affect on the DEFoM, followed by the sinc-like function, which contains an oscillatory cut-off at small scales, while the spike bias has the least effect, covering the smallest range of scales. Overall, a calibration approach appears to require less stringent constraints on bias errors than the algorithmic corrections of the bias.
We have also carried out an optimisation of the required calibration error, in order to minimise the number of simulations needed to measure the calibration for a fixed deterioration of the DEFoM. This calculation could also be used to minimise the external data required for calibration.
Finally, our method is general enough that we can extend the formalism to allow the study of bias, bias-removal and the effect of calibration error in the nonlinear matter power spectra, baryonic effects on the matter power spectra, photometric redshift calibration, intrinsic alignment calibration, and indeed any effect in the measurement which can be corrected for by calibration. As the formalism is a Pseudo-Cls approach it can account for the effects of the survey window function on the shear power spectrum. This enables the investigation of the effect removing these biases on dark energy and modified gravity experiments.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
ANT thanks the Royal Society for the support of a Wolfson Research Merit Award while TDK is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship. ANT also acknowledges the support of the UK Space Agency and an STFC Consolidated Grant. We thank Mark Cropper and Tim Schrabback for useful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
The present paper is dedicated to numerical experiments concerning two classical problems in numerical analysis, numerical integration and function approximation. The novelty of our experiments is that we work on the Grassmannian manifold as an example of a compact Riemannian manifold illustrating theoretical results in the recent literature.
Indeed, recent data analysis methodologies involve kernel based approximation of
functions on manifolds and other measure spaces,
cf.~\cite{Maggioni:2008fk,Mhaskar:2010kx} and
\cite{Geller:2011fk,Geller:2012fk,Geller:2013uk}. The kernels are build up by
what is known as diffusion polynomials, which are eigenfunctions of elliptic
differential operators, commonly chosen as the Laplace-Beltrami operator when
dealing with compact Riemannian manifolds.
Numerical implementations of the approximation schemes require pointwise evaluation of the eigenfunctions.
However, explicit formulas for eigenfunctions are only known in few special cases.
If the manifold is the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$, for instance, then the eigenfunctions of the spherical Laplacian are the spherical harmonics, which are indeed polynomials in the usual sense. The corresponding kernels for the sphere have been computed explicitly in \cite{Gia:2006fk,Gia:2008fk}.
The kernel based approximation requires the computation of the corresponding integral operator, see \eqref{eq:approx sigma} in Section \ref{sec:2}. In the realm of numerical integration, the integral itself is usually approximated by a weighted sum over sample values, see also \cite{Filbir:2010aa,Filbir:2011fk}. The latter fits well to the common scenario when the target function needs to be approximated from a finite sample in the first place.
Numerical integration on Euclidean spaces is a classical problem in numerical analysis. Recently, Quasi Monte Carlo (QMC) numerical integration on compact Riemannian manifolds has been studied in \cite{Brandolini:2014oz} from a theoretical point of view, see also \cite{Pesenson:2012fp}. If more and more samples are used, then the smoothness parameter of Bessel potential spaces steers the decay of the integration error. QMC integration has been introduced for the sphere in \cite{Brauchart:fk}, where many explicit examples are provided and extensive numerical experiments illustrate the theoretical claims.
The major aim of the present paper is to provide numerical experiments for the above integration and approximation schemes when the manifold is the Grassmannian, i.e., the collection of $k$-dimensional subspaces in $\R^d$, naturally identified with the collection $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ of rank-$k$ orthogonal projectors on $\R^d$, cf.~\cite[Chapter 1]{Chikuse:2003aa}.
Therefore, we require explicit formulas of the kernels used in \cite{Maggioni:2008fk,Mhaskar:2010kx}. Indeed, the degree of a diffusion polynomial, by definition, relates to the magnitude of the corresponding eigenvalues. We check that diffusion polynomials of degree at most $2t/\sqrt{k}$ are indeed usual multivariate polynomials of degree $t$ restricted to the Grassmannian. The explicit formula for the kernel is derived through generalized Jacobi polynomials. By computing cubature formulas on Grassmannians through some numerical minimization process, we are able to provide numerical experiments for the approximation of functions on Grassmannians and for the QMC integration on Grassmannians supporting the theoretical results in \cite{Brandolini:2014oz,Maggioni:2008fk,Mhaskar:2010kx}.
The outline is as follows: In Section \ref{sec:ints} we recall QMC integration from
\cite{Brandolini:2014oz,Brauchart:fk}, and we recall the approximation
scheme from \cite{Maggioni:2008fk,Mhaskar:2010kx} in the special case of the
Grassmannian in Section \ref{sec:2}. Section \ref{sec:4} provides feasible formulations for numerical experiments. Indeed, Section
\ref{sec:general G} is devoted to derive explicit formulas for the involved
kernel by means of generalized Jacobi polynomials. We check the relations
between diffusion polynomials and ordinary polynomials restricted to the
Grassmannian in Section \ref{sec:diff poly}, and we provide the framework for numerically computing cubatures in Grassmannians in Section \ref{sec:cubs}. The numerical experiments are
provided in Section \ref{sec:nums}.
\section{Quasi Monte Carlo integration}\label{sec:ints}
We identify the Grassmannian, the collection of $k$-dimensional subspaces in $\R^d$, with the set of orthogonal projectors on $\R^d$ of rank $k$, denoted by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{G}_{k,d} := \{ P \in \R^{d\times d}_{\sym} : P^{2}=P ;\; \tr(P)=k \}.
\end{equation*}
Here, $\R^{d\times d}_{\sym}$ is the set of symmetric matrices in
$\R^{d \times d}$ and $\tr(P)$ denotes the trace of $P$. The dimension of the Grassmannian is $\dim(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})=k(d-k)$. The canonical Riemannian measure on
$\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ is denoted by $\mu_{k,d}$, which we assume to be normalized to one. Without loss of generality, we assume $k\leq \frac{d}{2}$ throughout since $\mathcal{G}_{d-k,d}$ can be identified with $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$.
As a classical problem in numerical analysis, we aim to approximate the integral over a continuous function $f:\mathcal{G}_{k,d}\rightarrow\C$ by a finite sum over weighted samples, i.e., we consider points
$\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n\subset \mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and nonnegative weights
$\{\omega_j\}_{j=1}^n$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^n\omega_j f(P_j)\approx \int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}}f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P).
\end{equation*}
In order to quantify the error by means of the smoothness of $f$, we shall define Bessel potential spaces on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$, for which we need some preparation.
Let $\{\varphi_\ell\}_{\ell=0}^\infty$ be the collection of orthonormal
eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$,
and $\{-\lambda_\ell\}_{\ell=0}^\infty$ are the corresponding eigenvalues
arranged, so that $0=\lambda_0\leq \lambda_1\leq \ldots$. Without loss of generality, we choose each $\varphi_\ell$ to be real-valued, in particular, $\varphi_0\equiv 1$.
The Fourier transform of $f\in L_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, where $1\leq p\leq\infty$, is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\hat{f}(\ell):=\int_{\mathcal G_{k,d}}f(P) \varphi_{\ell}(P) \mathrm d \mu_{k,d}(P), \qquad \ell=0,1,2,\ldots.
\end{equation*}
Essentially following \cite{Brandolini:2014oz,Mhaskar:2010kx}, we formally define $(I-\Delta)^{s/2} f$ to be the distribution on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$, such that $\langle (I-\Delta)^{s/2} f,\varphi_\ell\rangle = (1+\lambda_\ell)^{s/2}\langle f,\varphi_\ell\rangle$, for all $\ell=0,1,2,\ldots$. The Bessel potential space $H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, for $1\leq p\leq \infty$ and $s \ge 0$, is
\begin{align*}
H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})&:=\{f\in L_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}) : \| f\|_{H^s_p}<\infty\},\quad\text{where}\\
\| f\|_{H^s_p} &:= \| (I-\Delta)^{s/2} f \|_{L_p},
\end{align*}
i.e., $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ if and only if $f\in L_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ and $(I-\Delta)^s f\in L_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$. Note that this definition is indeed consistent with \cite{Brandolini:2014oz,Mhaskar:2010kx}, see \cite[Theorem 2.1, Definition 2.2]{Brandolini:2014oz} in particular. For $s>k(d-k)/p$ with $1\leq p\leq \infty$, the space $H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is embedded into the space of continuous functions on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$, see, for instance, \cite{Brandolini:2014oz}. For $1<p<\infty$, this embedding also follows from results on Bessel potential spaces on general Riemannian manifolds with bounded geometry, cf.~\cite[Theorem 7.4.5, Section 7.4.2]{Triebel:1992aa}, and on $\R^d$ with $1\leq p\leq \infty$, see \cite[Chapter V, 6.11]{Stein:1970yg}. According to \cite{Brandolini:2014oz}, for any sequence of points
$\{P^t_j\}_{j=1}^{n_t}\subset\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$, $t=0,1,2,\ldots$, and positive weights
$\{\omega^t_j\}_{j=1}^{n_t}\subset\R$ with $n_t\rightarrow \infty$, there is a function $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$
\renewcommand*{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\setcounter{footnote}{1} such that \footnote{ We use the notation
$\gtrsim$, meaning the right-hand side is less or equal to the left-hand side
up to a positive constant factor. The symbol $\lesssim$ is used analogously,
and $\asymp$ means both hold, $\lesssim$ and $\gtrsim$. If not explicitly
stated, the dependence or independence of the constants shall be clear from
the context.}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:negativ}
\Big |\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) -\sum_{j=1}^{n_t}\omega^t_j f(P^t_j) \Big| \gtrsim n_t^{-\frac{s}{k(d-k)}}\|f\|_{H^s_p},
\end{equation}
where the constant does not depend on $t$. Thus, we cannot do any better than
the rate
\begin{equation*}
n_t^{-\frac{s}{k(d-k)}}.
\end{equation*}
In order to quantify the quality of weighted point sequences
$\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$, $t=0,1,2,\dots$, for numerical
integration, we make the following definition, whose analogous formulation on
the sphere (with constant weights) is due to \cite{Brauchart:fk}.
\begin{definition}
Given $s>k(d-k)/p$, a sequence $\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$, $t=0,1,2,\ldots$, of $n_t$ points in $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and positive weights with $n_t\rightarrow\infty$ is called a \emph{sequence of Quasi Monte Carlo (QMC) systems for} $H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ if
\begin{equation*}
\Big |\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) -\sum_{j=1}^{n_t}\omega^t_j f(P^t_j)\Big| \lesssim n_t^{-\frac{s}{k(d-k)}}\|f\|_{H^s_p}
\end{equation*}
holds for all $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$.
\end{definition}
In case $p=2$, given $s>k(d-k)/2$, any sequence of QMC systems $\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$ for $H^s_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is also a sequence of QMC systems for $W^{s'}_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, for all $s'$ satisfying $s\geq s'>k(d-k)/2$, cf.~\cite{Brandolini:2014oz}.
Especially for the integration of smooth functions, random points lack quality when compared to QMC systems.
\begin{proposition}\label{th:random inde}
For $s>k(d-k)/2$, suppose $P_1,\ldots,P_n$ are random points on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$, independently identically distributed according to $\mu_{k,d}$ then it holds
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\mathbb{E} \Big[\sup_{\substack{f\in H^s_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})\\ \|f\|_{H^s_2}\leq 1}} \Big|\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) - \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n f(P_j) \Big|^2\Big]} = cn^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation*}
with $c^2=\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty (1+\lambda_\ell)^{-s}$.
\end{proposition}
Note that the condition $s>k(d-k)/2$ implies that
$\frac{s}{k(d-k)}>\frac{1}{2}$, so that on average QMC systems indeed perform
better than random points for smooth functions. The proof of Proposition \ref{th:random inde} is derived by following the lines
in \cite{Brauchart:fk}. In fact, the result is already contained in
\cite[Corollary 2.8]{Graf:2013zl}, see also \cite{Nowak:2010rr}, within a more
general setting.
In order to derive QMC systems, we shall have a closer look at cubature points, for which we need the space of
\emph{diffusion polynomials} of degree at most $t$, defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:poly diff}
\Pi_t:=\spann\{\varphi_\ell:\lambda_\ell\leq t^2 \},
\end{equation}
see \cite{Mhaskar:2010kx} and references therein.
\begin{definition}
For $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n\subset\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and positive weights
$\{\omega_j\}_{j=1}^n$, we say that $\{(P_j,\omega_j)\}_{j=1}^n$ is a
\emph{cubature for $\Pi_t$} if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def cub 00}
\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) = \sum_{j=1}^n \omega_j f(P_j),\quad \text{for all } f\in \Pi_t.
\end{equation}
The number $t$ refers to the \emph{strength} of the cubature.
\end{definition}
In the following result, cf.~\cite[Theorem 2.12]{Brandolini:2014oz}, the cubature error is bounded by the cubature strength $t$, not the number of points.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:brandolini}
Suppose $s>k(d-k)/p$ and assume that $\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$ is a cubature for $\Pi_t$. Then we have, for $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$,
\begin{equation*}
\Big|\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P)-\sum_{j=1}^{n_t} \omega^t_j f(P^t_j)\Big| \lesssim t^{-s}\|f\|_{H^s_p}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
Weyl's estimates on the spectrum of an elliptic operator yield
\begin{equation*}
\dim(\Pi_t)\asymp t^{k(d-k)},
\end{equation*}
cf.~\cite[Theorem 17.5.3]{Hormander:1983gf}. This implies that any sequence of cubatures $\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$ of strength $t$, respectively, must obey
$
n_t\gtrsim t^{k(d-k)}
$
asymptotically in $t$, cf.~\cite{Harpe:2005fk}. There are indeed sequences of cubatures $\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$ of strength $t$, respectively, satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:few cubs2}
n_t\asymp t^{k(d-k)},
\end{equation}
cf.~\cite{Harpe:2005fk}. In this case, Theorem \ref{th:brandolini} leads to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:general cub fomula}
\Big|\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P)-\sum_{j=1}^{n_t} \omega^t_j f(P^t_j)\Big| \lesssim n_t^{-\frac{s}{k(d-k)}}\|f\|_{H^s_p},
\end{equation}
so that we have settled that QMC systems do exist, for any $s>k(d-k)/p$, and can be derived via cubatures.
\begin{remark}
Cubature points $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n$ for $\Pi_t$ with constant weights $\omega_j=\frac{1}{n}$ are called $t$-designs.
For all $t=1,2,\ldots$, there exist $t$-designs, cf.~\cite{Seymour:1984bh}.
The results in \cite{Bondarenko:2011kx} imply that there are $t$-designs satisfying \eqref{eq:few cubs2} provided that $k=1$. However, for $2\leq k\leq \frac{d}{2}$, it is still an open problem if the asymptotics
\eqref{eq:few cubs2} can be achieved by $t$-designs in place of cubatures.
\end{remark}
\section{Approximation by diffusion kernels}
\label{sec:2}
One example, where integrals over the Grassmannian are replaced with weighted finite sums, is the approximation of a function $f:\mathcal{G}_{k,d}\rightarrow\C$ from finitely many samples. The approximation scheme developed in \cite{Maggioni:2008fk,Mhaskar:2010kx} works for manifolds and metric measure spaces in general, but we shall restrict the presentation to the Grassmannian.
For a function $f \in L_{p}(\mathcal G_{k,d})$, we denote the
(polynomial) \emph{best approximation error} by
\begin{equation*}
\dist(f,\Pi_{t})_{L_p}:=\inf_{g\in\Pi_{t}} \|f-g\|_{L_p},
\end{equation*}
where $t\geq 0$.
It is possible to quantify the best approximation error in dependence of the
function's smoothness, see \cite[Proposition 5.3]{Mhaskar:2010kx} for the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:00}
If $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, then
\begin{equation*}
\dist(f,\Pi_t)_{L_p}\lesssim t^{-s} \|f\|_{H^s_p}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
Given $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ we now construct a particular
sequence of functions $\sigma_t(f)\in\Pi_t$, $t=1,2,\ldots$, that realizes this
best approximation rate. Note that, since the collection $\{\varphi_\ell\}_{\ell=0}^\infty$ is an orthonormal
basis for $L_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, any function $f\in L_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ can be expanded as a Fourier series
by
\begin{equation*}
f =\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \hat{f}(\ell) \varphi_\ell.
\end{equation*}
The approach in
\cite{Maggioni:2008fk,Mhaskar:2010kx} makes use of a smoothly truncated Fourier
expansion of $f$,
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_t(f) := \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty h(t^{-2}\lambda_\ell) \hat{f}(\ell) \varphi_\ell\in\Pi_t,
\end{equation*}
where $h:\R_{\geq 0}\rightarrow\R$ is an infinitely often differentiable and
nonincreasing function with $h(x)=1$, for $x\le 1/2$, and $h(x)=0$, for
$x\ge 1$. Using the kernel $K_t$ on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d} \times \mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma again and new}
K_t(P,Q)= \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty h(t^{-2}\lambda_\ell) \varphi_\ell(P)\varphi_\ell(Q)
\end{equation}
we arrive after interchanging summation and integration at the following
alternative representation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:approx sigma}
\sigma_{t}(f) = \int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P) K_t(P,\cdot) \mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P).
\end{equation}
Note, that the function $\sigma_{t}(f)$ is well-defined for general
$f\in L_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, $1\le p \le \infty$, and it turns out that
$\sigma_t(f)$ approximates $f$ up to a constant as good as the best approximation from $\Pi_t$,
cf.~\cite[Proposition 5.3]{Mhaskar:2010kx}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:0}
If $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, then
\begin{equation*}
\|f - \sigma_t(f)\|_{L_p} \lesssim t^{-s} \|f\|_{H^s_p}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
If $f$ needs to be approximated from a finite sample, then $\sigma_t(f)$ in \eqref{eq:approx sigma} cannot be determined directly and is replaced with a weighted finite sum in \cite{Mhaskar:2010kx}. Indeed, for sample points $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^{n}\subset\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and weights $\{\omega_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def sigma tilde etc}
\sigma_t(f,\{(P_j,\omega_j)\}_{j=1}^n):=\sum_{j=1}^n \omega_j f(P_j)K_t(P_j,\cdot).
\end{equation}
Note that we must now consider functions $f$ in Bessel potential spaces, for which point evaluation makes sense. We shall observe in the following that if samples and weights satisfy some cubature type property, then the approximation rate is still preserved when using $\sigma_t(f,\{(P_j,\omega_j)\}_{j=1}^n)$ in place of $\sigma_{t}(f)$. However, we need an additional technical assumption on the points $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$, for which we denote the geodesic distance between
$P,Q\in\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\rho(P,Q)=\sqrt{\theta_1^2+\ldots+\theta_k^2},
\end{equation*}
where $\theta_1,\ldots\theta_k$
are the principal angles between the associated subspaces of $P$ and $Q$
respectively, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\theta_i=\arccos(\sqrt{y_i}), \quad i=1,\ldots,k,
\end{equation*}
and $y_1,\ldots,y_k$ are the $k$ largest eigenvalues of the matrix $PQ$. We define the ball of radius $r$ centered around $P\in \mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{B}_r(P):=\{Q \in \mathcal G_{k,d} : \rho(P,Q) \le r \}.
\end{equation*}
The following approximation from finitely many sample points is due to \cite[Proposition 5.3]{Mhaskar:2010kx}. \begin{theorem}\label{th:m 0}
For $t=1,2,\ldots$, suppose we are given a sequence of point sets $\{P^t_j\}_{j=1}^{n_t}\subset\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and positive weights $\{\omega_j^t\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:product cub}
\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} g_1(P)g_2(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) =\sum_{j=1}^{n_t} \omega_j^t g_1(P^t_j)g_2(P^t_j) ,\qquad g_1,g_2\in\Pi_t.
\end{equation}
Then the approximation error, for $f\in H^s_\infty(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$, is bounded by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:error approx finale}
\|f-\sigma_t(f,\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t})\|_{L_\infty} \lesssim t^{-s} (\|f\|_{L_\infty}+ \|f\|_{H^s_\infty}).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Note that the original result stated in \cite{Mhaskar:2010kx} requires an additional regularity condition on the samples. This condition is satisfied since we restrict us to positive weights, cf.~\cite[Theorem 5.5 (a)]{Filbir:2011fk}. The assumption \eqref{eq:product cub} is a cubature type condition, for which our results in Section \ref{sec:diff poly} shall provide further clarification. It indeed turns out that there are sequences $\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:product cub} with $n_t\asymp t^{k(d-k)}$, in which case \eqref{eq:error approx finale} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rate in n finale}
\|f-\sigma_t(f,\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t})\|_{L_\infty} \lesssim n_t^{-\frac{s}{k(d-k)}} (\|f\|_{L_\infty}+ \|f\|_{H^s(L_\infty)}).
\end{equation}
Note that the approximation rate in \eqref{eq:rate in n finale} matches the one in \eqref{eq:general cub fomula} for the integration error. The proof of Theorem \ref{th:m 0} in \cite{Mhaskar:2010kx} is indeed based on Theorem \ref{th:0} and on the approximation of the integral $\sigma_t(f)$ in \eqref{eq:approx sigma} by the weighted finite sum $\sigma_t(f,\{(P^t_j,\omega_j^t)\}_{j=1}^n)$ in \eqref{eq:def sigma tilde etc}. For related results on local smoothness and approximation, we refer to \cite{Ehler:2012fk}.
\section{Numerically feasible formulations}\label{sec:4}
This section is dedicated to turn the approximation schemes presented in the
previous sections into numerically feasible expressions. In other words, we
determine explicit expressions for the kernel $K_t$ in \eqref{eq:sigma again and
new} and provide an optimization method for the numerical
computation of cubature points or QMC systems on the Grassmannian.
\subsection{Diffusion kernels on Grassmannians}\label{sec:general G}
The probability measure $\mu_{k,d}$ is invariant under orthogonal conjugation and induced by the Haar
(probability) measure $\mu_{\mathcal O(d)}$ on the orthogonal group
$\mathcal{O}(d)$, i.e., for any $Q \in \mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and measurable function
$f$, we have
\[
\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) = \int_{\mathcal O(d)} f(O Q O^{\top}) \mathrm d
\mu_{\mathcal O(d)}(O).
\]
By the orthogonal invariance of the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ on
$\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ it is convenient for the description of the eigenfunctions to recall
the irreducible decomposition of $L_{2}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ with respect to the
orthogonal group. Given a nonnegative integer $t$, a partition of $t$ is an
integer vector $\pi=(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_t)$ with $\pi_1\geq \ldots\geq \pi_t\geq 0$
and $|\pi| = t$, where $|\pi|:=\sum_{i=1}^t\pi_i$ is the size of $\pi$. The
length $l(\pi)$ is the number of nonzero parts of $\pi$.
The space $L_{2}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ decomposes into
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomp L2 single}
L_{2}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}) = \bigoplus_{l(\pi) \le k} H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}),\qquad
H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}) \perp H_{\pi'}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}), \quad \pi \ne \pi',
\end{equation}
where $H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is equivalent to $\mathcal H_{2\pi}^{d}$, the
irreducible representation of $\mathcal O(d)$ associated to the partition
$2\pi=(2\pi_{1},\dots,2\pi_{t})$,
cf.~\cite{Bachoc:2002aa,James:1974aa}.
By orthogonal invariance the spaces $H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ are eigenspaces of the
Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ where, according to
\cite[Theorem 13.2]{James:1974aa}, the associated eigenvalues are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eig values explicit}
\lambda(\pi) = 2|\pi|d+4\sum_{i=1}^k \pi_i(\pi_i-i).
\end{equation}
Note, for a given eigenvalue $\lambda_{\ell}$ the corresponding eigenspace can
decompose into more than one irreducible subspace $H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$.
Note that the following results are translations from representation theory used in \cite{James:1974aa}, see also \cite{Bachoc:2002aa,Bachoc:2006aa}, into the terminology of reproducing kernels, where we have only adapted the scaling of the kernels.
The space $H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ equipped with the $L_{2}$ inner product is a finite
dimensional reproducing kernel Hilbert space, and its reproducing kernel $K_\pi$ is
given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rep of H etc}
K_\pi(P,Q)=\sum_{\varphi_\ell\in H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})} \varphi_\ell(P)\varphi_\ell(Q).
\end{equation}
Moreover, $K_\pi$ is zonal, i.e., the value $K_\pi(P,Q)$
only depends on the $k$ largest eigenvalues
\begin{equation*}
y_1(P,Q),\ldots,y_k(P,Q),
\end{equation*}
of the matrix $PQ$ counted with multiplicities, see \cite{James:1974aa}. It
follows that the kernel $K_t$ in \eqref{eq:sigma again and new} is also zonal
since it can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kernel by K_pi}
K_t(P,Q)= \sum_{l(\pi)\leq k} h(t^{-2}\lambda(\pi)) K_\pi(P,Q).
\end{equation}
According to \cite{James:1974aa}, the kernels $K_\pi$ are in one-to-one
correspondence with generalized Jacobi polynomials. For parameters
$\alpha,\beta \in \R$ satisfying
$\tfrac 1 2(m-1) < \alpha < \beta - \tfrac 1 2(m-1)$, the generalized Jacobi
polynomials, $J^{\alpha,\beta}_{\pi}:[0,1]^{m} \to \R$ with $l(\pi) \le m$, are
symmetric polynomials of degree $|\pi|$ and form a complete orthogonal system
with respect to the density
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:w_ac}
w_{\alpha,\beta}(y_{1},\dots,y_{m}) := \prod_{i=1}^{m}\big(y_{i}^{\alpha - \frac 1
2(m+1)}(1-y_{i})^{\beta-\alpha-\frac 1 2(m+1)}\big) \prod_{j=i+1}^{m}|y_{i}-y_{j}|,
\end{equation}
where $0 < y_1,\ldots y_{m} < 1$, cf.~\cite{Davis:1999zg,Dumitriu:2007ax}. For
the special parameters $\alpha=\tfrac k 2$ with $k\leq \tfrac d 2$ and
$\beta=\tfrac d 2$, and the normalization
$J_{\pi}^{\frac k2,\frac d2}(1,\dots,1) = \dim(H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}))$ the
generalized Jacobi polynomials in $m=k$ variables can be identified with the
reproducing kernels $K_\pi$ of $H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}) $, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pkl_jacobi}
K_\pi(P,Q) = J_{\pi}^{\frac k2, \frac d 2}( y_{1}(PQ), \dots, y_{k}(PQ) ), \qquad P,Q \in \mathcal{G}_{k,d}.
\end{equation}
Now, \eqref{eq:kernel by K_pi} and \eqref{eq:pkl_jacobi} yield that the expression for the kernel $K_t$ in \eqref{eq:sigma again and new} can be computed explicitly by
\begin{align*}
K_t(P,Q)&= \sum_{l(\pi)\leq k} h(t^{-2}\lambda(\pi)) J_{\pi}^{\frac k2, \frac d 2}( y_{1}(PQ), \dots, y_{k}(PQ) ).
\end{align*}
Thus, avoiding the actual computation of $\{\varphi_\ell\}_{\ell=0}^\infty$, we have derived the expression of $K_t$ by means of generalized Jacobi polynomials.
\subsection{Diffusion polynomials on Grassmannians}\label{sec:diff poly}
This section is dedicated to investigate on the relations between diffusion polynomials $\Pi_t$ and multivariate polynomials of degree $t$ restricted to the Grassmannian. Indeed, the space of polynomials on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ of degree at most $t$ is defined as restrictions of polynomials by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pol def}
\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}):= \{ f|_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}}: f\in\C[X]_t\},
\end{equation}
where $\C[X]_t$ is the collection of multivariate polynomials of degree at most
$t$ with $d^{2}$ many variables arranged as a matrix $X\in\C^{d\times d}$. Here, $f|_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}}$ denotes the restriction of $f$ to $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$.
It turns out that $\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is a direct sum of eigenspaces of the Laplace-Beltrami operator, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pol is sum}
\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})= \bigoplus_{\substack{|\pi|\leq t \\ l(\pi)\leq k}} H_{\pi}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}),
\end{equation}
cf.~\cite[Corollary in Section 11]{James:1974aa} and also \cite[Section 2]{Bachoc:2004fk},
which enables us to relate diffusion polynomials to regular polynomials restricted to the Grassmannian. For $k=1$, the eigenvalues \eqref{eq:eig values explicit} directly lead to
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_{\sqrt{4t^2+2t(d-2)}}=\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{1,d}).
\end{equation*}
For general $k$, the situation is more complicated and needs some preparation.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:11}
Let $d, k, t \in \mathbb N$ with $k \le \tfrac d2$ be fixed. Then for any
partition $\pi$ with $l(\pi) \le k$ and $|\pi| \ge t$ it holds
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lowlambda}
\lambda(\pi) \ge
\lceil\tfrac 4k t^{2} + 2t(d - k -1)\rceil.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Note that the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:lowlambda}, up to the square root and the ceiling function, is \eqref{eq:eig values explicit} with $\pi_i=t/k$, for $i=1,\ldots,k$.
\begin{proof}
In view of \eqref{eq:eig values explicit}, let us define
\begin{equation*} f(x_{1},\dots,x_{k}) := 2 d \sum_{i=1}^{k} x_{i} +
4 \sum_{i=1}^{k} x_{i}(x_{i}-i).
\end{equation*}
For partitions $\pi$ with $|\pi| \ge t$, we obtain the lower bound
\eqref{eq:lowlambda} by solving the following convex optimization problem
\[
\begin{aligned}
\min_{x \in \mathbb R^{k}} f(x_{1},\dots,x_{k}) \quad \text{ such that } \quad
g_{i}(x) \le 0,\;\; i=0,\dots,k,
\end{aligned}
\]
where $ g_{0}(x) = t - \sum_{i=1}^{k} x_{i}$ and
\begin{equation*}
g_{i}(x) = x_{i+1}-x_{i}, \quad i=1,\dots,k-1,\qquad
g_{k}(x) = -x_{k}.
\end{equation*} Indeed, we shall verify that the
minimum is attained at $x^{*}:=(\tfrac tk,\dots,\tfrac tk)$ with
\[
f(x^{*}) = \tfrac 4k t^{2} + 2(d - k -1)t
\]
by checking the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions
\[
\begin{aligned}
& \nabla f(x^{*}) + \sum_{i=0}^{k} \mu_{i} \nabla g_{i}(x^{*}) = 0,\\
& g_{i}(x^{*}) \le 0, \quad \mu_{i} \ge 0, \quad \mu_{i}g_{i}(x^{*}) = 0, \qquad i = 0,\dots,k,
\end{aligned}
\]
with $ \mu_{0} = 8\tfrac tk + 2d - 2(k+1)$ and $\mu_{i} = 2 i(k-i)$, for $i=1,\dots,k$. More precisely, denoting the canonical basis in $\mathbb R^{k}$ by $\{e_{i}\}_{i=1}^k$, we obtain
{ \allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align*}
-\sum_{i=0}^{k} \mu_{i} \nabla g_{i}(x^{*})
& = \mu_{0} \sum_{i=1}^{k} e_{i} - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \mu_{i} (e_{i+1} - e_{i}) \\
& = (\mu_{0} + \mu_{1})e_{1} + (\mu_{0} - \mu_{k-1}) e_{k} + \sum_{i=2}^{k-1} (\mu_{0} + \mu_{i} - \mu_{i-1}) e_{i} \\
& = (\mu_{0} + 2(k-1)) e_{1} + (\mu_{0} - 2(k-1)) e_{k} + \sum_{i=2}^{k-1} (\mu_{0} - 4(i-1) + 2(k-1)) e_{i}\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{k} (\mu_{0} - 4 i + 2(k+1)) e_{i}\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{k} (8 \tfrac tk + 2d - 4 i) e_{i}= \nabla f(x^{*})
\end{align*}
}
and conclude that the KKT-conditions are satisfied. Hence,
\eqref{eq:lowlambda} holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{pro:1}
Polynomials and diffusion polynomials on the Grassmannian $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ satisfy the relation
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_{s(t+1)-\epsilon} \subset \Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}) \subset \Pi_{\sqrt{4t^2+2t(d-2)}}, \quad \text{for all $0<\epsilon<2s(t+1)$},
\end{equation*}
where $s(t)=\sqrt{\lceil\tfrac 4k t^{2} + 2t(d - k -1)\rceil}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Due to \eqref{eq:decomp L2 single}, we are only dealing with partitions $\pi$ satisfying $l(\pi)\leq k$. For $|\pi|\leq t$, we derive
\begin{align*}
\lambda(\pi)=2|\pi|d+4\sum_{i=1}^k \pi_i(\pi_i-i) & \leq 2|\pi|d+4\sum_{i=1}^k \pi^2_i-4\sum_{i=1}^k \pi_i \\
&\leq 4t^2+2t(d-2),
\end{align*}
which yields the second set inclusion.
Lemma \ref{lemma:11} yields that $\lambda(\pi)<s^2(t+1)$ implies $|\pi|< t+1$, the latter being equivalent to $|\pi|\leq t$ since both $|\pi|$ and $t$ are integers. The range of $\epsilon$ yields $(s(t+1)-\epsilon)^2<s^2(t+1)$, so that we deduce the first set inclusion.
\end{proof}
Asymptotically in $t$, diffusion polynomials of order $\frac{2}{\sqrt{k}}t$ are indeed polynomials of degree at most $t$, and Theorem \ref{th:0} yields, for $f\in H^s_p(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$,
\begin{equation*}
\dist(f,\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}))_{L_p}\asymp\dist(f,\Pi_t)_{L_p} \lesssim t^{-s} \|f\|_{H^s_p}.
\end{equation*}
For related further studies on $\dist(f,\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}))$, see \cite{Ragozin:1970zr}.
In view of Theorem \ref{pro:1}, we shall also define cubatures for $\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:def 0}
For $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n\subset\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and positive weights
$\{\omega_j\}_{j=1}^n$, we say that $\{(P_j,\omega_j)\}_{j=1}^n$ is a
\emph{cubature for $\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$} if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def cub 001}
\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} f(P)\mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) = \sum_{j=1}^n \omega_j f(P_j),\quad \text{for all } f\in \Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}).
\end{equation}
We say that the points $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n\subset\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ are a $t$-design for $\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ if \eqref{eq:def cub 001} holds for constant weights $\omega_1=\ldots=\omega_n=1/n$.
\end{definition}
It turns out that the numerical construction of cubature points and $t$-designs for $\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is somewhat easier than for $\Pi_t$ directly, which is outlined in the subsequent section.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:001}
Since $\Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ are restrictions of ordinary polynomials, we observe $\Pol_{t_1}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})\cdot \Pol_{t_2}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})\subset \Pol_{t_1+t_2}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$. Thus, $\{(P^t_j,\omega_j^t)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}$ being cubatures for $\Pol_{2t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ yields that \eqref{eq:product cub} is satisfied when $\Pi_t$ is replaced with $\Pi_{s(t+1)-\epsilon}$. The latter implies that we must then also replace $\sigma_t(f,\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t})$ with $\sigma_{s(t+1)-\epsilon}(f,\{(P^t_j,\omega^t_j)\}_{j=1}^{n_t})$ in Theorem \ref{th:m 0}.
\end{remark}
For general $k$, the second set inclusion in Theorem \ref{pro:1} is sharp because $\lambda(t,0,\ldots,0)=4t^2+2t(d-2)$. The first set inclusion in Theorem \ref{pro:1} may only be optimal for $t$ being a multiple of $k$. To prepare for our numerical experiments later, we shall investigate on $\mathcal{G}_{2,d}$ more closely.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:new and latest}
For $k=2$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_{s(t+1)-\epsilon} \subset \Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{2,d}), \quad \text{for all } 0<\epsilon<2s(t+1),
\end{equation*}
where $s(t)= \sqrt{2t^{2} + 2t(d -3) + 2(1 + (-1)^{t+1})}$.
\end{theorem}
Note that $s(t)$ in Theorem \ref{th:new and latest} satisfies $s^2(t)=\lambda(\lceil \tfrac t2 \rceil, \lfloor \tfrac t2
\rfloor )$.
It matches the definition in Theorem \ref{pro:1} provided that $t$ is even. For odd $t$, $s(t)$ in Theorem \ref{th:new and latest} is indeed larger than in Theorem \ref{pro:1}, and the difference of the squares is $4$.
\begin{proof}
Any
partition $\pi$ of length $k=2$ with $|\pi| = t$ can be parameterized by
$\pi(r) = (t - r, r)$, $r = 0,\dots, \lfloor \tfrac t2 \rfloor$. We have checked that $\lambda(\pi(r))$ is a quadratic function in $r$, which is strictly decreasing in $r$. Observing
furthermore that $\lambda(\pi') \ge \lambda(\pi)$ if $\pi_{i}' \ge \pi_{i}$,
$i=1,\dots,k$, we infer that $|\pi|\geq t$ implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lowlambda2}
\lambda(\pi) \ge \lambda(\lceil \tfrac t2 \rceil, \lfloor \tfrac t2
\rfloor ) = s^2(t).
\end{equation}
Therefore, $\lambda(\pi)<s^2(t+1)$ implies $|\pi|\leq t$ since $|\pi|$ and $t$ are integers.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{ex:first one}
The particular case $\mathcal G_{2,4}$ yields
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_{s(t+1)-\epsilon}\subset \Pol_t(\mathcal{G}_{2,4}), \quad\text{ for all $0<\epsilon<2s(t+1)$,}
\end{equation*}
where $s(t):=\sqrt{2t^{2} + 2t + 2(1 + (-1)^{t+1})}$, which implies
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_{s(t+1)-\epsilon} \cdot \Pi_{s(t+1)-\epsilon} \subset \Pol_{2t}(\mathcal{G}_{2,4}).
\end{equation*}
Thus, given a cubature for $\Pol_{2t}(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$, the condition \eqref{eq:product cub} in Theorem \ref{th:m 0} is satisfied with respect to $\Pi_{s(t+1)-\epsilon}$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Worst case error of integration on Grassmannians}\label{sec:cubs}
Given some subspace $\mathcal{H}$ of continuous functions on $\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ the \emph{worst case error} of integration (with
respect to some norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $\mathcal{H}$) for points $\{P_{j}\}_{j=1}^{n}\subset\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ and weights $\{\omega_{j}\}_{j=1}^{n}$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{wce}_{\mathcal{H},\|\cdot\|}(\{(P_{j},\omega_{j})\}_{j=1}^{n}) := \sup_{\substack{f \in \mathcal{H}\\
\|f\|=1} } \Big| \int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}}f(P) \mathrm d\mu_{k,d}(P) -
\sum_{j=1}^{n} \omega_{j} f(P_{j}) \Big|,
\end{equation*}
see also \cite{Graf:2013zl,Nowak:2010rr}.
If $\mathcal{H}=H_K$ is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space, whose reproducing kernel $K$ is
\begin{equation*}
K(P,Q) = \sum_{ l(\pi)\leq k} r_{\pi} K_{\pi}(P,Q)
= \sum_{ l(\pi)\leq k} r_{\pi} \sum_{\lambda_{\ell} =
\lambda(\pi)}\varphi_{\ell}(P) \varphi_{\ell}(Q) , \qquad P,Q \in \mathcal{G}_{k,d},
\end{equation*}
with $r_{\pi} \geq 0$, $|\pi| \ge 0$, and sufficient decay of the coefficients, then the associated inner product is
\begin{equation*}
(f,g)_{K} = \sum_{\substack{l(\pi)\leq k\\ r_\pi>0}} r_{\pi}^{-1} \sum_{\lambda_{\ell} = \lambda(\pi)}\hat f(\ell) \overline{\hat g(\ell)},
\end{equation*}
and the Riesz representation theorem yields
\begin{align}
\mathrm{wce}_{H_K,\|\cdot\|_{K}}(\{(P_{j}, \omega_{j})\}_{j=1}^{n})^{2}
& = \sum_{l(\pi)\leq k} r_{\pi} \sum_{\lambda_{\ell} =
\lambda(\pi)} \Big|\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}}\varphi_{\ell}(P) \mathrm d \mu_{k,d}(P) - \sum_{j=1}^{n}w_{j}\varphi_{\ell}(P_{j}) \Big|^{2} \nonumber \\
& = r_{(0)} - 2 r_{(0)} \sum_{j=1}^{n} \omega_{j} +
\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\omega_{i}\omega_{j} K(P_{i},P_{j}).\label{eq:wce_formula}
\end{align}
Note that the worst case error is a weighted $\ell_{2}$-average of the
integration errors of the basis functions $\varphi_{0},\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\ldots$.
Recall, for instance, $H^s_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is a Hilbert space with inner product
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inner product on W}
\langle f,g\rangle_{H^s_2} = \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty (1+\lambda_\ell)^{s} \hat{f}(\ell)\overline{\hat{g}(\ell)},\quad f,g\in H^s_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d}),
\end{equation}
and the Bessel kernel on the Grassmannian is $K^s_B:\mathcal{G}_{k,d}\times \mathcal{G}_{k,d} \rightarrow \R$ with
\begin{align*}
K^s_B(P,Q)&=\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty (1+\lambda_\ell)^{-s}\varphi_\ell(P)\varphi_\ell(Q)\\
&=\sum_{l(\pi)\leq k}^\infty (1+\lambda(\pi))^{-s}J^{\frac k2, \frac d 2}_\pi(y_1(P,Q),\ldots,y_k(P,Q)).
\end{align*}
If $s>k(d-k)/2$, then it is easily checked that $K^s_B$ is the reproducing kernel for $H^s_2(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ with respect to the inner product \eqref{eq:inner product on W}, see also \cite{Brandolini:2014oz}.
Note that the polynomial space $\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is also a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. Indeed,
given a partition $\pi$ with $|\pi|\leq t$ and $l(\pi)\leq k$, the reproducing kernel of $H_\pi(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ with respect to the $L_2$ inner product is $K_\pi$ in \eqref{eq:rep of H etc}. Due to \eqref{eq:pol is sum}, the reproducing kernels for $\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ are exactly
\[
R_{t}(P,Q) = \sum_{\substack{|\pi|\le t \\ l(\pi)\leq k}} r_{\pi} K_{\pi}(P,Q)
= \sum_{\substack{|\pi|\le t \\ l(\pi)\leq k}} r_{\pi} \sum_{\lambda_{\ell} =
\lambda(\pi)}\varphi_{\ell}(P) \varphi_{\ell}(Q) , \qquad P,Q \in \mathcal{G}_{k,d},
\]
with $r_{\pi} > 0$, $|\pi| \ge 0$. Note that $R_t$ is indeed reproducing as a finite linear combination with nonnegative coefficients of reproducing kernels, and it reproduces $\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ because of \eqref{eq:pol is sum} and none of the coefficients vanish.
Now, by Definition \ref{def:def 0} any cubature for $\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ has
zero worst case error independent of the chosen norm, and thus
independent of $R_{t}$. A particularly simple reproducing kernel for $\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{k,d})$ is
\[
R_{t}(P,Q) = \tr(PQ)^{t}, \qquad P,Q \in \mathcal{G}_{k,d},
\]
see, for instance, \cite{Ehler:2014zl}.
Hence, formula \eqref{eq:wce_formula} provides us with a simple method to
numerically compute cubature points by some minimization method. In particular,
$t$-designs $\{ (P_{j},\frac1n)\}_{j=1}^{n}$ are constructed by minimizing
\[
\frac{1}{n^{2}} \sum_{i,j=1}^{n} \tr(P_{i},P_{j})^{t} \ge
\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}}\int_{\mathcal{G}_{k,d}} \tr(P,Q)^{t} \mathrm d \mu_{k,d}(P) \mathrm
d \mu_{k,d}(Q)
\]
and checking for equality, which implies $\mathrm{wce}_{\Pol_t,\|\cdot\|_{R_{t}}}(\{(P_{j},\omega_j)\}_{j=1}^n)=0$.
\section{Numerical experiments}\label{sec:nums}
We now aim to illustrate theoretical results of the previous sections. The projective space $\mathcal{G}_{1,d}$ can be dealt with approaches for the sphere by identifying $x$ and $-x$. The space $\mathcal{G}_{d-1,d}$ can be identified with $\mathcal{G}_{1,d}$, so that the first really new example to be considered here is $\mathcal{G}_{2,4}$.
We computed points $\{P_{j}^{t}\}_{j=1}^{n_{t}}\subset\mathcal{G}_{2,4}$, for
$t=1,\dots,14$, with worst case error
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{wce}_{\Pol_t,\|\cdot\|_{L_2}}(\{(P_j^t,1/n_t)\}_{j=1}^{n_t}) < 10^{-7}
\end{equation*}
by a nonlinear conjugate gradient method on manifolds, cf.~\cite[Section 3.3.1]{Graf:2013zl}, see also \cite[Section 8.3]{Absil:2008qr}. Although the worst case error may not be zero exactly, we shall refer to $\{P_{j}^{t}\}_{j=1}^{n_{t}}$ in the following simply as $t$-designs. Note that $\mathcal{G}_{2,4}$ has dimension $\dim(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})=4$, so that the number of
cubature points must satisfy $n_{t} \gtrsim t^{4}$. Indeed we chose
\[
n_{t} := \Big\lfloor \frac13 \dim(\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})) \Big\rfloor = \Big\lfloor \tfrac13 (t+1)^2(1+t+\tfrac12 t^2) \Big\rfloor.
\]
We emphasize that for $t=14$ we computed $n_{14}=8.475$ projection matrices
which almost perfectly integrate $25.425$ polynomial basis functions.
\subsection{Integration}
In what follows we consider two positive definite kernels
\[
\begin{aligned}
K_{1}(P,Q) & = \sqrt{(2-\tr(PQ))^{3}} + 2 \tr(PQ), \\
K_{2}(P,Q) & = \exp(\tr(PQ) - 2).
\end{aligned}
\]
It can be checked by comparison to the Bessel kernel, cf.~\cite{Brandolini:2014oz}, that the reproducing kernel Hilbert space $H_{K_{1}}$ equals
the Bessel potential space $H^{\frac72}_2(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$, i.e., the corresponding norms
are comparable. In contrast, the reproducing kernel Hilbert space $H_{K_{2}}$ is
contained in the Bessel potential space $H^{s}_2(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$ for any $s>2$. The worst case errors can be computed by
\[
\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{wce}_{H_{K_{1}},\|\cdot\|_{K_{1}}}(\{(P_{j},\frac1n)\}_{j=1}^{n})^{2} & = \frac{1}{n^{2}} \sum_{i,j=1}^{n} K_{1}(P_{i},P_{j}) - \big(2 + \frac{74}{75} \sqrt 2 - \frac{2}{5} \log(1+\sqrt 2)\big), \\
\mathrm{wce}_{H_{K_{2}},\|\cdot\|_{K_{2}}}(\{(P_{j},\frac1n)\}_{j=1}^{n})^{2} & = \frac{1}{n^{2}} \sum_{i,j=1}^{n} K_{2}(P_{i},P_{j}) - \exp(-1) \mathrm{Shi}(1),
\end{aligned}
\]
where $\mathrm{Shi}(x) = \int_{0}^{x} \frac{\sinh(t)}{t} \mathrm d t$ is the
hyperbolic sine integral.
In view of illustrating Proposition \ref{th:random inde}, note that random $P\in\mathcal{G}_{k,d}$ distributed according to $\mu_{k,d}$ can be derived by $P := Z(Z^\top Z)^{-1}Z^\top$, where $Z\in\R^{d\times k}$ with entries that are independently and identically standard normally distributed, cf.~\cite[Theorem 2.2.2]{Chikuse:2003aa}.
Figure~\ref{fig:random} depicts clearly the superior integration quality of the
computed cubature points over random sampling. Moreover, it can be seen that the
theoretical results in Proposition \ref{th:random inde} and Theorem \ref{th:brandolini} with \eqref{eq:general cub fomula} are in perfect accordance with
the numerical experiment, i.e., the integration errors of the random points
scatter around the expected integration error and cubature points achieve the
optimal rate of $n^{-\frac78}$ for functions in
$H^{\frac72}_2(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:smooth} we aim to show the contrast between the integration
of functions in $H_{K_{1}}$ and $H_{K_{2}}$ by using the computed $t$-designs.
We know by Theorem \ref{th:brandolini} that the sequence of $t$-designs with a
number of cubature points $n_{t} \asymp t^{4}$ is a QMC system for any $s>2$.
Since $H_{K_{2}}$ is contained in any Bessel potential space $H^{s}_2(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$, for $s>2$, we
expect a super linear behavior in our logarithmic plots. Indeed,
Figure~\ref{fig:smooth} confirms our expectations. For $t\ge 11$, the effect of
the accuracy of the $t$-designs used becomes significant for integration of
smooth functions. For that reason, we added the dashed red line, which
represents the accuracy $10^{-7}$ of the computed $t$-designs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9.5cm]{int_random_errs.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ Random sampling according to $\mu_{2,4}$ vs. integration by $t$-desings.}\label{fig:random}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9.5cm]{int_smooth_errs.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ Integration of smooth vs. integration of nonsmooth functions.}\label{fig:smooth}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Approximation}
Similar, as in the previous section we aim to approximate a smooth and a nonsmooth function, namely
\[
f_{1}(P) = K_{1}(I_{2}, P), \qquad f_{2}(P) = K_{2}(I_{2},P), \qquad P \in
\mathcal{G}_{2,4},
\]
where $K_{1}$, $K_{2}$ are from the previous section and $I_{2}$ is a projection
matrix with $2$ ones on the upper left diagonal. This time we observe that the
function $f_{1}$ is contained in $H^3_\infty(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$ but
$f\not\in H^{3+\epsilon}_\infty(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$, for all $\epsilon>0$. For
the smooth function $f_{2}$, we have $f_{2} \in H^{s}_\infty(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$, for any
$s>0$.
Since the computed $t$-designs are with respect to $\Pol_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$ and not
$\Pi_{t}(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$, we need an additional scaling of $s(t)$ in $\sigma_{t}$.
According to Example \ref{ex:first one}, the choice
\begin{equation*}
s(t) = \sqrt{2(t^{2}+3t + 3+(-1)^{t})} -\epsilon\asymp t \sqrt 2,
\end{equation*}
for small $\epsilon >0$,
yields $\Pi_{s(t)} \cdot \Pi_{s(t)}\subset \Pol_{2t}(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$. For numerical experiments, we take $\epsilon$ to be smaller than the machine precision, so that it is effectively zero. Hence, in accordance with Theorem \ref{th:m 0}, we use the
following kernel based approximation
\[
\sigma_{s(t)}(f,X_{2t}) =\frac{1}{n_{2t}}\sum_{j=1}^{n_{2t}} f(P_{j}) \sum_{l(\pi)\leq 2}
h(s(t)^{-2}\lambda(\pi)) K_{\pi}(P_{j},\cdot ),
\]
where $X_{2t}=\{(P^{2t}_j,1/n_{2t})\}_{j=1}^{n_{2t}}$ and
\begin{equation*}
h(x) = \begin{cases}
\big(1 + \exp(\frac{3 - 4 x}{2 - 6 x + 4 x^2})\big)^{-1},& 1/2<x<1,\\
1 ,&x\leq 1/2,\\
0, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
The approximation error is determined by randomly sampling altogether $50 000$ points. The first 25000 are pseudo random according to $\mu_{2,4}$.
Since $f_{1}$ has a nonsmooth point at $I_{2}$ the maximal error is expected
around this point. Therefore, we sampled the other $25000$ from normally distributed
points around that point $I_{2}$ with variance $0.15$ and $0.5$ in the
matrix entries, i.e., we choose $Z\in\R^{4\times 4}$ with independent and identically distributed entries according to a normal distribution with mean zero and variance $0.15$ and $0.5$, respectively, and then project $I_2+Z$ onto $\mathcal{G}_{2,4}$, which we accomplished by a QR-decomposition in Matlab.
In Figure~\ref{fig:approx}, we can observe the predicted decay in Theorem
\ref{th:m 0} for the function $f_{1} \in H^{3}_\infty(\mathcal{G}_{2,4})$.
Furthermore, as expected for the smooth function $f_{2}$, the error appears to
decrease super linearly.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9.5cm]{approx_errs.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ Approximation of a smooth vs. approximation of a nonsmooth
function.}\label{fig:approx}
\end{figure}
\begin{acknowledgement}
The authors have been funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) through project VRG12-009.
\end{acknowledgement}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we look at the problem of obtaining lower bounds on the index of free boundary minimal surfaces of convex bodies in terms of their topology. Index estimates for minimal surfaces are generally difficult to obtain, and there are few minimal surfaces for which the index is explicitly known. However, index bounds can help in the classification of minimal surfaces, especially when the topology is explicitly represented in the bounds, and have applications in understanding the relationships between the curvature and topology of Riemannian manifolds. Moreover, minimal surfaces whose index is known have proven to be useful in other problems; Urbano's \cite{Ur90} index characterization of the Clifford torus as being the unique minimal surface in $\mathbb{S}^3$ of index 5 was recently used by Marques and Neves \cite{Ma12} in their celebrated proof of the longstanding Willmore Conjecture. In \cite{Sav10}, Savo was able to obtain index bounds for minimal hypersurfaces in $\mathbb{S}^n$ in terms of their topology making use of the Laplacian on 1-forms. His work has inspired the approach taken in this paper.
\subsection{Free Boundary Minimal Hypersurfaces in Convex Bodies}
A submanifold $M$ of a compact Riemannian manifold $\overline{M}$ with boundary $\partial M\subset \partial \overline{M}$ is said to be a \emph{free boundary minimal submanifold} in $\overline{M}$ if it is a critical point for the volume functional among submanifolds with boundary in $\partial \overline{M}$. That is, $M$ is a free boundary minimal submanifold of $\overline{M}$ if for every admissible variation $M_t$ of $M$, $\frac{d}{dt}\text{Vol}(M_t)\big|_{t=0} =0$.
The first variation formula for a variation $M_t$ of $M$ with variation field $V$ is given by,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\text{Vol}(M_t)\big|_{t=0} = -\int_M\la{V, H}\ra dV +\int_{\partial M}\la{V, \eta}\ra dA,
\end{equation*}
where $\eta$ is the outward unit conormal vector field.
It follows that $M$ is a free boundary minimal submanifold of $\overline{M}$ if and only if $H\equiv 0$ and $\eta$ is orthogonal to $T(\partial \overline{M})$, \textit{i.e.}, $M$ meets $\partial \overline{M}$ orthogonally.
Throughout, we will focus our attention on free boundary minimal hypersurfaces $M^n$ properly immersed in convex bodies $B^{n+1}$. Here, a \emph{convex body} is a smooth, compact, connected $(n+1)$-dimensional submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ for which the scalar second fundamental form of the boundary satisfies $h^{\partial B}(U,U)<0$ (with respect to the outward pointing normal vector) for all vectors $U$ tangent to $\partial B$.
We will also place some attention on the special case when $B=\mathbb{B}$, the Euclidean ball, as there are more existence results for free boundary minimal hypersurfaces of Euclidean balls. Free boundary minimal hypersurfaces of Euclidean balls have also been shown to have an alternative characterization: in \cite{FS11}, Fraser and Schoen showed that if $\Sigma^k$ is a properly immersed submanifold of the Euclidean unit ball $\mathbb{B}^{n+1}$, then $\Sigma$ is a free boundary minimal submanifold if and only if the coordinate functions of the immersion are (Steklov) eigenfunctions of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map with (Steklov) eigenvalue 1. Furthermore, free boundary minimal surfaces in $\mathbb{B}^{n+1}$ are extremal surfaces for the Steklov eigenvalue problem.
\subsection{The Index of a Minimal Hypersurface}
Suppose that $M^n\subset B^{n+1}$ is a free boundary minimal hypersurface and that $N$ is a smooth unit normal vector field. Then, for a normal variation with variation field $uN$, the second variation formula is
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\text{Vol}(M_t)\big|_{t=0} = \int_M \left(\|\nabla u\|^2 - \|A\|^2u^2\right) dV + \int_{\partial M}h^{\partial B}(N,N) u^2 dA.
\end{equation*}
Let $J$ denote the \emph{Jacobi operator} (also called the \emph{stability operator}),
\begin{equation*}
J = \Delta - \|A\|^2,
\end{equation*}
and let $Q$ denote the associated symmetric bilinear form,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
Q(u) &= \int_M \left[ \|\nabla u\|^2- \|A\|^2u^2\right]dV+\int_{\partial M}h^{\partial B}(N,N) u^2\, dA\\
& = -\int_M u\cdot Ju\, dV + \int_{\partial M} \left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial \eta}+h^{\partial B}(N,N)u\right)u\, dA.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We say that $\lambda(J)$ is an eigenvalue of $J$ with eigenfunction $u\in C^{\infty}(M)$ if
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
Ju = \lambda u \ \ \text{on } M,\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \eta} +h^{\partial B}(N,N) u =0 \ \ \text{on } \partial M.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
The (\emph{Morse}) \emph{index} of a minimal hypersurface is the maximal dimension of a subspace of $C^{\infty}(M)$ on which the second variation is negative.
A free boundary minimal hypersurface is said to be \emph{stable} if it has index 0. For free boundary minimal hypersurfaces in $B^{n+1}$, there are none which are stable. This is easy to see since if we use the variation with variation field $1\cdot N$, then we get that
\begin{equation*}
Q(1) = -\int_M \|A\|^2\, dV + \int_{\partial M}\left(0+h^{\partial B}(N,N)\right)\cdot 1 \,dA <0.
\end{equation*}
Hence, any free boundary minimal hypersurface in $B^{n+1}$ has index at least 1.
\subsection{Examples and Existence Results} For general convex bodies, little is known about the existence of free boundary minimal submanifolds. In \cite{St84}, Struwe showed the existence of a (possibly branched) immersed free boundary minimal disk in any domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$ diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{B}^3$, and Gr\"uter and Jost \cite{GJ86} showed that there is an embedded free boundary minimal disk in any convex body in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Jost \cite{Jo89} was also able to show that any convex body in $\mathbb{R}^3$ actually contains at least three embedded free boundary minimal disks. More recently, Maximo, Nunes and Smith \cite{MNS} showed that any convex body in $\mathbb{R}^3$ contains a minimal annulus. By the above argument, we know that any free boundary minimal hypersurface of a convex body has index at least one. Currently, there are no other existence results or index results for minimal surfaces of greater topological complexity, nor are there any existence results in higher dimensions.
If we focus on minimal submanifolds of Euclidean balls, then more is known.
The simplest examples of free boundary minimal submanifolds in $\mathbb{B}^{n+1}$ are the equatorial $k$-planes $D^k \subset \mathbb{B}^{n+1}$. By \cite{Ni85} and \cite{FS15b}, any simply connected free boundary minimal surface in $\mathbb{B}^n$ must be a flat equatorial disk, and it is well known that the equatorial disk has index 1 (see p.\ 3741 in \cite{Fr07}). In fact, it is the only free boundary minimal surface of $\mathbb{B}^{3}$ to have index 1. However, there are many examples of free boundary minimal surfaces of different topological type. The critical catenoid, a minimal surface with genus 0 and 2 boundary components, is an explicit example of such a surface. In \cite{FS15}, Fraser and Schoen prove existence of free boundary minimal surfaces in $\mathbb{B}^3$ with genus 0 and $k>0$ boundary components. Using gluing techniques, in \cite{FPZ15} Folha, Pacard and Zolotareva give an independent construction of free boundary minimal surfaces in $\mathbb{B}^3$ of genus 0 with $k$ boundary components for $k$ large. They are also able to use the same techniques to construct a genus 1 free boundary minimal surface with $k$ boundary components for $k$ large. Kapouleas and M.\ Li have constructed free boundary minimal surfaces in $\mathbb{B}^3$ with any sufficiently large genus and 3 boundary components by gluing an equatorial disk to a critical catenoid, though this has not yet been published. If $M$ is not an equatorial disk, then all that is known about its index is that $\Ind(M)\geq 3$ (see Theorem 3.1 in \cite{FS15}).
In this paper, we give a relationship between the eigenvalues of the Jacobi operator and the eigenvalues of the Laplacian on 1-forms and, as a corollary, obtain new index bounds for orientable free boundary minimal hypersurfaces of convex bodies. More specifically, our first main result is:
\begin{thm}\label{ER} Let $M^n$ be an orientable free boundary minimal hypersurface of a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ with Jacobi operator $J$. Then, for all positive integers $j$, one has that
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_j(J)\leq\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1),
\end{equation*}
where $m(j) = {n+1\choose 2}(j-1)+1$ and $\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1)$ is the $m(j)$th eigenvalue of the Laplacian eigenvalue problem with absolute boundary conditions.
\end{thm}
Let $\beta^1_a=\dim H_a^1(M)$ be the first absolute Betti number of $M$. Our second main result is:
\begin{thm}{\upshape (Index Bound)}\label{IB} If $M$ is an orientable free boundary minimal hypersurface of a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, then
{\upshape\begin{equation*}
\Ind(M) \geq \left \lfloor{\frac{\beta_a^1+{n+1\choose 2}-1}{{n+1\choose 2}}}\right \rfloor.
\end{equation*}}
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}\label{ICor} If $M$ is an orientable free boundary minimal surface of a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^3$ with genus $g$ and $k$ boundary components, then
{\upshape\begin{equation*}
\Ind(M)\geq \left \lfloor{\frac{2g+k+1}{3}}\right \rfloor.
\end{equation*}}
\end{cor}
Corollary \ref{ICor} provides new index bounds for free boundary minimal surfaces of $\mathbb{B}^3$ with large topology. In particular, it shows that $\text{Ind}(M)>3$ when $2g+k\geq 11$ and $\text{Ind}(M)$ tends to infinity as the genus or the number of boundary components tend to infinity.
The paper is structured as follows: In the second section, we outline the basic notation and conventions that we will use throughout the paper, and give a brief introduction to the Hodge Laplacian on $p$-forms. Here, we define the Hodge Laplacian on $p$-forms and then focus on the special case when $p=1$.
We also introduce the two main boundary conditions for the eigenvalue problem of the Laplacian for 1-forms on a manifold with boundary.
In the third section, we provide several preliminary calculations that will ultimately allow us to see how the Jacobi operator acts on specific test functions, which will be needed to prove our main results.
We give the proofs of our two main results in the fourth section.
\vspace{1cm}
\section{Notation and Conventions}
Let $M^n$ be an orientable free boundary minimally immersed hypersurface in $B^{n+1}$ ($\partial M\neq \emptyset$). Throughout, we will let $N$ be a unit normal vector field on $M$.
Let $D$ denote the Levi-Civita connection on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and $\nabla$ the Levi-Civita connection on $M$. We will let $A$ denote the second fundamental form of $M\subset B$, and $S$ the associated shape operator. That is, for $X,Y\in \Gamma(TM)$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
A(X,Y) &= \left(D_X Y\right)^N = \la{D_X Y,N}\ra\cdot N\\
S(X) & = -\left(D_XN\right)^T,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
so that $\la{A(X,Y),N}\ra = \la{S(X),Y}\ra$
For any parallel vector field $\overline{V}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, we have the orthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation*}
\overline{V} = V+V^{N},
\end{equation*}
where $V\in TM$ is the orthogonal projection of $\overline{V}$ onto M and $V^{N} = \la{\overline{V},N}\ra\cdot N\in NM$. Since parallel vector fields on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and their orthogonal projections onto $M$ will be used throughout, we introduce the following vector spaces:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\overline{\mathcal{P}} &= \{\text{parallel vector fields on } \mathbb{R}^{n+1}\},\\
\mathcal{P} & = \{\text{vector fields on } M \text{ which are orthogonal projections of elements of } \overline{\mathcal{P}}\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Throughout, we will let $\Delta_p$ denote the Hodge Laplacian on $p$-forms (though the $p$ will usually be dropped for convenience) and we will let $\nabla^*\nabla$ denote the rough Laplacian on vector fields. So, if $\omega$ is a $p$-form on $M$ and $\xi$ is a vector field on $M$, then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Delta_p \omega & = (d\delta + \delta d)\omega\\
\nabla^*\nabla\xi & =-\sum_{j=1}^n\left(\nabla_{e_j}\nabla_{e_j}\xi-\nabla_{\nabla_{e_j}e_j}\xi\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $d$ is the exterior derivative, $\delta$ is the codifferential, and $\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$ is any local orthonormal frame of $TM$. Recall that a vector field $X$ is dual to a 1-form $\theta$ if and only if $\la{X,Y}\ra = \theta(Y)$ for all $Y\in\Gamma(TM)$.
If $\xi$ is the vector field dual to $\omega$, then one can also define the Hodge Laplacian of $\xi$, denoted $\Delta\xi$, to be the vector field dual to the 1-form $\Delta_1\omega$.
The Bochner formula relates the two Laplacians:
\begin{equation*}
\Delta\xi = \nabla^*\nabla\xi +\Ric(\xi),
\end{equation*}
where $\Ric$ is seen as a symmetric endomorphism of $TM$.
To get a bound on the index of $M$, we will consider the following eigenvalue problem defined by the \emph{absolute} boundary conditions:
\begin{equation*}\label{AbsCond}
\begin{cases}
J_1\omega & =\lambda\omega,\\
i^*\iota_{\eta}\omega &= i^*\iota_{\eta}d\omega =0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $i$ is the inclusion $\partial M\hookrightarrow M$, $\iota_{\eta}$ denotes interior multiplication by $\eta$ and $J_1$ is the Jacobi operator on 1-forms defined by $J_1 = \Delta_1-\|A\|^2$. We will often drop the subscripts for convenience. These absolute boundary conditions are a generalization of Neumann boundary conditions for functions.
We say that $\omega$ is \emph{tangential} on $\partial M$ if $i^*\iota_{\eta}\omega =0$, \textit{i.e.}, $\omega$ vanishes whenever its argument is normal to the boundary of $M$. So, if $\omega$ satisfies the absolute boundary conditions, then both $\omega$ and $d\omega$ are tangential ($d\omega$ is tangential whenever one of its arguments is normal to $\partial M$).
We define the following space of harmonic 1-forms
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{H}_N^1(M)& = \{\omega\in\Omega^1(M) \ | \ \Delta\omega =0, \ \omega \ \text{satisfies the absolute boundary conditions}\},\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and note that $\beta_a^1 = \dim H^1_a(M) = \dim \mathcal{H}_N^1(M)$, where $H^1_a(M)$ is the first absolute cohomology group of $M$.
\vspace{1cm}
\section{Preliminary Calculations}
The calculations done here are analogous to those done by Savo in \cite{Sav10} for the case of a minimal hypersurface in $\mathbb{S}^{n+1}$. In $\mathbb{S}^{n+1}$, a hypersurface has two normal vectors (one tangent to the sphere and one normal to both the sphere and the hypersurface) whereas a free-boundary minimal hypersurface of a convex body $B^n$ just has one. The absence of a second normal vector simplifies many of the preliminary calculations.
\begin{lem}\label{PPC} Let $\overline{V}\in\overline{\mathcal{P}}$ and let $V\in\mathcal{P}$ be its orthogonal projection onto $M$. Let $A$ and $S$ be the second fundamental form and shape operator (respectively) of the immersion $\phi:M\rightarrow B^n$. Then{\upshape
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\nabla\la{\overline{V},N}\ra = -S(V)$.
\item $\Delta\la{\overline{V},N}\ra = |S|^2\la{\overline{V},N}\ra$.
\end{enumerate}}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
To show (a), take any $X\in\Gamma(TM)$. Then we have that
\begin{equation*}
\la{\nabla\la{\overline{V},N}\ra,X}\ra = \la{D_X\overline{V}, N}\ra + \la{\overline{V}, D_X N}\ra = \la{\overline{V}, D_X N}\ra,
\end{equation*}
since $\overline{V}$ is parallel. Now, since $\la{N, D_X N}\ra = \frac{1}{2}X\left(\|N\|^2\right) \equiv 0$ and $[X,V]$ is tangent to $M$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\la{\overline{V}, D_X N}\ra = -\la{D_X V, N}\ra = -\la{D_V X, N}\ra = \la{X, \left(D_V N\right)^T}\ra.
\end{equation*}
Hence, $\nabla\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra = -S(V)$.
For (b), let $\{e_1, \ldots e_n\}$ denote normal coordinate vector fields centred at a point $p\in M$. Then (at $p$),
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
-\Delta\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra & = \sum_{i=1}^n \la{\nabla_{e_i}\nabla\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra, e_i}\ra = \sum_{i=1}^n \la{\nabla_{e_i}\left(D_V N\right)^T, e_i}\ra = -\sum_{i=1}^n e_i\la{N, D_V e_i}\ra\\
& = -\sum_{i=1}^n \la{D_{e_i} N, A(V, e_i)}\ra + \la{N, D_{e_i}A(V, e_i)}\ra.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since $D_{e_i} N$ has no normal component, and $A$ is symmetric, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\Delta\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra = \sum_{i=1}^n\la{N, \left(D_{e_i}A(e_i, V)\right)^N}\ra.
\end{equation*}
Now, it follows from the Codazzi Equation that
\begin{equation*}
\left(D_{e_i}A(e_i, V)\right)^N = \left(D_VA(e_i, e_i)\right)^N-2A(e_i, \nabla_V e_i) +A(\nabla_{e_i}V, e_i).
\end{equation*}
However
$A(e_i, \nabla_V{e_i}) = \left(D_{e_i}\nabla_V e_i\right)^N$,
and, at $p$,
$\la{D_{e_i}\nabla_V e_i, N}\ra = -\la{\nabla_V e_i, D_{e_i} N}\ra= 0$.
Moreover, since $M$ is minimal,
$\sum_{i=1}^n\left(D_VA(e_i, e_i)\right)^N = 0$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\Delta\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra = \sum_{i=1}^n\la{N, A(\nabla_{e_i}V, e_i)}\ra = -\sum_{i=1}^n\la{\left(D_{e_i}N\right)^T, \nabla_{e_i}V}\ra.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{PC1} For any vector field $\xi\in\Gamma(TM)$ and any $\overline{V}\in\overline{P}$ with orthogonal projection $V$,{\upshape
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\Delta\xi = \nabla^*\nabla\xi-S^2(\xi)$.
\item $\nabla^*\nabla V = S^2(V), \ \Delta V =0$.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $\{e_1,\ldots, e_n\}$ be local normal coordinate vector fields centred at a point $p\in M$. Then,
using the minimality of $M$ and the Gauss equation, we have that (at $p$)
\begin{equation*}
\text{Ric}(\xi) =\sum_{i,k=1}^nR_M(e_k,e_i, \xi, e_k)e_i = -\sum_{i,k=1}^n \la{A(e_k, \xi), A(e_i, e_k)}\ra e_i.
\end{equation*}
Now
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
-\sum_{k=1}^n \la{A(e_k, \xi), A(e_i, e_k)}\ra = -\sum_{k=1}^n \la{e_k, D_{\xi}N}\ra\la{e_k, D_{e_i}N}\ra & = - \la{(D_{\xi}N)^T, D_{e_i}N}\ra\\
& = \la{D_{(D_{\xi}N)^T}e_i+[e_i, (D_{\xi}N)^T], N}\ra\\
& = -\la{e_i, S^2(\xi)}\ra.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $\text{Ric}(\xi) = -S^2(\xi)$, and (a) follows from the Bochner formula.
To see that $\nabla^*\nabla V=S^2(V)$, we'll first show that $\nabla^*\nabla N=0$ in the sense that if $\{e_1,\ldots, e_n\}$ are again local normal coordinate vector fields centred at $p\in M$, then, at $p$,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^n\left(D_{e_i}(D_{e_i}N)^T\right)^T=0.\label{DN0}
\end{equation*}
Since, $D_{e_i}N$ is tangential,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^n\left(D_{e_i}(D_{e_i}N)^T\right)^T = \sum_{i,j=1}^n\la{D_{e_i}D_{e_i}N, e_j}\ra e_j
& = -\sum_{i,j=1}^ne_i\la{N, D_{e_i}e_j}\ra e_j\\
& = -\sum_{i,j=1}^n\la{N, D_{e_i}(A(e_j,e_i))}\ra e_j.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Now, it follows from the Codazzi Equation that $\left(D_{e_i}(A(e_j,e_i))\right)^N = \left(D_{e_j}(A(e_i,e_i))\right)^N$.
So, again using the minimality of $M$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^n\left(D_{e_i}(D_{e_i}N)^T\right)^T =-\sum_{i,j=1}^n\la{N, D_{e_i}(A(e_j,e_i))}\ra e_j = -\sum_{i,j=1}^n\la{N, D_{e_j}(A(e_i,e_i))}\ra e_j = 0.
\end{equation*}
Now, if we write $V=\overline{V} - \la{\overline{V}, N}\ra N$, then we can use this calculation and the fact that $\overline{V}$ is parallel to help us calculate $\nabla^*\nabla V$.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\nabla^*\nabla V &= \sum_{i=1}^n \left(D_{e_i}(D_{e_i}\overline V)^T\right)^T - \left(D_{e_i}(D_{e_i}(\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra N))^T\right)^T\\
& = -\sum_{i=1}^n\left(D_{e_i}(\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra D_{e_i}N)\right)^T = -\left(\sum_{i=1}^ne_i(\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra) D_{e_i}N\right)-\la{\overline{V},N}\ra \nabla^*\nabla N\\
& = -\sum_{i=1}^n\la{V, D_{e_i}N}\ra D_{e_i}N = -\sum_{i=1}^n\la{e_i,D_V N}\ra D_{e_i}N = S^2(V).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The fact that $\Delta V = 0$ now follows from (a).
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{LapIP} Let $\overline{V},\overline{W}\in\overline{\mathcal{P}}$ and let $V, W\in\mathcal{P}$ be their orthogonal projections onto $M$. Then, for any $\xi\in\Gamma(TM)$,{\upshape
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\Delta\la{V,\xi}\ra = 2\la{S(V),S(\xi)}\ra + \la{V,\Delta\xi}\ra -2\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra\la{S,\nabla\xi}\ra$.
\item $\la{\nabla\la{\overline{V},N}\ra,\nabla\la{W,\xi}\ra}\ra = -\la{\overline{W},N}\ra\la{S(V),S(\xi)}\ra-\la{W,\nabla_{S(V)}\xi}\ra$.
\item $\Delta(\la{\overline{V},N}\ra\la{W, \xi}\ra) = |S|^2 \la{\overline{V}, N}\ra\la{W, \xi}\ra +2(\la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\la{S(V), S(\xi)}\ra+\la{W, \nabla_{S(V)}\xi}\ra)\\
\textcolor{white}{.} \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad + \la{\overline{V}, N}\ra(2\la{S(W), S(\xi)}\ra+\la{W, \Delta\xi}\ra-2\la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\la{S, \nabla\xi}\ra)$.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{e_1,\ldots, e_n\}$ be local normal coordinate vector fields centred at a point $p\in M$. Then, at $p$,
\begin{equation*}
\Delta\la{V, \xi}\ra = \la{\nabla^*\nabla V, \xi}\ra -2\la{\nabla V, \nabla \xi}\ra + \la{V, \nabla^*\nabla \xi}\ra,
\end{equation*}
where $\la{\nabla V, \nabla \xi}\ra = \sum_{i=1}^n\la{\nabla_{e_i}V, \nabla_{e_i}\xi}\ra$.
From Lemma \ref{PC1} we have that $\nabla^*\nabla V = S^2(V)$ and $\nabla^*\nabla\xi = \Delta\xi+S^2(\xi)$. We also have that
\begin{equation*}
\la{S^2(V),\xi}\ra = -\la{N, D_{D_V N}\xi}\ra = \la{D_{\xi}N, D_V N}\ra = \la{S(\xi), S(V)}\ra,
\end{equation*}
and, similarly, $\la{V, S^2(\xi)}\ra = \la{S(V), S(\xi)}\ra$. Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\Delta\la{V, \xi}\ra = 2\la{S(V), S(\xi)}\ra+\la{V, \Delta\xi}\ra -2\la{\nabla V, \nabla \xi}\ra.
\end{equation*}
Finally,
\begin{equation*}
\la{\nabla_{e_i} V, \nabla_{e_i}\xi}\ra = \la{D_{e_i}(\overline{V}-\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra N), \nabla_{e_i}\xi}\ra = \la{\overline{V}, N}\ra\la{S(e_i), \nabla_{e_i}\xi}\ra.
\end{equation*}
Hence, summing over $i$ gives us that
\begin{equation*}
\Delta\la{V, \xi}\ra = 2\la{S(V), S(\xi)}\ra+\la{V, \Delta\xi}\ra -2\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra\la{S, \nabla\xi}\ra.
\end{equation*}
From Lemma \ref{PPC}(a) we know that $\nabla\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra = -S(V)$, so we just need to calculate $\nabla\la{W, \xi}\ra$. First, notice that for any vector field $X$ on $M$, since $\overline{W}$ is parallel,
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_X W = \left(D_X(\overline{W} - \la{\overline{W}, N}\ra N)\right)^T\ = \la{\overline{W}, N}\ra S(X)
\end{equation*}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\la{\nabla\la{W, \xi}\ra, X}\ra =X(\la{W, \xi}\ra) = \la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\la{S(X), \xi}\ra + \la{W, \nabla_X\xi}\ra.
\end{equation*}
So, for $X=-S(V) \ (=\nabla\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra)$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\la{\nabla\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra, \nabla\la{W, \xi}\ra}\ra & = -\la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\la{S^2(V), \xi}\ra -\la{W, \nabla_{S(V)}\xi}\ra\\
& = -\la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\la{S(V), S(\xi)}\ra -\la{W, \nabla_{S(V)}\xi}\ra.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Now (c) follows from (a) and (b) and Lemma \ref{PPC}(b).
\end{proof}
Let $\overline{\mathcal{U}} = \{\overline{V}\in\overline{\mathcal{P}} \ | \ \|V\|\equiv 1\}$. Then $\mathcal{U}$ can naturally be identified with $S^n$ if we endow it with the measure $\mu = \frac{n+1}{\text{Vol}(S^n)}dv_{S^n}$.
\begin{lem}\label{IC} For any $\overline{X}, \overline{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\overline{\mathcal{U}}} \la{\overline{V}, \overline{X}}\ra\la{\overline{V}, \overline{Y}}\ra\, d\overline{V} = \la{\overline{X}, \overline{Y}}\ra.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
The proof of Lemma \ref{IC} follows from a direct, but tedious, calculation after changing to spherical coordinates and repeatedly applying the integral identity
\begin{equation*}
\int \sin^mx\, dx = -\frac{1}{m}\sin^{m-1}x\cos x + \frac{m-1}{m}\int \sin^{m-2}x\, dx.
\end{equation*}
\bigskip
The following lemma was originally proved by Ros \cite{Ro09} for free boundary minimal surfaces in a smooth domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Here, we extend his proof to obtain the analogous result for free boundary minimal hypersurfaces in smooth domains in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\begin{lem}\label{BC}
Suppose $\xi$ is a vector field on $M$ dual to a 1-form $\omega$ which satisfies the absolute boundary conditions. Then, at a point $p\in\partial M$,
\begin{equation*}
\la{\nabla_{\eta}\xi, \xi}\ra =h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\eta$ be the (outward pointing) conormal vector along $\partial M$. Then, since $\omega$ satisfies the absolute boundary conditions on $\partial M$, at $p$ we have that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\omega(\eta) &= 0,\\
d\omega(\eta,t) & = \eta(\omega(t))-t(\omega(\eta))-\omega([\eta,t]) = 0,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
for any vector $t\in T_p(\partial M)$. In particular, if $\xi$ is the vector field dual to $\omega$, the the first condition implies that $\xi_p\in T_p(\partial M)$, and so the second condition implies that $d\omega (\eta, \xi)=0$ at $p$. Now,
\begin{equation*}
\la{\xi, \nabla_\eta\xi}\ra = \eta\la{\xi, \xi}\ra - \la{\xi, \nabla_\eta\xi}\ra = (\nabla_{\eta}\omega)(\xi),
\end{equation*}
and we claim that $(\nabla_\eta\omega)(\xi) = (\nabla_{\xi}\omega)(\eta)$. To see this, note that, by definition,
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla_{\xi}\omega)(\eta) - (\nabla_{\eta}\omega)({\xi}) = {\xi}(\omega(\eta))-\omega(\nabla_{\xi} \eta) -{\eta}(\omega(\xi))+\omega(\nabla_{\eta}\xi).
\end{equation*}
However,
\begin{equation*}
\omega(\nabla_{\xi}\eta) - \omega(\nabla_{\eta}{\xi}) = \omega(\nabla_{\xi}\eta -\nabla_{\eta}{\xi}) = \omega([{\xi},\eta]),
\end{equation*}
and, since $d\omega(\eta, {\xi}) = 0$, $\omega([\eta, {\xi}]) = \eta(\omega({\xi})) -{\xi}(\omega(\eta))$. Therefore
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla_{\xi}\omega)(\eta) - (\nabla_{\eta}\omega)({\xi}) = {\xi}(\omega(\eta))-{\eta}(\omega(\xi))+\omega([\eta, {\xi}])=0.
\end{equation*}
So,
\begin{equation*}
\la{\xi, \nabla_{\eta} \xi}\ra = (\nabla_{\eta}\omega)(\xi) = (\nabla_{\xi}\omega)(\eta).
\end{equation*}
Now, since $\xi$ is tangent to $\partial M$ and $\omega(\eta)=0$ on $\partial M$,
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla_{\xi}\omega)(\eta) = \xi(\omega(\eta))-\omega(\nabla_{\xi}\eta) = \la{\nabla_{\xi}\xi, \eta}\ra = h^{\partial B}(\xi,\xi).
\end{equation*}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\la{\nabla_{\eta}\xi,\xi}\ra = \la{\xi, \nabla_{\eta} \xi}\ra =h^{\partial B}(\xi,\xi)=h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of Main Theorems}
\subsection{Eigenvalue Relationship}
\begin{thmnonum}{\upshape \textbf{\ref{ER}}} Let $M^n$ be an orientable free boundary minimal hypersurface of a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ with Jacobi operator $J$. Then, for all positive integers $j$, one has that
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_j(J)\leq\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1),
\end{equation*}
where $m(j) = {n+1\choose 2}(j-1)+1$ and $\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1)$ is the $m(j)$th eigenvalue of the Laplacian eigenvalue problem with absolute boundary conditions.
\end{thmnonum}
\medskip
\begin{lem}\label{JC} For $\overline{V}, \overline{W}\in\overline{\mathcal{P}}$, let
\begin{equation*}
X_{V,W} = \la{\overline{V},N}\ra W - \la{\overline{W}, N}\ra V.
\end{equation*}
Let $\xi$ be any vector field on $M$ and consider the function $u=\la{X_{V,W}, \xi}\ra$. Then
\begin{equation*}
Ju = \la{X_{V,W},\Delta\xi}\ra +2v,
\end{equation*}
where $v$ is the smooth function
\begin{equation*}
v = \la{\nabla_{S(V)}\xi, W}\ra - \la{\nabla_{S(W)}\xi, V}\ra.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{JC}]
Since $u = \la{X_{V,W}, \xi}\ra = \la{\overline{V}, N}\ra\la{W, \xi}\ra - \la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\la{V, \xi}\ra$, from part (c) of Lemma \ref{LapIP}, (after some cancellations) we get that
\begin{equation*}
\Delta u = |S|^2u+\la{X_{V,W},\Delta\xi}\ra + 2v,
\end{equation*}
and so $Ju = \la{X_{V, W}, \Delta\xi}\ra+ 2v$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ER}]
Let $\{\phi_1, \phi_2,\ldots, \}$ be an orthonormal basis for $L^2(M)$ given by eigenfunctions of $J$, where $\phi_i$ is an eigenfunction associated to $\lambda_i(J)$. Let $V^m(\Delta_1) = \bigoplus_{i=1}^m E^N_{\lambda_i(\Delta_1)}$, where $E^N_{\lambda_i(\Delta_1)}$ is the space of eigenforms of $\Delta_1$ associated with $\lambda_1(\Delta_1)$ with absolute boundary conditions. We want to find $\omega\in V^m(\Delta_1)$, $\omega\not\equiv 0$, for which
\begin{equation}
\int_{M}\la{X_{V,W},\xi}\ra\phi_i dV = 0,\label{SOE}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\ldots, j-1$ and for all $\overline{V}, \overline{W}\in\overline{\mathcal{P}}$, where $\xi$ is the vector field dual to $\omega$. Since $X_{V,W}$ is a skew-symmetric bilinear function of $\overline{V}, \overline{W}$, and since $\text{dim}\overline{\mathcal{P}} = \dim\mathbb{R}^{n+1}=n+1$, there are $\binom{n+1}{2}$ equations that need to be satisfied in (\ref{SOE}) for each $i$, and therefore $\binom{n+1}{2} (j-1)$ homogeneous linear equations in total. So, if $m(j) = \binom{n+1}{2} (j-1)+1$, then we're guaranteed that there is a $\omega\in V^{m(j)}(\Delta_1)$, $\omega\not\equiv 0$, whose dual vector field satisfies (\ref{SOE}) for all $V, W$ and for $i=1,\ldots j-1$.
From the min-max principle and Lemma \ref{JC} we have that,
\begin{equation}\label{MMI}
\begin{split}
\lambda_j(J)\int_M u^2\,dV & \leq \int_M uJu\,dV + \int_{\partial M}\left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial \eta} +h^{\partial B}(N,N)u\right)u\,dA\\
& = \int_Mu\la{X_{V, W}, \Delta\xi}\ra\, dV+ 2\int_Muv\, dV +\int_{\partial M}\left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial \eta} +h^{\partial B}(N,N)u\right)u\,dA.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In addition,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \eta} &= \eta\left(\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra\la{W, \xi}\ra - \la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\la{\overline{V}, \xi}\ra\right)\\
& = \la{\overline{V}, D_{\eta}N}\ra\la{W, \xi}\ra + \la{\overline{V}, N}\ra\left(\la{D_{\eta}\overline{W}, \xi}\ra + \la{\overline{W}, D_{\eta}\xi}\ra\right)\\
&\quad - \la{\overline{W}, D_{\eta}N}\ra\la{V, \xi}\ra + \la{\overline{W}, N}\ra\left(\la{D_{\eta}\overline{V}, \xi}\ra + \la{\overline{V}, D_{\eta}\xi}\ra\right).\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We'll now use an integration technique that exploits Lemma \ref{IC} to help us simplify (\ref{MMI}). We'll then apply Lemma \ref{BC} to get the claimed eigenvalue relationship.
Using the product metric on $\overline{\mathcal{U}}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}$, Lemma \ref{IC} implies that (pointwise)
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\int_{\overline{\mathcal{U}}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}} u^2\,d\overline{V}d\overline{W} = 2\|\xi\|^2,\\
&\int_{\overline{\mathcal{U}}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}} u\la{X_{V,W}, \Delta\xi}\ra\, d\overline{V}d\overline{W} = 2\la{\xi, \Delta\xi}\ra,\\
&\int_{\overline{\mathcal{U}}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}} uv\, d\overline{V}d\overline{W} = 0,\\
& \int_{\overline{\mathcal{U}}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}} u\la{\overline{V}, D_{\eta}N}\ra\la{\overline{W}, \xi}\ra \,d\overline{V}d\overline{W} = 0,\\
& \int_{\overline{\mathcal{U}}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}} u\la{\overline{V}, N}\ra \la{\overline{W}, D_{\eta} \xi}\ra\, d\overline{V}d\overline{W} = \la{\xi, D_{\eta}\xi}\ra = \frac{1}{2}\eta(\|\xi\|^2).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, integrating (\ref{MMI}) over $\overline{\mathcal{U}}\times \overline{\mathcal{U}}$ yields
\begin{equation*}
2\lambda_j(J) \int_M\|\xi\|^2\, dV\leq 2\int_M\la{\xi, \Delta\xi}\ra\, dV + \int_{\partial M}\left( \eta(\|\xi\|^2) +2h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2\right) dA.
\end{equation*}
From Lemma \ref{BC} we know that $\eta(\|\xi\|^2) =2h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2$ on $\partial M$, since $\xi$ is the dual vector field of a 1-form satisfying the absolute boundary conditions. Moreover, since $\xi$ is the dual vector field to a linear combination of eigenforms of $\Delta_1$, it now follows that
\begin{equation*}
2\lambda_j(J)\int_M\|\xi\|^2\, dV\leq 2\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1)\int_{M}\|\xi\|^2\, dV +4 \int_{\partial M}h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2 \, dA.
\end{equation*}
Since $h^{\partial B}(U,U)<0$ for any vector tangent to $\partial B$, we get that
\begin{equation*}
2\lambda_j(J)\int_M\|\xi\|^2\, dV\leq 2\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1)\int_{M}\|\xi\|^2\, dV.
\end{equation*}
Now, since $\omega\not\equiv0$, we can divide both sides by the $L^2(M)$-norm of $\xi$ to get
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_j(J) \leq \lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk} We note that when $m(j)\leq\dim\mathcal{H}_N^1(M)$, \emph{i.e.} when $\omega$ is a linear combination of harmonic forms and therefore a harmonic form itself, we actually get the strict inequality $\lambda_j(J)<\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta_1)=0$. This follows from the fact that $\omega\not\equiv 0$ implies that $\omega|_{\partial M}\not\equiv 0$ (see Theorem 3.4.4 on p.131 of \cite{Sch95}), and so we get the strict inequality $4\int_{\partial M} h^{\partial M}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2\,dA<0$.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Index Bound}
\medskip
\begin{thmnonum}{\upshape\textbf{\ref{IB}} (Index Bound)} If $M$ is an orientable free boundary minimal hypersurface of a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, then
{\upshape\begin{equation*}
\Ind(M) \geq \left \lfloor{\frac{\beta_a^1+{n+1\choose 2}-1}{{n+1\choose 2}}}\right \rfloor.
\end{equation*}}
\end{thmnonum}
\medskip
\begin{proof} Suppose $j$ is such that $m(j) \leq \dim\mathcal{H}_N^1(M):=\beta_a^1$. Then $\lambda_j(J)<\lambda_{m(j)}(\Delta)= 0$, so $\Ind(M)\geq j$. Now, $m(j) = {n+1\choose 2}(j-1)+1\leq \beta_a^1$, so $j\leq \left \lfloor{\frac{\beta_a^1+{n+1\choose 2}-1}{{n+1\choose 2}}}\right \rfloor$. Hence, $\Ind(M)\geq \left \lfloor{\frac{\beta_a^1+{n+1\choose 2}-1}{{n+1\choose 2}}}\right \rfloor$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cornonum}{\upshape\textbf{\ref{ICor}}} If $M$ is an orientable free boundary minimal surface in a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^3$ with genus $g$ and $k$ boundary components, then
{\upshape\begin{equation*}
\Ind(M)\geq \left \lfloor{\frac{2g+k+1}{3}}\right \rfloor.
\end{equation*}}
\end{cornonum}
\begin{proof} Since $\beta_a^1 = 2g+k-1$ for a surface (see Appendix \ref{DimCalc}), this follows directly from Theorem \ref{IB}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk} We note that Corollary \ref{ICor} can also be obtained by using the work of Ros. In \cite{Ro09}, Ros shows that if $\omega$ is a harmonic 1-form and $\xi$ is its dual vector field, then
\begin{equation*}
\Delta\xi + \|A\|^2\xi = 2\la{\nabla\omega, A}\ra N,
\end{equation*}
and, if $\omega$ satisfies the absolute boundary conditions, then
\begin{equation*}
\la{\nabla_{\eta}\xi, \xi}\ra = h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2.
\end{equation*}
So, for $\xi = (\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3)$, if we use the notation $Q(\xi, \xi) = \sum_{i=1}^3Q(\xi_i, \xi_i)$.
Now, assuming $\omega\not\equiv 0$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
Q(\xi, \xi) & = -\int_M\la{\Delta\xi+\|A\|^2\xi, \xi}\ra dV + \int_{\partial M}(\la{\nabla_{\eta}\xi, \xi}\ra +h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2) dA\\
& = 2\int_{\partial M}h^{\partial B}(N,N)\|\xi\|^2dA<0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence $Q(X, X)<0$, and we get that $\dim\mathcal{H}_N^1(M)-3\cdot\Ind(M) = (2g+k-1)-3\cdot \Ind(M)\leq 0$, or $\Ind(M)\geq \lceil{\frac{(2g+k-1)}{3}}\rceil = \lfloor{\frac{2g+k+1}{3}}\rfloor$.
\end{rmk}
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{appendix}
\section{The Dimension of the Space of Harmonic 1-Forms with Dirichlet Boundary Condition}\label{DimCalc}
It is well-known, we believe, that if $M$ is a surface with boundary $\partial M\neq\emptyset$, genus $g$ and $k$ boundary components, then $\dim \mathcal{H}_N^1(M ) = 2g + k -1$, but this result seems difficult to find in the literature. We give a proof here for completeness. When $M$ is a surface, it follows from Lefschetz duality that $\dim\mathcal{H}^1_N(M) = \dim\mathcal{H}^{2-1}_D(M)$, where $\mathcal{H}_D^1(M)$ is the space of harmonic 1-forms on $M$ which satisfy the \emph{relative} boundary conditions:
\begin{equation*}
i^*\omega = i^*\delta\omega =0,
\end{equation*}
where $i:\partial M \hookrightarrow M$ is the inclusion. So, to prove that $\dim \mathcal{H}_N^1(M ) = 2g + k -1$, we will show that $\dim \mathcal{H}_D^1(M ) = 2g + k -1$.
\begin{lem} Let $M$ be an orientable surface of genus $g$ with $k$ boundary components. Then $\dim\mathcal{H}^1_D(M) = 2g+k-1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M)$ denote the subspace of harmonic fields with Dirichlet boundary conditions which are exact. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{H}_D^1(M) = \mathcal{EH}_D^1(M)\oplus \left(\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M)\right)^{\perp},
\end{equation*}
and $\dim\mathcal{H}^1_D(M) = \dim\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M) +\dim\left(\mathcal{EH}^1_D(M)\right)^{\perp}$. We claim that $\dim\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M) = k-1$ and $\dim\left(\mathcal{EH}^1_D(M)\right)^{\perp}=2g$.
For the first claim, if $\omega \in \mathcal{EH}_D^1(M)$, then there is a function $u\in C^{\infty}(M)$ for which $\omega= du$. Since $\omega$ is a harmonic field with Dirichlet boundary conditions, it follows that $u$ is a harmonic function and is constant on the boundary. If we write the boundary as a disjoint union of $k$ curves, $\partial M = \Gamma_1\cup\dots\cup \Gamma_k$, then we get that $u|_{\Gamma_i}=c_i$, for some constant $c_i$, $i=1,\ldots k$. Now, the Dirichlet problem
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\Delta u = 0\\
u|_{\Gamma_i} = c_i,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
has a unique solution for each choice of $(c_1,\ldots, c_k)$ (see pg. 307 of \cite{Ta96}). Let
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F} = \left\{u\in C^{\infty}(M)\ \bigg| \ \Delta u = 0, u|_{\Gamma_i}=c_i, i=1\ldots k, \sum_{i=1}^k c_i = 0\right\}.
\end{equation*}
It easy to see that the differential $d|_{\mathcal{F}}:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow \mathcal{E}\mathcal{H}_D^1(M)$ is linear and bijective, and so $\dim\mathcal{E}\mathcal{H}_D^1(M) = \dim\mathcal{F} = k-1$.
Let $\overline{M}$ be a smooth Riemannian manifold obtained from $M$ by gluing a disk into each of its boundary curves $\Gamma_i$. To prove the second claim, we will construct an isomorphism between $\left(\mathcal{EH}^1_D(M)\right)^{\perp}$ and $H^1(\overline{M})$. The result will then follow from the fact that there are $2g$ cohomology classes of closed forms on $\overline{M}$.
Let $\theta \in \Omega(\overline{M})$ be a closed form. We'll first show that there is a closed form $\tilde{\omega}\in \Omega(\overline{M})$ supported on $M$ which is cohomologous to $\theta$. To see this, let $\tilde{D_i}$, $i=1,\ldots, k$, be a disk slightly larger than and containing $D_i$, and let $\phi_i$ be a smooth cut-off function for which $\phi_i|_{D_i}\equiv 1$ and $\phi_i|_{\overline{M}\setminus\tilde{D_i}}\equiv 0$. Since $\tilde{D_i}$ is simply-connected, $\theta|_{\tilde{D_i}} = df_i$ for some smooth functions $f_i$. Let $\tilde{\omega} = \theta - \sum_{i=1}^k d(\phi_i f_i)$. Then $\tilde{\omega}|_{D_i}\equiv 0$ and $d\tilde{\omega} =0$, so $\tilde{\omega}$ is a closed form in $\Omega(\overline{M})$ with compact support. Since $\sum_{i=1}^kd(\phi_i f_i)$ is exact, it follows that $\theta$ and $\tilde{\omega}$ are cohomologous. For simplicity, we will suppress the restriction notation and write $\tilde{\omega}|_M$ by $\tilde{\omega}$. Now, we claim that any closed form $\tilde{\omega}\in\Omega(M)$ with compact support is cohomologous to a form $\omega_0 \in (\mathcal{EH}_D(M))^{\perp}$. To see this, let $u$ be a solution to the Poisson problem
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\Delta u = -\delta \tilde{\omega}\\
u|_{\Gamma_i} = 0
\end{cases},
\end{equation*}
and define $\omega = \tilde{\omega}+du$. Then, $\omega$ is harmonic, since $\Delta\omega = \Delta\tilde{\omega}+\Delta du = d\delta\tilde{\omega} + 0 -d\Delta u=0$. Moreover, $i^*\omega = i^*\tilde{\omega}+d(i^*u) = 0$, so $\omega$ satisfies the Dirichlet boundary condition. Now, $\omega = \omega_0 + dv$ for some $\omega_0\in (\mathcal{EH}^1_D(M))^{\perp}$ and $dv \in\mathcal{EH}^1_D(M)$. Hence, $\omega_0$ is cohomologous to $\omega$, and therefore $\tilde{\omega}$ and $\theta$. Note that $\omega_0$ is unique, \textit{i.e.}, for any closed form $\theta\in \Omega(\overline{M})$, there is a unique $\omega_0\in(\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M))^{\perp}$ for which $\omega_0\sim\theta$. If $\omega_0^1,\omega_0^2\in(\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M))^{\perp}$ are two such forms, then $\omega_0^1\sim\theta\sim\omega_0^2$. Hence, $\omega_0^1-\omega_0^2 = d\zeta$, for some smooth function $\zeta$. However, $\omega_0^1-\omega_0^2\in(\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M))^{\perp}\subset(\mathcal{E}\Omega(M))^{\perp}$ and $d\zeta\in\mathcal{E}\Omega(M)$, so it follows that $\omega_0^1=\omega_0^2$.
Let $\mathcal{L}:H^1(\overline{M})\rightarrow (\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M))^{\perp}$ be the map $[\theta]\mapsto \omega_0$ (as above). Note that it follows from the uniqueness of $\omega_0$ that $\mathcal{L}$ is well-defined and linear.
Now, $\mathcal{L}$ is also injective. If $\mathcal{L}([\theta_1]) = \mathcal{L}([\theta_2])$, then $\theta_1+du_1=\theta_2+du_2$, for some smooth functions $u_1, u_2$, which yields $\theta_1\sim\theta_2$.
Finally, $\mathcal{L}$ is surjective. Suppose $\omega_0\in\left(\mathcal{EH}_D^1(M)\right)^{\perp}$. Then, since $i^*\omega_0\equiv0$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\partial M}\omega_0 = 0,
\end{equation*}
and it follows that $\omega_0$ is exact in a neighbourhood of each boundary curve, \textit{i.e.}, $\omega_0 = d\psi_i$ in a neighbourhood of $\Gamma_i$. Since we can extend each $\psi_i$ smoothly over $D_i$, we can extend $\omega_0$ to a closed form $\theta\in\overline{M}$. It follows from the well-definedness of $\mathcal{L}$ that $\mathcal{L}$ does not depend on the choice of $\tilde{D}_i$ or $\phi_i$, $i=1,\ldots k$. Hence, $\mathcal{L}([\theta]) = \omega_0$.
\end{proof}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
Elicitation of a prior distribution is an important part of Bayesian analysis. However, often
a detailed representation of an expert's beliefs is difficult to obtain, assuming it is reasonable to suppose that there are true probabilities representing an expert's beliefs at all.
Even if it were possible to perform comprehensive elicitations in complex multivariate situations, it might not be worth the cost involved in many cases.
In complex models, how much prior information can be easily elicited from an expert will be limited due to constraints of time, cost and other factors.
For an overview of modern prior elicitation methods including realistic goals of the process, ways of evaluating its success, and the cognitive biases that make it difficult see \shortciteN{garthwaite+ko05}, \shortciteN{ohagan+bdegjor08}, \shortciteN{daneshkhah+o10},
\shortciteN{martin+bfklmm12}, \shortciteN{simpson+rmrs14} and \shortciteN{morris+oc14}, among others.
For a recent discussion of model checking including criticism of the prior see Chapter 5 of \shortciteN{evans15}.
Here we consider the problem of predictive elicitation, where prior information is given by certain limited constraints
on prior predictive distributions which are not analytically tractable. By limited constraints we mean that the given prior information might rule out
some distributions as unsuitable for the prior, but the prior information does not identify a unique suitable prior distribution.
We will be concerned with
developing effective numerical methods for finding a reasonable value or set of values for a prior hyperparameter
so that the prior satisfies the constraints.
It is not our intention
in this manuscript to consider the best ways to elicit the predictive constraints from an expert - these are assumed to be given - and
the numerical methods discussed here are a tool to be used as part of an iterative process of questioning and feedback in the elicitation context.
A more comprehensive discussion of elicitation methods is given in the references above.
The method we propose can be thought of as a novel application of the method of history matching (\shortciteNP{craig+gss97}) used in the literature on assessment
of computer models. A recent application of history matching in the context of a complex infectious diseases model that describes the history matching approach
is \shortciteN{andrianakis+others15}. We delay further discussion of the relevant literature to Section 3.
Computer models, sometimes called ``simulators", are complex computer codes that take certain inputs or parameters and produce an output. The models can either
be stochastic or deterministic. The goal of history matching is to eliminate regions of the computer model
parameter space where predictions from the computer model are clearly inconsistent with observed data. This may result in the conclusion that there
are no plausible values of the parameters given the level of model discrepancy considered to be reasonable, and the results of a history match can guide model
development and make any subsequent calibration of the model more efficient.
To apply history matching to the problem of prior choice, we can
view the prior hyperparameters as the computer model
parameters, and
use characteristics of the prior predictive densities as the computer model outputs.
From these outputs an implausibility measure of the type used in history matching can be constructed.
Similar to the computer models context, the approach can give an indication that there are no priors within the class considered satisfying the stated
predictive constraints, as well as exploring the set of possible prior choices when the set of constraints allow for a number of suitable priors.
The set of appropriate prior choices returned by the method can be used as a basis for making a unique prior choice less arbitrary, as a starting point
for adding further information, or in a sensitivity analysis.
The method we discuss here, while focusing on computational problems,
is in the tradition of predictive elicitation methods which elicit information about potentially observable data,
rather than eliciting information about parameters directly. Examples of predictive elicitation methods in the literature for particular models include,
for example, \shortciteN{kadane+dwsp80} and \shortciteN{garthwaite+d88} for linear models,
and \shortciteN{bedrick+cj96} for generalized linear models, among many others.
Another popular method for informative prior choice in this tradition is the ``power prior" approach of \shortciteN{chen+i00},
where a tempered version of the likelihood for data from a past study is used as the basis for
the prior; if no past study is available the data can also be imaginary data created by an expert.
Extensions or modifications of the method include \shortciteN{neuenschwander+bs09} and the commensurate priors of \shortciteN{hobbs+cms11}.
However, as mentioned above, we do not focus here on best ways to elicit prior information for particular models, either predictively or on the parameters directly.
Rather, we are concerned with algorithms for finding good priors satisfying stated prior predictive
constraints already given and where the relevant prior predictive distributions are analytically intractable.
A simple expository example illustrates the main features of our approach. Suppose we are to observe a binomial
random variable $y\sim \mbox{Binomial}(n,p)$ and we are interested in inference about $p\in (0,1)$. We parametrize the model
in terms of $\beta=\log (p/(1-p))$ and decide to choose a normal family for the prior on $\beta$, $N(0,\sigma_\beta^2)$, where $\sigma_\beta^2$ is to be chosen.
We can think of the binomial model with this parametrization as a logistic regression with only an intercept. A less trivial logistic regression example is
developed in Section 5.1. Na\"{i}vely it might be expected that setting $\sigma_\beta^2$ large would result in a non-informative prior.
However, this is not the case as this would put most of the prior mass far away from $0$ which correspond to values of $p$ near $0$
and $1$. Setting $\sigma_\beta^2$ small, on the other hand, results in most of the prior mass for $\beta$ near $0$, which corresponds to $p=0.5$.
So both a large value of $\sigma_\beta^2$, as well as a small value, would usually not be suitable as a non-informative
choice of the prior distribution -- the choice of $\sigma_\beta^2$ requires thought and this example shows that a flat prior that ignores the parametrization
of the model is unacceptable as a non-informative choice. It is also clear that when $n$ is small, so that there is little information in the data,
combining what is learned from the data with prior information may be very important, so that
a non-informative prior choice would not be desirable from that point of view.
Our logistic regression example in Section 5.1 illustrates the difference that even some limited prior information can make
to inference in a real example. While in the case of this example a uniform prior on $p$ may result in inferences with good frequentist properties,
things become much more complex in multiparameter problems.
It is well appreciated in the objective Bayesian community that in multiparameter models the specification of a non-informative prior as a reference for an informative
analysis is extremely subtle. The most successful approach to constructing non-informative priors in a general way is the reference prior approach
(\shortciteNP{berger+bs09}). However, this approach requires the ability to analytically compute the Fisher information and in general different reference priors
are required for different parameters of interest. There is simply no such thing as a prior that can be considered non-informative for all functions of the parameter at once.
There are a variety of ways that prior information is formulated in the elicitation literature. In our expository example and in view of the
observation that a too diffuse prior would lead to the prior for $p$ concentrating on $0$ or $1$, we might consider the following requirement for the prior. First, let
$\hat{p}=y/n$ be the maximum likelihood estimator of $p$, and define the summary statistic $S=S(y)=\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})/n$, which
is an estimate of the variance of $\hat{p}$.
If $p$ is close to $0$ or $1$, we would expect $\hat{p}$ to be close to $0$ or $1$ and $S$ to be small,
so if the prior predictive for $S$ concentrates on $0$, this indicates the prior is putting most
of its mass near values for $p$ of $0$ or $1$.
For some suitably chosen small value of $S$, we might require that
this value be implausible under the prior predictive distribution for $S$ and so rule out such a prior.
In this simple example it might be more natural to specify prior information on the parameter $p$ directly, but in more complex examples
prior information may be more easily expressed predictively in terms of observables as we have done here.
The information we have specified in this case falls short of completely determining a prior, but
the methods of this paper give ways of exploring prior hyperparameter choices compatible with such information that is easily specified and thought
to be important. If the analyst feels that the accuracy of any specified prior information is questionable, then, as in any Bayesian analysis, the prior
should be checked to see if it conflicts with the likelihood as a part of assessing sensitivity of inferences to the prior.
In the next section we describe the basic way that we specify predictive information in the later examples. We also
review relevant concepts of Bayesian predictive model checking, since the results of certain model checks for hypothetical data summaries are the way that we formulate
predictive constraints. Section 3 gives a brief introduction to the literature on history matching and regression ABC methods. Section 4 then
discusses the new approach using history matching and regression ABC for prior choice. Section 5 describes some examples and Section 6 concludes.
\section{Prior information and Bayesian model checks}
Consider, for a parameter of interest $\theta$, a class of prior distributions $p(\theta|\lambda)$ indexed by a hyperparameter
$\lambda\in \Lambda$. The problem of prior choice is to choose $\lambda$.
In predictive elicitation the choice will be based on some characteristics of prior predictive distributions of data or summaries of the data; see \shortciteN[p. 4]{kadane+w98} for a
discussion of the distinction between predictive and structural elicitation.
Here we will describe one useful way of formulating predictive constraints for elicitation purposes, and certainly
there may be others. The idea is to use the results of model checks for specified hypothetical data as a way of defining what it means
for a prior elicitation to be good enough. In a sense, we treat the problem of elicitation as one of model checking (for hypothetical data).
Suppose there are some summary statistics $S^j=S^j(y)$, $j=1,\dots,J$ of the hypothetical data $y$, with density $p(y|\theta)$,
and that for these summary statistics we are able to say
for each one whether certain values should be considered plausible or not under the prior if they were to be observed.
For $S^j$ we have a vector $h^j$ of hypothetical values supplied by an expert, which we partition as $h^j=(h_I^j,h_P^j)$, where
$h_I^j$ is a vector of values considered as implausible by the expert, and $h_P^j$ is a vector of values considered to be plausible.
We write $B_I^j$ for the length of $h_I^j$, $B_P^j$ for the length of $h_P^j$, $B^j=B_I^j+B_P^j$ and $B=\sum_{j=1}^k B^j$ for the total
number of constraints.
In the expository example of the introduction, we considered a $\mbox{Binomial}(n,p)$ model
parametrized through $\beta=\log (p/(1-p))$ and $\beta\sim N(0,\sigma_\beta^2)$. Our suggested summary statistic for the elicitation was
the estimated variance of the MLE, $\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})/n$ where $\hat{p}=y/n$, and
a prior predictive distribution concentrated near zero would indicate an inappropriately large value for $\sigma_\beta^2$ as this
corresponds to most of the prior mass on $p$ being near $0$ or $1$. A suitably small implausible value
for the summary here could be obtained by determining a quantile of the summary statistic when the true $p$ is close to $0$ or $1$, say $0.01$ or $0.99$.
We need to be precise about what plausible and implausible is. The meaning of these terms will be
in terms of the result of a prior predictive check (\shortciteNP{box80}).
Let $p(S^j|\lambda)$ be the prior predictive distribution for $S^j$ under the prior $p(\theta|\lambda)$, i.e.\
$$p(S^j|\lambda)=\int p(S^j|\theta)p(\theta|\lambda)\,d\theta.$$
In the definition, the parameter $\theta$ in the
sampling distribution for $S^j$ given $\theta$ is integrated out
according to the prior $p(\theta|\lambda)$.
The prior predictive $p(S^j|\lambda)$ describes beliefs about $S^j$ before any data are observed under the assumed prior $p(\theta|\lambda)$, and is usually not available in
closed form.
Consider the $p$-values
\begin{align}
p_{I,b}^j(\lambda) & =P(\log p(S^j|\lambda)\leq \log p(h^j_{I,b}|\lambda)), \label{pcheck1}
\end{align}
for $S^j\sim p(S^j|\lambda)$ and $j=1,\dots, J$, $b=1,\dots, B_I^j$ and
\begin{align}
p_{P,b}^j(\lambda) & =P(\log p(S^j|\lambda)\leq \log p(h^j_{P,b}|\lambda)), \label{pcheck2}
\end{align}
where again $S^j\sim p(S^j|\lambda)$ and $j=1,\dots, J$, $b=1,\dots, B_P^j$. These $p$-values give a measure of how far out in the
tails of $p(S^j|\lambda)$ the various hypothetical summary values are, and hence how surprising they are.
The $p$-values (\ref{pcheck1}) and (\ref{pcheck2}) are not easy to calculate, and simulation-based methods for approximating them are considered later.
We define a ``reasonable" prior $p(\theta|\lambda)$ in light of the available prior information
to be one for which given some appropriate cutoff value $\alpha$, we have
$p_{I,b}^j(\lambda)<\alpha$ for $j=1,\dots,J$, $b=1,\dots, B_I^j$ and $p_{P,b}^j(\lambda)\geq \alpha$, $j=1,\dots,J$, $b=1,\dots, B_P^j$ (i.e.\, the values $S^j=h_{I,b}^j$ result in failing a prior predictive check at the cutoff $\alpha$
for $j=1,\dots,J$, $b=1,\dots, B_I^j$ and the values $S^j=h_{P,b}^j$, $j=1,\dots, J$, $b=1,\dots, B_P^j$ do not fail such a check).
Here $\alpha$ is chosen according to the degree of surprise that is considered relevant for the information we want to
put into the prior.
It is possible also to use a different cutoff $\alpha$ for different checks (and in fact, when eliciting plausible and implausible summaries from an expert, values of $\alpha$ would
need to be given in order to explain to them what plausible and implausible means). The passing and failing of certain prior predictive checks for hypothetical data summaries
represent constraints on what we consider a reasonable prior to be, and we wish to develop methods for searching the hyperparameter space to find
corresponding priors satisfying our constraints. The summary statistics can either be univariate or multivariate.
However, considering a vector valued $S^j$ is more difficult computationally than considering univariate summaries
due to the need to estimate the prior predictive density in (\ref{pcheck1}) and (\ref{pcheck2}). In our later examples we generally choose
univariate $S^j$. More comments on this, and a cautionary example, are given in Section 5.2. Generally we would want to choose the summary statistics $S^j$
to be reflecting variation related to the parameter $\theta$. This suggests making these summaries sufficient statistics, although non-trivial minimal
sufficient statistics do not exist in many problems. Possible choices of the summaries include indicators for the data $y$ belonging to some set (a suggestion made by
an anonymous referee), or functions of a point estimator if these are available. Regarding the choice of the hypothetical values, if both plausible and implausible values are specified for a given summary as a pair to
convey information about the end point of a plausible range, then making these close together is more constraining. It is important, however, that the chosen values
do not represent information more precise than an expert actually possesses.
The $p$-values (\ref{pcheck1}) and (\ref{pcheck2}) are examples of prior predictive $p$-values (\shortciteNP{box80})
and such $p$-values have in particular found use in the checking for prior-data conflicts when the summary statistic is a minimal sufficient statistic
(\shortciteNP{evans+m06}) and for giving a precise formulation of the notion of a weakly informative prior (as in \shortciteN{evans+j11}, inspired by earlier
work of \shortciteN{gelman06}). When expressing prior information in terms of the results of model checks, the distinction between
kinds of checks appropriate for different purposes is related to the choice of summary statistics. This is discussed further in Section 6.
In the application here to problems of prior choice it is natural for us to focus on prior predictive checking. However, see also
the discussion papers of \shortciteN{gelman+ms96} and \shortciteN{bayarri+b00} or Chapter 5 of \shortciteN{evans15}
for a variety of perspectives on the broader problem of Bayesian model checking and different types of model checks.
Now that we have outlined how we specify predictive constraints through prior predictive checks, we need effective methods to
search the space of possible priors. Our approach adapts the technique of history matching for computer models for this task and this
is described next.
\section{History matching and regression ABC methods: An overview}
\subsection{History matching}
History matching (\shortciteNP{craig+gss97}) is a method used in the literature for assessing computer models. A computer model or simulator is a complex computer code that
takes one or more inputs, which we denote as $\lambda$, and produces a set of outputs
$\eta(\lambda)=(\eta_1(\lambda),\dots,\eta_k(\lambda))^T$. We are reusing our previous notation for prior hyperparameters deliberately here.
In a history match there are some observed data $y$,
intended to correspond to the computer model outputs, and a so-called implausibility measure, which measures the degree of mismatch
between the observations and the computer model output. The implausibility measure may be based on some implicit or explicit model allowing for measurement error,
ensemble variability (the inherent variability of $\eta(\lambda)$ when run multiple times at the same $\lambda$ when the simulator is stochastic) and
model discrepancy (a model term which represents beliefs about lack of fit of the simulator when run at its best input values).
In the case of a computationally expensive model,
we may also wish to use a flexible interpolator such as a Gaussian process (\shortciteNP{rasmussen+w05}) to interpolate or smooth the model outputs $\eta(\lambda)$ based on simulator
runs at a limited number of inputs to reduce computational demands. Such a model is called an emulator, and emulation uncertainty at inputs where the computer model has not been run can
also be included within the implausibility measure.
History matching proceeds in waves, starting with a space-filling design covering the range of model inputs ($\Lambda$), and at each wave comes up with a current
non-implausible region for the inputs, reducing the size of the non-implausible region at each stage. The phrase non-implausible rather than plausible
is used since the non-implausible region consists only of the region of the space not ruled out yet as unsuitable.
The iterative aspect of the process allows us to place more points adaptively in ``promising" regions of the input space $\Lambda$, something which is important
when $\lambda$ is high dimensional. If emulation is used for a computationally expensive model, this adaptive aspect, where more model evaluations
are made in the interesting part of the space allows the quality of emulation to improve as more waves are considered.
Thresholds on the implausibility measure determining the current implausible region
may become more stringent as the waves proceed and different observations may also be introduced sequentially in this process.
The philosophy of history matching is not to find a ``best input" for the model, but to explore the space of non-implausible values for the model parameters.
The non-implausible region at the end of the process may be empty if there are no parameters providing an adequate
fit to the outputs. A history match can be instructive for guiding model development, and if a model
is good enough to warrant the computational expense of calibration then the history match can be useful for developing efficient computational algorithms.
History matching has been successfully used in petroleum reservoir modelling (\shortciteNP{craig+gss97}),
galaxy formation models (\shortciteNP{vernon+gb10,vernon+gb14}), rainfall-runoff models (\shortciteNP{goldstein+sv13}),
climate models (\shortciteNP{williamson+others13}) and infectious diseases models (\shortciteNP{andrianakis+others15}) among other applications.
Relationships between history matching and approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) algorithms have been considered recently by
\shortciteN{wilkinson14} and \shortciteN{holden+others2015}.
Given an implausibility measure $I(\lambda)$, history matching proceeds in the following way.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialization. Set $w=1$ and generate a collection of $r$ points $\lambda_1^{(1)},\dots,\lambda_r^{(1)}$ for $\lambda$ according to a space-filling
design covering the range of the inputs, $\Lambda$.
\item Until some stopping rule is satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Calculate $I(\lambda_1^{(w)}),\dots,I(\lambda_r^{(w)})$.
\item Choose some subset of the collection of the current inputs, $\lambda_1^{(w)},\dots,\lambda_q^{(w)}$, as non-implausible based on thresholding the implausibility measure.
This set of points is used to define a current non-implausible region $N^w$.
\item Generate points $\lambda_1^{(w+1)},\dots,\lambda_r^{(w+1)}$ according to a new space-filling design covering $\Lambda^w$ and set $w=w+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
In Section 4 we describe how we implement the steps in the procedure above for our later applications. There are a variety of approaches in the existing
history matching literature for the construction of the implausibility measure, the construction of space filling designs and other choices.
In different applications the implausibility measure might change between iterations or only a subset of observations might be considered in the
early stages and the implausibility thresholds might change between iterations.
In our later applications, at wave $w$, the wave $w+1$ samples are generated directly from the current ones without explicitly defining the set $N^w$, and so we don't describe how this set is sometimes constructed in the history matching literature. A variety of approaches to this issue may be found in the above references.
If an emulator is used in evaluation of the implausibility measure, additional model evaluations could be made at step 2 (b) for the current non-implausible points and the
emulator updated appropriately. These additional model evaluations and updating of the emulator may be particularly important in the case of high-dimensional models, and
the task of emulation becomes much simpler as the interesting region of the space shrinks over successive waves. See Algorithm 1 of \shortciteN{drovandi+np17} for a typical implementation of
history matching with sequential updating of an emulator.
\subsection{Regression ABC methods}
ABC methods are used in the Bayesian analysis of models where the likelihood is intractable
(\shortciteNP{tavare+bgd97,pritchard+spf99,beaumont+zb02}).
The basic idea of simple ABC methods is to conduct forward simulations from the model according to parameter
values sampled from the prior and to then see
whether the simulated data are similar to the observed data. If it is, then the parameter value that generated the simulated data is retained as one that might plausibly
have generated the data. A recent review of these methods is given by \shortciteN{marin+prr11}, but here we
confine ourselves to describing only some regression based approaches used in the ABC literature which are relevant to the calculations done in the
next section (\shortciteNP{beaumont+zb02,blum+f10}).
Suppose that $p(\theta|\lambda)$ is the prior, $p(y|\theta)$ is the data model and $y_{obs}$ is the observed data. In ABC one simulates $(\theta_i,y_i)$, $i=1,\dots,I$
from the prior and then the simulated data are reduced to a summary statistic $S_i=S(y_i)$ with $S_{obs}=S(y_{obs})$. The role of summary statistics in
an ABC analysis is to reduce the dimensionality of the data, and ideally the summary statistics should be nearly sufficient for $\theta$.
The idea of regression based ABC methods is to use regression to obtain a conditional density estimate
of $\theta$ given $S_{obs}$ (i.e.\ to approximate the posterior distribution $p(\theta|S_{obs})$). We assume that $S_{obs}$ contains most of the relevant
information about $\theta$ in $y_{obs}$. \shortciteN{blum+f10}, extending
methods originally due to \shortciteN{beaumont+zb02}, consider the regression
model
\begin{align}
\theta_i & =\mu(S_i)+\sigma(S_i)\epsilon_i, \label{regmodel1}
\end{align}
where $\mu(\cdot)$ and $\sigma(\cdot)$ are flexible mean and standard deviation functions (which they parametrize using neural networks) and the $\epsilon_i$
are zero mean variance one residuals. It is assumed above that $\theta$ is a scalar parameter, but extensions to the multivariate case are straightforward in which
$\mu(S)$ and the $\epsilon_i$ are multivariate and $\sigma(S)$ is a matrix square root of the covariance matrix of $\theta$ given $S$. To obtain an approximate
sample from $\theta|S_{obs}$, which we write as $\theta_i^a$, $i=1,\dots,I$ (i.e.\ an approximate sample from the posterior) we can consider fitting the regression model
to obtain estimates $\hat{\mu}(\cdot)$ and $\hat{\sigma}(\cdot)$ of $\mu(\cdot)$ and $\sigma(\cdot)$ respectively, and then use empirical residuals in the fitted
regression at $S=S_{obs}$:
$$\theta_i^a=\hat{\mu}(S_{obs})+\hat{\sigma}(S_{obs})\hat{\epsilon}_i=\hat{\mu}(S_{obs})+\hat{\sigma}(S_{obs})\hat{\sigma}(S_i)^{-1}(S_i-\hat{\mu}(S_i)),$$
$i=1,\dots,I$. In the discussion above it is also possible to localize the regression using a kernel function and attach weights to the adjusted sample values
$\theta_i^a$ (\shortciteNP{blum+f10}).
\shortciteN{nott+dme15} consider related methods for repeated
conditional density estimation when we want to simulate from a data model for different values of a parameter and where that is expensive.
For approximate simulation from the data model
the roles of $S$ and $\theta$ are reversed in (\ref{regmodel1}). That is, we consider
\begin{align}
S_i & =\mu(\theta_i)+\sigma(\theta_i)\epsilon_i, \label{regmodel2}
\end{align}
and then for a given $\theta$ an approximate sample from $S$ given $\theta$ would be
$$S_i^a=\hat{\mu}(\theta)+\hat{\sigma}(\theta)\hat{\sigma}(\theta_i)^{-1}(\theta_i-\hat{\mu}(\theta_i)),$$
for estimates $\hat{\mu}(\theta)$ and $\hat{\sigma}(\theta)$ of $\mu(\theta)$ and $\sigma(\theta)$. In the next
section we use a model similar to (\ref{regmodel2}) to simulate in a computationally thrifty way from a prior predictive distribution
$p(S|\lambda)$ for summary statistics $S$ conditional on a prior hyperparameter $\lambda$ with $\theta$ integrated out according to the prior $p(\theta|\lambda)$.
Such approximate prior predictive samples are useful for estimating $p(S^j|\lambda)$ (a quantity which appears in our prior predictive $p$-values
(\ref{pcheck1}) and (\ref{pcheck2})) and hence for choosing an appropriate value of $\lambda$.
\section{Proposed algorithm for prior choice}
Our proposed algorithm applying history matching for prior choice will now be described. Let $\lambda$ denote the prior hyperparameters in a problem of prior choice. Given $\lambda$
we can compute certain features of prior predictive distributions as outputs of the Bayesian model. In the procedure of Section 2 we may consider the outputs to
be the $p$-values in equations (\ref{pcheck1}) and (\ref{pcheck2}). From these an implausibility measure can be constructed based on desired constraints for the outputs. Later we use
the implausibility measure
\begin{align}
I(\lambda) & = \sum_{j=1}^J \sum_{b=1}^{B^j_I} \max (0,p_{I,b}^j(\lambda)-\alpha)+\sum_{j=1}^J\sum_{b=1}^{B_P^j} \max (0,\alpha-p_{P,b}^j(\lambda)) \label{implausibility}
\end{align}
and we note that $I(\lambda)$ is $0$ if the constraints considered in Section 2 are satisfied, i.e.\ $p_{I,b}^j(\lambda)<\alpha$, $j=1,\dots,J$,
$b=1,\dots,B_I^j$ and
$p_{P,b}^j(\lambda)\geq \alpha$, $j=1,\dots,J$, $b=1,\dots, B_P^j$, with $I(\lambda)>0$ if one or more of these constraints are violated.
Consider once more the expository example of the introduction. There we considered for the binomial model $\mbox{Binomial}(n,p)$ parametrized
by $\beta=\log (p/(1-p))$ the summary statistic $\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})/n$ with $\hat{p}=y/n$, and suggested defining some small
value of this statistic as implausible as a way of constraining the prior to not place too much mass near values for $p$ of $0$ or $1$.
In this example there is just a single $p$-value, corresponding to an implausible summary, and the above implausibility measure
is given by this $p$-value minus $\alpha$ if the $p$-value is bigger than $\alpha$, and zero otherwise.
The search for prior hyperparameters satisfying the constraints can be performed using the methods of history matching with the implausibility measure (\ref{implausibility}).
One might object that the threshold $\alpha$ used in our implausibility is somewhat artificial. However it should be kept
in mind that this threshold is not used in a binary decision making context here, and that the purpose of $I(\lambda)$ is just to guide the search
to a fruitful region of the hyperparameter space. Obtaining an exactly $0$ value of $I(\lambda)$ may not be so important.
The use of $p$-values in $I(\lambda)$ is convenient for the way that it puts information from the different summary statistics on the same scale, and
we have found the choice (\ref{implausibility}) for the implausibility measure to be useful although there are certainly other ways that the implausibility
could be defined.
Steps 2 b) and c) of the history matching algorithm given in Section 3.1 for wave $w$ are implemented in our later examples in the following way.
First, choose some fraction $\gamma$ of $r$ in such a way
that both $1/\gamma$ and $Q=\gamma r$ are integers. For instance, in the first example of Section 5
we use $\gamma=0.1$ and $r=100$. Next, choose the $Q$ values of $\lambda$ in the current
wave for which $I(\lambda)$ is smallest. Write these values as $\lambda_1^{* (w)},\dots, \lambda_Q^{* (w)}$. Then for each of $q=1,\dots,Q$, generate
$1/\gamma$ values from a normal distribution $N(\lambda_k^{* (w)},\Sigma^{(w)})$ where $\Sigma^{(w)}=h^2 V_w$, $V_w$ is the sample covariance matrix
of all the wave $w$ samples, and $h=\left(\frac{4}{(2d+1)Q}\right)^{1/(d+4)}$ where $d$ is the dimension of $\lambda$. Note that
this results in $Q/\gamma=r$ samples that we take as the wave $w+1$ samples.
In our later examples we use the modified sampling approach in the {\tt mvrnorm} function in the R package {\tt MASS} (\shortciteNP{venables+r12})
with the option {\tt empirical=TRUE}
to obtain generated samples that have exactly the sample covariance matrix $\Sigma^{(w)}$.
The definition of $\Sigma^{(w)}$ in the
sample generation step is obtained by inflating an automatic choice of kernel bandwidth used in the multivariate kernel density estimation literature by a factor of $4$
(\shortciteNP{silverman86}).
There are other ways to generate a space-filling design for each wave; the idea above and that we implement
later in examples is a simple one based on a similar suggestion in Andrianakis et al. (2015) based on perturbing values according to a normal kernel with enough variability to
ensure that the new points are sufficiently different to the current one.
The intuition behind our choice for $h$ is that after pruning away the implausible samples in the current wave, we want to generate a set of points for the next wave that covers the distribution for the current set of non-implausible samples. The kernel estimate with bandwidth choice given above
is just to make the next wave samples somewhat overdispersed compared to the distribution of current non-implausible samples.
Note that if we were to simulate from the kernel density estimate fitted to the current non-implausible samples, that would correspond to choosing one of the non-implausible
samples at random and then drawing from a normal density centered on that sample. Instead of choosing a point randomly in this process, if we ensure all the non-implausible
samples are represented equally when drawing the next wave samples, we arrive at the procedure we have suggested above.
Inflating the bandwidth choice of \shortciteN{silverman86} by 4 doubles the marginal standard
deviations used in local perturbations of the current samples in the process of simulating the next wave samples.
It is difficult to say anything about optimality of our suggested choice of $h$.
A larger value of $h$ will ensure that the non-implausible region is not collapsed down too quickly, at the expense of additional computations.
How quickly we should narrow down the non-implausible region also interacts with how many samples are used in the initial space-filling design, and how smooth
the implausibility measure is.
The only remaining detail to specify in the algorithm is the stopping rule. A useful stopping rule is to stop when either a zero implausibility value has been found,
or if there has been no further decrease in the minimum implausibility value found for a certain number of waves.
Computing the implausibility measures in the application of history matching to prior choice as discussed in Section 3 involves computation
of the $p$-values in equations (\ref{pcheck1}) and (\ref{pcheck2}) for a large number of different values of $\lambda$ and this can be computationally burdensome. Our solution is
to use the regression approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) methods introduced in Section 3.2 to approximate these $p$-values in a computationally thrifty way.
The methods considered are based on those developed in \shortciteN{nott+dme15}, and
play a similar role in our later examples to the role of emulators in history matching for computationally expensive computer models.
Suppose we wish to approximate $I(\lambda)$ for a possibly large set of different $\lambda$ values,
$\lambda^n$, $n=1,\dots,N$. These values might be a grid over the region of interest for $\lambda$ if $\lambda$ is low-dimensional, or in the history matching
procedure they might be the hyperparameter values generated in the current wave.
Let $p(\lambda)$ be a pseudo-prior for $\lambda$ which covers the range of the values of $\lambda$ of interest. This pseudo-prior is not to be used for inference
but is used in generation of samples of the summaries $S^j$. We simulate values
$(\lambda_i,\theta_i,y_i)$ from $p(\lambda)p(\theta|\lambda)p(y|\theta)$, $i=1,\dots,I$ independently. From the $y_i$ we obtain simulated
summaries $S^j_i=S^j(y_i)$, $i=1,\dots,I$, $j=1,\dots,J$. We can obtain an approximate sample from $p(S^j|\lambda)$ for any given value of
$\lambda$ by considering the regression adjustment methods of Section 3 applied to the regression model
$$S_i^j=\mu^j(\lambda_i)+\sigma^j(\lambda_i)\epsilon_i,$$
where the $\epsilon_i$ are independent and identically distributed errors with mean zero and variance one and $\mu^j(\lambda)$ and $\sigma^j(\lambda)$ are
flexible mean and standard deviation functions. This is similar to the regression adjustment approach considered for equation (\ref{regmodel2}) in Section 3 applied to the marginalized
model for the summaries where $\theta$ has been integrated out according to $p(\theta|\lambda)$.
Extension to the case where $S_i^j$ is multivariate can
also be considered but in our later examples the $S^j$ are each univariate summaries.
Fitting the regression model locally, based on a certain number of nearest
neighbours of $\lambda$, is often useful. This is something we consider later in the examples with a nearest
neighbour distance following the default choice in the {\tt R} package {\tt abc} (\shortciteNP{csillery+fb12}). Although we do not describe in detail
the implementation of regression adjustment in the {\tt abc} package, for the method of \shortciteN{blum+f10} $\mu^j(\cdot)$ and $\sigma^j(\cdot)$
are parametrized by neural network models, and these functions are estimated in a two step procedure. In the first step, the mean function is estimated assuming
the variance is constant. Then the logarithm of the variance function is estimated by fitting a second neural network model to the logarithm of the squared residuals
from the first stage fit. The fitting can be localized, in the sense that only a certain number of nearest neighbour points closest to the target covariate value are used
(where closest is in the sense of a scaled
Euclidean distance, with the scaling for each covariate based on the mean absolute deviation of values for the covariate).
The {\tt abc} package also implements linear regression (\shortciteNP{beaumont+zb02}) and other regression adjustments. In general, there can be a trade-off between
the flexibility of the regression model used for the adjustment, and the size of the neighbourhood required with less flexible regression models
requiring smaller neighbourhoods.
As mentioned above we use the default
tuning parameter values implemented in the {\tt abc} package and refer the reader to \shortciteN{csillery+fb12} for further details.
An approximate sample from $p(S^j|\lambda^n)$ is
\begin{align}
\hat{S}_i^{j,n}= & \hat{\mu}^j(\lambda^n)+\hat{\sigma}^j(\lambda^n)\hat{\sigma}^j(\lambda_i)^{-1}(S_i^j-\hat{\mu}^j(\lambda_i)),\;\;\; i=1,\dots,I, \label{ppsamples}
\end{align}
and then we can construct a kernel density estimate of $p(S^j|\lambda^l)$, written $\hat{p}(S^j|\lambda^l)$, from these approximate samples.
The kernel density estimate is constructed independently for each summary statistic.
How close this kernel density estimate is to the predictive density it approximates depends on how well the regression adjusted samples approximate a draw from the predictive
density, as well as other factors such as the kernel, sample size and bandwidth choice.
The quality of the regression adjusted samples for approximating a sample from the true prior predictive can be very good
if the regression fitting is done in a small neighbourhood and that neighbourhood contains a large number of samples. If the predictive density varies smoothly with
$\lambda$ then the predictive density changes very little throughout a small neighbourhood of the targeted $\lambda$ value. When fitting locally with sufficient
samples the regression adjustment has little effect and the regression adjusted sample is indistinguishable from a sample from the true prior predictive as the neighbourhood
shrinks. Of course, achieving a very small neighbourhood size containing a large number of samples in local fitting involves simulating a large number
of summary statistic values and a heavy computational burden.
The computation of the estimated $p$-values $\hat{p}_{I,b}^j(\lambda^n)$, $j=1,\dots, J$, $b=1,\dots, B_I^j$ and $\hat{p}_{P,b}^j$, $j=1,\dots, J$, $b=1,\dots, B_P^j$, can be performed using the following algorithm.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Given the input hyperparameter $\lambda^n$, obtain approximate samples $\hat{S}_i^{j,n}$, $i=1,\dots,I$ from $p(S^j|\lambda^n)$, $j=1,\dots,J$, according to
(\ref{ppsamples}).
\item For each statistic $S^j$, $j=1,\dots, J$, calculate a kernel estimate of $p(S^j|\lambda^n)$ at $\hat{S}_i^{j,n}$, $\hat{p}(\hat{S}_i^{j,n}|\lambda^n)$, $i=1,\dots,I$, $h_{I,b}^j$, $b=1,\dots, B_I^j$ and $h_{P,b}^j$, $b=1,\dots, B_P^j$.
\item Calculate
$$\hat{p}_{I,b}^j(\lambda^n)=\frac{1}{I}\sum_{i=1}^I I(\log \hat{p}(\hat{S}_i^{j,n}|\lambda^n)\leq \log \hat{p}(h_{I,b}^j|\lambda^n)),\;\;
j=1,\dots, J,\;\; b=1,\dots, B_I^j,$$
and
$$\hat{p}_{P,b}^j(\lambda^n)=\frac{1}{I}\sum_{i=1}^I I(\log \hat{p}(\hat{S}_i^{j,l}|\lambda^n)\leq \log \hat{p}(h_{P,b}^j|\lambda^n)),\;\;
j=1,\dots, J, \;\;b=1,\dots, B_P^j.$$
\end{enumerate}
Given the estimated $p$-values for a certain $\lambda^n$ we can check whether it is acceptable according to our criteria by checking if
$\hat{p}_{I,b}^j(\lambda^n)<\alpha$, $j=1,\dots,J$, $b=1,\dots,B_I^j$ and $\hat{p}_j(\lambda^n)\geq \alpha$, $j=1\dots,J$, $b=1,\dots, B_P^j$.
An approximate implausibility value $I(\lambda^n)$ can also be computed from the $p$-values.
Note that the regression ABC computations are being used in a
screening process to remove highly implausible values of the hyperparameters
and high precision is not needed.
Once a hyperparameter value is chosen
based on the regression calculations as giving a prior satisfying the desired constraints
we can check its suitability.
We can do this by generating a large number of values of $S^j$, $j=1,\dots,J$ from the prior predictive distribution for
the chosen $\lambda$, and from these approximate the $p$-values accurately,
to check that
the regression approximations were good enough.
Such a procedure would not be feasible for a large number of different candidate values of $\lambda$,
which is why the regression approximations are used within the history matching algorithm. However, after the history matching is completed and
we have identified one or a small number of suitable $\lambda$, it is quite feasible to
generate a large sample from the prior predictive distribution for these, without using the regression methods, in order to confirm their suitability.
The approach we have described of approximating prior predictive samples based on
local regression adjustments can fail when the prior predictive density changes rapidly as a function of $\lambda$, and it may also be difficult to apply in high dimensions.
It is also assumed above
that summary statistics are generated once at the beginning of the history match according to values for $\lambda$ simulated under the pseudo-prior $p(\lambda)$. It was mentioned in Section 3 that a powerful aspect of history matching is the way that additional model evaluations (or summary statistic simulations in the present case) can be made as the waves of the history matching proceed. That is, we can generate additional summary statistic simulations at each of the current non-implausible $\lambda$ values in the history matching waves to improve the quality of the regression adjustment approach for approximating the prior predictive distribution in the interesting parts of the hyperparameter space. This is most interesting when the number of hyperparameters is large, and for our highest dimensional example later (with four hyperparameters) we consider such an approach.
Emulation methods are thoroughly developed in the existing literature for deterministic computer models.
However, where stochastic models are considered, and the task is to emulate the distribution of an output
as a function of inputs, simple methods such as just emulating means and variances are often considered. This may be sufficient, depending on what is required for the chosen implausibility measure. In our application, capturing more complex features of the prior predictive density becomes important. The regression ABC approach outlined here
is not the only one that could be considered. However, a comparison of different
conditional density estimation methods in this application is beyond the scope of the present work.
\section{Examples}
We illustrate our methodology in three examples. In the first two examples there are just two hyperparameters to be chosen and we can plot the way that
the predictive $p$-values in our checks vary with the hyperparameters over a grid; such plots are useful for checking the results of the history match.
Both the $p$-values at the grid points in these plots, as well as the $p$-values used to approximate the implausibility measure for the history matching samples,
are obtained using regression ABC approximations to the prior predictive densities of the summaries.
In the third example there are four hyperparameters to be chosen, and consideration of a grid of hyperparameter values is no longer feasible.
\subsection{Logistic regression example}
We consider a logistic regression for an experiment described in \shortciteN{racine+gfs86} where 5 animals at each of 4 dose levels
were exposed to a toxin. We write the dose levels as $x_1<x_2<x_3<x_4$ and assume that these values have been transformed to a log scale, centered and scaled
as in \shortciteN{gelman+jps08}. If $y_i$ is the number of animals killed at dose level $x_i$, the data model is $y_i\sim \mbox{Binomial}(5,p_i)$ with
$\log (p_i/(1-p_i))=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_i$. \shortciteN{gelman+jps08} consider a prior on $\beta$ where $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ follow independent Cauchy distributions
centered on zero with scale $\lambda_1=10$ and $\lambda_2=2.5$ respectively. Here we consider $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ as hyperparameters to be chosen, with
$\lambda\in [0.5,10]\times [0.5,10]$.
Our elicitation method requires us to specify some hypothetical data to be plausible or implausible under the prior. Write $\hat{\beta}=(\hat{\beta}_0,\hat{\beta}_1)$
for the posterior mode of $\beta$
based on independent normal $N(0,100)$ priors on $\beta_0,\beta_1$. Note that the normal prior here is used only in the computation of $\hat{\beta}$: the
parametric prior family being used in the elicitation is the Cauchy family described above.
Note that $\hat{\beta}$ is similar to the MLE in non-degenerate settings but will exist even when the MLE does not.
For each dose $x_i$, let $\hat{p}_i=1/(1+\exp(-\hat{\beta}_0-\hat{\beta}_1 x_i))$ be
the corresponding fitted probability of death at dose $x_i$ under the fitted model. Let us consider the summary statistic $S^1=\sum_{i=1}^4 5\hat{p}_i(1-\hat{p}_i)$
which is the sum of the variances of the responses when $\beta=\hat{\beta}$. The statistic $S^1$ will tend to be small if all the responses are close
to either zero or the maximum value of $5$ resulting in fitted probabilities at the different dose levels all close to zero or one. If all $\hat{p}_i$ are equal to either $0.01$ or $0.99$, then the value of $S^1$ would be $0.198$ and we might wish the prior to express the information that this is an implausible value for $S^1$.
The summary $S^1$ is the natural extension to the logistic regression case of the summary statistic used in the expository example of the introduction.
In this example we might also expect that it would not be surprising if the fitted probability of death goes from a value near zero at the lowest dose to a value near 1 at the highest dose, in a fairly smooth way.
If $\hat{p}_1=0.01$, $\hat{p}_2=0.25$, $\hat{p}_3=0.75$ and $\hat{p}_4=0.99$, then the corresponding value of $S^1$ would
be $1.974$. We consider a prior within our framework in which $S^1=0.198$ is considered to be implausible, and $S^1=1.974$ is considered
to be plausible. This is weak prior information, but enough to constrain hyperparameter
choice in a useful way. Although it is discrete, $S^1$ is treated as a continuous quantity in our calculations. This is a reasonable approximation
when the number of different possible values is large, as here.
For the hypothetical data summary $S^1=0.198$, we compute the predictive $p$-value for the summary statistics chosen using the method of Section 4 and using
a grid of 10,000 $\lambda$ values in our target range
$\lambda\in [0.5,10]\times [0.5,10]$ with the grid formed from 100 equally spaced values in each dimension.
The regression adjustment calculations for computation of the $p$-values are done using the default implementation of the {\tt abc} function in the {\tt abc} {\tt R} package
(\shortciteNP{csillery+fb12}). We used 400,000 simulated values of the summary statistic $S^1$, local
linear regression adjustment and 1,000 nearest neighbours in the localized regression ABC procedure.
This means that in (\ref{ppsamples}) the mean and log standard deviation functions $\mu^j(\lambda)$ and $\log \sigma^j(\lambda)$ are assumed to be linear functions
of $\lambda$, and the regression is fitted based on the nearest 1000 neighbours to the target $\lambda$ values. Nearest means in the sense of scaled Euclidean distance,
where each component of $\lambda$ is being scaled by the mean absolute deviation. This is the default local linear regression adjustment implemented
in the {\tt abc} R package (\shortciteNP{csillery+fb12}).
A plot of how the $p$-value changes
as a function of $\lambda$ is shown in the left panel of Figure \ref{pvalueplot}. Note the two blue regions in the graph where the $p$-value is small; the region on the left occurs
for hyperparameter values where $0.198$ is an implausibly small value, whereas the region on the right occurs for hyperparameter values for which $0.198$ is implausibly large.
A similar plot of the $p$-value as a function of $\lambda$ for the check with $S^1=1.974$ is
shown in the right panel. An acceptable value for $\lambda$ is a value in the dark grey region in the left panel (small $p$-value indicating a prior-data conflict) and avoiding the dark
grey region in the right panel (a $p$-value which is not small indicating the absence of a conflict).
The points overlaid on the graphs are obtained from using the history matching method of Section 3. In the history match the algorithm is initialized with a maximin latin hypercube
design of $r=100$ points, $\gamma=0.1$ and the points shown in the graph are the retained values after 4 waves. The $p$-values in the implausibility measure
are again computed using the method of Section 4. The minimum implausibility obtained is $0$, i.e.\ we are successful at finding hyperparameter values satisfying the constraints.
As mentioned above, in considering this example \shortciteN{gelman+jps08} considered a default prior with $\lambda_1=10$ and $\lambda_2=2.5$. This is a weakly informative
choice for the prior, and it
can be seen from Figure \ref{pvalueplot} that to match the information we have suggested putting into our analysis a smaller value of $\lambda_1$ is needed.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{logisticS1v5.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{logisticS2v5.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{pvalueplot}
Conflict $p$-value as a function of $\lambda$ for logistic regression example. $p$-value for check for $S^1=0.198$ (left) and for $S^1=1.974$ (right).
In both graphs the overlaid points are from the fourth wave of the history match and the minimum implausibility obtained is zero.
}
\end{figure}
Also shown in Figure \ref{whatdiff} are the marginal posterior distributions of $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ for the default prior with $\lambda_1=10$ and $\lambda_2=2.5$, as well as for two hyperparameter values obtained from the history match. The posterior distributions are computed for the observed data of $(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)=(0,1,3,5)$. In this example it is seen that the prior information we have put in makes some difference to the resulting inference, particularly for the intercept.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{logisticBeta0all.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{logisticBeta1all.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{whatdiff}
Marginal posterior distributions for $\beta_0$ (left) and $\beta_1$ (right) for default prior with $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=(10,2.5)$ as well as history matching hyperparameter values of
$(\lambda_1, \lambda_2) = (0.33, 2.08)$ and $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2) = (0.23, 0.73)$ (labelled ``HistMatchABC1" and ``HistMatchABC2" respectively).}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sparse signal shrinkage prior}
Next we consider prior choice for a linear model with a sparse signal shrinkage prior on the coefficients. The shrinkage prior we consider
is the horseshoe+ prior of \shortciteN{bhadra+others2015}.
The need in modern data analysis to consider increasingly complex models with respect to both the number of parameters and hierarchical structure
has resulted in a very large literature on sophisticated shrinkage priors in a range of applications. We consider only the horseshoe+ prior for a high-dimensional linear model
in this example, but the kind of analysis we do here could be done for other shrinkage priors, of which there are many.
\shortciteN{bhadra+others2015} give a survey of the current state of the art in the area.
We describe a general version of our model first which also incorporates
observation specific mean shift terms that can account for outliers in the model, using similar ideas to those considered in \shortciteN{she+o11}.
A simplified version of the model with two hyperparameters will be considered in this subsection, and the more general form of the model with four hyperparameters
will be considered in the next subsection.
For some $(M\times p)$ design matrix $X$ consider the model
\begin{align}
y & =\beta_0 1_M+X\beta+\delta+\epsilon, \label{outliermod}
\end{align}
where $y=(y_1,\dots,y_M)^T$ is an $M$-vector of responses, $\beta_0$ is an intercept term, $1_M$ denotes an $n$-vector of ones,
$\beta$ is a $E\times 1$ vector of regression coefficients, $\delta=(\delta_1,\dots,\delta_M)^T$ is an $M$-vector of mean shift parameters
intended to be sparse and which allows for outliers in a small number of observations, and $\epsilon\sim N(0,\sigma^2 I)$.
The model is not identifiable unless sparsity assumptions are made for $\delta$, and in the case where $E>M$,
which is the case we consider here, we also need to make some assumptions of sparsity for $\beta$.
We consider a Bayesian analysis with priors $\beta_0\sim N(0,\sigma_0^2)$ and $\sigma\sim \mbox{HC}(0,A_\sigma)$ (where
$\mbox{HC}(0,A_\sigma)$ denotes the half Cauchy distribution with scale parameter $A_\sigma$). The elements of $\beta$ are independent in their prior,
$\beta_e\sim N(0,\sigma_e^2)$, with $\sigma_e\sim \mbox{HC}(0,A_\beta \gamma_e)$, $\gamma_e\sim \mbox{HC}(0,1)$, $e=1,\dots, E$, and $A_\beta$ is a scale parameter
to be chosen. Similarly in the prior for $\delta$ the elements of $\delta$ are independent in the prior with
$\delta_m\sim N(0,\tau_m^2)$, $\tau_m^2\sim \mbox{HC}(0,A_\delta \zeta_n)$, $\zeta_m\sim \mbox{HC}(0,1)$ for $m=1,\dots, M$, where
$A_\delta$ is a hyperparameter to be chosen.
The prior specification is complete once the hyperparameters $\sigma_0^2$, $A_\sigma$, $A_\beta$ and $A_\delta$ are fixed. In the current
section we consider the model where $\delta=0$ and hence there is no need to set $A_\delta$ and where $\sigma_0^2$ is fixed at $100$. The full model is considered
further in the next subsection.
We consider choice of $(A_\sigma,A_\beta)$ in the context of the sugar data set considered in \shortciteN{brown+vf98}. In this dataset there are
$E=700$ predictors in the training sample, 3 response variables and 125 observations in the training set, so that we are considering a case where $E>M$. We consider
the response variable glucose and center and scale all columns of the design matrix. Now consider applying our method. For summary statistics, we define
$S^1$ to be the log of the marginal variance of $y$ averaging over the predictors, i.e.\ $S^1=\log s^2$ where
$$s^2=\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^n (y_j-\bar{y})^2,$$
where $\bar{y}$ is the sample mean of $y$. We take the log in defining $S^1$ since $s^2$ can have quite a heavy tailed prior predictive distribution
due to the half-Cauchy prior on $\sigma$.
Some idea of the range of the responses marginally is very likely to be available in applications and so it may be
easy to specify what would be plausible or implausible values for $S^1$. We consider $S^1=\log 16$ to be plausible and
$S^1=\log 50$ to be implausible (the marginal variance for the observed data is about 16 here).
We also consider another summary statistic $S^2=S^2(y)$ defined as follows. This summary statistic is an adjusted $R^2$ type measure of how much variation is
explained by the predictors, but one that is appropriate to the situation of more covariates than observations and which is based on a simple version of
the refitted cross-validation method of \shortciteN{fan+gh12}.
Details of computation of this adjusted $R^2$ measure are given in the Appendix.
We want to require that both $S^2=0.05$
as well as $S^2=0.95$ are plausible, so that
the model allows both a small or large amount of variation in the response variable to be explainable through the regression {\it a priori}.
Figure \ref{pvalueplot2} shows plots of the $p$-values for the tests based on the four summary statistics as $(A_\sigma,A_\beta)$ vary.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S1HSplusPriorv5.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S2HSplusPriorv5.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S3HSplusPriorv5.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S4HSplusPriorv5.pdf} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{pvalueplot2}
Conflict $p$-value as a function of $(A_\sigma,A_\beta)$ for sparse signal shrinkage example. $p$-value for check for $S^1=\log 16$ (top left), $S^1=\log 50$ (top right),
$S^2=0.05$ (bottom left) and $S^2=0.95$ (bottom right).
In both graphs the overlaid points are from the third wave of the history match and the minimum implausibility obtained is zero. In the panels in the top row the contour line is at the level $0.05$.}
\end{figure}
The plots are for $100\times 100$ grids equally spaced in each dimension for $(A_\sigma,\log A_\beta)$ covering the range $[0,2]\times [-\log 100p,-\log p]$.
The regression adjustment calculations for computation of the $p$-values are done using 100,000 evaluations of the summary statistics with local
linear regression adjustments and 1,000 nearest neighbours.
Similar to the last example overlaid on the graphs are the retained points from the third wave of a history match implemented in the same way as the previous
example with $r=100$ and $\gamma=0.1$. The history match succeeds in finding prior hyperparameter values corresponding to priors which satisfy the constraints.
In the top right plot we want to be in the darkest grey region (i.e. the corresponding summary is implausible),
and in the other plots we want to avoid the darkest grey region (i.e. the corresponding summaries are plausible). In the top two panels in Figure 3
the contour line is at the level $0.05$, showing
we have succeeded in finding points satisfying the constraint.
It is interesting to see what happens in this example when we change the prior on $\beta$ to $\beta_j\sim N(0,A_\beta)$, so that now $A_\beta$ is a scale parameter
to be chosen in a normal prior, but where our predictive constraints remain the same. We continue to use the notation $A_\beta$ for the scale parameter in the prior on $\beta$
even though this is of course a different parameter in the two priors.
State of the art sparsity inducing priors like the horseshoe+ have good frequentist performance in a number of senses as described in \shortciteN{bhadra+others2015}.
Here we illustrate a more Bayesian way in which this prior is good in this example.
Before we did a history match in this example we
expected that the normal prior would work poorly in the sense of not being able to capture the information
that either a large or small amount of the variation in the response should be explainable through the covariates {\it a priori}. Our intuition was incorrect, and
it was in fact possible to satisfy our constraints.
The results of wave 5 of our history match for the normal prior are shown in Figure \ref{pvalueplot3}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S1NormalPriorv5.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S2NormalPriorv5.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S3NormalPriorv5.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S4NormalPriorv5.pdf} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{pvalueplot3}
Conflict $p$-value as a function of $(A_\sigma,A_\beta)$ for normal prior example. $p$-value for check for $S^1=\log 16$ (top left), $S^1=\log 50$ (top right),
$S^2=0.05$ (bottom left) and $S^2=0.95$ (bottom right).
In both graphs the overlaid points are from the third wave of the history match and the minimum implausibility obtained is 0.}
\end{figure}
However, now consider the following. If $S^1=\log 16$ and $S^2=0.95$ should both be plausible, perhaps we should also require that $(S^1,S^2)=(\log 16,0.95)$ should be plausible in the joint prior predictive for $(S^1,S^2)$. Figure \ref{densityplots2d} shows kernel estimates of the joint prior predictive density
for $(S^1,S^2)$ for the horseshoe+ and normal priors for two particular hyperparameter values achieving zero implausibility, based on 1000 prior predictive samples.
We can see that $(S^1,S^2)=(\log 16,0.95)$ is plausible for the horseshoe+ prior, but not for the normal prior.
The explanation for this is that it is only when the noise variance is small that the regression can explain a lot of the variation in the case of the normal prior. The behaviour of
the horseshoe+ prior, however, is more acceptable.
This example illustrates perhaps some of the pitfalls of considering plausible and implausible values for one-dimensional summary statistics separately. While this is a useful
strategy for defining constraints, and it makes computations more convenient, once a reasonable candidate hyperparameter value is found it may be useful to consider the behaviour
of the joint prior predictive for several summaries simultaneously.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{JointImageHSplusPriorv1.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{JointImageNormalPriorv1.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{densityplots2d}
Prior predictive densities for $(S^1,S^2)$ for two zero implausibility hyperparameter values for horseshoe+ prior (left) and normal prior (right). The point
$(S^1,S^2)=(\log 16,0.95)$ is marked. The hyperparameters are $(A_\sigma, A_\beta) = (0.36, 0.014)$ for the normal prior, and
$(A_\sigma, A_\beta) = (0.033,0.00004)$ for the horseshoe+ prior. The same scale is used for both contour plots. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{An example with higher-dimensional hyperparameter}
Continuing the last example, consider the full model (\ref{outliermod}) described in Section 5.2 where now we allow $\delta$ to be nonzero. We also consider
the situation where $\sigma_0^2$ is not fixed in the prior for $\beta_0$. Now we have four hyperparameters to be chosen, $(\sigma_0,A_\sigma,A_\beta,A_\delta)$.
Unlike the previous two examples with only two hyperparameters, it is not feasible to use a grid-based approach to produce plots of how the conflict $p$-values
vary over the hyperparameters for comparison with the results of the history match. We retain the summary statistics and constraints of Section 5.2, with the difference
that $s^2$ is replaced by a robust measure of scale (the median absolute deviation estimator), and in the linear regression fits for the refitted cross-validation procedure we use the robust
{\tt lmrob} function in {\tt R} (\shortciteNP{rosseuw+ctrsvkm15}) to obtain
the adjusted $R^2$ estimate. We also add to the constraints of Section 5.2 three additional constraints.
We choose a summary statistic $S^3$ to be the log of the absolute value of the median of the responses,
and specify $S^3=\log 15$ to be plausible, and $S^3=\log 20$ to be implausible.
As an additional summary statistic we use the following procedure. We consider the log sample kurtosis of the residuals obtained from the {\tt lmrob} function
averaged over 10 split samples using the same refitted cross-validation procedure as for the adjusted $R^2$ measure. This is intended to be some sample measure
of the ``tailedness" of the distribution.
Writing $S^4$ for this statistic, we consider $S^4=\log 50$ to be implausible. The value of $\log 50$ was obtained as the log of the approximate median
of sample kurtosis values from a Cauchy distribution sample of size $125$. Note that we use sample kurtosis here as a summary of the data without worrying
about whether any corresponding population quantity exists. The information in this last summary statistic is intended to state the requirement that we should not have
a very large proportion of very extreme outliers.
Figure \ref{hmatchplot} shows pairwise scatter plots of the hyperparameter values on a log scale in wave 1 through wave 5 of a history match
with $r=1000$ and $\gamma=0.1$ and the first wave initialized with a maximin latin hypercube
design covering the range $[e^{-3},e^{2}]\times [e^{-5},e] \times [10^{-6},0.5] \times [10^{-6},0.5]$ for the hyperparameters.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=150mm]{Outlierhistmatch.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{hmatchplot}
Pairwise scatterplots of hyperparameters on log scale of wave 1 to wave 5 of the history match. The minimum implausibility value obtained in wave 5 is 0.}
\end{figure}
The history match succeeds in finding prior hyperparameter values corresponding to priors which satisfy the constraints.
In Section 4 it was mentioned that it may be helpful to adaptively generate new summary statistic simulations as the waves of the history match proceed. The results
of Figure \ref{hmatchplot} were obtained without doing this, using $100,000$ simulations at the beginning of the procedure. Figure \ref{hmatchplot2}
shows 8 waves of a history match where
the initial number of summary statistic simulations was reduced to $10,000$, with $1,000$ additional simulations added at each wave ($100$ further simulations at each of the $10$ non-implausible values retained at each wave). The results are similar to before, but now the total number of model simulations has been reduced to $18,000$ rather than $100,000$.
Although this is not a very high-dimensional example, this illustrates the point that this adaptive approach to the model simulations to improve the quality of the regression ABC
adjustment can be very important as the number of hyperparameters increases. Effectively the additional model simulations allow us to use smaller neighbourhoods in this local
nonparametric procedure. Any approach to flexible conditional density estimation could be used instead of the regression ABC approach for approximating the prior predictive
densities as a function of the hyperparameters, but any such alternative method will also
benefit from additional model simulations in the important region of the space.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=150mm]{Outlierhistmatchadaptive.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{hmatchplot2}
Pairwise scatterplots of hyperparameters on log scale of wave 1 to wave 8 of the history match with additional model simulations at each wave. The minimum implausibility value obtained in wave 8 is 0.}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{predictive} shows estimated prior predictive densities of the summary statistics used in the history match obtained from one of the hyperparameter values
with implausibility zero in Figure \ref{hmatchplot},
$(\sigma_0, A_\sigma, A_\beta, A_\gamma) = (3.91, 0.016,0.000013, 0.000045)$.
The graphs presented are histograms and kernel density estimates based on 1000 prior predictive samples.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S1PriorPredOutlierv5.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S3PriorPredOutlierv5.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S5PriorPredOutlierv5.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{S7PriorPredOutlierv5.pdf} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{predictive}
Prior predictive densities of $S^1$, $S^2$, $S^3$, $S^4$ for hyperparameter value achieving zero implausibility. The red and blue numbers are the plausible (blue) and implausible (red) hypothetical values for the summaries used in the history match.}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We have considered a novel application of the ideas of history matching used in the assessment of computer models to the problem
of prior choice. By defining the implausibility measure in the history match through some prior predictive constraints, we are able to implement predictive
elicitation even for complex models.
Regression adjustment ABC methods are also used to ease the computational burden in application of the method.
We believe the analyses presented in some of the examples are insightful, and in some cases led to some new understanding of the effects of the parameter prior
on the prior predictive densities.
Further investigation is needed to see how well the methods we have developed scale to problems where the number of hyperparameters is
much larger. Also, it is not clear whether the specific form for the implausibility measure that was chosen was the best one.
Although, as we have stressed throughout the manuscript, we are focusing mostly on computational questions in this paper
it is also worth considering how the
methods and algorithms developed are best integrated within an elicitation procedure in complex applied problems.
As noted in the introduction, while in this work we specify constraints in the form of passing or failing model checks for hypothetical
data, the constraints could also be specified in some other way in our procedure, such as through inequalities on quantiles of predictive distributions. The numerical
search procedures developed later can also be used with constraints in these other forms.
Our method can also apply in situations where prior information is expressed directly on the parameter itself rather than predictively.
It is not uncommon for prior distributions to be specified conditionally through a hierarchy, and for marginal prior distributions for functions of the parameter
to be unavailable analytically. We can consider tail probabilities for such marginal priors or inequalities on quantiles for such priors in the same
basic framework as our predictive methods. Again, indicator functions for certain sets such as expressing order constraints on certain parameters might
be one useful way of adding information.
The ABC computations in our method are similar to those used in \shortciteN{nott+dme15} for finding weakly informative priors and
many of the elicitation calculations can be reused for finding such a weakly informative prior in the event that there is a prior-data conflict.
Also worthy of further investigation is whether greater use can be made of the full set of prior distributions returned by
the history match. Here we have simply focused on choice of a single ``adequate" prior but there is
a richer source of information that can be used in the results of the history matching procedure.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
David Nott was supported by a Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research
Fund Tier 2 grant (R-155-000-143-112). Christopher C Drovandi was supported by an Australian Research Council’s Discovery Early Career
Researcher Award funding scheme (DE160100741). Kerrie Mengersen was supported by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship.
Michael Evans was supported by a grant from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\bibliographystyle{chicago}
|
\section{Introduction}
The search for ferromagnetic superconductors (FMSCs) can be trace back to before the 1960s\cite{ginzburg}. Owing to the antagonistic nature of superconductivity (SC) and ferromagnetism (FM)\cite{ginzburg,buzdin85}, SC rarely coexists with FM, even for that SC and FM emerge in different subsystems of a complex crystalline lattice. It was not until late 1970s that both SC and FM were observed in ErRh$_4$B$_4$, but SC \emph{disappears} when the Er magnetic ordering sets in\cite{ErRh4B4}. Since then, a few `conventional magnetic superconductors' were discovered\cite{maple}, in which SC and local-moment FM (or more frequently, other types of magnetic orderings with ferromagnetic components) casually coexist in certain temperature and magnetic regimes. Such materials were earlier called FMSCs\cite{buzdin85}, and this terminology was also employed for the uranium compounds UGe$_2$, URuGe and UCoGe that are superconducting well below their Curie temperatures\cite{huxley}. Here we adopt the classification\cite{chu}, which gives another terminology, `superconducting ferromagnet', for the case that the superconducting transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ is lower than the Curie temperature $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$. Whilst FMSC is reserved for the scenario of $T_{\mathrm{sc}}>T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$. Note that, in the U-based superconducting ferromagnets, SC and FM share the same type of electrons, and the SC is widely believed to be in a spin-triplet state. For a spin-singlet superconductor, however, SC is more easily destroyed by the strong exchange fields in a ferromagnet. At the same time, a spin-singlet $s$-wave superconducting state does not allow a local-moment FM via Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) interactions\cite{anderson}. Therefore, it seems impossible for a single material to host both local-moment FM and spin-singlet SC (FM+SC).
However, the FM+SC-like phenomenon was observed\cite{ren2009,cao2011}, and recently confirmed by x-ray resonant magnetic scattering\cite{rxs2014} and neutron scattering\cite{nd2014}, in the P-doped EuFe$_2$As$_2$ system in which SC emerges at $\sim$26 K followed by ferromagnetic ordering at $\sim$17 K for the Eu$^{2+}$ spins. Similar phenomena were later demonstrated in other doped EuFe$_2$As$_2$ systems\cite{jiang2009,jin-Co,jiao2011,jiao2013,jin-Ir}. Nevertheless, strong experimental evidence of bulk SC in the doped EuFe$_2$As$_2$ systems is still lacking. Also there have been debates on the nature of Eu-spin ordering\cite{cao2011,rxs2014,nd2014,felner2011,jeevan2011,zapf2013}.
Very recently, motivated by our previous material design\cite{jh} as well as the latest experimental progress\cite{1144}, we succeeded in synthesizing a new Eu-containing iron arsenide RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$ which exhibits bulk SC at $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ = 36.5 K and Eu-spin FM at $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ = 15 K\cite{Rb1144}. The robustness of both SC and FM indicates a genuine FM+SC state realized. Here we report the second robust FMSC, CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$, a sister compound of RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$. The new material shows bulk SC at 35.2 K and Eu-spin FM at 15.5 K. An additional anomaly at 5 K is observed, possibly associated with the interplay between SC and FM. Another interesting issue is that the Eu-spin ferromagnetic ordering is of a rare third order, suggesting a strong two-dimensional character of the ferromagnetic transition.
\section{Experimental}
CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ polycrystalline sample was synthesized by solid-state reactions in a sealed vacuum, with procedures similar to the synthesis of RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$ \cite{Rb1144}. First, CsAs, EuAs and FeAs were prepared respectively via the reactions of Cs (99.75\%), Eu (99.9\%) and As (99.999\%) pieces with Fe powders (99.999\%). The intermediate products were then ball milled separately for 10 minutes in a glove box filled with pure Ar (the water and oxygen content is below 1 ppm). Second, the powder of CsAs, EuAs, FeAs and Fe was weighed in a stoichiometric ratio. The mixture was homogenized by grinding, pressed into pellet, and then loaded in an alumina tube which was sealed by arc welding in argon atmosphere in a Ta tube. The welded Ta tube was jacketed in a quartz ampoule filled with Ar gas ($\sim$0.6 bar), followed by heating the ampoule to 1123-1173 K, holding for 6 hours, in a muffle furnace. The sample was quenched after the high-temperature chemical reactions.
Powder x-ray diffraction (XRD) was carried out at room temperature on a PANalytical x-ray diffractometer
(Model EMPYREAN) with a monochromatic CuK$_{\alpha1}$ radiation. To avoid severe preferred orientations, the powder was pressed softly on the sample holder. The lattice parameters and the atomic positions were refined by a Rietveld analysis using a RIETAN-FP software \cite{Rietan-fp2}. The electrical and heat-capacity measurements were conducted on a physical property measurement system (PPMS-9, Quantum Design). The electrical resistivity was measured using a standard four-electrode method. The as-prepared CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ pellet was cut into a thin rectangular bar, on which gold wires were attached with silver paint. The Hall coefficient was measured by permutating the
voltage and current electrodes under 8 T\cite{Hall}, using a thin-square sample (2.2$\times$2.0$\times$0.17 mm$^3$) with four symmetric electrodes attached. The heat capacity was measured by a thermal relaxation method using a square-shaped sample plate with a total mass of 16.8 mg. The dc magnetization was measured in a magnetic property measurement system (MPMS-5, Quantum Design) using a regular shape sample so that the demagnetization factor can be estimated more precisely.
\section{Results and discussion}
\subsection{Crystal structure}
The powder XRD pattern of the CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ sample can be well indexed with a RbCaFe$_4$As$_4$-type\cite{1144} (1144-type) primitive tetragonal lattice. No evident impurity phase can be identified. Fig. 1 shows the Rietveld refinement profile based on the 1144-type structure shown in the inset. The refinement yields a weighted reliable factor $R_{\mathrm{wp}}$ of 4.80$\%$ and a "goodness-of-fit" parameter $S$ of 1.48, and the resulting crystallographic parameters are tabulated in Table~\ref{structure}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig1.eps}
\label{fig1} \caption{Powder X-ray diffraction and its Rietveld refinement profile for CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$. The inset shows the crystal structure.}
\end{figure}
Isostructural to RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$, CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ can be viewed as an intergrowth of CsFe$_2$As$_2$ and EuFe$_2$As$_2$, thus it is meaningful to compare their crystal structures. The $a$ axis is almost the same (within the determination uncertainty) as the average value of those of EuFe$_2$As$_2$\cite{ren2008} and CsFe$_2$As$_2$\cite{Cs122}. In fact, the lattice mismatch between the two 122-type compounds is only 0.4\%, which possibly plays an important role for the formation of CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$\cite{jh,1144}. However, the $c$ axis is 0.010(1) \r{A} larger that the sum of one half of the $c$ axes of CsFe$_2$As$_2$ and EuFe$_2$As$_2$. This result looks abnormal because in general the $c$ axis of the hybrid phase should be shortened (as indeed seen in RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$\cite{Rb1144}), in order to stabilize the intergrowth compound. One may examine the lattice changes in each crystalline ``block". The thickness of the ``CsFe$_2$As$_2$" block is almost identical, while the "EuFe$_2$As$_2$" block is slightly stretched from 6.068 \r{A} to 6.082 \r{A}. This small change contrasts with the case in RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$ where the ``RbFe$_2$As$_2$" block is appreciably compressed\cite{Rb1144}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Crystallographic data of CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ at room temperature with $a$ = 3.9002(1) \r{A}, $c$ = 13.6285(4) \r{A} and space group $P4/mmm$ (No. 123).}
\label{structure}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Atom& Wyckoff& $x$ &$y$&$z$&$B (\mathrm{\r{A}^{-2}})$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Eu & 1$a$&0& 0 &0 &1.3(1)\\
Cs & 1$d$&0.5& 0.5 &0.5 &1.6(1) \\
Fe & 4$i$&0&0.5 &0.2231(2) &0.4(1)\\
As1 &2$g$&0& 0 &0.3229(3) &1.7(1)\\
As2 &2$h$&0.5&0.5 &0.1238(2) &1.5(1)\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The $a$ and $c$ axes of CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ are 0.22\% and 2.26\% larger, respectively, than the counterparts of RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$, which is obviously due to the incorporation of a larger Cs$^+$ cation. This means that some sort of negative chemical pressures exist in CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$, or equivalently speaking, positive chemical pressures are present in RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$. Note that the Fe coordination in RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$ is asymmetric, characterized by obviously unequal Fe$-$As1 and Fe$-$As2 bondlengths. Here for CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$, however, the Fe$-$As1 and Fe$-$As2 bondlengths are almost equal. Consequently, As1 (close to Cs) and As2 (nearby Eu) heights from the Fe plane are both 1.36(1) {\AA}, and the bond angles As1$-$Fe$-$As1 and As2$-$Fe$-$As2 are 110.3(2)$^{\circ}$. In comparison, the As$-$Fe$-$As angles of CsFe$_2$As$_2$ and EuFe$_2$As$_2$ are 109.6$^{\circ}$ and 106.8$^{\circ}$, respectively. This indicates that, although there is no lattice shrinkage in CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$, the local structure of Fe$_2$As$_2$ layers is ``homogenized", which may account for the lattice stabilization.
\subsection{Transport properties}
Figure 2(a) shows the temperature dependence of electrical resistivity [$\rho(T)$] and Hall coefficient [$R_\mathrm{H}(T)$] for the CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ polycrystalline sample. The normal-state $\rho(T)$ curve displays an unusual metallic behavior characterized by a broad hump at $\sim$ 150 K. The broad hump seems to be a common feature of hole-doped iron-based superconductors\cite{Ba122K,Sr122K,Ba122K-SB,wutao}. Indeed, the normal-state Hall coefficient $R_\mathrm{H}(T)$ is positive with a value of 6 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ cm$^3$ C$^{-1}$ at room temperature. If assuming a single-band model, the $R_\mathrm{H}$ value corresponds to 0.54 holes/Fe, more than twice of the expected value (0.25) from charge balance. This discrepancy probably comes from the electron-hole compensation effect because there are multiple bands in the system\cite{Ba122K-SB}. Note that $R_\mathrm{H}(T)$ also shows a hump at around 150 K, suggesting a crossover in electronic properties. This phenomenon is similar to those in heavily hole-doped $A$Fe$_2$As$_2$ ($A$ = K, Rb and Cs) which is revealed as an emergent Kondo lattice behavior very recently\cite{wutao}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig2.eps}
\label{fig2} \caption{(a) Electrical resistivity (left axis) and Hall coefficient (right axis) as functions of temperature for the CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ polycrystals. (b) Superconducting transitions under external magnetic fields. (c) Temperature dependence of the extracted upper critical field.}
\end{figure}
As can be clearly seen in the inset of Fig. 2(a), a superconducting transition occurs at $T_{\mathrm{sc}}^{\mathrm{onset}}$ = 35.2 K or $T_{\mathrm{sc}}^{\mathrm{mid}}$ = 35.0 K. Below $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$, it exhibits a zero-resistance state as usual, in contrast with the re-entrant phenomenon observed in most doped EuFe$_2$As$_2$ systems\cite{ren2009,jiao2011,jeevan2011}. Upon applying magnetic fields, $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ decreases gradually [Fig. 2(b)]. The upper critical fields, $H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)$, are obtained by defining $T_{\mathrm{sc}}(H)$ as the temperature at which the resistivity drops to 90\% of the extrapolated normal-state value. The extracted $H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)$ is plotted in Fig. 2(c), which shows a linear relation with an initial slope of $\mu_0$d$H_{\mathrm{c2}}$/d$T$ = $-$5.3 T/K. This $H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)$ slope is close to that in Sr$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$\cite{wnl}, but nearly four times of that of EuFe$_2$(As$_{0.7}$P$_{0.3}$)$_2$\cite{ren2009}, suggesting that SC in CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ is hardly influenced by the Eu-spin magnetism.
\subsection{Magnetic properties}
Figure 3 shows the temperature dependence of dc magnetic susceptibility [$\chi(T)$] in ZFC and FC modes under $H$ = 10 Oe. A sharp diamagnetic transition occurs at $T_{\mathrm{sc}}^{\mathrm{onset}}$ = 35.2 K, consistent with the above electrical measurement. The volume fraction of magnetic shielding achieves 95\% at 2 K, after the correction of demagnetization effect, and the volume fraction of magnetic repulsion reaches 23\% at $\sim$25 K, indicating bulk SC in CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3.eps}
\label{fig3} \caption{Temperature dependence of magnetic susceptibility for CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ measured in field-cooling (FC) and zero-field-cooling (ZFC) modes. Superconducting transition at $T_{\mathrm{sc}}^{\mathrm{onset}}$ = 35.2 K and magnetic transition at $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ = 15.5 K are marked by arrows, respectively. The inset shows a bifurcation in the FC data measured in cooling (FCC) and heating (FCH) processes. The bifurcation temperature is at $T^*$ = 5 K.}
\end{figure}
Below 18 K, $\chi_{\mathrm{FC}}$ increases abruptly down to 15.5 K where it forms a peak. At the same time, $\chi_{\mathrm{ZFC}}$ also shows a peak at the same temperature. The result is very similar to that in RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$ \cite{Rb1144}. The strong magnetic signals in the superconducting state come from the Eu-spin ferromagnetic ordering, as evidenced by the isothermal magnetization [$M(H)$] shown in Fig. 4. The upturn in $\chi$ above $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ = 15.5 K seems to be due to strong two-dimensional correlations (see the specific-heat result below), while the drop in $\chi$ below $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ could be due to an antiferromagnetic coupling between the ferromagnetic domains. Additionally, we find a novel bifurcation of FCC (measured in cooling process) and FCH (measured in heating process). However, the FCC and FCH curves merge together below $T^*$ = 5 K. The observation could reflect the interplay between SC and FM. We will discuss the possible origin later.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig4.eps}
\label{fig4} \caption{Isothermal magnetization of CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ at several representative temperatures [(a) $T$ = 10, 20, 30 and 40 K; (b) $T$ = 2 K]. The insets zoom in the interested regions that point to superconductivity and/or ferromagnetism.}
\end{figure}
Figure 4(a) shows the $M(H)$ curves at low temperatures. Above $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$, $M(H)$ is essentially linear, in accordance with paramagnetic state dominated by Curie-Weiss paramagnetism. At $T$ = 30 K, just below $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$, a typical superconducting loop appears, superimposing on the paramagnetic background. When the temperature is further decreased to 20 K, which is close to $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$, the paramagnetic signals turn into a shape of Brillouin function, and the superconducting-like hysteresis loop is more obvious. Below $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$, the $M(H)$ curves overall look like a ferromagnetic hysteresis loop, but it does not merge at higher magnetic fields (above the saturation field, $H_\mathrm{s}$). The latter phenomenon is clearly seen in the left inset of Fig. 4(b). This is exactly due to the existence of SC that gives rise to a flux pinning effect. Note that the saturation magnetization at 2 K is only 5.9 $\mu_\mathrm{B}$/Eu, somewhat smaller than the expected value of $gS$ = 7.0 $\mu_\mathrm{B}$/Eu for the full Eu$^{2+}$-spin ferromagnetic alignment. The lowered saturation magnetization is likely due to the superconducting screening effect.
Figure 5 plots the magnetic susceptibility $M/H$ as a function of temperature under $H$ = 1 kOe. Fitting the data from 50 to 300 K using an extended Curie-Weiss formula, $\chi$ = $\chi_0 + C$/($T-\theta$), yields three parameters, $\chi_0$ = 0.00142 emu mol$^{-1}$, $C$ = 7.27 emu K mol$^{-1}$ and $\theta$ = 23.1 K. From the $C$ value, one obtains the effective moment, $\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}$ = 7.63 $\mu_\mathrm{B}$/fu (fu denotes formula unit), which is close to the expected value of $\mu_{\mathrm{eff}} = g\sqrt{S(S+1)} \mu_\mathrm{\mathrm{B}}$ = 7.94 $\mu_\mathrm{\mathrm{B}}$/f.u. for Eu$^{2+}$ spins with $S$ = 7/2. The $\theta$ value, which represents a mean-field phase transition temperature, is significantly higher than the real transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$. This suggests that the interlayer magnetic interaction is much weaker, consistent with the dominant two-dimensional ferromagnetic interaction. The $\chi_0$ value should be mostly contributed from Pauli paramagnetism (since other sources of $T$-independent magnetism give a much lower value), therefore, one may estimate a density of state at Fermi level, $N(E_\mathrm{F})$ = 44 eV$^{-1}$ fu$^{-1}$, for CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig5.eps}
\label{fig5} \caption{Magnetic susceptibility ($M/H$) of CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ measured under $H$ = 1.0 kOe. The reciprocal of susceptibility is shown at the right axis.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Specific heat}
Figure 6 shows the heat-capacity measurement result for CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$. Two anomalies at 15.2 and 35.2 K can be clearly seen, corresponding to the ferromagnetic and superconducting transitions, respectively. The obvious specific-heat jump further confirms the bulk nature of SC. As shown in the zoom-in plot, the $\Delta C$ value is as large as 6.5 J K$^{-1}$ mol$^{-1}$. Assuming the BCS weak-coupling scenario with $\Delta C$/($\gamma T_{\mathrm{sc}}$) = 1.43, the electronic specific-heat coefficient $\gamma$ is then estimated to be $\sim$130 mJ K$^{-2}$ mol-fu$^{-1}$, corresponding to $N(E_\mathrm{F})\approx$ 55 eV$^{-1}$ fu$^{-1}$ that basically agrees with the result from the magnetic measurement above. This large $\gamma$ value naturally explains the extraordinarily high specific heat beyond the Dulong-Petit limit at high temperatures, since the electronic specific heat contributes 39 J K$^{-1}$ mol$^{-1}$ at 300 K. As for the ferromagnetic transition, the expected jump for a second-order phase transition is absent at $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$. However, the derivative of $C(T)$ (not shown here) shows a clear jump at $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$, similar to the phenomenon previously observed in RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$\cite{Rb1144}. Therefore, the magnetic transition again represents a rare third-order phase transition, according to the earlier Ehrenfest classfication\cite{ehrenfest}. The upturn in $C/T$ [see Fig. 6(b)] below 20 K means that the magnetic ordering starts to ``nucleate" above $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$, suggesting a strong two-dimensional character for the FM.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig6.eps}
\label{fig6} \caption{Heat capacity measurements for CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$. $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$, $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ and $T^*$ denote the superconducting, ferromagnetic and an unknown transitions, respectively. (a) Raw data of the specific heat, $C(T)$, at zero field. The inset zooms in the specific-heat jump at the superconducting transition. Panel (b) plots $C/T$ vs $T$ under 0, 1 and 8 T. The inset is a plot of $C/T$ vs $T^2$ at low temperatures.}
\end{figure}
Figure 6(b) plot the $C/T$ data under external magnetic fields. Upon applying magnetic fields, $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ decreases very mildly, consistent with the magnetoresistance measurement above. However, $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ shifts to higher temperatures, further pointing to a ferromagnetic transition. The large zero-field $C/T$ values at low temperatures mainly come from the ferromagnetic magnon excitations, because they are greatly suppressed by the external fields. The residual $C/T$ value at $T \rightarrow$ 0 K tends to be zero (or a small value) even at 8 T [see the inset of Fig. 6(b)], suggesting a fully gapped SC. On the other hand, the high-temperature (above $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$) $C/T$ values are significantly enhanced, which is associated with a field-induced magnetic ordering. An additional anomaly can be seen at $T^*$ = 5 K where $C/T$ shows a kink, coincident with the bifurcation of FCC and FCH curves in the magnetic measurement above.
\section{Discussions}
The above results demonstrate that CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ is another new FMSC. Table~\ref{table2} compares the structural parameters and physical properties of the two sister compounds. While they share many similarities, there are still minor differences. Apart from the difference in the local structure of Fe$_2$As$_2$ layers described above, one notes that the $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ values are negatively correlated. For CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$, the $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ value is 1.3 K lower, but its $T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ value is 0.5 K higher. Such a slight difference is likely to be related to the obviously short interatomic Eu$-$Fe distance in CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$, owing to the antagonism between SC and FM. Nonetheless, the FM in CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ hardly suppresses $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$, because the $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ value is reasonably between $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ = 31.6 K for CsCaFe$_4$As$_4$ and $T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ = 36.8 K for CsSrFe$_4$As$_4$\cite{1144}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparison of structural and physical parameters of the two 1144-type ferromagnetic superconductors, CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ (present work) and RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$\cite{Rb1144}. As1 and As2 denote the As atoms at Cs and Eu sides, respectively. $h_{\mathrm{As1}}$ ($h_{\mathrm{As2}}$) is the As1 (As2) height from Fe planes. $\alpha_{\mathrm{As1-Fe-As1}}$ ($\alpha_{\mathrm{As2-Fe-As2}}$) refers to As1$-$Fe$-$As1 (As2$-$Fe$-$As2) bond angle. $d_{\mathrm{Eu-Fe}}$ stands for the Eu$-$Fe interatomic distance.}
\label{table2}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Parameters & CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$& RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Space group & $P4/mmm$& $P4/mmm$\\
Lattice parameter $a$ (\r{A}) & 3.9002(1) & 3.8896(1)\\
Lattice parameter $c$ (\r{A}) & 13.6285(4)& 13.3109(4)\\
$h_{\mathrm{As1}}$ (\r{A}) & 1.360& 1.300\\
$h_{\mathrm{As2}}$ (\r{A}) & 1.354& 1.386\\
$\alpha_{\mathrm{As1-Fe-As1}}$ ($^\circ$) & 110.2& 112.5\\
$\alpha_{\mathrm{As2-Fe-As2l}}$ ($^\circ$) & 110.5& 109.0\\
$d_{\mathrm{Eu-Fe}}$ (\r{A}) & 3.613& 3.684\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$T_{\mathrm{sc}}$ (K) &35.2&36.5\\
$T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ (K) &15.5&15.0\\
$T^*$ (K) &5&5\\
$\mu_0$($dH_{\mathrm{c2}}/dT$)$_{T_{\mathrm{sc}}}$ (T/K) &$-$5.3&$-$5.6\\
$\Delta C$ (J K$^{-1}$ mol$^{-1}$) &6.5&7.5\\
$\gamma$ (mJ K$^{-2}$ mol$^{-1}$) &130&150\\
$R_{\mathrm{H}}$(300K) (10$^{-9}$ m$^3$ C$^{-1}$) &0.6&0.3\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The unsuppressed SC by FM strongly suggests that the coupling between superconducting Cooper pairs and Eu spins is avoided via a certain mechanism. Our previous explanation\cite{cao2011} still holds here for the FM+SC phenomenon. On the one hand, the Eu4$f$-Fe3$d_{yz/zx}$ coupling is vanishingly small, thus SC (from the $d_{yz/zx}$ electrons) is hardly affected. On the other hand, the Eu4$f$-Fe3$d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ and Eu4$f$-Fe3$d_{z^{2}}$ couplings remain finite, which give rise to effective in-plane and interlayer Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) exchange interactions, respectively. Particularly, the interlayer exchange interaction ($J_{\perp}$) may be greatly reduced, and even changes the sign, because the interlayer Eu interatomic distance is almost doubled as compared with EuFe$_2$As$_2$. Consequently, the Eu-spin FM can be realized in the presence of SC.
Finally, let us discuss the possible compromising way of FM+SC. Earlier theoretical studies presented two possibilities. One is so-called Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) state\cite{ff,lo}, characterized by non-zero momentum for Cooper pairs. The other is called spontaneous vortex state (SVS)\cite{varma,tachiki}, which seems natural for a type II superconductor. Indeed, the bifurcation of magnetic susceptibility data in FCC and FCH processes in the temperature range of $T^*<T<T_{\mathrm{Curie}}$ points to a SVS, because spontaneous vortices naturally result in a thermal hysteresis. As for the FFLO state, in general, it requires more strict conditions including Pauli-limited $H_{\mathrm{c2}}$ with a large Maki parameter, small Fermi energy, clean-limit SC, etc. Nevertheless, as we argued previously\cite{Rb1144}, an FFLO state is possibly realized in CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ and RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$ because the severe criteria may be satisfied. The anomaly at $T^*$ is possibly due to a transition from FFLO ($T<T^*$) to SVS ($T>T^*$). Further investigations with using the single-crystal samples are expected to supply more information on this interesting issue.
\section{Conclusions}
To summarize, we have synthesized a new Eu-containing 1144-type iron arsenide CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$, which is a sister compound of RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$\cite{Rb1144}. Although there are some differences in the crystal structure (for example, the Fe coordination in the Fe$_2$As$_2$ layers is nearly symmetric, in contrast with the obviously asymmetric Fe environment in RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$), CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ shows similar physical properties with a superconducting transition at 35.2 K and an Eu-spin ferromagnetic ordering at 15.5 K. Our magnetic and specific-heat measurements unambiguously indicate a robust coexistence of bulk SC and strong FM, different from the FM+SC-like behaviors in doped EuFe$_2$As$_2$ systems. We believe that RbEuFe$_4$As$_4$ and CsEuFe$_4$As$_4$ are brand new FMSCs in which the interplay between SC and FM deserves further investigations.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\textbf{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by National Science Foundation of China (11474252, 90922002 and 11190023) and National Basic Research Program of China (2012CB821404).
|
\section{Introduction}
Telechelic polymers provide a striking example of associating macromolecules that are capable of supramolecular self-assembly.~\cite{Polymer_49_1425} The distinctive properties of telechelic polymers arise from their mono-functional end groups (called ``stickers'') that permit the reversible formation and breakage of physical bonds during the dynamical self-assembly, thereby opening the prospect of many new applications~\cite{POC_7_289, Book_Goodman, Polymer_45_3527, Nature_453_171} that are generally inaccessible by conventional methods of polymerization. While the increasing scientific interest in telechelic polymers and their technological importance have motivated a number of theoretical~\cite{Mac_28_1066, Mac_28_7879, JCP_110_1781, Mac_33_1425, Mac_33_1443, JCP_119_6916, Lan_20_7860, JPSB_45_3285, JCP_131_144906, JPCB_114_12298} and numerical~\cite{Mac_20_1999, JCP_110_6039, EPL_59_384, Polymer_45_3961, JPSB_43_796, PRL_96_187802, PRL_109_238301, JCP_126_044907, JPCM_20_335103, Mac_47_4118, Mac_47_6946, JCP_143_243117, SM_2016} investigations of their physical behavior, a substantial challenge confronts the development of analytical theories for the connection between microscopic monomer details and the nature of the self-assembly and thermodynamics.
The lattice cluster theory (LCT)~\cite{JCP_87_7272, Mac_24_5076, ACP_103_335, APS_183_63} describes the thermodynamics of polymer systems by employing an intermediate level of coarse-grained models that retains the essential features of molecular structure and interactions in polymer fluids and that enables investigating the impact of various molecular characteristics upon the thermodynamic properties of polymer systems. The extension of the LCT developed here considers inclusion of strong interactions between the stickers in telechelic polymers, a treatment that poses the need to reformulate the LCT.~\cite{JCP_130_061103, JCP_136_064902} The initial studies by Dudowicz and Freed~\cite{JCP_136_064902} consider, for simplicity, models of fully flexible linear telechelic polymers. Hence, several improvements are desirable within the LCT for telechelic polymers. For instance, our recent work~\cite{JCP_143_024901, JCP_143_024902} begins to address the role of chain semiflexibility in determining the thermodynamic properties of telechelic polymers. Following the original treatment,~\cite{ACP_103_335} chain semiflexibility is described in our previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024901} by introducing a bending energy penalty whenever a pair of consecutive bonds from the \textit{same} chain lies along orthogonal directions. This description implies that the physical bonds between the stickers are fully flexible. Nevertheless, the physically sticky bonds in real telechelic polymers must possess a degree of bond stiffness (or rigidity) due to steric interactions of the stickers. For example, the formation of N-H-O hydrogen bonds is restricted to occur over a narrow range of angles. Therefore, a theory for the influence of the stiffness of sticky bonds on the self-assembly and thermodynamics remains to be developed. The present paper further extends the LCT for linear telechelic polymers by introducing a separate bending energy penalty to a pair of sequential orthogonal bonds containing one sticky bond, thereby permitting the sticky bonds to be semiflexible. The stiffness of the sticky bonds turns out to greatly influence the self-assembly and thermodynamics of telechelic polymers.
Section II provides a description of the LCT model for semiflexible linear telechelic polymers, along with a summary of the Helmholtz free energy. Section III begins by demonstrating the strong dependence of the stiffness of the sticky bonds on the average degree of self-assembly in telechelic polymers. Previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024902} for telechelic polymers with fully flexible sticky bonds indicates that the average degree of self-assembly is elevated by chain stiffness when either the polymer filling fraction $\phi$ or the temperature $T$ is high, but diminishes as the chains stiffen when both $\phi$ and $T$ are low. These general trends are shown to likewise occur in telechelic polymers with semiflexible sticky bonds. We further examine how the stiffness of the sticky bonds influences this behavior. Section III then illustrates the great influence of the stiffness of sticky bonds on the self-assembly transition. A brief discussion follows in Sec. III of glass-formation that emerges for self-assembling telechelic polymers by combining the current extension of the LCT with the Adam-Gibbs relation~\cite{JCP_43_139} [i.e., the resultant generalized entropy theory (GET)~\cite{ACP_137_125}] between the structural relaxation time and the configurational entropy.
\section{Lattice cluster theory for semiflexible linear telechelic polymer melts}
This section introduces the lattice model of semiflexible linear telechelic polymer melts considered in the present work, followed by a summary of the Helmholtz free energy derived for this model.
\subsection{Lattice model of semiflexible linear telechelic polymer melts}
The lattice model of polymers conventionally employs a $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice with $N_l$ lattice sites, each with $z=2d$ nearest neighbors. The present work considers a compressible melt~\footnote{Note that the present paper discusses the model and results with reference to compressible melts. The mathematical equivalence between the excess thermodynamic properties of a compressible melt and an incompressible solution enables drawing conclusions for both types of systems. The model for an incompressible solution consists of solvent molecules, each of which occupy a single lattice site, replacing the empty lattice sites. The free energy expression for the compressible polymer melt is isomorphic to that for the incompressible polymer solution, with the microscopic cohesive interaction parameter $\epsilon$ being replaced by the exchange energy $\epsilon_{\text{ex}}=\epsilon_{pp}+\epsilon_{ss}-2\epsilon_{ps}$, where $\epsilon_{pp}$, $\epsilon_{ss}$, and $\epsilon_{ps}$ represent the strengths of the nearest neighbor interaction between two polymer segments, two solvent molecules, and a polymer segment and a solvent molecule, respectively.} consisting of $m$ linear chains, where the length of each chain is given by the number $M$ of united atom groups (also called ``beads'' or ``segments'' for simplicity) in a single chain. Since the system is compressible, each lattice site is either empty or occupied by a bead, thereby producing the filling fraction of the polymer segments as $\phi=mM/N_l$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the lattice model for a self-assembled linear cluster formed by three telechelic polymer chains, each with $M=5$ united atom groups. Solid circles (called stickers) designate the ends of the chains that can participate in strong sticky interactions, while open circles denote united atom groups in the chain interior. Lines linking two stickers denote the physically sticky bonds, while the other lines represent the chemical bonds between two consecutive united atom groups along the same chain. As shown in the figure, the model prescribes different nearest neighbor interaction energies $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_s$ for ordinary and sticker-sticker interactions, respectively.}
\end{figure}
The lattice model accounts for the basic characteristics of telechelic polymers by first distinguishing the end segments of each chain (represented as solid circles in Fig. 1 and called stickers) from the other united atom groups lying in the chain interior (depicted by open circles in Fig. 1 and called non-stickers). As introduced in Ref.~\citenum{JCP_136_064902}, two stickers can form a physically sticky ``bond'' and interact with an enhanced attractive sticky interaction energy $\epsilon_s$ when they are located on nearest-neighbor lattice sites, thereby allowing the system to self-assemble upon cooling. Nearest-neighbor attractive interactions between two non-stickers as well as between a sticker and a non-sticker are described by the microscopic cohesive energy parameter $\epsilon$ (see Fig. 1). By convention, $\epsilon$ is treated as positive for attractive nearest neighbor interactions, while $\epsilon_s$ is defined as negative for attractive interactions. As in real telechelic polymers, the sticky interaction strength $|\epsilon_s|$ may greatly exceed the microscopic ordinary cohesive interaction strength $\epsilon$. The latter fact introduces the need for reformulating the LCT to treat polymer systems with both weak and strong interactions rather than just the high temperature series expansion inherent in the original LCT and inapplicable for strong interactions.~\cite{JCP_130_061103, JCP_136_064902} For simplicity, the model allows the stickers at each end of the telechelics to be mono-functional, implying that each sticker can only participate in one sticky interaction. In addition, the present model allows both cyclic and linear associative clusters to form upon cooling, in accord with previous work~\cite{ JCP_136_064902, JCP_136_244904} and the analysis of Jacobson and Stockmayer.~\cite{ JCP_18_1600}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.2\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{Illustration of including bending constraints in the lattice cluster theory for linear telechelic polymers. Bending constraints are depicted by the presence of dashed curved lines connecting pairs of consecutive bonds. While (a) and (b) illustrate examples where the ordinary bending rigidity parameter $E_b$ describes the stiffness of bonds within the same chain, (c) indicates that a separate sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ is introduced to quantify the stiffness of a pair of bonds that includes one sticky bond. The figure exhibits the simplest diagrams consisting of two successive bonds as an illustration, but the same convention applies for all other diagrams.}
\end{figure}
Chain semiflexibility represents another important feature of real polymers and thus of telechelics. The LCT~\cite{ACP_103_335} traditionally incorporates chain semiflexibility following Flory~\cite{Flory_1956} by introducing a bending energy penalty $E_b$ (alternatively called the bending rigidity parameter) whenever a pair of consecutive bonds from a single chain lies along orthogonal directions. Our previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024901} for telechelic polymer melts adopts the same model for chain semiflexibility. Specifically, taking the diagram consisting of two successive bonds as an example, the previous theory~\cite{JCP_143_024901} considers only the two diagrams shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) to describe bending constraints between pairs of bonds within a chain. This treatment, in turn, implies that the sticky bonds are fully flexible in the previous model.~\cite{JCP_143_024901} In order to more realistically represent the stiffness imparted by steric interactions to the sticky bonds in real telechelic polymers (e.g., bond angle constraints on hydrogen bonds), the present work introduces a separate bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for each pair of sequential orthogonal bonds containing one sticky bond [see Fig. 2(c)]. For convenience, $E_b$ and $E_s$ are called the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters, respectively. As shown in Sec. III, the thermodynamics and glass-formation of telechelic polymers are greatly influenced by the stiffness of the sticky bonds, as expected. We note that both $E_b$ and $E_s$ may be tuned in real telechelic polymers by altering the size and/or shape of the chemical groups, by introducing modifications to steric interactions hindering the development of sticky bonds, and/or by adjusting the polarity of the sticky units, features that are standard tools of synthetic chemists.
\subsection{Free energy of semiflexible linear telechelic polymer melts}
Since no new technical problems are posed by the addition of the sticky bending constraints, we only summarize the results that are required for using the theory. References~\citenum{JCP_136_064902} and ~\citenum{JCP_143_024901} provide all the essential technical details necessary in order to derive the expression for the free energy of compressible semiflexible linear telechelic polymer melts considered in the present paper.
The Helmholtz free energy $f$ per lattice site of a semiflexible telechelic polymer melt is conveniently expressed as the sum of the free energy $f_o$ of the hypothetical reference system in the absence of sticky interactions and the free energy contribution $f_s$ arising from the sticky interactions,
\begin{equation}
f=f_o+f_s.
\end{equation}
By construction, $f_o$ is independent of $\epsilon_s$ and $E_s$, while $f_s$ depends on these energy parameters as well as the other parameters of the model.
The LCT~\cite{ACP_103_335, JCP_141_044909} yields the Helmholtz free energy $f_o$ of a semiflexible linear polymer melt in the following form,
\begin{equation}
\beta f_o=\beta f_o^{mf}-\sum_{i=1}^6C_i\phi^i,
\end{equation}
where $\beta=1/(k_BT)$ with $k_B$ being Boltzmann's constant and $T$ designating the absolute temperature. The first term $\beta f_o^{mf}$ in Eq. (2) represents the zeroth-order mean-field contribution and appears as
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta f_o^{mf}=&&\frac{\phi}{M}\ln\left(\frac{2\phi}{zM}\right)+\phi\left(1-\frac{1}{M}\right)\nonumber\\
&&
+ (1-\phi)\ln(1-\phi)-\phi \frac{N_{2}}{M}\ln(z_b),
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_2$ is the number of runs of two consecutive bonds in a single chain, and $z_b=(z_p-1)\exp(-\beta E_b)+1$ with $z_p=z/2$. The second term in Eq. (2) is due to corrections to the zeroth-order mean-field free energy $\beta f_o^{mf}$ arising from the short range correlations possible for clusters containing at most four consecutive bonds, and the coefficients $C_i$ $(i=1, ..., 6)$ are presented as a polynomial in power of $\phi$ and generally depends on $z$, $T$, $\epsilon$, $E_b$, and a set of counting indices $u_i=N_i/M$ $(i=1, ..., 4)$, where the counting factor $N_i$ denotes the number of runs of $i$ consecutive bonds in a single chain and is simply equals to $N_i=M-i$ for linear chains. Reference~\citenum{JCP_143_024901} provides explicit expressions for $C_i$ $(i=1, ..., 6)$ for a melt of semiflexible linear chains.
As shown in Refs.~\citenum{JCP_136_064902} and ~\citenum{JCP_143_024901}, the sticky contribution $f_s$ is derived as the series,
\begin{equation}
\beta f_s=\beta f_s^{mf}-\sum_{i=1}^4Y_iy^i,
\end{equation}
in the density $y$ of sticky bonds, which is defined as the ratio of the number of sticky bonds in the system to the total number of lattice sites. The leading zeroth-order mean-field contribution from sticky interactions $\beta f_s^{mf}$ to the free energy emerges as
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta f_s^{mf}=&&-\phi x\ln(\phi x)+(\phi x-2y)\ln(\phi x-2y)\nonumber\\
&&
+y\left[1+\ln(2y/z)+\beta\epsilon_s\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $x=2/M$ denotes the fraction of stickers in a single chain. Similarly, the second term in Eq. (4) is due to corrections to the zeroth-order mean-field contribution $\beta f_s^{mf}$ arising from short range correlations in clusters of at most four consecutive bonds containing at least one sticky bond. Appendix A provides explicit expressions for $Y_i$ $(i=1,...,4)$. Notice that the coefficients $Y_i$ $(i=1,...,4)$ now depend on $E_s$ because of the stiffness introduced by the sticky bonds. When $E_s$ vanishes, the theory reduces identically to that presented in Ref.~\citenum{JCP_143_024901}.
The LCT~\cite{JCP_136_064902} employs the maximum term method to determine the variable $y$ in Eqs. (4) and (5),
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \frac{\partial (\beta f_s)}{\partial y}\right|_{T, \phi}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
The solution $y^{\ast}$ of Eq. (6) denotes the equilibrium concentration of the sticky bonds under given thermodynamic conditions. Substituting $y^{\ast}$ into Eqs. (1), (4), and (5) leads to the final expression for the free energy $f$ of a semiflexible linear telechelic melt,
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta f=&&\beta f_o-\phi x\ln(\phi x)+(\phi x-2y^{\ast})\ln(\phi x-2y^{\ast})\nonumber\\
&&
+y^{\ast}\left[1+\ln(2y^{\ast}/z)+\beta\epsilon_s\right]-\sum_{i=1}^4Y_i(y^{\ast})^i.
\end{eqnarray}
Evidently, the quantity $y^{\ast}$ depends on all molecular and thermodynamic parameters (such as $T$, $\phi$, $M$, $\epsilon$, $E_b$, $E_s$, and $\epsilon_s$) and plays a central role in the LCT in determining the thermodynamic properties of telechelic polymers. Because the present model assumes that each sticker is mono-functional, the filling fraction of the stickers participating in sticky interactions is simply $2y^{\ast}$ for any given thermodynamic conditions subject to the upper limit for $y^{\ast}$ is $y_{max}^{\ast}=\phi/M$. While the current version of the LCT provides no explicit information regarding the concentration of sticky bonds in the cyclic clusters, cyclic clusters may form.
\section{Results and discussion}
This section presents illustrative calculations describing the thermodynamics of self-assembly and glass-formation in the model of semiflexible telechelic polymer melts. Special focus is placed on examining the influence of the stiffness of sticky bonds on the average degree and transition temperature of self-assembly, followed by a discussion of the influence on glass-formation of both the sticky and bending rigidity parameters. As in previous work,~\cite{JCP_136_064903, JCP_136_194902, JCP_143_024902} all computations in the present paper are obtained by taking the lattice coordination number as $z=6$.
\subsection{Influence of stiffness of the sticky bonds on the average degree of self-assembly}
The analysis begins by exhibiting the substantial impact that the stiffness of the sticky bonds may exert upon the average degree of self-assembly in telechelic polymer melts. As derived in Ref.~\citenum{JCP_136_194902}, the average degree $<N>$ of self-assembly for the present lattice model is given by
\begin{equation}
<N>\approx \frac{1}{1-\Phi},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi=y^*/y^*_{max}$ is the order parameter of self-assembly. The concentration $y^{\ast}$ of the sticky bonds is thus directly related to the average degree of self-assembly. Hence, we now focus on the dependence of $y^{\ast}$ on the sticky bending energy.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the ratio $y_r^{\ast}=(y^{\ast}-y_0^{\ast})/y_0^{\ast}$ on the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for various ordinary bending rigidity parameters $E_b$. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the polymer filling fraction is $\phi=0.9$, the molecular weight of an individual unassociated chain is $M=100$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, and the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-300$ K. The temperature is fixed to be $T=200$ K.}
\end{figure}
Our previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024902} indicates that the quantitative effect of the ordinary bending rigidity parameter $E_b$ on $y^{\ast}$ is quite small for a wide range of polymer filling fractions and temperatures when the sticky bonds are fully flexible (i.e., $E_s=0$ K). Therefore, the ratio $y_r^{\ast}$ is introduced to measure the relative change of $y^{\ast}$ with increasing the bending rigidity parameters and defined as
\begin{equation}
y_r^{\ast}=\frac{y^{\ast}-y_0^{\ast}}{y_0^{\ast}},
\end{equation}
where $y_0^{\ast}$ is the value of $y^{\ast}$ for fully flexible chains (i.e., $E_b=E_s=0$ K). One advantage of using such a ratio is that the sign of $y_r^{\ast}$ directly indicates whether chain stiffness promotes ($y_r^{\ast}>0$) or opposes ($y_r^{\ast}<0$) self-assembly. Figure 3 displays $y_r^{\ast}$ as a function of the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for various ordinary bending rigidity parameters $E_b$, when all other parameters of the model remain constant. Using this parameter set, Fig. 3 displays $y_r^{\ast}$ as first increasing with $E_s$ for each $E_b$ and then reaching a constant for sufficiently large $E_s$. Figure 3 further reveals that the quantitative influence of $E_s$ on $y^{\ast}$ is much stronger than that of $E_b$. For instance, $y^{\ast}$ increases by nearly $35\%$ for the parameter set used in Fig. 3 when $E_s$ is elevated from $0$ K to $2000$ K at $E_b=0$ K, while increasing $E_b$ from $0$ K to $2000$ K at $E_s=0$ K leads to a much smaller (about $6\%$) increase in $y^{\ast}$. This analysis thus implies that the average degree of self-assembly is strongly influenced by the stiffness of the sticky bonds in telechelic polymers.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{Contour plot of $y_r^{\ast}$ in the $\phi$-$T$ plane. The dashed-dotted line denotes the boundary demarking states with $y^{\ast}=0$. Chain stiffness promotes or opposes self-assembly in region I or II, respectively. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the molecular weight is $M=100$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-100$ K, and the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters are $E_b=2000$ K and $E_s=150$ K.}
\end{figure}
One interesting feature exhibited by the lattice model of telechelic polymers is that chain stiffness can either promote or oppose self-assembly, depending on the thermodynamic conditions considered. Specifically, our previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024902} reveals that the average degree of self-assembly in the model of telechelic polymer melts with fully flexible sticky bonds diminishes with increasing the ordinary bending rigidity parameter $E_b$ when both $\phi$ and $T$ are sufficiently low. This feature is demonstrated here to persist in the model of telechelic polymers with semiflexible sticky bonds. As an illustration, Fig. 4 displays the contour plot of $y_r^{\ast}$ in the $\phi$-$T$ plane, where the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters are $E_b=2000$ K and $E_s=150$ K, respectively. As can be seen, chain stiffness promotes self-assembly for systems represented in the $\phi$-$T$ plane where either $\phi$ or $T$ is high (termed region I), while self-assembly can be suppressed by chain stiffness when both $\phi$ and $T$ are sufficiently low (termed region II).
Our previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024902} invokes a Flory-Huggins (FH) type theory~\cite{JCP_136_244904} for the competition between the formation of rings versus linear clusters in order to provide a possible rationale for the opposite variations with chain stiffness of self-assembly in different regions. The present LCT provides no information concerning the formation of rings, as noted in Sec. II. In particular, the FH type theory~\cite{JCP_136_244904} predicts that linear clusters form more easily than rings at high $\phi$. At low $\phi$, however, rings predominate over linear clusters at low $T$, whereas the opposite situation ensues at high $T$, a behavior that arises because the extra bond energy gained upon ring closure outweighs the entropy loss upon ring closure as $T$ decreases. Therefore, the formation of rings is expected to be favored when both $\phi$ and $T$ are low. The trend of forming linear clusters is thus enhanced by chain stiffness because of a diminished probability of ring closure as the chains stiffen. Moreover, the formation of sticky bonds between different chains becomes less sterically hindered as the chains are stiffer. Therefore, chain stiffness promotes self-assembly under the conditions where linear clusters predominate. Meanwhile, we conjecture that if cyclic clusters predominate, the gain in sticky bonds due to the enhancement of linear clusters induced by chain stiffness cannot compensate for the loss of sticky bonds generated by the reduction in ring formation due to the stiffness, and consequently, chain stiffness opposes the self-assembly. The above explanation, if confirmed, e.g., by computer simulations, likewise applies for the present model with semiflexible sticky bonds.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the boundary line in the $\phi$-$T$ plane on the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the molecular weight is $M=100$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-100$ K, and the ordinary bending rigidity parameter is $E_b=2000$ K.}
\end{figure}
Following our previous analysis,~\cite{JCP_143_024902} a boundary (shown as a dashed-dotted line in Fig. 4) in the $\phi$-$T$ plane with $y_r^{\ast}=0$ separates two regions with opposite dependences of $y^{\ast}$ on chain stiffness. Our previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024902} examines the variation of the boundary with various molecular parameters (such as $\epsilon_s$, $E_b$, $M$, and $\epsilon$), indicating that the boundary is insensitive to $\epsilon_s$ but depends on other parameters. For instance, the area of region II shrinks slightly with increasing $E_b$ or $M$ and saturates for sufficiently large $E_b$ or $M$, while elevating $\epsilon$ leads to a dramatic increase in the area of region II in the $\phi$-$T$ plane. The above trends are found to apply for the present model with $E_s>0$ K (data not shown). The influence of the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ on the boundary in the $\phi$-$T$ plane is presented in Fig. 5, which indicates that the boundary strongly depends on $E_s$. In particular, the temperatures marking the boundary significantly descend with increasing $E_s$ in the low $\phi$ regime but ascend in the high $\phi$ regime. Interestingly, these boundary lines intersect at a common point with $\phi=0.35$ and $T=90.7$ K for various $E_s$. Unfortunately, the physical significance for the presence of such a point is unclear at present.
\subsection{Influence of stiffness of the sticky bonds on the self-assembly transition}
The transition temperature $T_p$ of self-assembly is an important quantity in the thermodynamic description of self-assembly. As implied by the FH type theories of self-assembly,~\cite{JCP_119_12645} one common definition for $T_p$ employs the temperature variation of the order parameter $\Phi$ of self-assembly. Specifically, $T_p$ is identified with the temperature at which $\Phi(T, \phi=\text{const})$ exhibits an inflection point as a function of $T$, i.e., the temperature at which the second derivative of $\Phi$ with respect to $T$ vanishes,
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial T^2}\right|_{\phi}=\left.\frac{\partial^2 y^*}{\partial T^2}\right|_{\phi}=0.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{Temperature variation of the order parameter $\Phi=y^*/y^*_{max}$ of self-assembly for various polymer filling fractions $\phi$. Crosses indicate the positions of the inflection points of the curves. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the molecular weight is $M=5$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1500$ K, and the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters are $E_b=1000$ K and $E_s=1000$ K.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig7.eps}
\caption{Temperature variation of the order parameter $\Phi=y^*/y^*_{max}$ of self-assembly for various molecular weights $M$. Crosses indicate the positions of the inflection points of the curves. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the polymer filling fraction is $\phi=0.1$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1500$ K, and the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters are $E_b=1000$ K and $E_s=1000$ K.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig8.eps}
\caption{Transition temperature $T_p$ for self-assembly as a function of the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for various polymer filling fractions $\phi$. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the molecular weight is $M=100$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1500$ K, and the ordinary bending rigidity parameter is $E_b=2000$ K.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig9.eps}
\caption{$T_p/T_{p,0}$ as a function of the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for various molecular weights $M$, where $T_{p,0}$ designates the value of $T_p$ at $E_s=0$ K for each $M$. The inset depicts $T_p$ as a function of $E_s$ for various $M$. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the polymer filling fraction is $\phi=0.15$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1500$ K, and the ordinary bending rigidity parameter is $E_b=2000$ K.}
\end{figure}
Figures 6 and 7 present, respectively, the temperature variation of $\Phi$ for various $\phi$ and $M$, when the other parameters are fixed. Since the present model considers examples where self-assembly of the telechelic chains is promoted upon cooling, self-assembly flourishes at low $T$ where $\Phi$ may approach unity. Analysis of Figs. 6 and 7 reveals the presence of an inflection point in each curve. Hence, $T_p$ may likewise be identified in the LCT for self-assembling telechelic polymers from the inflection points in $\Phi(T, \phi=\text{const})$, in agreement with previous calculations for fully flexible telechelic polymers.~\cite{JCP_136_194902} Moreover, the self-assembly transition in models of telechelic polymers is found to be very broad, and the broadness of the transition grows with increasing polymer filling fraction $\phi$ or decreasing molecular weight $M$. These trends also accord with those for fully flexible telechelic polymers.~\cite{JCP_136_194902}
Previous work~\cite{JCP_136_194902} extensively examines the dependence on thermodynamic and molecular parameters of the transition temperature $T_p$ for self-assembling telechelic polymers composed of fully flexible chains. For instance, $T_p$ is found to increase with elevating $\phi$ or $|\epsilon_s|$ but decrease with growing $M$. These general trends also remain in the present model of semiflexible telechelic polymers (data not shown). Figure 8 further reveals the strong influence of the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ on $T_p$. When $\phi$ is held constant, $T_p$ is shown to first grow with $E_s$, display a maximum, then to reduce with $E_s$, and eventually reach a constant for sufficiently large $E_s$. Our calculations also indicate a non-monotonic change of $T_p$ with $E_b$ for fixed $E_s$ (data not shown). Figure 9 further examines how the chain length alters the dependence of $T_p$ on $E_s$. In particular, Fig. 9 presents both $T_p$ and $T_p/T_{p,0}$ as a function of $E_s$ for various $M$, where $T_{p,0}$ is the value of $T_p$ at $E_s=0$ K for each $M$. Evidently, the influence of $E_s$ on $T_p$ progressively weakens with increasing $M$, as expected. Consequently, the non-monotonic variation of $T_p$ with $E_s$ is less evident for larger $M$ and becomes barely detectable for sufficiently large $M$, where $T_p$ indeed depends very weakly on $E_s$; e.g., $T_p$ increases by less than $2\%$ for $M=10^6$ when $E_s$ is elevated from $0$ K to $10^4$ K. Notice that the results in Figs. 8 and 9 are presented for a quite broad range of $E_s$ in order to reach saturation, which clearly only emerges for $E_s>\sim4000$ K. The same consideration applies in the following computations.
Notably, the transition temperatures for semiflexible chains become elevated as compared to those for fully flexible chains, in agreement with our earlier analysis in Fig. 5 that chain stiffness promotes self-assembly for the parameter set considered in Figs. 8 and 9. Therefore, the above results clearly demonstrate the important role of chain stiffness, in particular, the stiffness of the sticky bonds, in the thermodynamic description of telechelic polymers.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig10.eps}
\caption{Temperature variation of $c_{V,s} k_B$ normalized by $\phi$ for various polymer filling fractions $\phi$. Crosses indicate the positions of the maxima of the curves. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the molecular weight is $M=5$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1500$ K, and the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters are $E_b=1000$ K and $E_s=1000$ K.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig11.eps}
\caption{Temperature variation of $c_{V,s} k_B$ normalized by $\phi$ for various molecular weights $M$. Crosses indicate the positions of the maxima of the curves. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains, where the polymer filling fraction is $\phi=0.01$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1500$ K, and the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters are $E_b=1000$ K and $E_s=1000$ K.}
\end{figure}
An alternative identification~\cite{JCP_136_194902} for $T_p$ involves the maximum in the specific heat $c_V(T)$.~\footnote{The use of a lattice model implies that the computed specific heat is devoid of the substantial contributions from molecular vibrations, and therefore, data for $c_V$ should be interpreted with caution.} The specific heat $c_V$ is determined as usual from the second derivative of the Helmholtz free energy $f$ with respect to the inverse temperature $\beta=1/(k_BT)$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{c_V}{k_B}=-\beta^2\left.\frac{\partial^2 (\beta f)}{\partial \beta^2}\right|_{\phi}.
\end{equation}
Similar to the free energy $f$, $c_V$ for the model of self-assembling telechelic polymers is composed of two separate contributions $c_{V,o}$ and $c_{V,s}$, which arise, respectively, from the reference system and the sticky interactions. These two terms thus appear as
\begin{equation}
\frac{c_{V,o}}{k_B}=-\beta^2\left.\frac{\partial^2 (\beta f_o)}{\partial \beta^2}\right|_{\phi},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{c_{V,s}}{k_B}=-\beta^2\left.\frac{\partial^2 (\beta f_s)}{\partial \beta^2}\right|_{\phi}.
\end{equation}
Previous work~\cite{JCP_136_194902} demonstrates the presence of a maximum in the temperature dependence of $c_{V,s}$, which, in turn, provides a definition for the transition temperature $T_p$ of self-assembly in telechelic polymers composed of fully flexible chains. This identification is now tested for the model of semiflexible telechelic polymers. We focus on the regime of low $\phi$ since the presence of peaks in $c_{V,s}(T)$ seems to be more pronounced at lower $\phi$. Figures 10 and 11 display the temperature variation of $c_{V,s}/k_B$ (normalized by $\phi$) for various $\phi$ and $M$, respectively. A maximum in $c_{V,s}(T)$ appears in each curve, thereby allowing for an alternative determination of $T_p$ from $c_{V,s}(T)$. In particular, the self-assembly transition broadens and the maximum of $c_{V,s}$ shifts to high temperatures as $\phi$ increases or $M$ decreases, supporting our earlier results for the self-assembly transition from the inflection points in $\Phi(T, \phi=\text{const})$. While the transition temperatures from both methods quantitatively differ, the general trends of $T_p$ as determined either from $\Phi$ or $c_{V,s}$ track each other when individual molecular parameters are varied.
\subsection{Glass-formation in the lattice model of linear telechelic polymer melts}
One substantial benefit of the LCT for describing the thermodynamic properties of semiflexible telechelic polymers lies in the fact that glass-formation in such systems can be addressed by combining the LCT with the AG relation,~\cite{JCP_43_139} thereby extending the GET~\cite{ACP_137_125} to the self-assembling telechelic polymers. Freed~\cite{JCP_141_141102} generalizes transition state theory to account for collective barrier-crossing events, thereby providing a firm theoretical foundation for the principal assumptions of the AG theory, so the AG model is taken as well established for polymer melts. This generalization enables investigations of the phenomenon of glassy behavior that is influenced by self-assembly. This section provides basic information concerning the GET, followed by a brief discussion of glass-formation in the model of telechelic polymers. In particular, the stiffness of the sticky bonds is demonstrated to significantly influence glass-formation in telechelic polymers.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig12.eps}
\caption{(a) Glass transition temperature $T_g$ and (b) isobaric fragility parameter $m_{_P}$ as a function of the absolute sticky interaction energy parameter $|\epsilon_s|$ for various cohesive interaction energy parameters $\epsilon$. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains at a constant pressure of $P=0.101~325$ MPa (i.e., $1$ atm), where the molecular weight is $M=8$, and the ordinary and sticky bending rigidity parameters are $E_b=500$ K and $E_s=500$ K.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig13.eps}
\caption{(a) Glass transition temperature $T_g$ and (b) isobaric fragility parameter $m_{_P}$ as a function of the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for various ordinary bending rigidity parameters $E_b$. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains at a constant pressure of $P=0.101~325$ MPa (i.e., $1$ atm), where the molecular weight is $M=8$, the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, and the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1000$ K.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig14.eps}
\caption{(a) Glass transition temperature $T_g$ and (b) isobaric fragility parameter $m_{_P}$ as a function of the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for various molecular weights $M$. The computations are performed for a melt of linear telechelic chains at a constant pressure of $P=0.101~325$ MPa (i.e., $1$ atm), where the cohesive interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon=200$ K, the sticky interaction energy parameter is $\epsilon_s=-1000$ K, and the ordinary bending rigidity parameter is $E_b=500$ K.}
\end{figure}
Polymer glass-formation is treated in the GET as a broad transition with four characteristic temperatures.~\cite{ACP_137_125} These characteristic temperatures are obtained first by evaluating the configurational entropy density (defined by $s_c=-\partial f/\partial T |_{\phi}$, i.e., the configurational entropy per lattice site~\cite{JCP_119_5730, JCP_141_234903, paper_note1}) at constant pressure ($P$). The temperature variation of the configurational entropy density $s_c(T)$ exhibits features that enable the direct determination of three characteristic temperatures of glass formation, namely, the onset temperature $T_A$ which signals the onset of non-Arrhenius behavior of the structural relaxation time and which is found from the maximum in $s_c(T)$, the ideal glass transition temperature $T_o$ where $s_c$ extrapolates to zero, and the crossover temperature $T_c$ which separates two temperature regimes with qualitatively different dependences of the structural relaxation time on temperature and which is evaluated from the inflection point in $Ts_c(T)$. The glass transition temperature $T_g$ is determined by calculating the structural relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$ via the AG relation,~\cite{JCP_43_139}
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\alpha}=\tau_\infty\exp[\beta\Delta\mu s_c^\ast/s_c(T)],
\end{equation}
where $\tau_\infty$ is the high temperature limit of the relaxation time, $\Delta\mu$ is the high temperature activation free energy, and $s_c^\ast$ is the high temperature limit of $s_c(T)$ [identified by $s_c^\ast=s_c(T_A)$ in the GET]. $\tau_\infty$ is set to be $10^{-13}$ s in the GET as a typical value for polymers.~\cite{PRE_67_031507} Motivated by experimental data for the crossover temperature of various glass-formers,~\cite{PRE_67_031507} the GET estimates the high temperature activation energy from the empirical relation $\Delta\mu=6k_BT_c$.~\cite{ACP_137_125} The GET then identifies $T_g$ as the temperature at which $\tau_{\alpha}=100$ s. Likewise, the isobaric fragility parameter $m_{_P}$ is determined from the standard definition,~\cite{Science_267_1924}
\begin{equation}
m_{_P}=\left.\frac{\partial \log (\tau_{\alpha})}{\partial (T_g/T)}\right|_{P, T=T_g}.
\end{equation}
Illustrative computations of characteristic temperatures and fragility parameters and more details concerning the GET can be found in previous works (e.g., see Refs.~\citenum{ACP_137_125} and \citenum{Mac_47_6990}).
The calculations are performed at a constant pressure of $P=0.101~325$ MPa (i.e., $1$ atm) and use the common parameters $z=6$ and $V_{\text{cell}}=(2.7)^3$\AA{}$^3$. Here, $V_{\text{cell}}$ is introduced to describe the volume of a single lattice site, a parameter that is required in order to express the pressure in real units. A low molecular weight of $M=8$ is first chosen for our illustrative calculations because the quantitative influence of the sticky interaction energy on glass-formation becomes more significant for smaller $M$. The influence of $M$ on glass-formation in the model of telechelic melts is then briefly discussed.
Figure 12 displays the dependence of $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ on the absolute sticky interaction energy parameter $|\epsilon_s|$ for various microscopic cohesive interaction energy parameters $\epsilon$. Both $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ increase with the sticky interaction strength and tend to saturate for sufficiently strong sticky interactions. These trends are quite understandable since an increase in $|\epsilon_s|$ elevates the ``effective'' molecular weight due to increases in the average degree of self-assembly. Growing molecular weight usually leads to increases in both $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ in polymer melts (see Fig. 14), and hence, both $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ are expected to become larger for longer averaged chain lengths induced by stronger sticky interactions. In addition, $T_g$ appears to saturate at higher $|\epsilon_s|$ than $m_{_P}$. Apparently, when $|\epsilon_s|$ becomes large for a telechelic melt, $T_g$ or $m_{_P}$ can be identical to that for a polymer melt with $\epsilon_s=0$ K but with a higher $M$, defining an effective molecular weight for telechelics with a given sticky energy. This complicated point, however, is not relevant to the present paper. Figure 12 also indicates that a larger $\epsilon$ results in a higher $T_g$ but a lower $m_{_P}$ for a fixed $|\epsilon_s|$, trends that are the same as those in polymer melts lacking sticky interactions.~\cite{JCP_141_234903, Mac_47_6990, Mac_48_2333, JCP_131_114905}
The influence of bending rigidity parameters on glass-formation is examined in Fig. 13, which exhibits the dependence of both $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ on the sticky bending rigidity parameter $E_s$ for various ordinary bending rigidity parameters $E_b$. As for polymer melts without sticky interactions,~\cite{JCP_141_234903, Mac_47_6990, Mac_48_2333, JCP_131_114905} elevating $E_b$ causes both $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ to grow in telechelic polymers.~\footnote{While Fig. 13 displays the calculations for a relatively narrow range of $E_b$ from $400$ to $600$ K, the trends of elevating $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ with $E_b$ holds for a wide range of $E_b$, where the chains vary from very flexible to very stiff. Of course, both $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ will saturate for sufficiently large $E_b$ when reaching the stiff chain limit.} Turning to the role of the sticky bending energy, Fig. 13 reveal somewhat complicated variations of $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ with $E_s$. For instance, both $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ first grow slightly upon increasing $E_s$ for fixed $E_b$, drop for intermediate values of $E_s$, then become increased again, and eventually plateau for sufficiently large $E_s$. Figure 14 further explors the dependence of $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ on $E_s$ for various $M$. Apparently, a larger $M$ leads to a weaker dependence of $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ on $E_s$ and the influence of $E_s$ on polymer glass-formation is almost negligible for sufficiently large $M$, results that are in accord with expectations since the sticky contributions to the free energy decrease considerably with growing $M$ in the present model. Hence, the non-monotonic dependence of $T_g$ and $m_{_P}$ on $E_s$ is less evident for larger $M$ and becomes nearly invisible for sufficiently large $M$. While the non-monotonic behavior shown in Figs. 13 and 14 remains to be fully understood, perhaps requiring simulations, our calculations clearly demonstrate that the stiffness of the sticky bonds greatly affects glass-formation in the model of telechelic polymers, at least for short chains.
\section{Summary}
Despite the fact that telechelic polymers can be used as building blocks for designing important materials, a predictive molecular theory has been slow to develop for describing the influence of key molecular factors on the physical properties of such systems. Currently available theories~\cite{Mac_28_1066, Mac_28_7879, JCP_110_1781, Mac_33_1425, Mac_33_1443, JCP_119_6916, Lan_20_7860, JPSB_45_3285, JCP_131_144906, JPCB_114_12298} and simulations~\cite{Mac_20_1999, JCP_110_6039, EPL_59_384, Polymer_45_3961, JPSB_43_796, PRL_96_187802, PRL_109_238301, JCP_126_044907, JPCM_20_335103, Mac_47_4118, Mac_47_6946, JCP_143_243117, SM_2016} for telechelic polymers traditionally use highly coarse-grained models that represent the assembling molecular species as a structureless entity. The LCT~\cite{JCP_87_7272, Mac_24_5076, ACP_103_335, APS_183_63} for the thermodynamics of polymer systems instead employs an intermediate level of coarse-grained models that retain essential features of molecular structure and interactions in polymer fluids. Hence, an extension of the LCT to associating telechelic polymers provides a promising theoretical tool for establishing the relation between the molecular structure dependent interaction parameters and the thermodynamic properties of telechelic polymers.
The original LCT for telechelic polymers focuses on the model of fully flexible linear chains,~\cite{JCP_136_064902} in part, because of the great algebraic complexity. Our recent extension of theory~\cite{JCP_143_024901} includes a description of chain semiflexibility by introducing a bending energy penalty whenever a pair of consecutive bonds from the same chains lies along orthogonal directions, but the sticky bonds are treated as being fully flexible. However, the sticky bonds must possess a degree of stiffness due to steric interations that limit relative distances and/or angles of the sticky bonds in real telechelic polymers, thus prompting the present investigation of the influence of stiffness of the sticky bonds on the self-assembly and thermodynamics of telechelic polymers by employing a further extension of the LCT.
Our illustrative calculations indicate that the stiffness of the sticky bonds significantly influences the self-assembly and thermodynamics of telechelic polymers. In particular, previous work~\cite{JCP_143_024902} for telechelic polymers with fully flexible sticky bonds indicates that the average degree of self-assembly is elevated by chain stiffness when either the polymer filling fraction or the temperature is high, but becomes reduced as the chains stiffen when both the polymer filling fraction and temperature are low, and these general trends likewise occur in telechelic polymers with semiflexible sticky bonds. The transition temperature for self-assembly depends non-monotonically on the stiffness of the sticky bonds. Moreover, the present extension of the LCT enables the investigation of glass-formation in telechelic polymers by generalizing the GET to telechelic polymers. The sticky interactions and the stiffness of the sticky bonds emerge from the theory as important molecular factors for tailoring the properties of glass-formation in systems of associating telechelic polymers, at least for short chains.
While the present work only considers linear chains with two mono-functional groups at the chain ends, this theoretical development represents an intermediate step with the development of important extensions of the LCT to describe chains with monomer units possessing specific structures and/or multi-functional stickers.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant No. CHE-1363012.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Data}
\label{sec:data}
\subsection{DES Optical Cluster Catalogs}
\label{sec:des}
For this work we use optically selected clusters from the DES-SVA1 region that overlaps with the SPT-SZ 2500d survey. In section~\ref{subsec:des} we describe the acquisition and preparation of the DES-SVA1 data, and in section~\ref{subsec:redmapper_clusters} we describe the RM cluster catalog.
\subsubsection{DES-SVA1 Data}
\label{subsec:des}
The DES-SVA1 data include imaging in grizY of $\sim300$~\mbox{$\textrm{deg}^2$ } over multiple disconnected fields \citep[e.g.][]{rykoff16},
most of which overlap with the SPT-SZ survey. The
DES-SVA1 data were acquired with the Dark Energy Camera \citep{flaugher15} over 78 nights, starting in November 2012 and ending in February 2013 with depth comparable to the nominal depth of the full DES survey.
Data have been processed through the DES Data Management system (DESDM) that is an advanced version of development versions described in several earlier publications \citep{ngeow06,mohr08,mohr12,desai12}. The coadd catalog produced by DESDM of the SV dataset was analyzed and tested, resulting in the generation of the SVA1 \textit{Gold} catalog \citep{rykoff16}.
The \textit{Gold} catalog covers $\sim250$~\mbox{$\textrm{deg}^2$ } and is optimized for extragalactic science. In particular, it avoids the Large Magellanic Cloud and its high stellar densities and is masked south of declination $\delta=-61^\circ$. Furthermore, the footprint is restricted to the regions where data have coverage in all of griz \citep{rozo15}.
\subsubsection{redMaPPer Cluster Catalog}
\label{subsec:redmapper_clusters}
The red-sequence Matched-Filter Probabilistic Percolation (redMaPPer) algorithm is a cluster-finding algorithm based on the improved richness observable of \citet{rykoff12}. RM has been applied to photometric data from the SDSS Stripe 82 coadd data \citep{annis14}, to the the Eighth Data Release (DR8) of SDSS \citep[][]{aihara11} and to DES-SVA1 and DES Year 1 data \citep[][S15]{rykoff16,soergel16}, and has been shown to provide excellent photometric redshifts, richness estimates that tightly correlate with external mass proxies \citep[S15,][]{rykoff16}, and very good completeness and purity \citep{rozo14b,rozo14d, rozo14a}.
We employ an updated version of the RM algorithm (v6.3.3), with improvements presented in \citet{rozo14b}, \citet{rozo15}, and \citet[]{rykoff16}. The main features of the algorithm can be summarized as follows:
(1) Colours of red-sequence galaxies are calibrated using galaxy clusters with spectroscopic redshifts. (2) Red-sequence galaxy calibrated colours are then used to estimate the membership probability for every galaxy in the vicinity of a galaxy cluster candidate. (3) The richness $\lambda$ is then defined as the sum of the membership probabilities ($p_{\mathrm{RM}}$) over all galaxies:
\begin{equation}
\lambda = \sum p_\textrm{RM}.
\end{equation}
(4) The RM centering algorithm is probabilistic and the centering likelihood incorporates the following features: $i$) The photometric redshift of the central galaxy must be consistent with the cluster redshift, $ii)$ the central galaxy luminosity must be consistent with the expected luminosity of the central galaxy of a cluster of the observed richness, and $iii)$ the galaxy density on a 300 kpc scale must be consistent with the galaxy density of central galaxies. The centering probability $P_{cen}$ further accounts for the fact that every cluster has one and only one central galaxy.
A prior is placed that the correct central galaxy of a cluster is one of the 5 most likely central galaxies in the cluster field. This prior is uninformative while still limiting the number of candidate centrals for which $P_{cen}$ must be estimated.
The DES-SVA1 RM catalog \citep{rykoff16} was produced by running on a smaller footprint than that for the full SVA1 \textit{Gold} sample. In particular, we restrict the catalog to the regions where the $z$-band $10\sigma$ galaxy limiting magnitude is $z>22$. In total, we use $148\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ of DES-SVA1 imaging, with $129.1\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ overlapping the SPT-SZ footprint. In this area, the largest fraction ($124.6\,\mathrm{deg}^2$) is included in the so called DES-SVA1 SPT-E field. The final catalog used in this work consists of 719 clusters with $\lambda > 20$ and redshifts in the range $0.2<z<0.9$.
\subsection{SPT-SZ 2500d survey}
The thermal SZE signals analyzed in this work are extracted at 95 and 150 GHz from the 2500d SPT-SZ survey. (For a description of the survey, see, e.g., Bleem et al. 2015). We use point-source masked maps, which mask an area around each point source detected at more than $5\sigma$ in the 150 GHz data, which gives a total useable area of 2365 deg$^2$. Typical instrumental noise is approximately 40~(18) $\mu {\rm K_{CMB}}$-arcmin and the beam FWHM is 1.6~(1.2)~arcmin for the 95~(150)~GHz maps. The SPT-SZ survey is divided into 19 different sub-fields, whose relative noise levels can be characterized by the relative field scaling factor $A_s $.
We refer the reader to \cite{bleem15} and to \cite{schaffer11} for further details on the SPT-SZ survey and map-making.
We use a multi-frequency matched filter to extract the thermal SZE signal from clusters and enhance the signal-to-noise. This approach is designed to optimally measure the cluster signal
given knowledge of the cluster profile and the noise in the maps \citep{haehnelt96,melin06}. Therefore, additional information to describe the shape of the cluster profile is required, while we leave the amplitude of model free. In this study, the cluster pressure profiles are assumed to be well fit by the X-ray derived A10 universal pressure profile model \citep{plagge10}:
\begin{equation}
P(x) \propto \left\{ (1.177 x)^{0.31} [1+(1.18x)^{1.05}]^{4.93} \right\}^{-1},
\label{eq:mf}
\end{equation}
where $x=r/$$R_{500}$.
We thus describe the adopted profiles in terms of the projected radius $\theta_{500}$ and adopt 30 different profiles linearly spaced in $\theta_{500}$ from 0.5 to 7.75~arcmin.
The noise contributions are both astrophysical (e.g., the CMB, point sources) and instrumental (e.g., atmospheric, detector) based. We adopt the following Fourier domain spatial filter:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:filter}
\psi(k_x,k_y) = \frac{B(k_x,k_y) S(|\vec{k}|)}{B(k_x,k_y)^2
N_{astro}(|\vec{k}|\ ) + N_{inst}(k_x,k_y)}
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is the matched filter, $B$ is the SPT beam and $S$ is the
assumed source template. The noise contributions $N_{astro}$ and
$N_{inst}$ respectively encapsulate the astrophysical and
the instrumental noise.
\section{Theoretical Framework}
\label{sec:theory}
Neglecting small relativistic corrections, the thermal SZE in the direction of a cluster at a frequency $\nu$ can be approximated by (\citealt{sunyaev80b}): $\Delta
T(\nu) \simeq T_\textrm{CMB} G(\nu)y_{\rm{c}}.$
Here $T_\textrm{CMB} $ is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and $G(\nu)$ describes the thermal SZE frequency dependence. The Comptonization parameter $y_c$ is related to the integrated pressure along the line of sight:
\begin{equation}
y_{\rm{c}}=(k_{\rm{B}}\sigma_{\rm{T}}/m_{\rm{e}}c^2)\int n_{\rm{e}}T_{\rm{e}} dl,
\label{eq:yc}
\end{equation}
where $n_{\rm{e}}$ and $T_{\rm{e}}$ are the electron density and temperature, respectively.
In this work we study two different SZE observables: the SPT detection significance $\zeta$ and the Comptonization parameter $y_c$ integrated over the solid angle $\theta_{500}$ defined as $Y_{500}=\int_{0}^{\theta_{500}} y_c \textrm{d}\Omega$, where $\theta_{500}$ is the projected angle associated to $R_{500}$. For the latter we analyse two different models that use different \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relations. We will relate both SZE observables $\zeta$ and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ to the central decrement $y_0$, as discussed in details in Sec. \ref{sec:sz_observables}.
\subsection{$\zeta$-mass Relation from SPT}
Following previous SPT analyses (\citealt[][]{benson11, bocquet15, bleem15}; S15), we describe the $\zeta$-mass relation as a log-normal distribution with scatter $D_{\textrm{SZE}}$ and a mean:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \textrm{ln} [(1-f)\zeta]| M_{500}, z \rangle&=& \textrm{ln}
A_\textrm{SZE} + {B_{\textrm{SZE}}}\, \textrm{ln} \left ( \frac{(1-b) M_{500}}{3
\times10^{14} h^{-1} \,{\rm M}_\odot} \right ) \nonumber \\
& & +\, {C_{\textrm{SZE}}}\, \textrm{ln}
\left ( \frac{E(z)}{E(z=0.6)} \right ),
\label{eq:zeta}
\end{eqnarray}
where $E(z)\equiv H(z)/H_0$, with best fitting parameters $A_\textrm{SZE} = 4.02\pm 0.16$, $B_\textrm{SZE}= 1.71\pm 0.09$, $C_\textrm{SZE} = 0.49 \pm 0.16$ and $D_\textrm{SZE}=0.20\pm 0.07$ as given in S15.
Here, we introduce two parametrizations to account for possible biases in mass ($1 - b$) and in the SZE observable ($1 - f$). While we note that the two parameters are mathematically equivalent (besides a trivial transformation with the slope of the scaling relation $B_\textrm{SZE}$), in the following we will keep a formal distinction between $b$ and $f$ as the physical causes for each term are quite different. We also note that only a constant fractional contamination in the optical observable that is independent of richness and redshift can be modelled by a constant fractional bias in mass ($b$) or in the SZE observable ($f$).
\subsection{\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass Relation from A10}
For the first model of the spherical $Y$-mass scaling relation, we follow \citet{arnaud10} (hereafter A10) and adopt a log-normal distribution with intrinsic scatter $\sigma_Y = 17\%$ \citep{planck20} and mean:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:arnaud10sc}
\langle \textrm{ln} [(1-f)Y^\textrm{sph}_{500 } / \textrm{Mpc}^2 ]| M_{500}, z \rangle &=& \textrm{ln}(10^{-4.739} h_{70}^{-5/2} E(z)^{2/3}) \,+ \nonumber\\
&& 1.79 \textrm{ln} \left (\frac{(1-b) M_{500}}{3\times 10^{14}h_{70}^{-1} \,{\rm M}_\odot} \right), \end{eqnarray}
where the cylindrical and spherical quantities are related as $\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}=1.203 Y^\textrm{sph}_{500}$ and where the bias parameters $b$ and $f$ are equal to zero as in A10.
\subsection{\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass Relation from SPT}
As an alternative, for the second model of the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass scaling relation we adopt the form derived using the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}-mass calibration of the SPT cluster sample.
Following \cite{andersson11} we assume $Y^\textrm{sph}_{500 }=0.92 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}$ and describe $\langle \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$} | M_{500},z\rangle $ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:yx}
&& \langle \textrm{ln} [(1-f)Y_\textrm{X} / 3\times 10^{14} \,{\rm M}_\odot \textrm{keV}] |M_{500} ,z \rangle = \left[ \textrm{ln} \left( \frac{(1-b) M_{500}}{3\times 10^{14}M_\odot} \right) - \right. \nonumber \\ &&
\left. \textrm{ln} \left( A_\textrm{X}h^{1/2}\right) - \frac{5B_\textrm{X}-3}{2}\textrm{ln}\left( \frac{h}{0.72} \right) -C_\textrm{X}\textrm{ln}E(z) \right]{B_\textrm{X}}^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
For consistency, we fit the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}-mass relation using \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}\ measurements from 82 SPT-selected clusters \citep{mcdonald13} as described in detail elsewhere \citep{dehaan16}
under the same assumption adopted in S15. Note that the adopted functional form describing the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}-mass relation in \cite{dehaan16} is inverted with respect to the other observable-mass relations used in this work.
We obtain $A_\textrm{X} = 6.7 \pm 0.37$, $B_\textrm{X} = 0.43 \pm 0.03$ and $C_\textrm{X} = -0.12 \pm 0.14$ for bias parameters $b$ and $f$ equal to zero. Note that, as for the $\zeta$ and \mbox{$\lambda$}\ mass relations, the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}\ parameters in this work have been derived from abundance matching of the SPT-selected cluster sample assuming the same fixed reference cosmology. They therefore differ from the ones presented in \citet{dehaan16}, which are simultaneusly calibrated within a cosmological analysis. Our approach allows us to make a direct consistency check among the different scaling relations.
We also note that, as a result, the associated slope of the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relation in this case ($1/B_\textrm{X} = 2.32$) is much steeper ($\sim2.5\sigma$) than the corresponding slope in the A10 relation (1.79). This is an outcome of the SPT cluster abundance calibration \citep[for discussion, see][]{dehaan16}.
\subsection{$\lambda$-mass Relation Calibrated with SPT}
On the optical side we assume that the RM-selected sample is also well described by
the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation calibrated in S15 for the SPT selected sample
. Namely we assume a \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation of the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \textrm{ln} \lambda| M_{500}, z \rangle & = & \textrm{ln} A_\lambda + B_\lambda\, \textrm{ln} \left ( \frac{M_{500}}{3\times10^{14} h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_\odot} \right ) \nonumber \\
& & + C_\lambda\, \textrm{ln} \left ( \frac{E(z)}{E(z=0.6)} \right ).
\label{eq:lambda_scaling}
\end{eqnarray}
An additional parameter $D_\lambda$ describes the intrinsic scatter in $\lambda$ at fixed mass, which is assumed to be log-normal and uncorrelated with the SZE scatter, with variance given by:
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Var}(\textrm{ln} \lambda|M_{500}) = \textrm{exp} ( - \langle \textrm{ln} \lambda|M_{500} \rangle ) + D_\lambda^2.
\label{eq:lambda_scatter}
\end{equation}
Best fit parameters (and associated uncertainties) of the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation are taken from S15 and are $A_\lambda = 66.1_{-5.9}^{+6.3}$, $B_\lambda= 1.14_{-0.18}^{+0.21}$, $C_\lambda = 0.73_{-0.75}^{+0.77}$ and $D_\lambda = 0.15_{-0.07}^{+0.10}$. We remind the reader that the parameters of the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass and of the $\zeta$-mass relations have been simultaneously calibrated in S15 from an SPT-selected cluster sample. Thus, a consistency of these scaling relations
(which implies $b$ and $f$ consistent with zero)
is expected for the high-richness end of the cluster population, corresponding approximately to the region $\mbox{$\lambda$}>80$ (S15).
\subsection{Mass-prior and Miscentering}
Following \cite{liu15} and \cite{bocquet15}, for every RM cluster selected with richness $\lambda \pm \Delta \lambda$, at a redshift $z$, we compute the mass prior\footnote{In the following we will refer to $M_{500}$\ as $M$.}:
\begin{equation}
P(M|\lambda,z) \propto P(\lambda|M,z) P(M,z),
\label{eq:p_m_l}
\end{equation}
where $ P(\lambda|M,z)$ is obtained by convolving the scaling relation described by equation~(\ref{eq:lambda_scaling}) and (\ref{eq:lambda_scatter}) with the associated Gaussian measurement uncertainty $\Delta \lambda$, and $P(M,z)$ represents the mass prior and is proportional to the halo mass function \citep{tinker08}. For every cluster in the sample, $P(M|\lambda,z)$ is then marginalized over the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass scaling relation parameter uncertainties. We then use the resulting mass prior $P(M|\lambda,z)$ in equations~(\ref{eq:zeta}), (\ref{eq:arnaud10sc}) and (\ref{eq:yx}) to compute the expected SZE observable of each RM-selected cluster.
When exploring the impact of miscentering on our observations, we assume the RM-selected sample is characterized by the optical-SZE central offset distribution calibrated in S15 from the SPT selected sample. The impact of the corresponding corrections is discussed in section~\ref{sec:misc}.
For the purpose of this analysis, results presented in this work have been obtained by fixing the SZE observable-mass scaling relation parameters to their best fit values, while we marginalize over the uncertainties of the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation parameters and over the parameters of the adopted optical-SZE central offset distribution. This approximation is justified because the uncertainties of the parameters describing the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation are
dominated by uncorrelated Poisson errors and significantly larger
than the ones describing the SZE observable-mass scaling relations.
\section{SZE observables}
\label{sec:sz_extraction}
Using the matched-filter (equation~\ref{eqn:filter}), we extract the central decrement temperature $T_0$ = $T_\textrm{CMB} y_0$, where $y_0$ is the filter amplitude and represents the central Comptonization parameter for every RM-selected cluster. In addition, we extract the associated (Gaussian) measurement uncertainty $\Delta_{T_0} = T_\textrm{CMB} \Delta_{y_0}$.
As an example, $5\times5$~arcmin stacked SPT filtered maps showing the central average $T_0$ decrement in five bins of decreasing richness \mbox{$\lambda \;$} are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stack_maps}. The number of stacked clusters and \mbox{$\lambda \;$} range for each bin are listed above each panel. The bottom-right panel shows the same SPT filtered map shown on the bottom-central panel but stacked at random sky positions. Each of these maps has been obtained by stacking the SPT maps at the location of each RM cluster, matched-filtered assuming a cluster profile with mass $\langle M_{500}|\lambda,z,\rangle$ according to equation~(\ref{eq:p_m_l}) and the parameters of the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass scaling relation derived in S15.
\begin{figure*}
\centering {
\hbox{
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PLOTS/multi_1_all_v2_1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PLOTS/multi_1_all_v2_2.pdf}}
}
\caption{The redshift-evolution-corrected distribution
of the SZE observables $\zeta$ (left panel) and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, (right panel) as a function of cluster extent $R_{500}$\ measured in the SPT filtered map for a RM-selected cluster with $\lambda=77.8 \pm 5.3$ at $z=0.4$ (also SPT-detected as SPT-CL J0447-5055 with raw signal-to-noise of $5.97$). Green (black) solid and dotted lines show the measured $\zeta$ and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, distributions and $1\sigma$ measurement uncertainties without (with) optical-SZE central offset corrections (see section~\ref{sec:sz_observables}). Note that corrections from the adopted optical-SZE central offset model dominate the degeneracy between $\zeta$ and cluster extent.}
\label{fig:multi_1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering {
\hbox{
\includegraphics[trim=-30 0 30 0mm,height=85mm]{PLOTS/observables.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=-90 0 90 0mm,height=85mm]{PLOTS/model.pdf}
}
}
\caption{\textit{First three columns:}
The probability distributions of the redshift-evolution-corrected SZE observables $\zeta$ (upper panel) and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, (lower panel) measured from the SPT filtered maps as a function of cluster extent for the same cluster shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_1}. Distributions are shown for the case of the SPT data (black lines) including 1) the richness-mass prior (red lines, first column); 2) the $\zeta$ and A10 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ mass priors (cyan lines, second column) and 3) both priors (third columns). \textit{Last column:} The predicted distribution of the SZE observables for the given richness-mass and SZE observable-mass model.
}
\label{fig:multi_2}
\end{figure*}
\label{sec:sz_observables}
In this work we study two different SZE observables: the detection significance $\zeta$ and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}, the integrated Compton-$y$ within $R_{500}$. For every RM-selected system, we start from the measured $y_0 \pm \Delta {y_0}$ at the cluster location extracted from the SPT filtered-maps for each assumed cluster profile $\theta_{500} \in [0.5 - 7.75 \, \textrm{arcmin}]$.
We then compute the expected bias $\beta$ associated with each optimal filter due to the optical-SZE central offset distribution by marginalizing over the parameters derived in S15.
We therefore calculate the estimated average miscentering-corrected central decrement $y_{0,\textrm{corr}} = y_0 / \beta$. The SZE observables $\zeta$ and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ are then related to the miscentering-corrected central decrement $y_{0,\textrm{corr}}$ as follows.
The SPT unbiased significance is defined as $\zeta = y_{0,\textrm{corr}}/(\Delta {y_0} A_s) $ with Gaussian measurement uncertainty $\Delta {\zeta} = A_s^{-1}$, where $A_s$ is the relative field scaling factor \citep{bleem15}.
The integrated \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ is defined as $\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}=\mu y_{0,\textrm{corr}}$, where we numerically integrate the assumed A10 universal pressure profile along the line-of-sight to obtain the scaling the factor $\mu$ \citep{liu15}.
\subsection{\mbox{Degeneracy between Observable and Cluster Extent: $D_\textrm{SPT}$}}
\label{sec:dspt}
As a representative example, we show in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_1} the derived SPT observable $\zeta$ estimated from the SPT filtered maps as a function of assumed cluster extent for a RM-selected cluster identified at redshift $z=0.40 \pm 0.01$ with $\lambda=77.8 \pm 5.3$. This cluster is also identified in the 2500d SPT-SZ survey as SPT-CL J0447-5055, and presented in \cite{bleem15} with with raw signal-to-noise of $5.97$
and angular scale $\theta_{500} = 3.05$~arcmin. Green lines represent the mean (solid line) and $1\sigma$ measurement uncertainties (dotted lines) associated with $\zeta$ without the SZE-optical central offset correction, while the mean and $1\sigma$ measurement uncertainty in the case including the SZE-optical central offset correction are shown using black lines. The same distribution is reported in black in the upper panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2}.
The corresponding distribution for the SZE observable \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ is shown in the right panel of Fig. 2 for the same cluster. The A10 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relation has been used to correct this distribution for redshift evolution
The same distributions are shown in black in the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2}.
In the following, we will refer to the joint probability of observing a particular value of $\zeta$ (or \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}) and $M_{500}$\ evaluated from the SPT filtered data as $D_\textrm{SPT}(\zeta,M)$. For our purposes, $D_\textrm{SPT}(\zeta,M)$ represents therefore the \textit{true} SPT observable, from which we obtain \textit{derived} SZE observables by adopting external priors, as discussed in the next section.
We note that the effect of the SZE-optical central offset correction is larger for larger assumed cluster profiles. This is a feature of the model adopted in S15, which describes the central-offset distribution normalized in terms of cluster virial radius $R_{500}$. Therefore, for fixed cosmology and given a redshift, equal offsets in units of $R_{500}$ \, will be associated with larger angular offsets (and thus larger biases) for more massive clusters.
\subsection{Breaking the Observable-Extent Degeneracy}
As a result of the degeneracy described in the previous section~and shown also in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_1}, one needs extra information to extract the SZE observables.
We first present the expectation for the SZE observable given richness \mbox{$\lambda$}\ and then discuss how to estimate derived SZE observables
for each RM cluster
from the SPT filtered maps.
\subsubsection{Model Expectation}
\label{sec:model_exp}
Given the two theoretical priors describing the richness-mass relation (red lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2}) and the SZE-mass relation (cyan lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2}) and under the assumption of uncorrelated intrinsic scatter, the expected distribution of $\zeta$ (and similarly for \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}) for a cluster selected with richness \mbox{$\lambda$}\ at redshift $z$ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
P^\textrm{Model}(\zeta|\lambda,z) = \int dM\,P(\zeta|M,z)P(M|\lambda,z).
\label{eq:model}
\end{equation}
The resulting distributions are shown in the last panels (g and h) of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2} and as cyan lines after marginalizing over cluster extent in Fig.~\ref{fig:margin}.
We now discuss three approaches to break the degeneracy between observable and cluster extent, where simplified versions of the first two approaches have been previously adopted in the literature, and the third approach makes use of all information from both the optical and SZE observable mass scaling relations.
\begin{figure*}
\centering {
\hbox{
\includegraphics[width=180mm]{PLOTS/marginalized_p_all.pdf}}
}
\caption{For the same example cluster shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_1} and \ref{fig:multi_2}, we show the probability distribution function for the redshift-evolution-corrected $\zeta$ (left) and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, (right, for the A10 case) SZE observables and model predictions obtained by marginalizing the distributions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2} over cluster extent $R_{500}$.
}
\label{fig:margin}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Deriving Observables with \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass Relation (Approach 1)}
\label{sec:approach1}
Following previous analyses \citep[e.g.][]{planck_opt,planck_lbg,hand11,drapper12,sehgal13}, the first approach is to break the degeneracy between the SZE observable and assumed cluster extent by fixing the angular scale of the cluster to the mean radius for a given richness with observed richness \mbox{$\lambda$}\ and redshift $z$ using the richness implied mass $\langle M |\lambda,z \rangle$. Here, we improve and extend this approach by fully and explicitly including the prior on the scale of the cluster as:
\begin{equation}
P^{App.1}(\zeta|\mbox{$\lambda$},z) = \int dM\, D_\textrm{SPT}(\zeta,M)P(M|\lambda,z).
\label{app1}
\end{equation}
For the example cluster shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_1}, this means we extract the measured observable by including the prior $P(M|\lambda,z)$ obtained following S15, represented by red lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2} as shown in panels a) and d). Note that, as mass maps directly into $R_{500}$\, the associated distributions are therefore described by vertical lines
in Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2}. The two resulting distributions for the two derived observables $P(\zeta|\lambda,z)$ and $P($\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$|\lambda,z)$ are then obtained by marginalizing over the assumed cluster extent. These appear in the left and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:margin} for the $\zeta$ and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, cases as solid black lines.
\subsubsection{Deriving Observables with SZE-mass Relation (Approach 2)}
\label{sec:approach2}
The second approach to break the degeneracy between SZE observable and cluster extent is to adopt an approach similar to the one described in \cite{gruen14} and \cite{planck15clusters}. Namely, we adopt the expected SZE observable-mass relations $\langle \zeta|M,z \rangle$ and $ \langle$\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$|M,z \rangle$ and calculate the expected cluster extent for each value of $\zeta$ and $\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$. In this approach we fully and explicitly include the priors $P(\zeta|$$R_{500}$$,z)$ and $P($\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$|$$R_{500}$$,z)$ (respectively shown as cyan lines in the upper and bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2} for the $\zeta$ and A10 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass scaling relation), obtained by the convolution of the assumed log-normal $\zeta$-mass (equation~\ref{eq:zeta}) and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass (equations~\ref{eq:arnaud10sc} and \ref{eq:yx}) scaling relations with the Gaussian measurement uncertainties $\Delta \zeta ($$R_{500}$$)$ and $\Delta$\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}($R_{500}$) as shown in panels b) and e). The resulting distributions, marginalized over the cluster extent, are thus described by:
\begin{equation} P^{App.2}(\zeta|z) = \int dM\, D_\textrm{SPT}(\zeta,M)P(\zeta|M,z), \label{app2} \end{equation}
and are shown in blue in the left and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:margin} for the $\zeta$ and A10 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, cases, respectively.
\subsubsection{Deriving Observables with Combined Approach (1 and 2)}
\label{sec:approach3}
Finally, we note that given the two theoretical priors described above, the best estimator is obtained by combining all the available information,
under the assumption that neither method is biased.
Specifically, given a model that describes both the richness-mass and SZE observable-mass relations
with uncorrelated intrinsic scatter,
we adopt the combination of the above mentioned priors, as highlighted in panels c) and f) of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2}.
The resulting distributions, marginalized over the cluster extent, are thus described by:
\begin{equation} P^\textrm{Comb}(\zeta|\mbox{$\lambda$},z) = \int dM\, D_\textrm{SPT}(\zeta,M)P(\zeta|M)P(M|\lambda,z), \label{app3} \end{equation}
and are shown in red in the left and right panels of Fig. \ref{fig:margin} for the $\zeta$ and for the A10 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, cases, respectively.
We note that the three SZE observable-extent constraints shown in panel c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2} cross in the same part of the $\zeta$-$R_{500}$ \, plane. As a result, the distributions for the three derived observables shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:margin} nicely overlap. This is not surprising, as the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation and the $\zeta$-mass relation were both calibrated directly from the SPT-selected sample of clusters. On the other hand, we note that this is not the case for the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\, observable, where the three SZE observable-extent constraints in panel f) of Fig.~\ref{fig:multi_2} overlap less. As a consequence, marginalized distributions in the SZE observable for the three derived observables shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:margin} are less consistent. We caution, however, that the derived observables are highly correlated with the model prediction as they share the same prior information.
\begin{figure}
\centering {\hbox{\includegraphics[width=90mm, height = 210mm,trim = 20 0 -20 0]{PLOTS/new_fig5.pdf}}}
\vskip-0.2in
\caption{Mean redshift-evolution-corrected SZE observables from clusters stacked in richness bins. Results are for $\zeta$ (top), \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ assuming the A10 model (middle) and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ derived from the best-fit SPT \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}-mass relation (bottom). Data points show the average SPT-SZ SZE observables estimated including: a) a \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass prior from S15 (black), b) an SZE observable-mass prior (blue), and c) both a and b (red). The cyan line represents the mean expectation (equation \ref{eq:model}). A \mbox{$\lambda$}\ dependent tension between the expectation and the observables exists to different degrees for all three scaling relations. Formal evaluation of the tension in terms of either mass or observable biases is carried out using equation~(\ref{eq:lik}) and results appear in Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}.
\label{fig:y_l}}
\end{figure}
\input{table_bias}
\begin{figure}
\centering { \hbox{\includegraphics[width=90mm,trim = 40 0 -40 0]{PLOTS/Bias_plot_transp2.pdf}}
}
\caption{\textit{Upper panel}: Constraints on mass bias parameter $b$ obtained by evaluating equation~(\ref{eq:lik}) assuming no observable contamination ($f =0$) in three different richness bins. For each \mbox{$\lambda$}-bin, $1\sigma$ regions of mass bias are shown for the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda$}\, relation (cyan), for the A10 derived \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda$}\, relation (red), and for the best-fit SPT derived \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda$}\, relation (yellow). The regions have been slightly shifted in \mbox{$\lambda$}\ for clarity.
\textit{Bottom panel}: same as upper panel, but for the case of observable contamination parameter $f$ under the assumption of no mass bias ($b=0$). \label{fig:bias}}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
In this section we first present our measurements of three SZE observable-\mbox{$\lambda$}\, relations and then discuss the consistency of these measurements with the model expectations. We comment on the impact of central-offset corrections in section \ref{sec:misc}.
\subsection{SZE Observable-Richness Relations}
\label{sec:model}
In the previous section, we demonstrated the extraction of $\zeta$ and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ assuming three different priors that allow us to constrain the cluster radial extent. We now divide the RM sample into 14 equal spaced logarithmic bins of \mbox{$\lambda$}\, and within each bin we compute the average SZE observables and model prediction.
The resulting average $\zeta$ corrected by the expected redshift evolution (with associated error bar) is shown in the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l} as a function of the mean \mbox{$\lambda$}\ for the different methods of extracting $\zeta$. These are color coded with Approach 1 (equation~\ref{app1}) in black, Approach 2 (equation~\ref{app2}) in blue and the Combined Approach (equation~\ref{app3}) in red. The model expectation (equation~\ref{eq:model}) is the cyan line. We find that the adopted model tends to overpredict the amplitude of $\zeta$ compared to the observed value, regardless of which of the three methods is used to extract $\zeta$.
This result reflects our finding in S15, where the fraction of RM-selected clusters with SPT-SZ counterparts is found to be in mild tension with the expectation. This discrepancy could be due to one or both of contamination of the SZE observable through point sources \citep[i.e., radio galaxies or star forming galaxies; see, e.g.,][]{liu15} and contamination of the optical cluster sample. The contamination in the RM sample is expected to be at the $\sim 10 \pm 5\%$ level \citep{rykoff14}. In forthcoming papers, we will examine the contamination on the SZE side by studying deviations of the SZE spectrum with respect to the theoretical expectation for a sample of RM-selected clusters overlapping with the SPT-SZ survey (Bleem et al., in preparation) and by examining the 150~GHz radio galaxy luminosity functions in an ensemble of X-ray selected clusters \citep{gupta16}. In the next section we quantify the tension between the theoretical expectation and data in a rigorous statistical manner.
The middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l} shows the results obtained for the case of the A10 model for \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}. We find here that the adopted scaling relations (cyan) over-predicts the amount of SZE flux with respect to the all three SZE derived observables by a large factor, as we will discuss more in detail in section \ref{sec:5.2.2} . These results are qualitatively in agreement with previously published results using the maxBCG sample with \textit{Planck} \citep[e.g.,][]{planck_opt} and ACT \citep[e.g.,][]{sehgal13} data. A quantitative comparison between our results and these works is complicated due to the different assumptions made for the richness-mass relation and due to the different sample properties. Focusing on the SZE estimator of Approach 1 (which is closer to the one adopted by \citealt{planck_opt} and \citealt{sehgal13}) represented by the black points, we also note that the slope of the derived \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda$}\ relation appears to be steeper than the model-predicted one, a result that is also found in the \textit{Planck} and ACT collaboration analyses.
Finally in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l} we show the results obtained for the case of the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ model derived from the best-fit \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}-mass relation self-consistently obtained from the SPT sample. Here, too, the signal is smaller than expected, but the difference is much smaller than for the A10-generated results and closer to the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda$}\, relation results shown in the top panel. We quantitatively assess the consistency of measurements and expectations in the next section.
\subsection{Constraining Mass and Observable Bias Parameters}
To characterize a possible tension between the derived observables and the theoretical expectations, we extend the models and fit for the bias parameters $b$ and $f$ (equation \ref{eq:zeta}, \ref{eq:arnaud10sc}, \ref{eq:yx} ), where we are assuming either that the fractional mass bias $b$ is the same for all masses within a cluster subsample or that the fractional observable bias $f$ is the same for all observables within a cluster subsample. The probability $P$ for the
SPT observable $D_\textrm{SPT}(\zeta,M)$ and bias parameters $b$ and $f$
is constructed by taking the product of the individual cluster probabilities $P_i$ as :
\begin{equation}
P=\prod_{i=1}^{N_\textrm{clus}} P_i=\prod_{i=1}^{N_\textrm{clus}}\iint d\zeta dM\,D^i_\textrm{SPT}(\zeta,M) P(\zeta|M,f,b,z_i)P(M|\lambda_i,z_i).
\label{eq:lik}
\end{equation}
We then constrain the mass bias parameter $b$ while assuming no observable contamination $f=0$ or we constrain the contamination parameter $f$ while assuming no mass bias $b=0$ for the tested models. We note also that equation~(\ref{eq:lik}) is similar to the Combined Approach above (equation~\ref{app3}), where $P(\zeta|M,f,b,z)$ is described by equation~(\ref{eq:zeta}).
Introducing $b$ and $f$ allows us to explore the scale of mass biases or contamination that would be required to achieve consistency between the prediction and the derived observables. As we have defined them, values of these parameters consistent with zero are expected if there is no evidence of mass bias or no evidence of observable contamination.
\subsubsection{SPT-derived $\zeta$-$\lambda$ Relation}
For the whole sample used in this work ($\mbox{$\lambda$} > 20$), and for the SZE observable $\zeta$ we find that the tested model with no bias or contamination is excluded at more than $3\sigma$. In particular, we find that the masses would have to be reduced by the factor $1-b=0.74 \pm 0.07$ or, equivalently, that the observable would have to be reduced by a factor $1-f = 0.59 \pm 0.12$ (Table~1). Even then the fit would be poor, because as is clear in Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l} there is a \mbox{$\lambda$}\, dependence in the offsets between the observables and the model.
In other words, the combination of the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass and $\zeta$-mass relations we calibrated in S15 using the high-mass SPT SZE-selected cluster sample is not a good description of the data.
This is an indication that one or more of the underlying assumptions is invalid. These assumptions include 1) fixing the cosmological parameters to particular values, 2) adopting the optical-SZE center offset distribution calibrated in S15, and 3) describing the SZE and optical mass--observable relations with a single power law with
constant log-normal scatter over the full range in \mbox{$\lambda \;$} that we explore. Thus, perhaps this result is not entirely surprising.
Given the strong cosmological constraints available today \citep{planck15cosm}, we do not expect marginalization over cosmology to have a significant impact; however, we will explore this explicitly in an upcoming analysis of a larger sample. The impact of corrections due to the assumed central-offset distribution model is discussed in section~\ref{sec:misc}. The analysis of S15 was limited to a sample of 19 clusters and did not allow for further exploration of the parameters space. Future works using data from the DES survey will greatly benefit from the larger statistics available and will allow us to better constrain and test the validity of the assumption adopted here.
To examine \mbox{$\lambda$}\ dependent effects, we derive the best fit mass bias and observable contamination parameters $b$ and $f$ within three richness bins: $20<\mbox{$\lambda$}<40$, $40<\mbox{$\lambda$}<80$ and $\mbox{$\lambda$}>80$. In this analysis, the error-bars on the three analyzed \mbox{$\lambda$}\ bins are correlated through the marginalization of the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass scaling relation parameters. Results are reported in Table~1 and highlighted in Fig.~\ref{fig:bias} for the mass bias parameter $b$ and for the observable contamination parameter $f$ in the upper and lower panels, respectively. We note that when restricting this analysis to the highest richness bin $\mbox{$\lambda$} >80$ (which is where the SPT SZE-selected clusters used to calibrate the observable mass relations lie) we obtain a bias parameter $1-b = 0.94\pm0.10$ ($1-f = 0.89 \pm 0.16$), consistent with no bias. Thus, in the \mbox{$\lambda$}\, range where the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass and $\zeta$-mass were calibrated, there is no statistically significant evidence for bias or contamination, which is what we would expect.
However, significant biases or contamination are associated with the lower richness bins, where the best fit parameters $b$ and $f$ are larger than zero with more than $3\sigma$ significance.
This suggests that a \mbox{$\lambda$}-dependent bias would be needed to make the model prediction and observables consistent. For example, the lowest richness bin at $20<\mbox{$\lambda$}<40$ can be described either with a mass bias of $1-b=0.62\pm0.10$ or with an observable contamination fraction of $1-f = 0.44\pm0.16$; most probably, the tension between the observables and model is due to a mix of different effects. As previously discussed, the origins of the tension could lie either in the RM catalogue
through a richness dependent contamination or scatter, in the SZE estimator due to a mass dependent bias, e.g., star formation or radio loud AGN \citep[e.g.][]{lin09,sehgal10,liu15,lin15,planck15dust,gupta16} or perhaps in an SZE-optical center offset distribution that is much broader at low \mbox{$\lambda \;$} than at high \mbox{$\lambda \;$} where it was measured. The trend in Fig.~\ref{fig:bias} could also reflect increasing variance in halo mass selected at lower lambda which would produce lower mean expected SZE signal relative to the model used here \citep{evrard14}. This effect could be amplified by an anti-correlation between galaxy and hot gas mass fractions, a feature seen in recent hydrodynamic simulations of the Rhapsody-G sample \citep{wu15}.
A larger sample and stronger constraints from external mass calibration datasets and for the optical miscentering distribution will allow us to more easily unravel the remaining sources of tension.
We plan to pursue this in a future analysis.
\subsubsection{$\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$-$\lambda$ Relation derived using the A10 Relation}
\label{sec:5.2.2}
For the SZE observable \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\ associated with the A10 model, we derive $1-b=0.52 \pm 0.05$ ($1-f = 0.31 \pm 0.08$).
This best fit mass bias parameter ($1 - b = 0.52$) is in good agreement with the best-fit mass hydrostatic mass bias parameter estimated by the \cite{planck15clus} ($1 - b = 0.58$) to reconcile the cosmological parameters fit to their CMB and cluster data sets.
We note, however, that a direct statistical comparison of the constraints on $1-b$ with the \textit{Planck} results is not straightforward for the following reasons. The adopted cosmology used to calibrate the scaling relations in S15 is similar but not identical to the \textit{Planck} CMB preferred cosmology (mostly due to differences in the amplitude of the power spectrum of density fluctuations). The mass and redshift range of the RM sample studied here is different from that of the \textit{Planck} cluster sample. A robust comparison between these results and the \textit{Planck} ones requires a detailed description of the contamination fraction in the RM sample studied here. Thus, the consistency between our constraints on the $1-b$ parameter and the ones reported by \cite{planck15clus} could well be coincidental.
We note that when only restricting this analysis to the sample of $\mbox{$\lambda$} >80$ we obtain a bias parameter $1-b = 0.76 \pm 0.07$ ($1-f = 0.61 \pm 0.12$), consistent with theoretical expectations for hydrostatic mass bias \citep{nagai07,rasia12} and with recent weak lensing mass calibrations of \textit{Planck} clusters that indicate $ 1-b = 0.688 \pm 0.072$ \citep{vonderlinden14} and $1-b = 0.76 \pm 0.05$ (stat) $\pm 0.06$ (syst) \citep{hoekstra15},
but in mild tension with results reported from the LoCuSS sample: $1-b=0.95 \pm 0.04$ \citep{smith16}.
Also in this case, a strong richness-dependent bias is required to account for the different slope of the observed \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda$}\ relation and the expectation, as highlighted by Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}. Finally, note also that, contrary to the A10 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relation, the SPT calibrated $\zeta$-mass and \mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}-derived \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relations are not relying on the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium, as they have been derived by matching the SPT clusters number counts with the reference cosmology.
\subsubsection{SPT-\mbox{$Y_\textrm{X}$}-derived $\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$-$\lambda$ Relation}
Finally, for the SPT derived \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation, we derive $1-b=0.84 \pm 0.07$ ($1-f = 0.71 \pm 0.14$).
In this case, the model prefers a mass-independent bias parameter that is closer to unity than that for the model describing the $\zeta$-mass relation. Our results exhibit a weak tension ($2.3\sigma$) with the model calibrated in S15.
When restricting this analysis to the sample with $\mbox{$\lambda$} >80$, we obtain a bias parameter $1-b =0.96\pm0.08$ ($1-f = 0.91\pm 0.16$), consistent with no bias. While we find that $b=0$ is only weakly in tension ($\lesssim 3\sigma$) in the lowest \mbox{$\lambda$}\ bin, a \mbox{$\lambda$}-dependent bias is also preferred for this model (Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}). As described previously, the parameters of the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation, the $\zeta$-mass relation, and the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relation have been simultaneously calibrated from abundance matching at the reference cosmology using the SPT SZE-selected cluster sample. Therefore, we expect (and observe) consistency of these scaling relations in the richer RM clusters.
The smaller required bias in the SPT-derived \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation
in comparison with the bias required from the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation could indicate that the extrapolation of the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relation calibrated at high masses to low mass clusters is providing a better description of the data than the same extrapolation with the $\zeta$-mass relation (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}).
\subsubsection{The Effects of Central-Offset Corrections}
\label{sec:misc}
Here we further discuss the impact of corrections due to the central-offset distribution in our measurements. As shown by \citet{sehgal13}, due to the shape of the optimal matched-filter, miscentering corrections have larger impacts in arcminute resolution experiments such as ACT and SPT as compared to the lower angular resolution \textit{Planck} experiment. Our results already include a correction for the effects of the SZE-optical central offset distribution that employs the model calibrated using a sample of 19 SZE-selected clusters and their RM counterparts (S15). Results are summarized in Table~1.
For the case of the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda$}\ relation, we note that if we had completely neglected the bias associated with the SZE-optical offset distribution $\beta$, we would increase the tension and obtain best fit bias parameters $1-b=0.61 \pm 0.06$ and $1-f = 0.43\pm 0.10$. For the A10 \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-$M_{500}$\ scaling relation, neglecting completely the bias associated with the SZE-optical offset distribution $\beta$ would require a bias parameter of $1-b = 0.44 \pm 0.04$ and $1-f = 0.23 \pm 0.07$. Finally, in the case of the SPT derived \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-$M_{500}$\ relation, neglecting completely the bias associated with the SZE-optical offset distribution would require bias parameters $1-b = 0.73\pm 0.06$ and $1-f = 0.54 \pm 0.12$.
In essence, our adopted model for the SZE-optical central-offset distribution, which we calibrated on the high-\mbox{$\lambda$}\ tail of the richness distribution represented by the SPT-selected sample, is shifting our constraints on the bias parameters closer to the expectations by approximately $2\sigma$. As discussed, however, there is a preference in each of these scaling relations for a richness-dependent bias or contamination; an interesting possibility is that the typical SZE-optical central-offsets could be a significantly larger fraction of the cluster extent at low \mbox{$\lambda \;$} than at high \mbox{$\lambda$}, where we have measured them. A sample of SZE selected clusters extending to much lower mass would allow the SZE-optical central-offset distribution to be directly constrained at low \mbox{$\lambda$}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this study we examine galaxy cluster SZE-optical scaling relations and the underlying SZE observable-mass and optical richness \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relations. We extend our study beyond the high mass, SPT SZE-selected sample studied in S15 to include systems of lower mass and richness where the SZE observables of individual clusters have much lower amplitude. To do this we use a sample of 719 optically selected RM clusters \citep{rykoff16} with $\mbox{$\lambda$}>20$ that have been selected from a 124.6~\mbox{$\textrm{deg}^2$ }\ region of the DES-SV dataset with overlapping SPT-SZ mm-wave data. At the locations of the optically selected clusters we extract the SZE observables from the SPT-SZ maps and stack these signals within richness bins to constrain the mean SZE observable as a function of \mbox{$\lambda$}. The SZE observables we measure are SPT detection significance $\zeta$ and integrated Compton-$y$ \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}, allowing us to study the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation and two different \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relations.
We show in our matched-filter analysis of the mm-wave maps that the derived SZE observable associated with each RM-selected cluster depends on the assumed cluster extent or virial radius.
To determine the range of cluster virial radius that is relevant for each cluster, we adopt priors for the SZE observable-mass relation and/or for the \mbox{$\lambda$}-mass relation.
We extract observables in each cluster using three different approaches: (1) a prior on the richness-mass relation $P(M|\lambda,z)$ which specifies the cluster extent $R_{500}$\ (equation~\ref{app1}); (2) a prior on the SZE observable-mass relations $P(\zeta|M,z)$ or $P($\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$|M,z)$ (equation~\ref{app2}); and (3) the combination of the two $P(\zeta|M,z) \times P(M|\lambda,z)$ and $P($\mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}$|M,z) \times P(M|\lambda,z)$ (equation~\ref{app3}). In all cases we marginalize over the full probability distribution function associated with the adopted priors. This leads to three somewhat different measurements for each SZE observable in each RM-selected cluster. Also, because any mismatch in the optical and SZE centers of the clusters will impact the extracted SZE observables, we correct for this effect using the optical-SZE central offset distribution measured in S15.
We then stack the SZE observables of the RM-selected sample in 14 bins of richness \mbox{$\lambda$}, calculating the average amplitude and uncertainty of the SZE observable in each bin. Our stacking technique explicitly propagates the prior information into the derived SZE observable amplitude and uncertainty. We use these data to construct the three SZE-optical scaling relations: 1) the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation, 2) the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation adopting the A10 prior and 3) the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation from SPT. For each relation we then examine the consistency of the observed relation with the expectation, finding that there is poor agreement between prediction and data for all three relations (see Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l}). In all cases the agreement is better at high \mbox{$\lambda \;$} than at low.
We explore the scale of the tension between expectation and observations by adopting either a mass bias parameter $b$ or an observable contamination parameter $f$. This contamination could be associated with a higher degree of SZE contamination due to unresolved star formation and radio galaxies associated with low-richness clusters or to a higher degree of contamination in the RM sample at lower \mbox{$\lambda \;$} \citep{liu15,gupta16}. Both bias parameters are integrated into the SZE observable-mass relations (see section~\ref{sec:theory}) and can be extracted for the full RM sample or subsets of the sample. Results are summarized below.
For the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation (equation~\ref{eq:zeta}, upper panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l}) we find that the model calibrated through the SPT selected sample in S15 tends to over-predict the signal of the derived observables. This tension can be alleviated by introducing a mass bias factor of $1-b=0.74 \pm 0.06$, which could be also explained through a contamination factor $1-f = 0.59$, which could model the combination of SZE observable contamination or contamination of the RM catalog due to projection effects. However, the slope of the expected $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation is significantly shallower than the observed one, and the bias or contamination would have to be more pronounced for low richness systems than for high richness systems (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}). An analysis of the richest $\mbox{$\lambda$}>80$ clusters shows good consistency between the data and the expectation, supporting a picture where contamination effects of either the SZE observable or the RM catalog (or a combination of these effects) are larger for lower mass systems. Alternatively, the adopted model for the SZE-optical center offset corrections may not properly describe the data for the lower richness clusters
or the intrinsic scatter in the $\mbox{$\lambda$}$-mass relation may be larger at low $\mbox{$\lambda$}$ \citep[][]{evrard14}.
%
For the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}\,-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation that adopts the A10 based \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass scaling relation calibration (equation~\ref{eq:arnaud10sc}, middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l}), the expectation prediction is higher than the observations by a factor of $\sim3$. This inconsistency can be reduced by adopting a mass bias parameter $1-b = 0.52 \pm 0.05$ or an observable contamination factor of $1-f = 0.31 \pm 0.08$. This best fit mass bias parameter $1-b = 0.52$ is in good agreement with the best-fit mass bias parameter $1-b=0.58$ required to reconcile the cosmological parameters obtained through analysis of the \textit{Planck} CMB anisotropy with the cosmological parameters derived from the \textit{Planck} cluster sample when adopting an XMM hydrostatic mass calibration. We caution, however, that this result could be largely coincidental, because the slope of the best fit relation for the measured observables is significantly steeper than the slope of the expectation, and measurements again indicate the need for a richness dependent contamination or mass bias (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}). The analysis of the richest $\mbox{$\lambda$}>80$ subsample results in a best fit mass bias parameter $1-b=0.76\pm 0.07$, which is smaller and is consistent with estimates of the hydrostatic mass bias from simulations and from weak lensing measurements \citep{nagai07,rasia12,vonderlinden14,hoekstra15},
but is in mild tension with the weak lensing measurements from LoCuSS \citep{smith16}.
Contamination effects that are \mbox{$\lambda \;$} dependent would be similar to those described above.
For the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-mass relation derived
from the SPT sample (equation~\ref{eq:yx}, bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:y_l}), we derive a mass bias factor $1-b=0.84 \pm 0.07$ and an observable contamination factor $1-f = 0.75\pm 0.13$, which are smaller biases than those in the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation and marginally in tension with zero mass bias. The larger bias required for the $\zeta$-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation could be caused by a break in the relation for lower mass systems, which perhaps is not required in the \mbox{$Y_\textrm{500}$}-\mbox{$\lambda \;$} relation. When restricting this analysis to the sample at $\mbox{$\lambda$} >80$ we obtain a bias (contamination) parameter $1-b =0.96 \pm 0.08 $ ($1-f = 0.91 \pm 0.16$), which is consistent with no bias. Also in this relation the slope is steeper in the measurements than in the expectation, indicating that a \mbox{$\lambda$}-dependent bias or contamination at the $\lesssim 3\sigma$ level is preferred (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bias}).
Future work benefiting from the larger region of overlap between the DES and SPT surveys will further test the consistency between the scaling relations derived from the SPT selected sample and from the RM-selected clusters, and to test the validity of the models adopted in this analysis. Ultimately, a simultaneous calibration of cosmological parameters and of the richness-mass and SZE observable-mass scaling relations from the RM-selected sample will allow us to more precisely estimate tensions between the two samples and help in providing insights into the underlying causes.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge the support of the DFG Cluster of Excellence ``Origin and Structure of the Universe'', the Transregio program TR33 ``The Dark Universe'' and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at.
This paper has gone through internal review by the DES and SPT collaborations.
The South Pole Telescope is supported by the National Science Foundation through grant PLR-1248097. Partial support is also provided by the NSF Physics Frontier Center grant PHY-1125897 to the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, the Kavli Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation grant GBMF 947.
We are grateful for the extraordinary contributions of our CTIO colleagues and the DECam Construction, Commissioning and Science Verification
teams in achieving the excellent instrument and telescope conditions that have made this work possible. The success of this project also
relies critically on the expertise and dedication of the DES Data Management group.
Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain,
the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the National Center for Supercomputing
Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago,
the Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University,
the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A\&M University, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos,
Funda{\c c}{\~a}o Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo {\`a} Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient{\'i}fico e Tecnol{\'o}gico and
the Minist{\'e}rio da Ci{\^e}ncia, Tecnologia e Inova{\c c}{\~a}o, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey.
The Collaborating Institutions are Argonne National Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones Energ{\'e}ticas,
Medioambientales y Tecnol{\'o}gicas-Madrid, the University of Chicago, University College London, the DES-Brazil Consortium, the University of Edinburgh,
the Eidgen{\"o}ssische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Z{\"u}rich,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Institut de Ci{\`e}ncies de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC),
the Institut de F{\'i}sica d'Altes Energies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Ludwig-Maximilians Universit{\"a}t M{\"u}nchen and the associated Excellence Cluster Universe,
the University of Michigan, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the University of Nottingham, The Ohio State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Portsmouth,
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, the University of Sussex, Texas A\&M University, and the OzDES Membership Consortium.
The DES data management system is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number AST-1138766.
The DES participants from Spanish institutions are partially supported by MINECO under grants AYA2012-39559, ESP2013-48274, FPA2013-47986, and Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa SEV-2012-0234.
Research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) including ERC grant agreements
240672, 291329, and 306478.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
With today's possibilities in designing and fabricating complicated nanostructures from different materials, entirely new approaches to tame the propagation of light have been pioneered. This brought many new and interesting applications within reach \cite{Yannopapas_transparency,Nordlander_nanoantennas,Wegener_helix,Pawlak,Pawlak2}. Hiding objects from detection with electromagnetic radiation is potentially one of the most fascinating aspects of modern nanooptics. The possibility to conceal an object at a specific frequency was simultaneously proposed by Ulf Leonhardt and Sir John Pendry and co-workers. They suggested to explore different techniques for a coordinate transformation to design a supporting structure, made from materials with complicated properties, to guide an incident electromagnetic field around a predefined spatial region \cite{pendry_cloak,Leonhardt_cloak,Jiang_cloak}. With this approach, it is possible to hide an arbitrary object from an observer if placed inside the transformed region. Applications exist e.g. when cloaking contact fingers and bus bars in solar cells \cite{Schumann_cloaking_solar_cell}.
If a general coordinate transformation is used, metamaterials with an anisotropic and inhomogeneous permittivity and permeability are required to implement the supporting structure. Since making such materials available obviously constitutes a challenge, an eminent question has been how to lower the constraints on the required functionality to simplify the realization of the necessary material properties. In the slip-stream of such research, for example, carpet cloaks were explored that hide an object that resides on a planar surface, e.g.~a metal mirror \cite{Pendry_carpet,Zentgraf_carpet,Wegener_carpet,park_carpet}.
A completely different strategy to hide small particles from detection led to the development of the scattering cancellation technique \cite{alu_engheta_cloak,Silveirinha_cloak,Bilotti_te_tm,monti_cloak1,monti_cloak2}. There, the scattering response of an electrically small object to a given illumination is reduced by encapsulating it with a supporting shell. The shell is designed such that the illumination induces an electric dipole moment of the same magnitude as in the core object. However, the dipole moment shall oscillate with a phase difference of $\pi$ with respect to the dipole moment of the core object with the effect that the emerging destructive interference will cancel the scattered field \cite{Kerker_invisibility}. This renders the object undetectable at the cloaking frequency in techniques that use the scattered light to detect the presence of an object.
This reduction of the scattering cross section, as it has been explored in the past, is a valuable ability that might find many applications \cite{Rockstuhl_book}. Examples are the suppression of the cross-talk between closely spaced nanoantennas \cite{Onal_antenna_cloak}, the suppression of the perturbation of the field to be detected by a tip in a scanning near-field optical microscope operated in scattering mode \cite{Bilotti_tip_cloak}, or the manipulation of optical forces \cite{Bilotti_force_cloak}. To make these applications come true, it is of paramount importance to be able to tune the operational frequency where the scattering response is reduced at a predefined frequency imposed by the specific application.
For an operational frequency in the radio or microwave part of the spectrum, different metasurfaces have been suggested for the implementation of the scattering cancellation technique \cite{alu_invisibility_prb}. Such mantle cloaks, as they were dubbed, can be made from different motifs and their functionality has been verified in pioneering experiments \cite{Alu_experimental_mantle_cloak}. On the contrary, for an application at optical frequencies, thus far only the feasibility of the concept was demonstrated but not yet the ability to tune the operational frequency. These first experiments employed a shell made from spherical metallic nanoparticles to cover the object from which the scattering response should be suppressed, i.e. usually a dielectric sphere \cite{,Muhlig_prb_cloak,Muhlig_selfassembled_cloak}. This dielectric sphere has to be sufficiently small such that the scattering response is dominated by the electric dipole moment. The restriction to spherical metallic nanoparticles eventually fixes the operational frequency of the cloaking effect.
To mitigate this problem of low tunability, we suggest and study here the use of metallic ellipsoidal nanoparticles as the building blocks from which the shell is made. Changing the aspect ratio changes the resonance frequency of the nanoparticles and with that the operational frequency across an extended spectral domain. Since the shell material is usually fabricated by means of self-assembly techniques, an important question is whether the scattering strength can be reduced for a random arrangement and orientation of the ellipsoids on top of the core object. Then, only a fraction of the ellipsoidal nanoparticles will effectively interact with the external illumination that is considered to have a fixed linear polarization.
Here, we study the basic design of a scattering cancellation device where the shell is made from metallic ellipsoids by two complementary analytical techniques. The purpose of these techniques is to demonstrate the underlying principle that causes the ability to tune the operational frequency and to provide a glimpse on the possible performance. The eventual functionality of the design is demonstrated by full wave numerical simulations. These simulations rely on a powerful tool in where the scattering response of each individual ellipsoid is expressed in terms of a T-matrix \cite{waterman_t-matrix}. The T-matrix relates the incident field expanded into spherical harmonics with the scattered field. Afterwards, a multiple scattering formalism is used to study the self-consistent optical response. This allows to study the influence of the positional and rotational disorder on the performance of the device.
\section{Theoretical Considerations}
\label{Theoretical considerations}
In this section, we want to study by two different analytical means a scattering structure that consists of a dielectric sphere (the core object) that is covered with a layer of silver ellipsoids (the supporting shell). In the first analytical approach, the covering shell is modeled as a thin reactive metasurface to which a reactance is assigned based on the polarizability of the ellipsoids. Comparing this reactance to the necessary reactance that suppresses the scattering signal allows to identify the parameter region where the scattering is reduced.
In the second analytical approach, the nanoparticles forming the covering shell are considered as an effectively homogeneous medium with effective material parameters. The effective properties of this medium are derived from basic mixing rules in dipolar approximation. Beyond insights into the spectral position of the operational frequency, the approach is useful to get an educated guess on the performance of the device.
\subsection{Surface Homogenization}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{surface2_new_2.eps} \caption{Surface reactance calculated for different aspect ratios $\delta=a_\textrm{z}/a_\textrm{x}$ of the constituting ellipsoids and the ideal surface reactance that is required to cancel the scattering. Spectral positions where both surface reactances are equal correspond to the operational frequencies for different aspect ratios.}
\label{fig_surface}
\end{figure}
At first, we want to investigate the operating frequency of the proposed scattering cancellation and its tunability. For this purpose, we analyze the dependence of the cloaking frequency on the aspect ratio of the ellipsoids.
We assume that the nanoparticles are electrically very small compared to the wavelength e.g.~$\lambda/a_\textrm{z}\approx20$, where $a_\textrm{z}$ is the major semi axis of the ellipsoid. Therefore, the shell can be modeled as a two dimensional metasurface. The behavior of the shell is then characterized by an average surface reactance. The surface reactance corresponds to the imaginary part of the surface impedance $Z_\textrm{s}(\omega)=R_\textrm{s}(\omega)-iX_\textrm{s}(\omega)$. For an array of particles that are characterized by a polarizability $\alpha$, this surface reactance reads as \cite{saeidi_surface}
\begin{align}
X_\textrm{s}(\omega)=-\frac{d^2}{k}({\rm Re\mit}[1/\alpha(\omega)]-{\rm Re\mit}[\beta(\omega)])~.
\label{eq:reactance}
\end{align}
Here, $\beta(\omega)$ describes the interaction of the nanoparticles in the array while being exposed to an external excitation \cite{tretyakov_book}, $d$ defines the distance of the particles, and $k$ is the wave number of the incident plane wave.
The polarizability $\alpha(\omega)$ of an ellipsoid is analytically known to be \cite{bohren}
\begin{align}
\alpha_\textrm{z}(\omega)=\frac{\varepsilon_\textrm{p}(\omega)-\varepsilon_\textrm{h}}{\varepsilon_\textrm{h}+N_\textrm{z}(\varepsilon_\textrm{p}(\omega)-\varepsilon_\textrm{h})}~,
\label{analytical_eiipsoid}
\end{align}
where $\varepsilon_\textrm{p}(\omega)$ is the permittivity of the ellipsoid obtained from experimental data \cite{johnson_christy}, $\varepsilon_\textrm{h}=1$ is the host medium, in our case air, and $N_\textrm{z}$ is the depolarization factor along $z$ which depends on the aspect ratio $\delta=a_\textrm{z}/a_\textrm{x}$ of the ellipsoid. The axes are chosen such that the volume $V=\frac{4}{3}\pi a_\textrm{x}^2 a_\textrm{z}$ stays constant.
When the ellipsoids cover a sphere, they are not in perfect alignment like in a flat array. To account for this disorder, we calculate an effective polarizability by taking the average of the three components $\alpha_\textrm{x}(\omega)$, $\alpha_\textrm{y}(\omega)$, and $\alpha_\textrm{z}(\omega)$. This implies, that the homogeneous medium that is considered here is made from ellipsoids that have an arbitrary orientation in space. The filling fraction is derived from the distance of the particle and the total surface area of the core object. Here, we assume a distance of $d = 40$ nm which reflects a filling fraction of approximately $6.5\%$ that is assumed later on.
The surface reactance that is necessary to suppress the scattering response from a spherical core object is given by \cite{alu_invisibility_prb}
\begin{align}
X_\textrm{s}^\textrm{ideal}(\omega_\textrm{c})=\frac{2[2+\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}-\gamma^3(\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}-1)]}{3\frac{\omega_\textrm{c}}{c} r_\textrm{sph}\gamma^3(\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}-1)}~,
\end{align}
where $\omega_\textrm{c}$ is the desired operational frequency, $\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}=2.1$ is the relative permittivity of the core sphere, $\gamma=r_\textrm{sph}/r_\textrm{clo}$, $r_\textrm{sph}=61$ nm is the core radius and $r_\textrm{clo}=66$ nm is the radius of the mantle cloak.
Now, the surface reactance strongly depends on the polarizability $\alpha(\omega)$ of the particles forming the reactive surface. Therefore, it can be tuned by changing the aspect ratio $\delta=a_\textrm{z}/a_\textrm{x}$ of the ellipsoids as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig_surface}, where we calculate the surface reactance by substituting Eq.~\ref{analytical_eiipsoid} into Eq.~\ref{eq:reactance} with different values of $\delta$. Please note, we assumed here the ellipsoids to be prolate, hence, the x- and y-component of the polarizability are the same. This is in agreement with the assumptions further below. Elliptical nanoparticles with such shape can be obtained by various chemical methods \cite{Murphy_fabrication_elli,Foss_fabrication_elli}.
Equating the surface reactance for a given axis ratio to the surface reactance necessary to cancel the scattered field allows to identify the operational frequency for a given structure. It can be seen that the larger the aspect ratio of the ellipsoids the shorter the frequency where both reactances are the same. Changing the aspect ratio, therefore, is a suitable means to adjust the operational frequency upon request. To obtain insights into the qualitative scattering cross section of such a system, a volumetric homogenization method is used further below.
\subsection{Volumetric Homogenization}
Next, we consider the layer of plasmonic particles as a shell that is made from a homogeneous medium and which encloses the dielectric sphere to calculate the scattering cross section.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{eps_eff3.eps}
\caption{Effective relative permittivity of a material made of silver ellipsoids with semi axes $a_\textrm{x}=a_\textrm{y}=5$ nm and $a_\textrm{z}=23$ nm and a filling fraction of $f=0.065$. The dashed lines show the solutions of Eq.~\ref{cloaking_cond}.}
\label{fig_eps_eff}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{cloaking_ana3_new.eps}
\caption{Scattering cross section of a single dielectric sphere with $\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}=2.1$ and the sphere covered with an effective material corresponding to different aspect ratios of the constituent ellipsoids.}
\label{fig_ana}
\end{figure}
To assign an effective permittivity to the shell, we use the Clausius-Mossotti-relation for inclusions in a host medium with permittivity $\varepsilon_\textrm{h}$
\begin{align}
\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)= \frac{\varepsilon_\textrm{h} +2/3 f \alpha(\omega)}{1-\frac{f\alpha(\omega)}{3\varepsilon_\textrm{h}}}~,
\label{CM}
\end{align}
where $f=0.065$ is the filling fraction of the particles in the host and $\alpha(\omega)$ is the polarizability of a single particle. The polarizability and host medium are the same as considered in the previous subsection, i.e.~we took again the spatial average of the three individual polarizabilities of the three axes.
To reduce the scattering of the system we need to satisfy the cloaking condition of a covered sphere \cite{alu_engheta_cloak}
\begin{align}
\gamma^3=\frac{(\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)-\varepsilon_\textrm{b})(2\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)+\varepsilon_\textrm{sph})}{(\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)-\varepsilon_\textrm{sph})(2\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)+\varepsilon_\textrm{b})}
\label{cloaking_cond} ~.
\end{align}
This equation is real valued for lossless core and background material, thus we only get a restriction on the real part of the cloak permittivity. We get two solutions for the chosen parameters: one positive ${\rm Re\mit}[\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega_1)]=0.461$ and one negative ${\rm Re\mit}[\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega_2)]=-2.278$, depicted as dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig_eps_eff}. The scattering of the coated sphere will be reduced at the positions where the real part of $\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)$ is equal to those values. The remaining imaginary part of the permittivity slightly diminishes the cloaking effect, introducing absorption that is associated with additional forward scattering, due to the optical theorem \cite{fleury_absorption}.
Now, we can calculate the polarizability of the entire system by considering a sphere coated with a shell of the effective material. The polarizability of a coated sphere is given as \cite{Sihvola_shell}
\begin{align}
\alpha_\textrm{clo}(\omega)=3\frac{(\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)-1)(\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}+2\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega))+\gamma^3(2\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)+1)(\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}-\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega))}{(\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)+2)(\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}+2\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega))+2\gamma^3(\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)-1)(\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}-\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega))}~.
\end{align}
This can be used to calculate the scattering cross section of the system as \cite{bohren}
\begin{align}
C_\textrm{sca}(\omega)=k^4 r_\textrm{clo}^6 8\pi|{\alpha_\textrm{clo}(\omega)}|^2~.
\end{align}
As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig_ana}, the calculated scattering cross section of the covered sphere shows two peaks and two local minima. The first peak corresponds to the resonance position of the effective permittivity of the shell and the second corresponds to the plasmon resonance between the core and the shell, respectively. The minima correspond to the points where the cloaking condition of the covered sphere Eq.~\ref{cloaking_cond} is satisfied. A possible third minimum, is not observed. This corresponds to the spectral position where $\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega_3)=-2.278$ but which is directly in the resonance. There, the imaginary part of the effective permittivity is extremely high, such that the condition to suppress the scattering response cannot be met effectively. In fact, also the second (negative) solution does not lead to cloaking, because of the high losses near the resonance.
Comparable to the previous analytical method, we observe a high tunability of the operational frequency across the entire optical range that is considered. By changing the aspect ratio of the ellipsoids $\delta=a_\textrm{z}/a_\textrm{x}$, the effective permittivity of the shell material changes. This leads to different positions where the cloaking condition is satisfied. Otherwise the qualitative response is identical for all operational frequencies.
As we see, the predicted cloaking frequency, given by the intersection of the $X_\textrm{s}$ graphs with $X_\textrm{s}^\textrm{ideal}$, is in excellent agreement with the values from the volumetric homogenization (Fig.~\ref{fig_ana}).
It is interesting to note that, as it was also shown in Ref.~\onlinecite{monti_cloak}, volumetric homogenization provides quite accurate results even if the shell is rather thin and made of a single layer of nanoparticles. Further proofs of the applicability of the volumetric homogenization in such situation will be given in the results section.
We notice that we discussed there only the condition necessary to meet the positive solution. As we will see further below, this is the only solution that persists in the actual structure, where disorder possibly causes a degradation of the oscillator strength of the effective dispersion.
\section{Numerical Method}
\label{Numerical Method}
To be able to study the properties from an actual structure, we have to be able to simulate its optical response using full-wave numerical simulations. The structure itself constitutes in that sense a challenge, since it consists of a larger number of resonant objects with fine details. We are not able to take advantage of any periodicity or symmetry, since the elliptical nanoparticles shall be considered with a random orientation on top of the core object. This is the consequence from the bottom-up methods that we suggest to implement such scattering cancellation device. To cope with these challenges, we rely on an extension to the multiple scattering technique \cite{Xu_multiple_scattering,Muhlig_nanotips}. Our approach requires only information on the T-matrix of the isolated ellipsoid and the core sphere \cite{waterman_t-matrix,tsang1985theory,mishchenko}. This T-matrix can be obtained using multiple full-wave simulations of the optical response of the isolated object for different illumination schemes \cite{gimbutas_t-matrix}. The matrix contains generally the complete information on how the object interacts with electromagnetic radiation in the far and near field. However, for numerical calculations we need to truncate the T-matrix and take only the information up to a chosen multipole order into account.
We start by considering the optical response of a single object that is illuminated by a specific external electromagnetic field. The total field outside the object can always be decomposed into the incident and the scattered field. With respect to a central coordinate of the scattering object, these fields can be expanded into vector spherical harmonics $\mathbf{N}_{nm}^{(l)}(r,\theta,\phi)$ and $\mathbf{M}_{nm}^{(l)}(r,\theta,\phi)$, the functions with indices $l=1,2$ contain Bessel functions of first and second kind, respectively, and indices $l=3,4$ correspond to Hankel functions of first and second kind, respectively. The exact choice of the function requires further physical reasoning. For the scattered electric field that has to satisfy the Sommerfeld radiation condition the expansion reads as
\begin{align}
\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{sca}}(\textbf{r},\omega) =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-n}^{n}k^{2}E_{nm} \left[a_{nm}(\omega)\mathbf{N}_{nm}^{(3)}(\textbf{r},\omega)+b_{nm}(\omega)\mathbf{M}_{nm}^{(3)}(\textbf{r},\omega)\right].
\label{eq:scattered}
\end{align}
For the incident field that has to be finite in the center of the coordinate systems the expansion reads as
\begin{align}
\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{inc}}(\textbf{r},\omega) =-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-n}^{n}k^{2}E_{nm} \left[p_{nm}(\omega)\mathbf{N}_{nm}^{(1)}(\textbf{r},\omega)+q_{nm}(\omega)\mathbf{M}_{nm}^{(1)}(\textbf{r},\omega)\right].
\end{align}
$k^{2}=\varepsilon(\omega)\mu(\omega)\left(\omega^{2}/c^{2}\right)$ is the dispersion relation in the surrounding medium characterized by the permittivity $\varepsilon(\omega)$ and the permeability $\mu(\omega)$ and
\begin{align}
E_{nm}=|\mathbf{E}_\mathrm{inc}|i^n(2n+1)\frac{(n-m)!}{(n+m)!}
\end{align}
is a scaling factor with $|\mathbf{E}_\mathrm{inc}|$ being the magnitude of the incident field.
The expansion coefficients $a_{nm}(\omega)$ and $b_{nm}(\omega)$ are called scattering coefficients. The expansion coefficients $p_{nm}(\omega)$ and $q_{nm}(\omega)$ describe the illumination. They are analytically known for a plane wave or a Gaussian beam, but they can be also kept entirely free to expand an arbitrary illumination close to the scattering object.
The link between the scattering coefficients and the incident coefficients is given by the T-matrix of the object. This matrix contains the entire information on how a specific objects responds to an external electromagnetic field and reads as
\begin{align}
\left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{a} \\ \textbf{b} \end{matrix}\right)=\textbf{T} \. \left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{p} \\ \textbf{q} \end{matrix}\right),
\label{eq:t-matrix}
\end{align}
$\textbf{a}$ and $\textbf{b}$ are concatenated vectors containing the scattering coefficients of the outgoing wave and $\textbf{p}$ and $\textbf{q}$ are concatenated vectors containing the coefficients of the incident wave. The T-matrix links them.
The T-matrix is analytically known only for canonical objects, e.g. a sphere. In the case of a sphere, the T-matrix is diagonal and the values on the diagonal are known as the Mie coefficients. This reflects the fact that vector spherical harmonics with different quantum numbers are orthogonal. This orthogonality is not broken by a spherical object. However, for an arbitrary scatterer the T-matrix is dense in general.
Using Eq.~\ref{eq:t-matrix}, we can calculate the T-matrix for any given scatterer. Specifically, we use an existing full wave code to illuminate the scatterer with plane waves from different directions and calculate the scattered fields.
Then, we can calculate sets of incident coefficients $\textbf{p}$, $\textbf{q}$ and corresponding scattering coefficients $\textbf{a}$, $\textbf{b}$. These are calculated by projecting the scattered and illuminating fields onto vector spherical harmonics
\begin{align}
a_{nm}(\omega)&=\frac{\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\! \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\! \mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{sca}}(r=R,\theta,\phi,\omega)\mathbf{N}_{nm}^*(r=R,\theta,\phi,\omega)\sin{\theta} \, \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi}{k^2 E_{nm}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\!\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\!|\mathbf{N}_{nm}(r=R,\theta,\phi,\omega)|^2 \sin{\theta} \,\mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi}~,\nonumber \\
b_{nm}(\omega)&=\frac{\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\! \int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\! \mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{sca}}(r=R,\theta,\phi,\omega)\mathbf{M}_{nm}^*(r=R,\theta,\phi,\omega)\sin{\theta} \, \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi}{k^2 E_{nm}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\!\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\!|\mathbf{M}_{nm}(r=R,\theta,\phi,\omega)|^2 \sin{\theta} \,\mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi}~,
\end{align}
where $R$ is a fixed radius of a sphere containing the object at which the fields are evaluated \cite{bohren}. Having the incident and scattering coefficients available, the calculation of $\textbf{T}$ is done by inverting the system of equations. In order to have a solvable system, we need to consider at least $2N(N+2)$ different illuminations, which is the dimension of the T-matrix. Here $N$ is the multipolar order we want to take into account, where $N=1$ corresponds to dipoles, $N=2$ to quadrupoles and so on.
Using Eq.~\ref{eq:t-matrix} we can calculate the scattering coefficients of any particle for any given incident field, represented by the incident field coefficients. Specifically, we apply this procedure to quantify the exact scattering properties of the ellipsoidal nanoparticles.
Now, instead of just a single isolated scatterer, we consider a cluster of particles. In the multiple scattering algorithm, the illumination to each particle is written as a superposition of the external illumination and the scattered field from all other spheres. The incident field on the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ sphere expanded in its local coordinate system is given by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{inc}}^j(\textbf{r},\omega)=\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{inc}}(\textbf{r},\omega)+\sum_{i\neq j}\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{sca}}(\textbf{r},\omega)(i,j)~,
\label{eq:self}
\end{align}
where $(i, j)$ denotes the transformation from the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ to the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate system. This is done by translating the vector spherical harmonics with the translational addition theorems
\begin{align}
\mathbf{N}_{nm}^{(3)}(\textbf{r},\omega) &=\sum_{n'=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m'=-n'}^{n'}\left[A0_{nm}^{n'm'}(i,j)\mathbf{N}_{n'm'}^{(1)}(\textbf{r}',\omega)+B0_{nm}^{n'm'}(i,j)\mathbf{M}_{n'm'}^{(1)}(\textbf{r}',\omega)\right], \nonumber \\
\mathbf{M}_{nm}^{(3)}(\textbf{r},\omega) &=\sum_{n'=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m'=-n'}^{n'}\left[A0_{nm}^{n'm'}(i,j)\mathbf{M}_{n'm'}^{(1)}(\textbf{r}',\omega)+B0_{nm}^{n'm'}(i,j)\mathbf{N}_{n'm'}^{(1)}(\textbf{r}',\omega)\right].
\label{eq:transl}
\end{align}
The translation coefficients $A0_{n'm'}^{nm}(i,j)$ and $B0_{n'm'}^{nm}(i,j)$ can be found in Ref.~\onlinecite{Stein_1961}.
Then the T-matrix transforms as
\begin{align}
\textbf{T}(j)=\left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{A} & \textbf{B} \\ \textbf{B} & \textbf{A}\end{matrix}\right) ^{\! \! *} \! \! (i,j) \cdot \textbf{T}(i) \cdot \left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{A} & \textbf{B} \\ \textbf{B} & \textbf{A}\end{matrix}\right) \! \! (i,j)
\end{align}
Here $\textbf{A}$ and $\textbf{B}$ form a matrix of translation coefficients that can be obtained from
\begin{align}
A_{nm}^{n'm'}=\frac{E_{n'm'}}{E_{nm}} A0_{nm}^{n'm'}.
\end{align}
For non-spherical particles however, not only the position but also the orientation is important to determine the scattering. This can be accounted for by applying a rotation to the T-matrix \cite{mishchenko}
\begin{align}
T_{nmn'm'}^{\mathrm{rot}}=\sum_{m_1=-n}^{n} \sum_{m_2=-n'}^{n'}\left[D_{m'm_2}^{n'}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)\right]^* T_{nm_1n'm_2} D_{mm_1}^n(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)~.
\label{eq:rot}
\end{align}
Here the Wigner D-matrix
\begin{align}
D_{ml}^{n}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=e^{-im\alpha}d_{ml}^n(\beta)e^{-il\gamma}
\end{align}
depends on the Euler angles $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ of the rotation and the Wigner d-function is given as
\begin{align}
d_{ml}^{n}(\beta)=A_{ml}^n (1-\cos\beta)^{(m-l)/2}(1+\cos\beta)^{-(m+l)/2}\mathrm{\partial}_{\cos\beta}^{n-l}\left[(1-\cos\beta)^{n-m}(1+\cos\beta)^{n+m}\right]
\end{align}
with the factor
\begin{align}
A_{ml}^n=\frac{(-1)^{n-l}}{2^n}\sqrt{\frac{(n+l)!}{(n-m)!(n+m)!(n-l)!}}~.
\end{align}
By combining Eqs.~\ref{eq:t-matrix}, \ref{eq:self}, \ref{eq:transl}, and \ref{eq:rot} we arrive at a system of equations that can be solved self-consistently for the scattering coefficients of all constitutive particles with index $j$ under the illumination of the external field and the scattered field of all other particles
\begin{align}
\left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{a} \\ \textbf{b} \end{matrix}\right)^{\! \! (j)}=\textbf{T}^{\mathrm{rot}} \. \left( \left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{p} \\ \textbf{q} \end{matrix}\right)^{\! \! (j)}- \sum_{j\neq i} \left(\left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{a} \\ \textbf{b} \end{matrix}\right)^{\! \! (i)} \. \left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{A} \\ \textbf{B} \end{matrix}\right) \! \! (i,j) \right) \right).
\label{eq:multimie}
\end{align}
The scattering coefficients of the whole cluster can finally be obtained by translating all coefficients back to the central coordinate system and summing them together
\begin{align}
\left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{a} \\ \textbf{b} \end{matrix}\right)=\sum_{j=1}^J \left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{a} \\ \textbf{b} \end{matrix}\right)^{\! \! (j)} \. \left(\begin{matrix} \textbf{A} \\ \textbf{B} \end{matrix}\right) \! \! (j,1) ~.
\label{eq:coeff}
\end{align}
From these scattering coefficients all further quantities can be calculated.
This formalism speeds up considerably the calculation of the optical response from a large ensemble of scattering objects. To calculate the scattering coefficients of an array of specially or randomly oriented objects, the T-matrix has to be calculated only once and can be used for each constituent by translating and rotating it by the desired amount. This is done using addition theorems for the vector spherical harmonics \cite{Stein_1961,mishchenko}. With this method we are able to simulate the electromagnetic response of ellipsoids arbitrarily arranged at the surface of a larger dielectric sphere to investigate the cloaking in more detail. In order to perform numerical calculations, we have to truncate the infinite sums, e.~g.~in Eq.~\ref{eq:scattered} at a finite number $N$ which represents the multipolar order. This means contributions from orders up to $N$ are taken into account.
\section{Results}
\label{Results}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\raisebox{-0.2\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.13\textwidth]{illu2.png}}
\subfloat[Completely ordered \ \ \ \ and aligned.]{\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{alessio}}\label{figuabpP01a}}
\subfloat[Random distribution, \ \ \ but same alignment.]{\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{randpos2}}\label{figuabpP01b}}
\subfloat[Random distribution \ \ and random alignment.]{\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{randori2}}\label{figuabpP01c}}
\caption{Different distributions and orientations of silver ellipsoids on a dielectric sphere. The illumination direction and polarization are depicted on the left hand side.}
\label{fig_distributions}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{cloaking_abc2_new4.eps} \caption{Numerically obtained scattering cross sections of different systems corresponding to the geometries shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_distributions}: (a) Completely ordered and aligned, (b) random distribution, same alignment, (c) random distribution, random alignment. For (b) and (c) we display the averaged cross section of $100$ simulations with different realizations of the random geometry, the shaded region shows the standard deviation of the sample.
The ellipsoids have the semi axes of $a_\textrm{x}=a_\textrm{y}=5$ nm and $a_\textrm{z}=23$ nm.}
\label{fig_cloaking_n}
\end{figure}
We consider now a dielectric sphere with $\varepsilon_\textrm{sph}=2.1$ and a radius of $r_\textrm{Sph}=61$ nm covered with $24$ silver ellipsoids. For the permittivity of the nanoparticles $\varepsilon_\textrm{p}(\omega)$ we use established experimental data \cite{johnson_christy}.
With the proposed T-matrix algorithm it is possible to calculate the scattering response from different distributions and orientations of the silver ellipsoids on the central sphere in short time and with high precision. We truncate the infinite sums at $N=3$. This means we take dipoles, quadrupoles and octopoles into account, however, already the quadupole contribution is almost negligible due to the small size of the structure compared to the wavelength.
In Fig.~\ref{fig_distributions}, three configurations are shown that shall be further investigated. Figure~\ref{fig_distributions}(a) shows a completely deterministic ordering of the ellipsoids. They have defined distances and are lying tangent to the surface of the core sphere with an orientation that maximizes the projection of the long axis onto the polarization direction of the incident field. This was done to enhance the polarizability of the shell. However, when this nanostructure is fabricated with self assembly techniques, we have no direct control over the exact position of the ellipsoids. To reflect this we show in Fig.~\ref{fig_distributions}(b) random distributions of nanoparticles on the surface of the core sphere only adhering to a minimal distance to ensure that the ellipsoids are not in contact with each other. The particles are, however, still aligned with respect to the incident field polarization like geometry (a). This could be realized for example by applying an external field during the self assembly process to force the particles to align \cite{park_align}. Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig_distributions}(c) shows the same random distribution additionally with random orientation of the ellipsoids on the surface of the sphere.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_cloaking_n}, the three different geometries result in similar qualitative cloaking behavior. The scattering cross section is reduced by almost one order of magnitude around the desired frequency of $600$ THz as anticipated by the analytic calculations.
However, there are a few notable observations. Firstly, as expected, the scattering cancellation is weaker for the case of randomly oriented particles (c), because less ellipsoids are aligned along the polarization of the electric field with their large semi axis $a_\textrm{z}$. Furthermore the second dip of the scattering cross section at approximately $530$ THz, which was predicted by analytical considerations, vanishes if we introduce disorder. This can be attributed to the fact that the effective permittivity of the shell shows a weaker dispersion, i.e. the oscillator strength of the effective Lorentzian-like dispersion is reduced. The effective permittivity of the disordered shell material no longer attains those values corresponding to the negative solution of the cloaking condition Eq.~\ref{cloaking_cond}. Therefore, only the positive solution persists. Finally, the frequency of minimal scattering is shifted towards the red part of the spectrum when we introduce disorder. This can likewise be explained with a lower dispersion of $\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)$ of the shell, because the value of the positive solution of Eq.~\ref{cloaking_cond} is attained at a lower frequency. This can be understood intuitively by imagining a weaker dispersive $\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_eps_eff}.
However, because of the overall similarity of the results at the target frequency, we can state that the design is rather robust to uncertainties, which may arise in fabrication. We wish to stress that similar implementations of nominal identical geometries have nearly identical scattering responses, as is evidenced by the small red-shaded area in Fig.~\ref{fig_cloaking_n}, which shows the standard deviation for different random positions of the ellipsoids. The exact details of the implementation of a specific disordered structure are not important. Variation of the orientation of the ellipsoids has a slightly larger impact on the scattering reduction, as demonstrated by the cyan-shaded area. But the scattering cross section is still significantly reduced, note that this means that the cloaking behavior of the disordered geometry (c) is generally independent of the direction and polarization of the incident plane wave illumination.
We showed in section \ref{Theoretical considerations} that the desired cloaking frequency can be tuned across a large fraction of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. This is achieved by changing the aspect ratio $\delta$ of the metallic ellipsoids, while keeping the volume constant. Now, we perform full wave calculations with the method established in section \ref{Numerical Method}. As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig_cloaking_aspect} the cloaking frequency ranges from $430$ THz to $700$ THz if we change the aspect ratio. An important point to consider is that the aspect ratios do not reach extreme values and are entirely in the range of what is possible to fabricate experimentally \cite{Murphy_fabrication_elli}.
The cloaking is slightly distorted in the case of the high aspect ratio ellipsoids. This is due to the fact that the particles are very long and are almost touching. This can cause strong coupling which is completely excluded from the theoretical considerations. However, the scattering cross section is still significantly reduced.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{cloaking_aspect4_new4.eps} \caption{Numerically obtained scattering cross sections of spheres decorated with ellipsoids with different aspect ratios. All systems have the same disordered geometry shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_distributions}(c). The thick lines show the average of $100$ different random realizations and the shaded region depicts the standard deviation}
\label{fig_cloaking_aspect}
\end{figure}
In a final step we wish to explicitly compare the different methods that can be used to describe the functionality of the device. As shown in section \ref{Theoretical considerations}, the cloak can be described as a homogeneous shell with an effective permittivity $\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}(\omega)$. Now, we not only want to do this analytically by considering the analytical expression for the polarizability of an ellipsoid but we wish to do such analysis numerically. For this purpose, we calculated the polarizability $\alpha(\omega)$ of a single ellipsoid numerically, by using the T-matrix of a single ellipsoid.
The polarizability can be obtained from the scattering coefficients of the first order \cite{muhlig_multipole}. For example, for an illumination with z-polarized light the polarizability is given as
\begin{align}
\alpha_\textrm{z} (\omega)= -\sqrt{12\pi}i Z_0 k \cdot a_{10}(\omega)~.
\end{align}
Then, we take Eq.~\ref{CM} to get the effective permittivity of the homogenized shell and conduct a full wave simulation of a sphere covered with the effective material.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_cloaking_all} the functional behavior of the analytical calculation with volume homogenization and the numerical simulation are very similar. However, the scattering reduction is weaker. This can be attributed to the lower dispersion in the effective permittivity. The dispersion is weaker, because additionally radiative losses are automatically included in the full wave solutions. In contrast, in the analytical discussion of the polarizability of the ellipsoid (Eq.~\ref{analytical_eiipsoid}) this has not been considered. The equation remains only strictly valid in the quasi-static regime. Additionally, the negative solution of Eq.~\ref{cloaking_cond} appears at higher frequencies. This is due to a shift in the resonance of $\varepsilon_\textrm{eff}$ and also the weaker dispersion.
In summary and beyond all these detailed insights, we can state that we get very good agreement in the cloaking position predicted by the different numerical and analytic methods. However, it is important to note that, especially in the visible, intrinsic absorption of the constituents from which the shell is made can be large if plasmonic particles are used. This might lead to an enhancement of the total extinction cross-section of the particle, even though the scattering cross section is reduced at the operational frequency \cite{Miller_comment}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{cloaking_all4_new.eps} \caption{Scattering cross section of the single sphere, analytically obtained effective medium coating, the numerical calculation of the effective shell, the complete full wave simulation of geometry (c) and the predicted cloaking frequency of the surface homogenization.}
\label{fig_cloaking_all}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We introduced a new design for a scattering cancellation cloak. Instead of using plasmonic spheres or complicated metasurfaces we decorate a dielectric sphere with silver ellipsoids. The main advantage is the high tunability that makes it possible to shift the cloaking frequency across the optical domain by changing the aspect ratio of the ellipsoids. Additionally, the design is feasible for fabrication with self-assembly techniques because the particles can be fabricated chemically and the design is robust to changes of the distribution.
\\
Furthermore, we outlined a powerful and versatile numerical method that can be used to simulate the scattering of a large ensemble of arbitrary particles. With the procedure at hand we just calculate the T-matrix of an object once with the help of available full wave solvers and use it to calculate the scattering properties of larger clusters. We calculated the scattering of different realizations of the cloaking geometry. This was used to validate two different approaches to describe the scattering cancellation cloak analytically. We showed that all methods had a very good agreement, especially in predicting the cloaking frequency.
The ellipsoids that are used in the shell are very well tunable and allow for cloaking at specific frequencies over the entire visible spectrum, by changing the aspect ratio in an isotropic geometry.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We wish to thank Vassilios Yannopapas for his help with the T-matrix rotation algorithm.
This work was supported by the German Science Foundation within project RO 3640/4-1. M.F.~also acknowledges the support by the Karlsruhe School of Optics \& Photonics (KSOP).
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most important questions in galaxy formation is whether galaxies alone have been able to provide the ionizing photons which reionized the Universe. Optical depth measurements from the Planck satellite place the mean reionization redshift between $z\approx7.8-8.8$ \citep{Planck2016}. The end-point of reionization has been marked by the Gun-Peterson trough in high-redshift quasars at $z\approx5-6$, with a typical neutral fraction of $\sim10^{-4}$ \citep[e.g.][]{Fan2006,McGreer2015}. Moreover, recent observations indicate that there are large opacity fluctuations among various sight-lines, indicating an inhomogeneous nature of reionization \citep{Becker2015}.
Assessing whether galaxies have been the main provider of ionizing photons at $z\gtrsim5$ (alternatively to Active Galactic Nucleii, AGN; e.g. \citealt{MadauHaardt2015,Giallongo2015,Weigel2015}) crucially depends on i) precise measurements of the number of galaxies at early cosmic times, ii) the clumping factor of the IGM \citep[e.g.][]{Pawlik2015}, iii) the amount of ionizing photons that is produced (Lyman-Continuum photons, LyC, $\lambda<912${\AA}) and iv) the fraction of ionizing photons that escapes into the inter galactic medium (IGM). All these numbers are currently uncertain, with the relative uncertainty greatly rising from i) to iv).
Many studies so far have focussed on counting the number of galaxies as a function of their UV luminosity (luminosity functions) at $z>7$ \citep[e.g.][]{McLure2013,Bowler2014,Atek2015,Bouwens2015,Finkelstein2015,Ishigaki2015,McLeod2015,Castellano2016,Livermore2016}. These studies typically infer luminosity functions with steep faint-end slopes, and a steepening of the faint-end slope with increasing redshift (see for example the recent review from \citealt{FinkelsteinReview}), leading to a high number of faint galaxies. Assuming ``standard'' values for the other parameters such as the escape fraction, simplistic models indicate that galaxies may indeed have provided the ionizing photons to reionize the Universe \citep[e.g.][]{Madau1999,Robertson2015}, and that the ionizing background at $z\sim5$ is consistent with the derived emissivity from galaxies \citep{Choudhury2015,Bouwens2015reion}. However, without validation of input assumptions regarding the production and escape of ionizing photons (for example, these simplistic models assume that the escape fraction does not depend on UV luminosity), the usability of these models remains to be evaluated.
The most commonly adopted escape fraction of ionizing photons, f$_{\rm esc}$, is 10-20 \%, independent of mass or luminosity \citep[e.g.][]{Mitra2015,Robertson2015}. However, hydrodynamical simulations indicate that f$_{\rm esc}$ is likely very anisotropic and time dependent \citep{Cen2015,Ma2015}. An escape fraction which depends on galaxy properties (for example a higher f$_{\rm esc}$ for lower mass galaxies, e.g. \citealt{Paardekooper2015}) would influence the way reionization happened \citep[e.g.][]{Sharma2016}. Most importantly, it is impossible to measure f$_{\rm esc}$ directly at high-redshift ($z>6$) because of the high opacity of the IGM for ionizing photons \citep[e.g.][]{Inoue2014}. Furthermore, to estimate f$_{\rm esc}$ it is required that the intrinsic amount of ionizing photons is measured accurately, which requires accurate understanding of the stellar populations, SFR and dust attenuation \citep[i.e.][]{deBarros2016}.
Nevertheless, several attempts have been made to measure f$_{\rm esc}$, both in the local Universe \citep[e.g.][]{Leitherer1995,Deharveng2001,Leitet2013,Alexandroff2015} and at intermediate redshift, $z\sim3$, where it is possible to observe redshifted LyC radiation with optical CCDs \citep[e.g.][]{Inoue2006,Boutsia2011,Vanzella2012,Bergvall2013,Mostardi2015}. However, the number of reliable direct detections is limited to a handful, both in the local Universe and at intermediate redshift \citep[e.g.][]{Borthakur2014,Izotov2016,Izotov2016b,deBarros2016,Leitherer2016}, and strong limits of f$_{\rm esc} \lesssim 5-10$ \% exist for the majority \citep[e.g.][]{Grazian2016,Guaita2016,Rutkowski2015}. An important reason is that contamination from sources in the foreground may mimic escaping LyC, and high resolution UV imaging is thus required \citep[e.g.][]{Mostardi2015,Siana2015}. Even for sources with established LyC leakage, estimating f$_{\rm esc}$ reliably depends on the ability to accurately estimate the intrinsically produced amount of LyC photons and precisely model the transmission of the IGM \citep[e.g.][]{Vanzella2016}.
The amount of ionizing photons that are produced per unit UV (rest-frame $\approx1500$ {\AA}) luminosity ($\xi_{ion}$) is generally calculated using SED modelling \citep[e.g.][]{Madau1999,Bouwens2012,Kuhlen2012} or (in a related method) estimated from the observed values of the UV slopes of high-redshift galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Robertson2013,Duncan2015}. Most of these studies find values around $\xi_{ion} \approx10^{25.2-25.3}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ at $z\sim8$. More recently, \cite{Bouwens2015xi} estimated the number of ionizing photons in a sample of Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) at $z\sim4$ to be $\xi_{ion} \approx10^{25.3}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ by estimating H$\alpha$ luminosities with {\it Spitzer}/IRAC photometry.
Progress in the understanding of f$_{\rm esc}$ and $\xi_{ion}$ can be made by expanding the searched parameter space to lower redshifts, where rest-frame optical emission lines (e.g. H$\alpha$) can provide valuable information on the production rate of LyC photons and where it is possible to obtain a complete selection of star-forming galaxies.
In this paper, we use a large sample of H$\alpha$ emitters (HAEs) and Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) at $z=2.2$ to constrain f$_{\rm esc}$ and measure $\xi_{ion}$ and how this may depend on galaxy properties. Our measurements of $\xi_{ion}$ rely on the assumption that f$_{\rm esc}$ is negligible ($<10$ \%), which we validate by constraining f$_{\rm esc}$ with archival {\it GALEX} $NUV$ imaging and by comparing the estimated emissivity of HAEs with IGM emissivity measurements from quasar absorption lines \citep[e.g.][]{BeckerBolton2013}. Combined with rest-frame UV photometry, accurate measurements of $\xi_{ion}$ are possible on a source by source basis for HAEs, allowing us to explore correlations with galaxy properties. Since only a handful of LAEs are detected in H$\alpha$ (see \citealt{Matthee2016}), we measure the median $\xi_{ion}$ from stacks of Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters from \cite{Sobral2015survey}.
We describe the galaxy sample and definitions of galaxy properties in \S \ref{sec:2}. \S \ref{sec:3} presents the {\it GALEX} imaging. We present upper limits on f$_{\rm esc}$ in \S \ref{sec:4}. We indirectly estimate f$_{\rm esc}$ from the H$\alpha$ luminosity function and the IGM emissivity in \S \ref{sec:5} and measure the ionizing properties of galaxies and its redshift evolution in \S \ref{sec:6}. \S \ref{sec:7} discusses the implications for reionization. Finally, our results are summarised in \S \ref{sec:8}.
We adopt a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $H_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1} $Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm M} = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$. Magnitudes are in the AB system. At $z=2.2$, 1$''$ corresponds to a physical scale of 8.2 kpc.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./figs/HIST_MASS.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./figs/HIST_SFR.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./figs/HIST_MUV.pdf}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small{Histogram of the properties of HAEs and LAEs. Stellar mass is obtained through SED fitting (see \S 2.1.1). For HAEs, SFR(H$\alpha$) is obtained from dust-corrected H$\alpha$ (see \S 2.1.2). LAEs that are undetected in broad-bands (and thus without SED fits) are assigned M$_{\rm star} = 10^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$ and M$_{1500} = -17$, corresponding to a $V$ band magnitude of 27 and we assumed those galaxies have no dust in computing SFR(H$\alpha$). For LAEs, we use the observed Ly$\alpha$ luminosity and convert this to H$\alpha$ for two different Ly$\alpha$ escape fractions (f$_L$, the typical escape fraction for LAEs (30 \%) and the maximum of 100 \%, see \citealt{Sobral2015survey}). M$_{1500}$ is obtained by converting the observed $V$ magnitude to absolute magnitude. In general, LAEs trace a galaxy population with lower stellar masses and SFR and fainter UV magnitudes. }}
\label{fig:galaxy_properties}
\end{figure*}
\section{Galaxy sample}
\label{sec:2}
We use a sample of H$\alpha$ selected star-forming galaxies from the High-$z$ Emission Line Survey (HiZELS; \citealt{Geach2008,Sobral2009}) at $z=2.2$ in the COSMOS field. These galaxies were selected using narrow-band (NB) imaging in the $K$ band with the United Kingdom InfraRed Telescope. H$\alpha$ emitters (HAEs) were identified among the line-emitters using $BzK$ and $BRU$ colours and photometric redshifts, as described in \cite{Sobral2013}, and thus have a photometric redshift of $z=2.22\pm0.02$ where the error is due to the width of the narrow-band filter. In total, there are 588 H$\alpha$ emitters at $z=2.2$ in COSMOS.\footnote{The sample of H$\alpha$ emitters from \cite{Sobral2013} is publicly available through e.g. VizieR, http://vizier.cfa.harvard.edu.}
HAEs are selected to have EW$_{0, \rm H\alpha+[NII]} > 25$ {\AA}. Since the COSMOS field has been covered by multiple narrow-band filters, a fraction of $z=2.2$ sources are detected with multiple major emission lines in addition to H$\alpha$: {\sc [Oiii]}, {\sc [Oii]} \citep[e.g.][]{Sobral2012,Nakajima2012,Sobral2013} or Ly$\alpha$ \citep[e.g.][]{Oteo2015,Matthee2016}. Multi-wavelength photometry from the observed UV to mid-IR is widely available in COSMOS. In this paper, we make explicit use of $V$ and $R$ band in order to measure the UV luminosity and UV slope $\beta$ (see \S 2.1.3), but all bands have been used for photometric redshifts (see \citealt{Sobral2013}, and e.g. \citealt{Ilbert2009}) and SED fitting \citep{Sobral2014,Oteo2015,Khostovan2016}.
We also include 160 Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) at $z=2.2$ from the CAlibrating LYMan-$\alpha$ with H$\alpha$ survey (CALYMHA; \citealt{Matthee2016,Sobral2015survey}). For completeness at bright luminosities, LAEs were selected with EW$_{0, \rm Ly\alpha} > 5$ {\AA}, while LAEs are typically selected with a higher EW$_0$ cut of 25 {\AA} (see e.g. \citealt{Matthee2015} and references therein). Only 15 \% of our LAEs have EW$_{0, \rm Ly\alpha} < 25$ {\AA} and these are typically AGN, see \cite{Sobral2015survey}, but they represent some of the brightest. We note that 40 \% of LAEs are too faint to be detected in broad-bands, and we thus have only upper limits on their stellar mass and UV magnitude (see Fig. $\ref{fig:galaxy_properties}$). By design, CALYMHA observes both Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ for H$\alpha$ selected galaxies. As presented in \cite{Matthee2016}, 17 HAEs are also detected in Ly$\alpha$ with the current depth of Ly$\alpha$ narrow-band imaging. These are considered as HAEs in the remainder of the paper.
We show the general properties of our sample of galaxies in Fig. $\ref{fig:galaxy_properties}$. It can be seen that compared to HAEs, LAEs are typically somewhat fainter in the UV, have a lower mass and lower SFR, although they are also some of the brightest UV objects.
Our sample of HAEs and LAEs was chosen for the following reasons: i) all are at the same redshift slice where the LyC can be observed with the {\it GALEX} $NUV$ filter and H$\alpha$ with the NB$_K$ filter, ii) the sample spans a large range in mass, star formation rate (SFR) and environments (Fig. $\ref{fig:galaxy_properties}$ and \citealt{Geach2012,Sobral2014}) and iii) as discussed in \cite{Oteo2015}, H$\alpha$ selected galaxies span the entire range of star-forming galaxies, from dust-free to relatively dust-rich (unlike e.g. Lyman-break galaxies).
\subsection{Definition of galaxy properties}
We define the galaxy properties that are used in the analysis in this subsection. These properties are either obtained from: (1) SED fitting of the multi-wavelength photometry, (2) observed H$\alpha$ flux, or (3) observed rest-frame UV photometry.
\subsubsection{SED fitting}
For HAEs, stellar masses (M$_{\rm star}$) and stellar dust attenuations (E$(B-V)$) are taken from \cite{Sobral2014}. In this study, synthetic galaxy SEDs are simulated with \cite{BC2003} stellar templates with metallicities ranging from $Z= 0.0001 - 0.05$, following a \cite{Chabrier2003} initial mass function (IMF) and with exponentially declining star formation histories (with e-folding times ranging from 0.1 to 10 Gyr). The dust attenuation is described by a \cite{Calzetti2000} law. The observed UV to IR photometry is then fitted to these synthetic SEDs. The values of M$_{\rm star}$ and E$(B-V)$ that we use are the median values of all synthetic models which have a $\chi^2$ within $1\sigma$ of the best fitted model. The 1$\sigma$ uncertainties are typically $0.1-0.2$ dex for M$_{\rm star}$ and 0.05-0.1 dex for E$(B-V)$. The smallest errors are found at high masses and high extinctions. The same SED fitting method is applied to the photometry of LAEs.
We note that the SED fitting from \cite{Sobral2014} uses SED models which do not take contribution from nebular emission lines into account. This means that some stellar masses could be over-estimated. However, the SED fits have been performed on over $>20$ different filters, such that even if a few filters are contaminated by emission lines, the $\chi^2$ values are not strongly affected. Importantly, the {\it Spitzer}/IRAC bands (included in SED fitting and most important for measuring stellar mass at $z=2.2$) are unaffected by strong nebular emission lines at $z=2.2$.
We still investigate the importance of emission lines further by comparing the SED results with those from \cite{Oteo2015}, who performed SED fits for a subsample ($\approx 60$\%) of the HAEs and LAEs, including emission lines. We find that the stellar masses and dust attenuations correlate very well, although stellar masses from \cite{Oteo2015} are on average lower by 0.15 dex. We look at the galaxies with the strongest lines (highest observed EWs) and find that the difference in the stellar mass is actually smaller than for galaxies with low H$\alpha$ EW. This indicates that the different mass estimates are not due to the inclusion of emission lines, but rather due to the details of the SED fitting implementation, such as the age-grid ages and allowed range of metallicities. We therefore use the stellar masses from \cite{Sobral2014}. Our sample spans galaxies with masses M$_{\rm star} \approx 10^{7.5-12}$ M$_{\odot}$, see Fig. $\ref{fig:galaxy_properties}$.
\subsubsection{Intrinsic H$\alpha$ luminosity}
The intrinsic H$\alpha$ luminosity is used to compute instantaneous star formation rates (SFRs) and the number of produced ionizing photons. To measure the intrinsic H$\alpha$ luminosity, we first correct the observed line-flux in the NB$_K$ filter for the contribution of the adjacent {\sc [Nii]} emission-line doublet. We also correct the observed line-flux for attenuation due to dust.
We correct for the contribution from {\sc [Nii]} using the relation between {\sc [Nii]}/H$\alpha$ and EW$_{0, \rm [NII]+ H\alpha}$ from \cite{Sobral2012}. This relation is confirmed to hold up to at least $z\sim 1$ \citep{Sobral2015} and the median ratio of {\sc [Nii]}/(H$\alpha$+ {\sc [Nii]}) = $0.19\pm0.06$ is consistent with spectroscopic follow-up at $z\approx2$ \citep[e.g.][]{Swinbank2012,Sanders2015}, such that we do not expect that metallicity evolution between $z=1-2$ has a strong effect on the applied correction. For 1 out of the 588 HAEs we do not detect the continuum in the $K$ band, such that we use the 1$\sigma$ detection limit in $K$ to estimate the EW and the contribution from {\sc [Nii]}. We apply the same correction to HAEs that are detected as X-ray AGN (see \citealt{Matthee2016} for details on the AGN identification).
If we alternatively use the relation between stellar mass and {\sc [Nii]}/H$\alpha$ from \cite{Erb2006} at $z\sim2$, we find {\sc [Nii]}/(H$\alpha$+ {\sc [Nii]}) = $0.10\pm0.03$. This different {\sc [Nii]} estimate is likely caused by the lower metallicity of the \cite{Erb2006} sample, which may be a selection effect (UV selected galaxies typically have less dust than H$\alpha$ selected galaxies, and are thus also expected to be more metal poor, i.e. \citealt{Oteo2015}). The difference in {\sc [Nii]} contributions estimated either from the EW or mass is smaller for higher mass HAEs, which have a higher metallicity. Due to the uncertainties in the {\sc [Nii]} correction we add 50 \% of the correction to the uncertainty in the H$\alpha$ luminosity in quadrature.
Attenuation due to dust is estimated with a \cite{Calzetti2000} attenuation curve and by assuming that the nebular attenuation equals the stellar attenuation, E$(B-V)_{\rm gas} = $ E$(B-V)_{\rm stars}$. This is in agreement with the average results from the H$\alpha$ sample from MOSDEF \citep{Shivaei2015}, although we note that there are indications that the nebular attenuation is stronger for galaxies with higher SFRs and masses \citep[e.g.][]{Reddy2015,Puglisi2016} and other studies indicate slightly higher nebular attenuations \citep[e.g.][]{ForsterSchreiber2009,Wuyts2011,Kashino2013}. We note that we vary the method to correct for dust in the relevant sections (e.g. \S 6.3) in two ways: either based on the UV slope \citep{Meurer1999}, or from the local relation between dust attenuation and stellar mass \citep{GarnBest2010}.
Star formation rates are obtained from dust-corrected L(H$\alpha$) and using a \cite{Chabrier2003} initial mass function: SFR = $4.4\times10^{-42} $ L(H$\alpha$) \citep[e.g.][]{Kennicutt1998}, where the SFR is in M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and L(H$\alpha$) in erg s$^{-1}$. The SFRs of galaxies in our sample range from $3-300$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, with a typical SFR of $\approx30$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, see Fig. $\ref{fig:galaxy_properties}$.
\subsubsection{Rest-frame UV photometry and UV slopes}
For our galaxy sample at $z=2.2$, the rest-frame UV ($\sim1500$\AA) is traced by the $V$ band, which is not contaminated by (possibly) strong Ly$\alpha$ emission. Our full sample of galaxies is imaged in the optical $V$ and $R$ filters with Subaru Suprime-Cam as part of the COSMOS survey \citep{Taniguchi2007}. The 5$\sigma$ depths of $V$ and $R$ are 26.2-26.4 AB magnitude (see e.g. \citealt{Muzzin2013}) and have a FWHM of $\sim0.8''$. The typical HAE in our sample has a $V$ band magnitude of $\approx25$ and is thus significantly detected. 5-7 \% of the HAEs in our sample are not detected in either the $V$ or $R$ band.
We correct the UV luminosities from the $V$ band for dust with the \cite{Calzetti2000} attenuation curve and the fitted E$(B-V)$ values. The absolute magnitude, M$_{1500}$, is obtained by subtracting a distance modulus of $\mu = 44.97$ (obtained from the luminosity distance and corrected for bandwidth stretching with 2.5log$_{10}$($1+z$), $z=2.23$) from the observed $V$ band magnitudes. The UV slope $\beta$ is measured with observed $V$ and $R$ magnitudes following:
\begin{equation}
\beta = -\frac{V-R}{2.5 \rm log_{10}(\lambda_V/\lambda_R)} - 2
\end{equation}
Here, $\lambda_V = 5477.83$ {\AA}, the effective wavelength of the $V$ filter and $\lambda_R = 6288.71$ {\AA}, the effective wavelength of the $R$ filter. With this combination of filters, $\beta$ is measured around a rest-frame wavelength of $\sim 1800$ {\AA}.
\section{{\it GALEX} UV data}
\label{sec:3}
For galaxies observed at $z=2.2$, rest-frame LyC photons can be observed with the $NUV$ filter on the {\it GALEX} space telescope. In COSMOS there is deep {\it GALEX} data (3$\sigma$ AB magnitude limit $\sim 25.2$, see e.g. \citealt{Martin2005,Muzzin2013}) available from the public Deep Imaging Survey. We stress that the full width half maximum (FWHM) of the point spread function (PSF) of the $NUV$ imaging is 5.4$''$\citep{Martin2003} and that the pixel scale is 1.5$''$ pix$^{-1}$. We have acquired $NUV$ images in COSMOS from the Mikulski Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute (MAST)\footnote{https://mast.stsci.edu/}. All HAEs and LAEs in COSMOS are covered by {\it GALEX} observations, due to the large circular field of view with 1.25 degree diameter. Five pointings in the COSMOS field overlap in the center, which results in a total median exposure time of 91.4 ks and a maximum exposure time of 236.8 ks.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.8cm]{./figs/FILTER_TRANSMISSION.pdf}
\caption{\small{Filter transmission of the {\it GALEX} $NUV$ filter (green line) and mean IGM transmission versus observed wavelength (dashed black line). We compute the IGM transmission at $z=2.2$ using the models from \citet{Inoue2014}. The bandpass-averaged IGM transmission is 40.4 \%. As highlighted by a simulation from \citealt{Vasei2016}, the mean value of $T_{IGM}$ is not the most common value. The distribution is bimodal, with a narrow peak at $T_{IGM} \approx 0.0$ and a broad peak around $T_{IGM} = 0.7$. }}
\label{fig:filter}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Removing foreground/neighbouring contamination}
The large PSF-FWHM of {\it GALEX} $NUV$ imaging leads to a major limitation in measuring escaping LyC photons from galaxies at $z=2.2$. This is because the observed flux in the $NUV$ filter could (partly) be coming from a neighbouring foreground source at lower redshift. In order to overcome this limitation, we use available high resolution deep optical {\it HST}/ACS F814W (rest-frame $\approx 2500$ {\AA}, \citealt{Koekemoer2007}) imaging to identify sources for which the $NUV$ flux might be confused due to possible foreground or neighbouring sources and remove these sources from the sample. In addition, we use visual inspections of deep ground-based $U$ band imaging as a cross-check for the bluest sources which may be missed with the {\it HST} imaging. These data are available through the COSMOS archive.\footnote{http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/COSMOS/}
Neighbours are identified using the photometric catalog from \cite{Ilbert2009}, which is selected on deep {\it HST}/ACS F814W data. We find that 195 out of the 588 HAEs in COSMOS have no neighbour inside a radius of 2.7$''$. We refer to this subsample as our {\sc Clean} sample of galaxies in the remainder of the text. The average properties (dust attenuation, UV magnitude mass and SFR) of this sample is similar to the full sample of SFGs.
\subsection{Transmission redward of 912 \AA}
For sources at $z=2.22$, the $NUV$ filter has non-negligible transmission from $\lambda_0= 912-933$ {\AA} of $\approx 1.5$\%. This limits the search for escaping LyC radiation. The fraction of the observed flux in the $NUV$ filter that originates from $\lambda_0>912$ {\AA} depends on the galaxy's SED, the IGM transmission and the filter transmission. In order to estimate this contribution, we first use a set of {\sc Starburst99} \citep{Starburst99} SED models to estimate the shape of the galaxy's SED in the far UV. We assume a single burst of star formation with a Salpeter IMF with upper mass limit 100 M$_{\odot}$, Geneva stellar templates without rotation \citep{Mowlavi2012} and metallicity $Z = 0.02$. Then, we convolve this SED with the filter and IGM transmission curves, to obtain the fraction of the flux in the $NUV$ filter that is non-ionizing at $z=2.2$ (compared to the flux in the $NUV$ filter that is ionizing). By using the SED models with H$\alpha$ EWs within our measured range, we find that $2.6\pm0.4$ \% of the flux observed in the $NUV$ filter is not-ionizing. This means that upper limits from non-detections are slightly over-estimated. For individually detected sources it is theoretically possible that the $NUV$ detection is completely due to non-ionizing flux, depending on the SED shape and normalisation. This is analysed in detail on a source-by-source basis in Appendix A.
\section{The escape fraction of ionizing photons}
\label{sec:4}
\subsection{How to measure f$_{\rm esc}$?}
Assuming that LyC photons escape through holes in the ISM (and hence that H{\sc ii} regions are ionization bounded from which no ionizing photons escape), the escape fraction, f$_{\rm esc}$, can be measured directly from the ratio of observed to produced LyC luminosity (averaged over the solid angle of the measured aperture).
In this framework, produced LyC photons either escape the ISM, ionise neutral gas (leading to recombination radiation) or are absorbed by dust \citep[e.g.][]{Bergvall2006}. The number of produced ionizing photons per second, Q$_{\rm ion}$, can be estimated from the strength of the (dust corrected) H$\alpha$ emission line as follows:
\begin{equation}
L_{\rm H\alpha} = Q_{\rm ion} \, c_{\rm H\alpha} \, (1-f_{\rm esc}-f_{\rm dust})
\end{equation}
where Q$_{\rm ion}$ is in s$^{-1}$, L$_{\rm H\alpha}$ is in erg s$^{-1}$, f$_{\rm esc}$ is the fraction of produced ionizing photons that escapes the galaxy and f$_{\rm dust}$ is the fraction of produced ionizing photons that is absorbed by dust. For case B recombinations with a temperature of $T=10\ 000$ K, $c_{\rm H\alpha} = 1.36\times10^{-12}$ erg \citep[e.g.][]{Kennicutt1998,Schaerer2003}. Since the dust attenuation curve at wavelengths below 912 {\AA} is highly uncertain, we follow the approach of \cite{Rutkowski2015}, who use f$_{\rm dust} = 0.5$, which is based on the mean value derived by \cite{Inoue2002} in local galaxies.
Rest-frame LyC photons are redshifted into the $NUV$ filter at $z=2.2$. However, the IGM between $z=2.2$ and our telescopes is not transparent to LyC photons (see Fig. $\ref{fig:filter}$), such that we need to correct the observed LyC luminosity for IGM absorption. The observed luminosity in the $NUV$ filter ($L_{NUV}$) is then related to the produced number of ionizing photons as:
\begin{equation}
L_{NUV} = Q_{\rm ion} \, \epsilon \, f_{\rm esc} \, T_{\rm IGM, NUV}
\end{equation}
Here, $\epsilon$ is the average energy of an ionizing photon observed in the $NUV$ filter (which traces rest-frame wavelengths from 550 to 880 {\AA}, see Fig. $\ref{fig:filter}$). Using the {\sc Starburst99} models as described in \S 3.2, we find that $\epsilon$ is a strong function of age, but that it is strongly correlated with the EW of the H$\alpha$ line (which itself is also a strong function of age). For the range of H$\alpha$ EWs in our sample, $\epsilon = 17.04^{+0.45}_{-0.26}$ eV. We therefore take $\epsilon = 17.0$ eV.
$T_{\rm IGM, NUV}$ is the absorption of LyC photons due to the intervening IGM, convolved with the $NUV$ filter. Note that $T_{\rm IGM} =e^{-\tau_{\rm IGM}}$, where $\tau_{IGM}$ is the optical depth to LyC photons in the IGM, see e.g \cite{Vanzella2012}. The IGM transmission depends on the wavelength and redshift. According to the model of \cite{Inoue2014}, the mean IGM transmission for LyC radiation at $\lambda \sim 750$ {\AA} for a source at $z=2.2$ is $T_{\rm IGM}\approx40$ \%. We convolve the IGM transmission as a function of observed wavelength for a source at $z=2.2$ with the normalised transmission of the $NUV$ filter, see Fig. $\ref{fig:filter}$. This results in a bandpass-averaged $T_{\rm IGM, NUV} = 40.4$\%.
Combining equations 2 and 3 results in:
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm esc} = \frac{1-f_{\rm dust}}{(1+\alpha \frac{L_{\rm H\alpha}}{L_{NUV}})}
\end{equation}
where we define $\alpha = \epsilon \, c_{\rm H\alpha}^{-1} \, T_{\rm IGM, NUV}$. Combining our assumed values, we estimate $\alpha =8.09$. We note that $\epsilon$ and c$_{\rm H\alpha}$ are relatively insensitive to systematic uncertainties, while f$_{\rm dust}$ and T$_{\rm IGM}$ are highly uncertain for individual sources.
In addition to the absolute escape fraction of ionizing radiation, it is common to define the relative escape fraction of LyC photons to UV ($\sim 1500$ {\AA}) photons, since these are most commonly observed in high redshift galaxies. Following \cite{Steidel2001}, the relative escape fraction, f$_{\rm esc}^{rel}$, is defined as:
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./figs/thumb_stack_median.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./figs/thumb_stack_mean.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./figs/thumb_stack_mean_5sig.pdf}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small{$20''\times20''$ thumbnail images of the $NUV$ stack for {\sc Clean}, star-forming HAEs in COSMOS, for three different stacking methods. The red circle shows the PSF-FWHM of $NUV$ on the central position. The yellow box is the box which is used to measure the depth of the stack. Note that the range of the color-bar of the median stack is different than the color-bar of the mean stacks because the median stack is deeper. }}
\label{fig:stacks_appendix}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm esc}^{rel} = f_{\rm esc} e^{\tau_{dust, UV}} = \frac{(L_{UV}/L_{NUV})_{int}}{(L_{UV}/L_{NUV})_{obs}} \,T_{\rm IGM, NUV}^{-1}
\end{equation}
In this equation, L$_{UV}$ is the luminosity in the observed $V$ band, $e^{\tau_{dust, UV}}$ is the correction for dust (see \S 2.1.3) and we adopt an intrinsic ratio of $(L_{UV}/L_{NUV})_{int}$ = 5 \citep[e.g.][]{Siana2007}. The relative escape fraction can be related to the absolute escape fraction when the dust attenuation for L$_{UV}$, $A_{UV}$, is known: $f_{\rm esc} = f_{\rm esc}^{rel} \times 10^{-0.4 A_{UV}} $.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\caption{Stacked measurements for subsamples of HAEs and LAEs at $z=2.2$. \# indicates the number of objects in each subsample. We further show the general characteristics of the subsample with observed H$\alpha$ luminosity (corrected for {\sc [Nii]} contribution, see \S 2.1.2), the H$\alpha$ extinction with the E$(B-V)$ value and a Calzetti law, the median stellar mass and UV slope ($\beta$) inferred from $V-R$ colours. The $NUV$ column shows the limits on the $NUV$ magnitude. L$_{1500}$ is the rest-frame 1500 {\AA} luminosity obtained from the $V$ band. The absolute f$_{\rm esc}$ is measured from H$\alpha$ and the $NUV$ as described in \S 4.1. f$_{\rm esc, rel}$ is the relative escape fraction of ionizing photons to UV photons and is measured from $NUV$ and L$_{1500}$. Note that with a Calzetti law A$_{UV} = 3.1$A$_{\rm H\alpha}$. {\sc Clean} subsamples are samples without foreground/neighbouring source within the $NUV$ PSF (2.7$''$).}
\begin{tabular}{ lrrrrrrrrr }
$\bf Subsample$ & $\bf \#$ &$\bf L_{H\alpha, obs}$ & $\bf A_{H\alpha}$ &\bf $\beta$ & \bf M$_{\rm star}$ & $\bf NUV$ & \bf L$_{1500}$ & $\bf f_{\rm esc}$ & $\bf f_{\rm esc}^{rel}$ \\
& & erg s$^{-1}$ & mag & & log$_{10}$(M$_{\odot}$) & 1$\sigma$ AB & erg s$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$ & \% & \% \\ \hline
{\bf Median stacking} & & & & & & & & & \\
COSMOS no AGN {\sc Clean} & 191 & $1.60\times10^{42}$ & 1.23 & -1.97 & 9.55 & 29.7 & 5.78$\times10^{28}$& $ <2.8$ & $<92.5$\\
{\bf Mean stacking} & & & & & & & & & \\
COSMOS no AGN {\sc Clean} & & & & & & 27.9 & & $ <11.7$ & $<465.4$ \\
--5$\sigma$ clip & & & & & & 28.7 & & $ <6.4$ & $<231.0$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:subsamples}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Individual $NUV$ detections}
By matching our sample of HAEs and LAEs with the public {\it GALEX} EM cleaned catalogue \citep[e.g.][]{Zamojski2007,EMphot}, we find that 33 HAEs and 5 LAEs have a detection with $NUV<26$ within a separation of 1$''$. However, most of these matches are identified as spurious, foreground sources or significantly contaminated inside the large PSF-FWHM of $NUV$ imaging (see Appendix A). Yet, seven of these matches (of which five are AGN) are in the {\sc Clean} subsample without a clear foreground source and could thus potentially be LyC leakers. Because it is known that foreground contamination has been a major problem in studies of LyC leakage at $z\sim3$ \citep[e.g.][]{Mostardi2015,Siana2015}, we can only confirm the reality of these candidate LyC leakers with high resolution UV imaging with HST. We list the individual detections in Appendix A, but caution the reader that any further investigation requires these candidates to be confirmed first.
\subsection{Stacks of HAEs}
The majority of our sources are undetected in the $NUV$ imaging. Therefore, in order to constrain f$_{\rm esc}$ for typical star-forming galaxies, we stack $NUV$ thumbnails of our full sample of HAEs in COSMOS and also stack various subsets. We create thumbnails of $40''\times40''$ centered on the position of the NB$_K$ (H$\alpha$) detection and stack these by either median or mean combining the counts in each pixel. While median stacking results in optimal noise properties and is not dominated by outliers, it assumes that the underlying population is uniform, which is likely not the case. Mean stacking is much more sensitive to outliers (such as for example luminous AGN), but would give a more meaningful result as it gives the average f$_{\rm esc}$, which is the important quantity in assessing the ionizing photon output of the entire galaxy population.
We measure the depth by randomly placing 100,000 empty apertures with a radius of $0.67\times$PSF-FWHM (similar to e.g. \citealt{Cowie2009,Rutkowski2015}) in a box of $24''\times24''$ around the centre of the thumbnail (see Fig. $\ref{fig:stacks_appendix}$) and quote the 1$\sigma$ standard deviation as the depth. Apertures with a detection of $NUV<26$ AB magnitude are masked (this is particularly important for mean stacking). Counts are converted to AB magnitudes with the photometric zero-point of 20.08 \citep{Cowie2009}. For mean stacking, we experiment with an iterative 5$\sigma$ clipping method in order to have the background not dominated by a few luminous sources. To do this, we compute the standard deviation of the counts of the stacked sample in each pixel and ignore 5$\sigma$ outliers in computing the mean value of each pixel. This is iterated five times, although we note that most of the mean values already converge after a single iteration.
By stacking only sources from the {\sc Clean} sample and by removing X-ray AGN, the limiting $NUV$ magnitude of the stack of {\sc Clean} HAEs is $NUV \approx 29.7$ AB (see Table $\ref{tab:subsamples}$), which translates into an upper limit of f$_{\rm esc} < 2.8$ \%. Mean stacking gives shallower constraints f$_{\rm esc} < 11.7$ \%)because the noise does not decrease as rapidly by stacking more sources, possibly because of a contribution from faint background or companion sources below the detection limit. This is improved somewhat by our iterative 5$\sigma$ clipping (f$_{\rm esc} < 6.4$ \%), which effectively masks out the contribution from bright pixels. We show the stacked thumbnails of this sample in Fig. $\ref{fig:stacks_appendix}$.
The median (mean) upper limit on the relative escape fraction, f$_{\rm esc, rel}$, is much higher ($<92.5 (231)$ \%). However, if we correct for the dust attenuation with the \cite{Calzetti2000} law, we find A$_{UV} \approx 3.8$ and a dust corrected inferred escape fraction of $<2.8 (7.0)$ \%, in good agreement with our direct estimate from H$\alpha$, although we note that the additional uncertainty due to this dust correction is large.
We have experimented by stacking subsets of galaxies in bins of stellar mass, SFR and UV magnitude or LAEs, but all result in a non-detection in the $NUV$, all with weaker upper limits than the stack of {\sc Clean} HAEs.
\subsubsection{Systematic uncertainty due to the dust correction}
In this sub-section, we investigate how sensitive our results are to the method used to correct for dust, which is the most important systematic uncertainty. In Table $\ref{tab:subsamples}$, we have used the SED inferred value of E$(B-V)$ to infer A$_{\rm H\alpha}$: A$_{\rm H\alpha} = E(B-V)\times k_{\rm H\alpha}$, where $k_{\rm H\alpha}=3.3277$ following \cite{Calzetti2000}, which results in A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1.23$. However, it is also possible to infer A$_{\rm H\alpha}$ from a relation with the UV slope \citep[e.g.][]{Meurer1999}, such that A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 0.641 (\beta+2.23)$, for $\beta > -2.23$ and A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 0$ for $\beta < -2.23$. Finally, we also use the relation between A$_{\rm H\alpha}$ and stellar mass from \cite{GarnBest2010}, which is: A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 0.91+0.77 X+0.11 X^2-0.09 X^3$, where $X = $ log$_{10}$(M$_{\rm star}$/$10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$). Note that we assume a \cite{Calzetti2000} dust law in all these prescriptions.
It is immediately clear that there is a large systematic uncertainty in the dust correction, as for our full sample of HAEs we infer A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 0.70$ with the \cite{GarnBest2010} prescription and A$_{\rm H\alpha} =0.19$ following \cite{Meurer1999}, meaning that the systematic uncertainty due to dust can be as large as a factor 3. Thus, these different dust corrections result in different upper limits on f$_{\rm esc}$. For the {\sc Clean}, star-forming HAE sample, the upper limit on f$_{\rm esc}$ from median stacking increases to $f_{\rm esc} <4.4\,(6.6)$ \%, using the attenuation based on stellar mass ($\beta$). With a simple 1 magnitude of extinction for H$\alpha$, f$_{\rm esc} < 3.4$ \% and without correcting for dust results in f$_{\rm esc} < 7.7$ \%.
In addition to the uncertainty in the dust correction of the H$\alpha$ luminosity, another uncertainty in our method is the f$_{\rm dust}$ parameter introduced in Eq. 2. The dust attenuation curve at wavelengths below 912 {\AA} is highly uncertain, such that our estimate of f$_{\rm dust}$ is uncertain as well. However, because our limits on f$_{\rm esc}$ from the median stack are low, the results do not change significantly by altering f$_{\rm dust}$: if f$_{\rm dust}=0.75 (0.25)$, we find f$_{\rm esc}<1.4 (4.1)$ \%. This means that as long as the limit is low, our result is not very sensitive to the exact value of f$_{\rm dust}$.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\caption{Measurements of $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$, the escape fraction of ionizing photons averaged over the galaxy population at $z\approx2-5$. Constraints on the IGM emissivity from absorption studies by \citet{BeckerBolton2013} have been used to infer the global escape fraction. For $z=2.2$, we have used the H$\alpha$ luminosity function from \citet{Sobral2013}. We have used the analytical formula from \citet{MadauHaardt2015} to estimate the contribution from quasars to the ionizing emissivity, which assumes that f$_{\rm esc, quasars} = 100$ \%. At $z=3.8$ and $z=4.9$ we have used the SFR function from \citet{Smit2016}.}
\begin{tabular}{ lrr }
\bf Sample & \bf Method & \bf $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$\\ \hline
\bf This paper & & \\
HAEs $z=2.2$ & full SFR integration, A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1.0$ & $4.4^{+7.1}_{-2.0}$ \% \\
HAEs $z=2.2$ & SFR $> 3$ M$_{\odot}$/yr, A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1.0$ & $6.7^{+10.8}_{-3.1}$ \%\\
HAEs $z=2.2$ & full SFR integration, A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 0.7$ & $5.9^{+9.3}_{-2.6}$ \% \\
\bf HAEs $z=2.2$ & \bf final estimate: full integration, A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 0.7$, conservative systematic errors & \bf $5.9^{+14.5}_{-4.2}$ \% \\ HAEs $z=2.2$ & full SFR integration, A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1.0$, QSO contribution & $0.5^{+3.6}_{-0.5}$ \% \\
\\
LBGs $z=3.8$ & full SFR integration, H$\alpha$ from {\it Spitzer}/IRAC & $2.7^{+7.2}_{-2.3}$ \% \\
LBGs $z=3.8$ & full SFR integration, H$\alpha$ from {\it Spitzer}/IRAC, QSO contribution & $0.0^{+3.0}_{-0.0}$ \% \\
LBGs $z=4.9$ & full SFR integration, H$\alpha$ from {\it Spitzer}/IRAC & $6.0^{+13.9}_{-5.2}$ \% \\
LBGs $z=4.9$ & full SFR integration, H$\alpha$ from {\it Spitzer}/IRAC, QSO contribution & $2.1^{+6.2}_{-2.1}$ \% \\ \hline
\bf Literature & & \\
\citet{Cristiani2016} $z=3.8$ & integrated LBG LF + contribution from QSOs & $5.3^{+2.7}_{-1.2}$ \% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:global_fesc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{Constraining f$_{\rm esc}$ of HAEs from the ionizing background}
\label{sec:5}
In addition to constraining f$_{\rm esc}$ directly, we can obtain an indirect measurement of f$_{\rm esc}$ by using the ionizing emissivity, measured from quasar absorption studies, as a constraint. The emissivity is defined as the number of escaping ionizing photons per second per comoving volume:
\begin{equation}
\dot{N}_{ion} = \langle {\rm f}_{\rm esc} \rangle \times \Phi({\rm H}\alpha)\times c^{-1}_{\rm H\alpha}
\end{equation}
Here, $\dot{N}_{ion}$ is in s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$ is the escape fraction averaged over the entire galaxy population, $\Phi(\rm H\alpha)$ is the H$\alpha$ luminosity density in erg s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ and $c_{\rm H\alpha}$ is the recombination coefficient as in Eq. 2.
We first check whether our derived emissivity using our upper limit on f$_{\rm esc}$ for HAEs is consistent with published measurements of the emissivity. The H$\alpha$ luminosity density is measured in \cite{Sobral2013} as the full integral of the H$\alpha$ luminosity function, with a global dust correction of A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1.0$. Using the mean limit on f$_{\rm esc}$ for our {\sc Clean} sample of HAEs (so f$_{\rm esc}\leq6.4$ \%), we find that $\dot{N}_{ion} \leq 1.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}\times10^{51}$ s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, where the errors come from the uncertainty in the H$\alpha$ LF. We note that these numbers are relatively independent on the dust correction method because while a smaller dust attenuation would decrease the H$\alpha$ luminosity density, it would also raise the upper limit on the escape fraction, thus almost cancelling out. These upper limits on $\dot{N}_{ion}$ are consistent with the measured emissivity at $z=2.4$ of \cite{BeckerBolton2013}, who measured $\dot{N}_{ion} = 0.90^{+1.60}_{-0.52}\times10^{51}$ s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ (combined systematic and measurement errors) using the latest measurements of the IGM temperature and opacity to Ly$\alpha$ and LyC photons.
Now, by isolating $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$ in Eq. 6, we can estimate the globally averaged escape fraction. If we assume that there is no evolution in the emissivity from \cite{BeckerBolton2013} between $z=2.2$ and $z=2.4$ and that the H$\alpha$ luminosity function captures all sources of ionizing photons, we find that $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 4.4^{+7.1}_{-2.0}$ \% for A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1.0$. There are a number of systematic uncertainties that we will address now and add to the error bars of our final estimate. These uncertainties are: i) integration limit of the H$\alpha$ LF, ii) the dust attenuation to L(H$\alpha$), iii) the conversion from L(H$\alpha$) to ionizing numbers, and iv) the {\sc [Nii]} correction to the observed H$\alpha$ luminosity.
Integrating the H$\alpha$ LF only to SFR $\approx 3$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, we find $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 6.7^{+10.8}_{-3.1}$ \%, such that the systematic uncertainty is of order 50 \%. If A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 0.7$, which is the median value when we correct for dust using stellar mass, and which may be more representative of fainter H$\alpha$ emitters (as faint sources are expected to have less dust), the escape fraction is somewhat higher, with $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 5.9^{+9.3}_{-2.6}$ \%. These numbers are summarised in Table $\ref{tab:global_fesc}$. The uncertainty in c$_{\rm H\alpha}$ is relatively small, as c$_{\rm H\alpha}$ depends only modestly on the density and the temperature. For example, in the case of a temperature of T = $30 000$ K, c$_{\rm H\alpha}$ decreases only by $\approx10$\% \citep{Schaerer2002}. This adds a 10 \% uncertainty in the escape fraction. As explained in \S 2.1.2, there is an uncertainty in the measured H$\alpha$ luminosity due to the contribution of the {\sc [Nii]} doublet to the observed narrow-band flux, for which we correct using a relation with observed EW. By comparing this method with the method from \cite{Erb2006}, which is based on the observed mass-metallicity relation of a sample of LBGs at $z\sim2$, we find that the inferred H$\alpha$ luminosity density would conservatively be 10 \% higher, such that this correction adds another 10 \% systematic uncertainty in the escape fraction.
For our final estimate of $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$ we use the dust correction based on stellar mass, fully integrate the H$\alpha$ luminosity function and add a 10 \% error in quadrate for the systematic uncertainty in each of the parameters as described above, 50 \% due to the uncertain integration limits and add a 40 \% error due to the systematics in the dust attenuation. This results in $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 5.9^{+14.5}_{-4.2}$ \% at $z=2.2$.
An additional contribution to the ionizing emissivity from rarer sources than sources with number densities $<10^{-5}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ such as quasars, would lower the escape fraction for HAEs. While \cite{MadauHaardt2015} argue that the ionizing budget at $z\approx2-3$ is dominated by quasars, this measurement may be overestimated by assuming quasars have a 100 \% escape fraction. Recently, \cite{Micheva2016} obtained a much lower emissivity (up to a factor of 10) from quasars by directly measuring f$_{\rm esc}$ for a sample of $z\sim3$ AGN. Using a large sample of quasars at $z=3.6-4.0$, \cite{Cristiani2016}, measure a mean $\langle$f$_{\rm esc, quasar} \rangle \approx 70$ \%, which means that quasars do not dominate the ionizing background at $z\approx4$. When we include a quasar contribution from \cite{MadauHaardt2015} in the most conservative way (meaning that we assume f$_{\rm esc}$ = 100 \% for quasars), we find that $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 0.5^{+3.6}_{-0.5}$ \%. If the escape fraction for quasars is 70 \%, $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 1.6^{+5.4}_{-1.3}$ \%, such that a non-zero contribution from star-forming galaxies is not ruled out.
We note that, these measurements of $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$ contain significantly less (systematic) uncertainties than measurements based on the integral of the UV luminosity function \citep[e.g.][]{BeckerBolton2013,Khaire2016}. This is because: i) UV selected galaxy samples do not necessarily span the entire range of SFGs \citep[e.g.][]{Oteo2015} and might thus miss dusty star-forming galaxies and ii) there are additional uncertainties in converting non-ionizing UV luminosity to intrinsic LyC luminosity (in particular the dust corrections in $\xi_{ion}$ and uncertainties in the detailed SED models in $(L_{UV}/L_{NUV})_{int}$). An issue is that H$\alpha$ is very challenging to observe at $z\gtrsim2.8$ and that a potential spectroscopic follow-up study of UV selected galaxies with the {\it JWST} might yield biased results.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./figs/FESC_EVOLUTION.pdf}
\caption{\small{Evolution of the globally averaged $\langle$f$_{\rm esc}\rangle$, which is obtained by forcing the emissivity of the integrated H$\alpha$ ($z=2.2$) and UV ($z\approx4-5$) LF to be equal to the emissivity measured by IGM absorption models from \citealt{BeckerBolton2013}. The $z\approx4-5$ results are based on a UV luminosity function which is then corrected to a SFR function with H$\alpha$ measurements from {\it Spitzer}/IRAC, which implicitly means using a value of $\xi_{ion}$ (SFR functions are presented in \citealt{Smit2016}, but see also \citealt{Bouwens2015xi}). The error bars of red and blue symbols include estimates of the systematic uncertainties. The green diamond shows the estimated value by \citealt{Cristiani2016}, who combined IGM constraints with a UV LBG and the emissivity of QSOs at $z=3.6-4.0$.}}
\label{fig:fesc_evolution}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Redshift evolution}
Using the methodology described in \S 5, we also compute the average f$_{\rm esc}$ at $z=3.8$ and $z=4.9$ by using the SFR functions of \cite{Smit2016}, which are derived from UV luminosity functions, a \cite{Meurer1999} dust correction and a general offset to correct for the difference between SFR(UV) and SFR(H$\alpha$), estimated from {\it Spitzer}/IRAC photometry. This offset is implicitly related to the value of $\xi_{ion}$ from \cite{Bouwens2015xi}, which is estimated from the same measurements. We combine these SFR functions, converted to the H$\alpha$ luminosity function as in \S 2.1.2, with the IGM emissivity from \cite{BeckerBolton2013} at $z=4.0$ and $z=4.75$, respectively. Similarly to the H$\alpha$ luminosity density, we use the analytical integral of the Schechter function. Similarly as at $z=2.2$, we conservatively increase the error bars by a factor $\sqrt 2$ to take systematic uncertainties into account. This results in $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 2.7^{+7.2}_{-2.3}$ \% and $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 6.0^{+13.9}_{-5.2}$ \% at $z\approx 4$ and $z\approx 5$, respectively, see Table $\ref{tab:global_fesc}$. When including a (maximum) quasar contribution from \cite{MadauHaardt2015} as described above, we find $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 0.0^{+3.0}_{-0.0}$ \% at $z\approx4$ and $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 2.1^{+6.2}_{-2.1}$ \%.
As illustrated in Fig. $\ref{fig:fesc_evolution}$, the global escape fraction is low at $z\approx2-5$. While dust has been corrected for with different methods at $z=2.2$ and $z\approx4-5$, we note that the differences between different dust correction methods are not expected to be very large at $z\approx4-5$. This is because higher redshift galaxies typically have lower mass, which results in a higher agreement between dust correction methods based on either M$_{\rm star}$ or $\beta$. One potentially important caveat is that our computation assumes that the H$\alpha$ and UV luminosity functions include all sources of ionizing photons in addition to quasars. An additional contribution of ionizing photons from galaxies which have potentially been missed by a UV selection (for example sub-mm galaxies) would decrease the global f$_{\rm esc}$. Such a bias is likely more important at $z\approx3-5$ than $z\approx2$ because the $z\approx2$ sample is selected with H$\alpha$ which is able to recover sub-mm galaxies. Even under current uncertainties, we rule out a globally averaged $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle > 20$ \% at redshifts lower than $z\approx5$.
These indirectly derived escape fractions of $\sim 4$ \% at $z\approx2-5$ are consistent with recently published upper limits from \cite{Sandberg2015b} at $z=2.2$ and similar to strict upper limits on f$_{\rm esc}$ at $z\sim1$ measured by \cite{Rutkowski2015}, see also \cite{Cowie2009,Bridge2010}. Recently, \cite{Cristiani2016} estimated that galaxies have on average $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 5.3^{+2.7}_{-1.2}$ \% at $z\approx4$ by combining IGM constraints with the UV luminosity function from \cite{Bouwens2011} and by including the contribution from quasars to the total emissivity. This result is still consistent within the error-bars with our estimate using the \cite{MadauHaardt2015} quasar contribution and \cite{Smit2016} SFR function. Part of this is because we use a different conversion from UV luminosity to the number of produced ionizing photons based on H$\alpha$ estimates with {\it Spitzer}/IRAC, and because our computation assumes f$_{\rm esc, quasars} = 100$\%, while \cite{Cristiani2016} uses f$_{\rm esc, quasars} \approx 70$\%.
Furthermore, our results are also consistent with observations from \cite{Chen2007} who find a mean escape fraction of $2\pm2$ \% averaged over galaxy viewing angles using spectroscopy of the afterglow of a sample of $\gamma$-Ray bursts at $z>2$. \cite{Grazian2016} measures a strict median upper limit of f$_{\rm esc}^{rel} < 2$ \% at $z=3.3$, although this limit is for relatively luminous Lyman-break galaxies and not for the entire population of SFGs. This would potentially indicate that the majority of LyC photons escape from galaxies with lower luminosity, or galaxies missed by a Lyman-break selection, i.e. \cite{Cooke2014} or that they come from just a sub-set of the population, and thus the median f$_{\rm esc}$ can even be close to zero. \cite{Khaire2016} finds that f$_{\rm esc}$ must evolve from $\approx5-20$ \% between $z=3-5$, which is allowed within the errors. However, we note that they assume that the number of produced ionizing photons per unit UV luminosity does not evolve with redshift. In \S 6.5 we find that there is evolution of this number by roughly a factor 1.5, such that the required evolution of f$_{\rm esc}$ would only be a factor $\approx 3$. While our results indicate little to no evolution in the average escape fraction up to $z\approx5$, this does not rule out an increasing f$_{\rm esc}$ at $z>5$, where theoretical models expect an evolving f$_{\rm esc}$ \citep[e.g.][]{Kuhlen2012,FerraraLoeb2013,Mitra2013,Khaire2016,Sharma2016,Price2016}, see also a recent observational claim of evolving f$_{\rm esc}$ with redshift \citep{Smith2016}.
Finally, we stress that a low $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$ is not inconsistent with the recent detection of the high f$_{\rm esc}$ of above 50 \% from a galaxy at $z\approx3$ \citep{deBarros2016,Vanzella2016}, which may simply reflect that there is a broad distribution of escape fractions. For example, if only a small fraction ($<5$ \%) of galaxies are LyC leakers with f$_{\rm esc} \approx 75$ \%, the average f$_{\rm esc}$ over the galaxy population is $\approx 4$ \%, consistent with the indirect measurement, even if f$_{\rm esc} = 0$ for all other galaxies. Such a scenario would be the case if the escape of LyC photons is a very stochastic process, for example if it is highly direction or time dependent. This can be tested with deeper LyC limits on individual galaxies over a complete selection of star-forming galaxies.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{./figs/HIST_XION.pdf}
\caption{\small{Histogram of the values of $\xi_{ion}$ for HAEs with three different methods to correct for dust attenuation. The blue histogram shows values of $\xi_{ion}$ when dust is corrected with the E$(B-V)$ value from the SED in combination with a Calzetti law (see \S 2.1). The red histogram is corrected for dust with the \citealt{Meurer1999} prescription based on the UV slope and the green histogram is corrected for dust with the prescription from \citealt{GarnBest2010} based on a relation between dust attenuation and stellar mass. As can be seen, the measured values of $\xi_{ion}$ differ significantly, with the highest values found when correcting for dust with the UV slope. When the nebular attenuation is higher than the stellar attenuation, $\xi_{ion}$ would shift to higher values.}}
\label{fig:hist_xion}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=17.7cm]{./figs/XION_MULTIPLOT.pdf}
\caption{\small{Correlations between $\xi_{ion}$ and galaxy properties for HAEs, when dust is corrected using the SED fitted E$(B-V)$ values. $\xi_{ion}$ does not clearly correlate with SFR(H$\alpha$), M$_{\rm star}$ or $\beta$. A correlation between $\xi_{ion}$ and M$_{1500}$ is expected of similar strength as seen, based on the definition of $\xi_{ion}$. $\xi_{ion}$ increases strongly with H$\alpha$ EW and sSFR. High values of $\xi_{ion}$ at low sSFRs are mostly due to the dust correction. }}
\label{fig:xion_properties}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\caption{Ionizing properties of HAEs and LAEs for various methods to correct for dust attenuations and different subsets. We show the median stellar mass of each subsample. Errors on $\xi_{ion}$ are computed as $\sigma_{\xi_{ion}}/\sqrt{N}$, where $\sigma_{\xi_{ion}}$ is the median measurement error of $\xi_{ion}$ and $N$ the number of sources. For the \citet{Bouwens2015xi} measurements, we show only dust corrections with a \citet{Calzetti2000} curve. The subsample of `low mass' HAEs has M$_{\rm star} = 10^{9.0-9.4}$ M$_{\odot}$. `UV faint' HAEs have $M_{1500}>-19$.}
\begin{tabular}{ lrrr }
\bf Sample & \bf <M$_{\rm star}$>& \bf log$_{10}$ $\xi_{ion}$ &\bf Dust\\
& log$_{10}$ M$_{\odot}$ & Hz erg$^{-1}$ & \\ \hline
This paper & & & \\
HAEs $z=2.2$ & 9.8 & $24.39\pm0.04$ & E$(B-V)$ \\
& & $25.11\pm0.04$ & $\beta$ \\
& & $24.77\pm0.04$ & M$_{\rm star}$ \\
& & $25.41\pm0.05$ & No dust \\
& & $24.57\pm0.04$ & A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1$ \\
Low mass & 9.2 & $24.49\pm0.06$ & E$(B-V)$ \\
& & $25.22\pm0.06$ & $\beta$ \\
& & $24.99\pm0.06$ & M$_{\rm star}$ \\
UV faint & 10.2 & $24.93\pm0.07$ & E$(B-V)$ \\
& & $25.39\pm0.07$ & $\beta$ \\
& & $25.24\pm0.07$ & M$_{\rm star}$ \\
LAEs $z=2.2$ & 8.5 & $24.84\pm0.09$ & E$(B-V)$ \\
& & $25.37\pm0.09$ & $\beta$\\
& & $25.14\pm0.09$ & M$_{\rm star}$ \\
& & $25.39\pm0.09$ & No dust \\ \hline
\citet{Bouwens2015xi} & & & \\
LBGs $z=3.8-5.0$ & 9.2 & $25.27\pm0.03$ & $\beta$ \\
LBGs $z=5.1-5.4$ & 9.2 & $25.44\pm0.12$ & $\beta$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:Xion_subsets}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{The ionizing properties of star-forming galaxies at $z=2.2$}
\label{sec:6}
\subsection{How to measure $\xi_{ion}$?}
The number of ionizing photons produced per unit UV luminosity, $\xi_{ion}$, is used to convert the observed UV luminosity of high-redshift galaxies to the number of produced ionizing photons. It can thus be interpreted as the production efficiency of ionizing photons. $\xi_{ion}$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\xi_{ion} = Q_{\rm ion} / L_{UV, \rm int}
\end{equation}
As described in the previous section, $Q_{\rm ion}$ (in s$^{-1}$) can be measured directly from the dust-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity by rewriting Eq. 2 and assuming f$_{\rm esc} = 0$. $L_{UV, \rm int}$ (in erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$) is obtained by correcting the observed UV magnitudes for dust attenuation. With a \cite{Calzetti2000} attenuation curve A$_{UV} = 3.1$A$_{\rm H\alpha}$.
In our definition of $\xi_{ion}$, we assume that the escape fraction of ionizing photons is $\approx0$. Our direct constraint of f$_{\rm esc} \lesssim 6$\% and our indirect global measurement of f$_{\rm esc} \approx 5$ \% validate this assumption. If the average escape fraction is f$_{\rm esc} = 10$\%, $\xi_{ion}$ is higher by a factor 1.11 (so only 0.04 dex), such that $\xi_{ion}$ is relatively insensitive to the escape fraction as long as the escape fraction is low. We also note that the $\xi_{ion}$ measurements at $z\approx4-5$ from \cite{Bouwens2015xi} are validated by our finding that the global escape fraction at $z<5$ is consistent with being very low, $< 5$ \%.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=17.7cm]{./figs/XION_MULTIPLOT_BIN.pdf}
\caption{\small{Correlations between $\xi_{ion}$ and galaxy properties for different methods to correct for dust attenuation. To facilitate the comparison, HAEs were binned on the x-axis. The value of $\xi_{ion}$ is the median value in each bin, while the vertical error is the standard deviation. Blue bins show the values where dust is corrected with the E$(B-V)$ value from the SED. The red bins are corrected for dust with the \citet{Meurer1999} prescription based on $\beta$ and the green bins are corrected for dust with the prescription from \citet{GarnBest2010} based on stellar mass. Yellow bins show the results where we assume that there is no dust.}}
\label{fig:xion_properties2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{$\xi_{ion}$ at $z=2.2$}
We show our measured values of $\xi_{ion}$ for HAEs in Fig. $\ref{fig:hist_xion}$ and Table $\ref{tab:Xion_subsets}$, where dust attenuation is corrected with three different methods based either on the E$(B-V)$ value of the SED fit, the UV slope $\beta$ or the stellar mass. It can be seen that the average value of $\xi_{ion}$ is very sensitive to the dust correction method, ranging from $\xi_{ion} = 10^{24.39\pm0.04}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ for the SED method to $\xi_{ion} = 10^{25.11\pm0.04}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ for the $\beta$ method. For the dust correction based on stellar mass the value lies in between, with $\xi_{ion} = 10^{24.85\pm0.04}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$. In the case of a higher nebular attenuation than the stellar attenuation, as for example by a factor $\approx 2$ as in the original \cite{Calzetti2000} prescription, $\xi_{ion}$ increases by 0.4 dex to $\xi_{ion} = 10^{24.79\pm0.04}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ when correcting for dust with the SED fit.
We note that independent (stacking) measurements of the dust attenuation from {\it Herschel} and Balmer decrements at $z\sim1-2$ indicate that dust attenuations agree very well with the \cite{GarnBest2010} prescription \citep[e.g.][]{Sobral2012,Ibar2013,Buat2015,Pannella2015}, thus favouring the intermediate value of $\xi_{ion}$. Without correcting $\xi_{ion}$ for dust, we find $\xi_{ion} = 10^{25.41\pm0.05}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$. With 1 magnitude of extinction for H$\alpha$, as for example used in the conversion of the H$\alpha$ luminosity density to a SFR density in \cite{Sobral2013}, $\xi_{ion} = 10^{24.57\pm0.04}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$.
Since individual H$\alpha$ measurements for LAEs are uncertain due to the difference in filter transmissions depending on the exact redshift (see \citealt{Matthee2016}), we only investigate $\xi_{ion}$ for our sample of LAEs in the stacks described in \cite{Sobral2015survey}. With stacking, we measure the median H$\alpha$ flux of LAEs convolved through the filter profile and the median UV luminosity by stacking $V$ band imaging. As seen in Table $\ref{tab:Xion_subsets}$, the median $\xi_{ion}$ is higher than the median $\xi_{ion}$ for HAEs for each dust correction. However, this difference disappears without correcting for dust. Therefore, the higher values of $\xi_{ion}$ for LAEs simply indicate that the median LAE has a bluer UV slope, lower stellar mass and lower E$(B-V)$ than the median HAE. More accurate dust measurements are required to investigate whether $\xi_{ion}$ is really higher for LAEs. We note that $\approx 40$ \% of the LAEs are undetected in the broad-bands and thus assigned a stellar mass of $10^8$ M$_{\odot}$ and E$(B-V) = 0.1$ when computing the median dust attenuation. Therefore, the $\xi_{ion}$ values for LAEs could be under-estimated if the real dust attenuation is even lower.
\subsection{Dependence on galaxy properties}
In this section we investigate how $\xi_{ion}$ depends on the galaxy properties that are defined in \S 2.1 and also check whether subsets of galaxies lie in a specific parameter space. As illustrated in Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_properties}$ (where we correct for dust with E$(B-V)$), we find that $\xi_{ion}$ does not depend strongly on SFR(H$\alpha$) with a Spearman correlation rank (R$_s$) of R$_s = 0.11$. Such a correlation would naively be expected if the H$\alpha$ SFRs are not related closely to UV SFRs, since $\xi_{ion} \propto L_{\rm H\alpha}/L_{1500} \propto$ SFR(H$\alpha$)/SFR(UV). However, for our sample of galaxies these SFRs are strongly correlated with only 0.3 dex of scatter, see also \cite{Oteo2015}, leading to a relatively constant $\xi_{ion}$ with SFR.
For the same reason, we measure a relatively weak slope of $\approx 0.25$ when we fit a simple linear relation between log$_{10}$($\xi_{ion}$) and M$_{1500}$, instead of the naively expected value of $\xi_{ion} \propto 0.4 M_{1500}$. At M$_{1500} > - 20$, our H$\alpha$ selection is biased towards high values of H$\alpha$ relative to the UV, leading to a bias in high values of $\xi_{ion}$. For sources with M$_{1500} < -20$, we measure a slope of $\approx 0.2$. This means that $\xi_{ion}$ does not increase rapidly with decreasing UV luminosity. This is because H$\alpha$ luminosity and dust attenuation themselves are also related to M$_{1500}$. Indeed, we find that the H$\alpha$ luminosity anti-correlates with the UV magnitude and E$(B-V)$ increases for fainter UV magnitudes.
The stellar mass and $\beta$ are not by definition directly related to $\xi_{ion}$. Therefore, a possible upturn of $\xi_{ion}$ at low masses (see the middle-top panel in Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_properties}$) may be a real physical effect, although we note that we are not mass-complete below M$_{\rm star} < 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$ and an H$\alpha$ selected sample of galaxies likely misses low-mass galaxies with lower values of $\xi_{ion}$.
We find that the number of ionizing photons per unit UV luminosity is strongly related to the H$\alpha$ EW (with a slope of $\sim 0.6$ in log-log space), see Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_properties}$. Such a correlation is expected because of our definition of $\xi_{ion}$: i) the H$\alpha$ EW increases mildly with increasing H$\alpha$ (line-)luminosity and ii) the H$\alpha$ EW is weakly anti-related with the UV (continuum) luminosity, such that $\xi_{ion}$ increases relatively strongly with EW. Since there is a relation between H$\alpha$ EW and specific SFR (sSFR = SFR/M$_{\rm star}$, e.g. \citealt{Fumagalli2012}), we also find that $\xi_{ion}$ increases strongly with increasing sSFR, see Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_properties}$.
In Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_properties2}$ we show the same correlations as discussed above, but now compare the results for different methods to correct for dust. For comparison, we only show the median $\xi_{ion}$ in bins of the property on the x-axis. The vertical error on the bins is the standard deviation of the values of $\xi_{ion}$ in the bin. As $\xi_{ion}$ depends on the dust correction, we find that $\xi_{ion}$ correlates with the galaxy property that was used to correct for dust in the case of $\beta$ (red symbols) and M$_{\rm star}$ (green symbols). Specific SFR depends on stellar mass, so we also find the strongest correlation between sSFR and $\xi_{ion}$ when $\xi_{ion}$ is corrected for dust with the \cite{GarnBest2010} prescription. We only find a relation between $\xi_{ion}$ and $\beta$ when dust is corrected with the \cite{Meurer1999} prescription. For UV magnitude only the normalisation of $\xi_{ion}$ changes with the dust correction method.
It is more interesting to look at correlations between $\xi_{ion}$ and galaxy properties which are not directly related to the computation of $\xi_{ion}$ or the dust correction. Hence, we note that irrespective of the dust correction method, $\xi_{ion}$ appears to be somewhat higher for lower mass galaxies (although this is likely a selection effect as discussed above). Irrespective of the dust correction method, $\xi_{ion}$ increases with increasing H$\alpha$ EW and fainter M$_{1500}$, where the particular dust correction method used only sets the normalisation. We return to this relation between $\xi_{ion}$ and H$\alpha$ EW in \S 6.5.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{./figs/XION_EVOLUTION.pdf}
\caption{\small{Inferred evolution of $\xi_{ion}$ (corrected for dust with M$_{\rm star}$) with redshift based on our observed trend between $\xi_{ion}$ and H$\alpha$ EW, for different stellar masses (compare the solid with the dashed line) and EW($z$) evolutions (compare the solid with the dotted line). The grey shaded region indicates the errors on the redshift evolution of $\xi_{ion}$. The normalisation of $\xi_{ion}$ is higher for lower mass galaxies or LAEs. The green region shows the typically assumed values. The estimated evolution of $\xi_{ion}$ with redshift is consistent with the typically assumed values of $\xi_{ion}$ in the reionization era and with recent measurements at $z=4-5$. }}
\label{fig:xion_evolution}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Redshift evolution of $\xi_{ion}$}
Because of its dependency on galaxy properties, it is possible that $\xi_{ion}$ evolves with redshift. In fact, such an evolution is expected as more evolved galaxies (particularly with declining star formation histories) have a relatively stronger UV luminosity than H$\alpha$ and a higher dust content, likely leading to a lower $\xi_{ion}$ at $z=2.2$ than at $z>6$.
By comparing our measurement of $\xi_{ion}$ with those from \cite{Bouwens2015xi} at $z=4-5$, we already find such an evolution (see Table $\ref{tab:Xion_subsets}$), although we note that the samples of galaxies are selected differently and that there are many other differences, such as the dust attenuation, typical stellar mass and the H$\alpha$ measurement.
If we mimic a Lyman-break selected sample by only selecting HAEs with E$(B-V) < 0.3$ (typical for UV selected galaxies, e.g. \citealt{Steidel2011}), we find that $\xi_{ion}$ increases by (maximally) 0.1 dex, such that this does likely not explain the difference in $\xi_{ion}$ at $z=2.2$ and $z\approx4-5$ of $\approx 0.5$ dex. Furthermore, our H$\alpha$ selection is likely biased towards high values of $\xi_{ion}$ for $M_{1500} > -20$, which mitigates the difference on the median $\xi_{ion}$. If we select only low mass galaxies such that the median stellar mass resembles that of \cite{Bouwens2015xi}, the difference is only $\approx 0.2\pm0.1$ dex, which still would suggest evolution.
We estimate the redshift evolution of $\xi_{ion}$ by combining the relation between $\xi_{ion}$ and H$\alpha$ EW with the redshift evolution of the H$\alpha$ EW. Several studies have recently noted that the H$\alpha$ EW (and related sSFR) increases with increasing redshift \citep[e.g.][]{Fumagalli2012,Sobral2014,Smit2014,Marmol2015,Faisst2016,Khostovan2016}. Furthermore, the EW is mildly dependent on stellar mass as EW $\sim \rm M_{\rm star}^{-0.25}$ \citep{Sobral2014,Marmol2015}. In order to estimate the $\xi_{ion}$ using the H$\alpha$ EW evolution, we:
{\bf i)} Select a subset of our HAEs with stellar mass between $10^{9-9.4}$ M$_{\odot}$, with a median of M$_{\rm star} \approx 10^{9.2}$ M$_{\odot}$, which is similar to the mass of the sample from \cite{Bouwens2015xi}, see \cite{Smit2016},
{\bf ii)} Fit a linear trend between log$_{10}$(EW) and log$_{10}(\xi_{ion})$ (with the \cite{GarnBest2010} prescription to correct for dust attenuation). We note that the trend between EW and $\xi_{ion}$ will be steepened if dust is corrected with a prescription based on stellar mass (since H$\alpha$ EW anti-correlates with stellar mass, see also Table $\ref{tab:xionfit}$). However, this is validated by several independent observations from either Herschel or Balmer decrements which confirm that dust attenuation increases with stellar mass at a wide range of redshifts \citep{Dominguez2013,Buat2015,Koyama2015,Pannella2015,SobralDUSQ}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\caption{Fit parameters for log$_{10}\ \xi_{ion} = a + b $ log$_{10}\ $EW(H$\alpha$) for different selections and dust corrections}
\begin{tabular}{ lrrrr }
\bf Sample & \bf <M$_{\rm star}$>& \bf $a$ &\bf $b$& \bf Dust \\
& log$_{10}$ M$_{\odot}$ && & \\ \hline
All HAEs & 9.8 & 23.12 & 0.59 & E$(B-V)$ \\
& & 23.66 & 0.64 & $\beta$ \\
& & 22.60 & 0.97 & M$_{\rm star}$ \\
& & 23.59 & 0.45 & A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1$ \\
Low mass & 9.2 & 22.64 & 0.78 & E$(B-V)$ \\
& & 23.68 & 0.64 & $\beta$ \\
& & 23.19 & 0.77 & M$_{\rm star}$ \\
& & 22.77 & 0.75 & A$_{\rm H\alpha} = 1$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:xionfit}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Using a simple least squares algorithm, we find:
\begin{equation}
{\rm log}_{10}(\xi_{ion})=23.19^{+0.09}_{-0.09} + 0.77^{+0.04}_{-0.04}\times {\rm log}_{10}(\rm EW)
\end{equation}
{\bf iii)} Combine the trend between H$\alpha$ EW and redshift with the trend between $\xi_{ion}$ and H$\alpha$ EW. We use the redshift evolution of the H$\alpha$ EW from \cite{Faisst2016}, which has been inferred from fitting SEDs, and measured up to $z\approx6$. In this parametrisation, the slope changes from EW$\approx (1+z)^{1.87}$ at $z<2.2$ to EW$\approx (1+z)^{1.3}$ at $z>2.2$. Below $z<2.2$, this trend is fully consistent with the EW evolution from HiZELS \citep{Sobral2014}, which is measured with narrow-band imaging. Although HiZELS does not have H$\alpha$ emitters at $z>2.2$, the EW evolution of [O{\sc iii}]+H$\beta$ is found to flatten at $z>2.2$ as well \citep{Khostovan2016}. We note that we assume that the slope of the H$\alpha$ EW evolution with redshift does not vary strongly for stellar masses between $10^{9.2}$ M$_{\odot}$ and $10^{9.8}$ M$_{\odot}$, since the following equations are measured at stellar mass $\approx 10^{9.6}$ M$_{\odot}$ \citep{Faisst2016}, hence:
\begin{equation}
{\rm EW}(z) =
\begin{cases}
20\times(1+z)^{1.87},& z<2.2\\
37.4\times(1+z)^{1.3}, &z\geq2.2
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent This results in:
\begin{equation}
{\rm log}_{10}(\xi_{ion}(z)) =
\begin{cases}
24.19+1.44\times {\rm log}_{10}(1+z) ,& z<2.2\\
24.40+1.00\times {\rm log}_{10}(1+z), &z\geq2.2
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\xi_{ion}$ is in Hz erg$^{-1}$. The error on the normalisation is 0.09 Hz erg$^{-1}$ and the error on the slope is 0.18.
For our typical mass of M$_{\rm star} = 10^{9.8}$ M$_{\odot}$, the normalisation is roughly 0.2 dex lower and the slope a factor $\approx 1.1$ higher compared to the fit at lower stellar masses. This is due to a slightly different relation between $\xi_{ion}$ and EW (see Table $\ref{tab:xionfit}$). The evolving $\xi_{ion}$ is consistent with the typically assumed value of $\xi_{ion} = 10^{25.2\pm0.1}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ \citep[e.g.][]{Robertson2013} at $z\approx2.5-12$ within the 1$\sigma$ error bars.
We show the inferred evolution of $\xi_{ion}$ with redshift in Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_evolution}$. The solid and dashed line use the EW($z$) evolution from \cite{Faisst2016}, while the dotted line uses the \cite{Khostovan2016} parametrisation. The grey shaded region indicates the errors on the redshift evolution of $\xi_{ion}$. Due to the anti-correlation between EW and stellar mass, galaxies with a lower stellar mass have a higher $\xi_{ion}$ (which is then even strengthened by a higher dust attenuation at high masses).
Relatively independent of the dust correction (as discussed in Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_evolution_variation}$), the median $\xi_{ion}$ increases $\approx 0.2$ dex at fixed stellar mass between $z=2.2$ and $z=4.5$. This can easily explain the 0.2 dex difference between our measurement at $z=2.2$ and the \cite{Bouwens2015xi} measurements at $z=4-5$ (see Fig. $\ref{fig:xion_evolution}$), such that it is plausible that $\xi_{ion}$ evolves to higher values in the reionization epoch, of roughly $\xi_{ion} \approx 10^{25.4}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ at $z\approx8$. Interestingly, LAEs at $z=2.2$ already have $\xi_{ion}$ similar to the canonical value in the reionization era.
\section{Implications for reionization}
\label{sec:7}
The product of $f_{\rm esc} \xi_{ion}$ is an important parameter in assessing whether galaxies have provided the photons to reionize the Universe, because these convert the (non-ionizing) UV luminosity density (obtained from integrating the dust-corrected UV luminosity function) to the ionizing emissivity. The typical adopted values are $\xi_{ion} \approx10^{25.2-25.3}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ and f$_{\rm esc} \approx 0.1-0.2$ \citep[e.g.][]{Robertson2015}, such that the product is $f_{\rm esc} \xi_{ion} \approx 10^{24.2-24.6}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$. This is significantly higher than our upper limit of $f_{\rm esc} \xi_{ion} \lesssim 10^{23.5}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ (using $\langle$f$_{\rm esc}\rangle$ and $\xi_{ion}$ where dust is corrected with M$_{\rm star}$, see \S 5 and \S 6). However, as shown in \S 6.5, we expect $\xi_{ion} \approx 10^{25.4}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ in the reionization era due to the dependency of $\xi_{ion}$ on EW(H$\alpha$), such that escape fractions of $f_{\rm esc}\approx 7$ \% would suffice for $f_{\rm esc} \xi_{ion} = 10^{24.2}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$. \cite{BeckerBolton2013} find an evolution in the product of $f_{\rm esc} \xi_{ion}$ of a factor 4 between $z=3-5$ (similar to \citealt{HaardtMadau2012}), which is consistent with our measurements.
Recently, \cite{Faisst2016b} inferred that f$_{\rm esc}$ may evolve with redshift by combining a relation between f$_{\rm esc}$ and the {\sc [Oiii]/[Oii]} ratio with the inferred redshift evolution of the {\sc [Oiii]/[Oii]} ratio. This redshift evolution is estimated from local analogs to high redshift galaxies selected on H$\alpha$ EW, such that the redshift evolution of f$_{\rm esc}$ is implicitly coupled to the evolution of H$\alpha$ EW as in our model of $\xi_{ion}(z)$. \cite{Faisst2016b} estimate that f$_{\rm esc}$ evolves from $\approx 2$ \% at $z=2$ to $\approx 5$ \% at $z=5$, which is consistent with our measurements of $\langle$f$_{\rm esc}\rangle$ (see Fig. $\ref{fig:fesc_evolution}$). With this evolving escape fraction, galaxies can provide sufficient amounts of photons to reionize the Universe, consistent with the most recent CMB constraints \cite{Planck2016}. This calculation assumes $\xi_{ion} = 10^{25.4}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$, which is the same value our model predicts for $\xi_{ion}$ in the reionization era.
In addition to understanding whether galaxies have reionized the Universe, it is perhaps more interesting to understand which galaxies have been the most important to do so. For example, \cite{Sharma2016} argue that the distribution of escape fractions in galaxies is likely very bimodal and dependent on the SFR surface density, which could mean that LyC photons preferentially escape from bright galaxies. Such a scenario may agree better with a late and rapid reionization process such as favoured by the new low optical depth measurement from \cite{Planck2016}. We note that the apparent discrepancy between the f$_{\rm esc}$ upper limit from median stacking (f$_{\rm esc}< 2.8$ \%) and the average f$_{\rm esc}$ from the integrated luminosity density combined with IGM constraints ($\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 5.9$ \%) can be understood in a scenario where the average f$_{\rm esc}$ is driven by a few galaxies with high f$_{\rm esc}$, or by a scenario where f$_{\rm esc}$ is higher for galaxies below the H$\alpha$ detection threshold (which corresponds to SFR$>4$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$), contrarily to a scenario where each typical HAE has an escape fraction of $\approx5-6$ \%.
\cite{DijkstraGronke2016} argue a connection between the escape of Ly$\alpha$ photons and LyC photons, such that LAEs could potentially be important contributors to the photon budget in the reionization era (particularly since we find that $\xi_{ion}$ is higher for LAEs than for more normal star-forming galaxies at $z=2.2$). Hence, LAEs may have been important contributors of the photons that reionized the Universe.
To make progress we need a detailed understanding of the physical processes which drive f$_{\rm esc}$, for which a significant sample of directly detected LyC leakers at a range of redshifts and galaxy properties is required. It is challenging to measure f$_{\rm esc}$ directly at $z>3$ (and practically impossible at $z>5$) due to the increasing optical depth of the IGM with redshift, such that indirect methods to estimate f$_{\rm esc}$ may be more successful \citep[e.g.][]{Jones2013,Zackrisson2013,Verhamme2015}. However, the validity of these methods remains to be evaluated \citep[i.e.][]{Vasei2016}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:8}
We have studied the production and escape of ionizing photons (LyC, $\lambda_0 < 912$ {\AA}) for a large sample of H$\alpha$ selected galaxies at $z=2.2$. Thanks to the joint coverage of the rest-frame LyC, UV and H$\alpha$ (and, in some cases, Ly$\alpha$), we have been able to reliably estimate the intrinsic LyC luminosity and the number of ionizing photons per unit UV luminosity ($\xi_{ion}$), for which we (indirectly) constrained the escape fraction of ionizing photons (f$_{\rm esc}$). Our results are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have stacked the $NUV$ thumbnails for all HAEs and subsets of galaxies in order to obtain constraints on f$_{\rm esc}$. None of the stacks shows a direct detection of LyC flux, allowing us to place a median (mean) upper limit of f$_{\rm esc} < 2.8\, (6.4)$ \% for the stack of star-forming HAEs (\S 4.3). A low escape fraction validates our method to estimate $\xi_{ion}$, the production efficiency of ionizing photons.
\item Combining the IGM emissivity measurements from \cite{BeckerBolton2013} with the integrated H$\alpha$ luminosity function from \cite{Sobral2013} at $z=2.2$, we find a globally averaged $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle = 5.9^{+14.5}_{-4.2}$ \% at $z=2.2$ (\S 5), where the errors include conservative estimates of the systematic uncertainties. Combined with recent estimates of the QSO emissivity at $z\approx2.2$, we can not fully rule out a non-zero contribution from star-forming galaxies to the ionizing emissivity. We speculate that the apparent discrepancy between the f$_{\rm esc}$ upper limit from median stacking and $\langle$f$_{\rm esc} \rangle$ can be understood in a scenario where the average f$_{\rm esc}$ is driven by a few galaxies with high f$_{\rm esc}$, or by a scenario where f$_{\rm esc}$ is higher for galaxies below the H$\alpha$ detection threshold (SFR$>4$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$).
\item Applying a similar analysis to published data at $z\approx4-5$ results in a relatively constant f$_{\rm esc}$ with redshift (see Table $\ref{tab:global_fesc}$ and Fig. $\ref{fig:fesc_evolution}$). We rule out $\langle$f$_{\rm esc}\rangle > 20$ \% at redshifts lower than $z\approx5$. An additional contribution of ionizing photons from rare quasars strengthens this constraint.
\item We find that $\xi_{ion}$ increases strongly with increasing sSFR and H$\alpha$ EW and decreasing UV luminosity, independently on the dust correction method. We find no significant correlations between $\xi_{ion}$ and SFR(H$\alpha$), $\beta$ or M$_{\rm star}$. On average, LAEs have a higher $\xi_{ion}$ than HAEs, a consequence of LAEs having typically bluer UV slopes, lower masses and lower values of E$(B-V)$ (\S 6) -- properties which are typical for galaxies at the highest redshift.
\item The median $\xi_{ion}$ of HAEs at $z=2.2$ is $\xi_{ion} \approx 10^{24.77\pm0.04}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$, which is $\approx0.4$ dex lower than the typically assumed values in the reionization era or recent measurements at $z\sim4-5$ \citep{Bouwens2015xi}, see Table $\ref{tab:Xion_subsets}$. Only half of this difference is explained by the lower stellar mass and dust attenuation of the galaxies in the \cite{Bouwens2015xi} sample.
\item For LAEs at $z=2.2$ we find a higher $\xi_{ion} =10^{25.14\pm0.09}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$, already similar to the typical value assumed in the reionization era. This difference is driven by the fact that LAEs are typically less massive and bluer and thus have less dust than HAEs.
\item By combining our trend between $\xi_{ion}$ and H$\alpha$ EW with the redshift evolution of H$\alpha$ EW, we find that $\xi_{ion}$ increases with $\approx 0.2$ dex between $z=2.2$ and $z=4-5$, resulting in perfect agreement with the results from \cite{Bouwens2015xi}. Extrapolating this trend leads to a median value of $\xi_{ion} \approx 10^{25.4}$ Hz erg$^{-1}$ at $z\sim8$, slightly higher than the typically assumed value in the reionization epoch (\S 7), such that a relatively low global f$_{\rm esc}$ (consistent with our global estimates at $z\approx2-5$) would suffice to provide the photons to reionize the Universe.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the referee for the many helpful and constructive comments which have significantly improved this paper. JM acknowledges the support of a Huygens PhD fellowship from Leiden University. DS acknowledges financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific research (NWO) through a Veni fellowship and from FCT through a FCT Investigator Starting Grant and Start-up Grant (IF/01154/2012/CP0189/CT0010). PNB is grateful for support from the UK STFC via grant ST/M001229/1. IO acknowledges support from the European Research Council in the form of the Advanced Investigator Programme, 321302, {\sc cosmicism}. The authors thank Andreas Faisst, Michael Rutkowski and Andreas Sandberg for answering questions related to this work and Daniel Schaerer and Mark Dijkstra for discussions.
We acknowledge the work that has been done by both the COSMOS team in assembling such large, state-of-the-art multi-wavelength data-set, as this has been crucial for the results presented in this paper.
We have benefited greatly from the public available programming language {\sc Python}, including the {\sc numpy, matplotlib, pyfits, scipy} \citep{SCIPY,MATPLOTLIB,NUMPY} and {\sc astropy} \citep{ASTROPY} packages, the astronomical imaging tools {\sc SExtractor} and {\sc Swarp} \citep{Bertin1996,Bertin2010} and the {\sc Topcat} analysis program \citep{Topcat}.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
The heavy hadron spectroscopy played a major role in the foundation of QCD. In last few years, it has sparked a renewed interest in the subject due to numerous data available from the B factories\cite{bfactory}, CLEO \cite{cleo}, LHCb \cite{lhcb} and the Tevatron \cite{1}. In more recent times the discovery of X-Y states \cite{a} as possible charmonium and bottonium hybrids have extended such study of the exotic heavy hadron spectroscopy. The most recent discoveries of the charmonium pentaquarks \cite{b} have further increase its importance. The simplest system of this area are the heavy-light and heavy-heavy hadrons.\\
In the present paper, we will report a study of such heavy flavored mesons in a QCD potential model \cite{potential model} persued in recent years. In the last few years, the experimental study of heavy-light and heavy-heavy mesons have renewed the theoretical interest towards HQET (Heavy Quark Effective Theory) and Isgur-Wise function \cite{prd90,epjc14,kkbj,5,h}.\\
The dynamics of the heavy quark meson is governed by the inter-quark potential. The properties of the heavy mesons are in rough approximation is described by the Cornell potential, $V(r)=-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r}+br+c$ \cite{cornell}, which is a Coulomb-plus-linear non-relativistic confinement potential. The first Coulomb term of the potential is consistent with one-gluon-exchange contribution for short distance. The second term generates the confinement in long distance. Both the potentials play decisive role in the quark dynamics and their seperation is not possible. Besides there is no appropriate small parameter so that one of the potential within a perturbative theory can be made perturbative. The third term `$c$' \cite{yang} which is a phenomenological constant needed to reproduce correct masses of heavy-light meson bound state.\\
In general, it is expected that a constant term `$c$' in the potential should not affect the wave function of the system while applying the perturbation theory. But in our previous work \cite{ijp} it is seen that whether the term `$c$' is in parent or perturbed part of the Hamiltonian, it always appears in the total wave function which is inconsistent with the quantum mechanical idea that a constant term `$c$' in the potential can at best shift the energy scale, but should not perturb the wave function i.e. a Hamiltonian $H$ with such a constant and another $H^\prime$ without it should give rise to the same wave functions.\\
Due to this inconsistency or for the validation of the quantum mechanical idea while using perturbation theory like Dalgarno's method \cite{2,3} in the present work we have considered the scaling factor $c=0$.\\
Also in the present work both the short range and long range effect is tried to incorporate in the total wave function. Because in our earlier works \cite{5,pd,13}, the properties of the mesons are studied considering the Coulombic part of the Cornell potential dominant over the linear part. On the other hand in ref. \cite{kkbj,bjdk,6}, the Schrodinger equation is solved by considering the linear part to be dominant over the Coulombic part.\\
However it is well known that at short distance Coulomb potential plays a more dominant role than the linear confinement because while the former is inversely proportional to `$r$', the later is linear. Similarly, for large distance the confinement takes over the Coulomb effect. Therefore if the inter-quark seperation `$r$' can be roughly divided into short distance ($r^{short}$) and long distance ($r^{long}$) effectively one of the potential will dominate over the other. In such situation confinement parameter ($b$) and the strong coupling parameter ($\alpha_s$) can be considered as effective and appropriate small pertubative parameters.\\
The present paper is organised as follows: in section 2, we outline the formalism, while in section 3 summarize the results for masses of various mesons and slope and curvature for Isgur-Wise function. Section 4 contains conclusion and comments.
\section{Formalism}
\subsection{Dalgarno's method of perturbation:}
The non-relativistic two body Schrodinger equation \cite{3} is
\begin{equation}
H|\psi\rangle=(H_0+H^\prime)|\psi\rangle=E|\psi\rangle,
\end{equation}
so that the first order perturbed eigenfunction $\psi^{(1)}$ and eigenenergy $W^{(1)}$ can be obtained using the relation
\begin{equation}
H_0 \psi^{(1)} + H^\prime \psi^{(0)}=W^{(0)}\psi^{(1)} + W^{(1)} \psi^{(0)},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
W^{(0)}= <\psi^{(0)}\vert H_0 \vert \psi^{(0)}>,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W^{(1)}= <\psi^{(0)}\vert H^\prime \vert \psi^{(0)}>.
\end{equation}
We calculate the total wave functions using Dalgarno's method of perturbation for the potential
\begin{equation}
V(r)=-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r}+br,
\end{equation}
where -$\frac{4}{3}$ is due to the color factor, $\alpha_s$ is the strong coupling constant, $r$ is the inter-quark distance, $b$ is the confinement parameter (phenomenologically, $b=0.183 GeV^2$ \cite{4}).\\
For potential of type (5), one of the choice for parent and perturbed Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
H_0=-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r} \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
H^\prime=br \nonumber.
\end{equation}
The total wave function (Appendix-A) for this case is
\begin{equation}
\psi^{total}_I(r)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{\pi a_0^3}}\left[ 1-\frac{1}{2}\mu b a_0r^2\right] \left( \frac{r}{a_0}\right) ^{-\epsilon}e^{-\frac{r}{a_0}},
\end{equation}
where normalisation constant
\begin{equation}
N=\frac{1}{\left[ \int_0^{r^{short}} \frac{4 r^2}{a_0^3}\left[ 1-\frac{1}{2}\mu b a_0r^2\right]^2\left( \frac{r}{a_0}\right) ^{-2\epsilon} e^{-\frac{2r}{a_0}}dr\right] ^{\frac{1}{2}}},
\end{equation}
where the cut off parameter $r^{short}$ is used as integration limit for Coulomb as parent and linear as perturbation. Because here Coulomb part is considered to be dominant over the linear part for short distance and
\begin{equation}
a_0=\left( \frac{4}{3}\mu\alpha_s\right)^{-1},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mu=\frac{m_qm_Q}{m_q+m_Q},
\end{equation}
$m_q$ and $m_Q$ are the masses of the light and heavy quark/antiquark respectively and $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the mesons and
\begin{equation}
\epsilon=1-\sqrt{1-\left( \frac{4}{3}\alpha_s\right) ^2}
\end{equation}
is the correction for relativistic effect \cite{re1,re2} due to Dirac modification factor.\\
Similarly, the wave function upto $O(r^4)$ (Appendix-B) for another choice of parent and perturbed Hamiltonian of (5), \\
where
\begin{equation}
H_0=br
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
H^\prime=-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r}
\end{equation}
is
\begin{equation}
\psi^{total}_{II}(r)=\frac{N^\prime}{r} \left[1+A_0r^0+A_1(r)r+A_2(r)r^2+A_3(r)r^3+A_4(r)r^4\right]A_i[\rho_1 r+\rho_0] \left( \frac{r}{a_0}\right) ^{-\epsilon},
\end{equation}
where $A_i[r]$ is the Airy function \cite{7} and $N^\prime$ is the normalization constant,
\begin{equation}
N^\prime= \frac{1}{\left[ \int_{r^{long}}^{r_0} 4 \pi \left[1+A_0r^0+A_1(r)r+A_2(r)r^2+A_3(r)r^3+A_4(r)r^4\right]^2 \left( A_i[\rho_1 r+\rho_0]\right) ^2 \left( \frac{r}{a_0}\right) ^{-2\epsilon}dr\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} }.
\end{equation}
The cut off parameter $r^{long}$ is used as integration limit because we have considered linear as parent and Coulomb as perturbation, where the linear part is considered to be dominant over the Coulomb part for long distance. The upper cut off $r_0$ is used to make the analysis normalizable and convergent, because we have used Airy function as meson wave function. Later we fixed $r_0$ to 1 $Fermi$ \cite{bali} for our calculations.\\
The co-efficients of the series solution as occured in Dalgarno's method of perturbation, are the function of $\alpha_s$, $\mu$, and $b$:
\begin{equation}
A_0=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_1=\frac{-2\mu \frac{4\alpha_s}{3}}{2\rho_1 k_1+\rho_1^2 k_2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_2=\frac{-2\mu W^1}{2+4 \rho_1 k_1+ \rho_1^2 k_2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_3=\frac{-2\mu W^0 A_1}{6+6 \rho_1 k_1+ \rho_1^2 k_2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_4=\frac{-2\mu W^0 A_2+2\mu b A_1}{12+8 \rho_1 k_1+ \rho_1^2 k_2}.
\end{equation}
The parameters:
\begin{equation}
\rho_1=(2\mu b)^{\frac{1}{3}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\rho_0=-\left[ \frac{3\pi (4n-1)}{8}\right] ^{\frac{2}{3}},
\end{equation}
(in our case n=1 for ground state)
\begin{equation}
k=\frac{0.355-(0.258) \rho_0}{(0.258) \rho_1},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
k_1=1+\frac{k}{r},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
k_2=\frac{k^2}{r^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W^1=\int \psi^{(0)\star} H^{\prime} \psi^{(0)} d\tau,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W^0=\int \psi^{(0)\star} H_0 \psi^{(0)} d\tau.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Ground state masses of mesons}
Masses of heavy flavored mesons in a specific potential model in the ground state can be obtained as:
\begin{equation}
M_P=m_{q/Q}+m_{\bar{q}/\bar{Q}}+\langle H \rangle
\end{equation}
where $m_{q/Q}$ is mass of light (or heavy) quark and $m_{\bar{q}/\bar{Q}}$ is mass of light (or heavy) anti-quark constituting the meson bound state.\\
The above expression shows that to calculate the masses of mesons one needs to find $\langle H \rangle$, so that
\begin{equation}
\langle H \rangle=\langle \frac{p^2}{2\mu}\rangle+ \langle V(r) \rangle \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
=4\pi \int_0^\infty r^2\psi^\ast(r) H \psi(r) dr \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
=4\pi\int_0^\infty r^2\psi^\ast(r) \left( \frac{p^2}{2\mu}+ V(r)\right) \psi(r) dr.
\end{equation}
To take into account both the Coulomb and linear part of the potential we improve the above equation with the cut off scales $r^{short}$ and $r^{long}$ as
\begin{equation}
\langle H \rangle = 4\pi\left[ \int_0^{r^{short}} r^2\psi_I^\ast(r) \left( \frac{p^2}{2\mu}+ V(r)\right) \psi_I(r) dr+ \int_{r^{long}}^{r_0} r^2\psi_{II}^\ast(r) \left( \frac{p^2}{2\mu}+ V(r)\right) \psi_{II}(r) dr\right],
\end{equation}
where the wave functions $\psi_I(r)$ and $\psi_{II}(r)$ are as defined in equations (6) and (13) respectively.
\subsection{Slope and curvature of Isgur-Wise function}
Isgur, Wise, Georgi and others showed that in weak semi-leptonic decays of heavy-light mesons (e.g. $B$ mesons to $D$ or $D^\ast$ mesons), in the limit $m_Q\rightarrow \infty$ all the form factors that describe these decays are expressible in terms of a single universal function of velocity transfer, which is normalized to unity at zero-recoil. This function is known as the Isgur-Wise function. It measures the overlap of the wave functions of the light degrees of freedom in the initial and final mesons moving with velocities $v$ and $v\prime$ respectively.\\
The Isgur-Wise functions are denotd by $\xi(Y)$, where $Y=v.v^\prime$ and $\xi(Y)\vert_{Y=1}=1$ is the normalization condition at the zero-recoil point ( $v=v^\prime$ ) \cite{11}.\\
The calculation of Isgur-Wise function is non-perturbative in principle and is performed for different phenomenological wave functions for mesons \cite{5,6}. This function depends upon the meson wave function and some kinematic factor, as given below :\\
\begin{equation}
\xi(Y)=\int_0^{\infty} 4\pi r^2 \vert \psi(r)\vert^2 cos(pr)dr,
\end{equation}
where $\psi(r)$ is the wave function for light quark only and
\begin{equation}
cos(pr)=1- \frac{p^2 r^2}{2}+\frac{p^4 r^4}{24}+.....
\end{equation}
with $p^2=2\mu^2(Y-1)$.\\
Taking cos(pr) upto $O(r^4)$ we get,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\xi(Y)= \int_0^{\infty} 4\pi r^2 \vert \psi(r)\vert^2dr-\left[ 4\pi \mu^2 \int_0^{\infty} r^4 \vert \psi(r)\vert^2 dr\right] (Y-1)+\\ \left[ \frac{2}{3}\pi \mu^4 \int_0^{\infty} r^6 \vert \psi(r)\vert^2 dr\right] (Y-1)^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In an explicit form, the Isgur-Wise function can be written as \cite{iwf1,iwf}
\begin{equation}
\xi(Y)=1-\rho^2 (Y-1)+C(Y-1)^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho^2>0$.\\
The quantity $\rho^2$ is the slope of the Isgur-Wise function which determines the behavior of Isgur-Wise function close to zero recoil point ($Y=1$) and known as charge radius:
\begin{equation}
\rho^2=\frac{\partial \xi}{\partial Y}\vert_{Y=1}.
\end{equation}
The second order derivative is the curvature of the Isgur-Wise function known as convexity parameter:
\begin{equation}
C=\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\partial^2 \xi}{\partial Y^2}\right) \vert_{Y=1}.
\end{equation}
A precise knowledge of the slope and curvature of $\xi(Y)$ basically determines the Isgur-Wise function in the physical region. In Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) as proposed by Neubert \cite{iwf1}, the Isgur-Wise function at zero recoil point allows us to determine CKM element $|V_{cb}|$ \cite{ijmpa} for the semi leptonic decays $B^0\rightarrow D^*l\nu$ and $B^0\rightarrow Dl\nu$.\\
Now from equations (32) and (33),
\begin{equation}
\rho^2= 4\pi \mu^2 \int_0^{\infty} r^4 \vert \psi(r)\vert^2 dr,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C=\frac{2}{3}\pi \mu^4 \int_0^{\infty} r^6 \vert \psi(r)\vert^2 dr
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{\infty} 4\pi r^2 \vert \psi(r)\vert^2dr=1.
\end{equation}
In the present work, we improve the above equations for $\rho^2$ and $C$ to
\begin{equation}
\rho^2= 4\pi \mu^2 \left[ \int_0^{r^{short}} r^4 \vert \psi_I(r)\vert^2 dr + \int_{r^{long}}^{r_0} r^4 \vert \psi_{II}(r)\vert^2 dr\right]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
C=\frac{2}{3} \pi \mu^4 \left[ \int_0^{r^{short}} r^6 \vert \psi_I(r)\vert^2 dr+\int_{r^{long}}^{r_0} r^6 \vert \psi_{II}(r)\vert^2 dr\right] .
\end{equation}
Using these modified expressions for slope and curvature of Isgur-Wise function in equation (33), we have computed the results. In equations (39) and (40), $\psi_I(r)$ and $\psi_{II}(r)$ are the wave functions as defined in (6) and (13) respectively.\\
Now to find the cut offs $r^{short}$ and $r^{long}$, we use the two choices of perturbative conditions:\\
choice-I: for Coulomb as parent and linear as perturbation
\begin{equation}
-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r} \textgreater br
\end{equation}
and\\
choice-II: for linear as parent and Coulomb as perturbation
\begin{equation}
br \textgreater -\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r}.
\end{equation}
From (41) and (42) we can find the bounds on $r$ upto which choice-I and II are valid. Choice-I gives the cut off on the short distance $r_{max}^{short}<\sqrt{\frac{4\alpha_s}{3b}}$ and choice-II gives the cut off on the long distance $r_{min}^{long}>\sqrt{\frac{4\alpha_s}{3b}}$.\\
We make $r^{short}=r^{long}=\sqrt{\frac{4\alpha_s}{3b}}$ for our analysis, otherwise unless they are identical, the addition of two counterparts (linear part $\&$ Coulomb part) either overestimate or under estimate the calculated values of quantities which involves the integration over 0 to $r^{short}$ and $r^{long}$ to $r_0$ \cite{pramana}.\\
In table 1, we show the bounds on $r^{short}$ and $r^{long}$ in $Fermi$ which yields exact/most restrictive upper bounds of the quantities to be calculated.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{$r^{short}$ and $r^{long}$ in $Fermi$ with $c=0$ and $b=0.183 GeV^2$}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
$\alpha_s$-value & $r^{short}=r^{long}$ \\
&($Fermi$)\\ \hline
0.39 & 0.332\\
(for charmonium scale) &\\ \hline
0.22 & 0.249\\
(for bottomonium scale) & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
We calculate the masses of various heavy-light mesons using equation (27) and the obtained results are compared with the experimental data \cite{k} in table 3. We have used Mathematica version 7.0.0 to compute the results.\\
The input parameters in the numerical calculations used are $m_u=0.336 GeV$, $m_s=0.483 GeV$, $m_c=1.55 GeV$, $m_b=4.95 GeV$ and $b=0.183 GeV^2$ and $\alpha_s$ values 0.39 and 0.22 for charmonium and bottomonium scale respectively, are same with the previous work \cite{ijp,pramana}.\\
With these values, the reduced masses ($\mu$) of the mesons, using equation (9) are shown in table 2.
\begin{table}[!h]\footnotesize
\caption{Reduced masses of heavy-light mesons in $GeV$.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
Meson & Reduced mass ($\mu$)\\
& $(GeV)$ \\ \hline
$D(c\bar{u}/c\bar{d}$) & 0.276 \\
$D_s(c\bar{s})$ & 0.368\\
$B(u\bar{b}/d\bar{b})$ & 0.314 \\
$B_s(s\bar{b})$ & 0.440 \\
$B_c(\bar{b}c)$ & 1.180 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]\footnotesize
\caption{Masses of heavy-light mesons in GeV.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\hline
$\alpha_s$ & Meson & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r^S=r^L$ ($Fermi$)} & Mass ($M_P$) $(GeV)$ & Experimental Mass $(GeV)$ \cite{k}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{0.39} & D(c$\bar{u}/c\bar{d}$) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.332} & 2.378 & 1.869$\pm$ 0.0016\\
& $D_s(c\bar{s})$& & 2.500&1.968$\pm$ 0.0033\\ \cline{1-5}
\multirow{2}{*}{0.22} & $B(u\bar{b}/d\bar{b})$ &\multirow{3}{*}{0.249} &5.798 & 5.279$\pm$ 0.0017\\
& $B_s(s\bar{b})$ &&5.902& 5.366$\pm$ 0.0024\\
& $B_c(\bar{b}c)$ & & 6.810 & 6.277$\pm$ 0.006\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Our results for $B$ mesons are found to be more agreement with experimental data than $D$ mesons.\\
In table 4 and 5, we find slope ($\rho^2$ and $\rho^{\prime2}$) and curvature ($C$ and $C^\prime$) using modified equations (39) and (40) respectively.\\
The numerical results for $\rho^2$ and $C$ in the Isgur-Wise limit is shown in the table 4, where we consider the limit where the mass of active quark/anti-quark (in this case $b$-quark) is infinitely heavy ($m_Q/m_{\bar{Q}}\rightarrow \infty$) and the reduced mass $\mu$ becomes that of the light quark/anti-quark ($m_q/\bar{m_q}$) (in this case $u$-quark). We have also compared our results with the predictions of other theoretical models \cite{16,17,19,20,21}.\\
\begin{table}[h]\footnotesize
\caption{Values of $\rho^2$ and $C$ in the present work and other works in the limit $m_Q\rightarrow \infty$.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
& $\rho^2$ & $C$ \\ \hline
Present work & 1.176 & 0.180\\ \hline
Other work & & \\ \hline
Le Youanc et al. \cite{16} &$\geq$ 0.75 & 0.47\\
Rosner \cite{17} & 1.66 & 2.76\\
Mannel \cite{19} & 0.98 & 0.98\\
Pole Ansatz \cite{20} & 1.42 & 2.71 \\
Ebert et al. \cite{21} & 1.04 & 1.36\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
However, in a generalized way we can also check the flavor dependence of the form factor in heavy meson decays. We calculate the slope ($\rho^{\prime2}$) and curvature ($C^\prime$) of form factor of semi-leptonic decays in finite mass limit with the flavor dependent correction. In table 5, we compare our present results with the previous work \cite{5,14}. The results in the present work clearly shows an improvement of the previous analysis.
\begin{table}[h]\footnotesize
\caption{ Values of slope ($\rho^{\prime2})$ and curvature ($C^\prime$) of the form factor of heavy meson decays in the present work and previous work with finite mass correction }
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
& Meson & $\rho^{\prime2}$ & $C^\prime$ \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Present work} & D(c$\bar{u}/c\bar{d}$) & 0.911 & 0.106 \\
& $D_s(c\bar{s})$ & 1.318 & 0.228 \\
& $B(u\bar{b}/d\bar{b})$ & 1.110 & 0.260 \\
& $B_s(s\bar{b})$ & 1.722 & 0.721 \\
&$B_c(c\bar{b})$ & 4.646 & 6.074\\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Previous work \cite{5,14}} & D(c$\bar{u}/c\bar{d}$) &1.136 & 5.377 \\
& $D_s(c\bar{s})$ & 1.083 & 3.583\\
& $B(u\bar{b}/d\bar{b})$ & 128.28 & 5212\\
& $B_s(s\bar{b})$ & 112.759 & 4841\\
Previous work \cite{ijmpa} &$B_c(c\bar{b})$ & 5.45 & 31.39 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\newpage
The variation of Isgur-Wise function $\xi(Y)$ with $Y$ in the Isgur-Wise limit is shown in figure-1(a) (using table 4), where the mass of the $b$-quark is considered to be infinitely heavy and the reduced mass $\mu$ is $0.336 GeV$ (mass of $u$ or $d$-quark/anti-quark). In a similar way, we draw the graph of figure-1(b) (using table 5) for finite mass and flavor dependent correction. Also for comparison the results of ref. \cite{17} and \cite{21} are plotted in both the graphs.\\
\begin{figure}[!h]
\subfloat[In the limit $m_Q\rightarrow \infty$]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{plot.pdf}%
}\vspace{1ex}
\subfloat[Finite mass correction]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{plot2.pdf}%
}\vspace{1ex}
\caption{Variation of form factor with $Y$ in the Isgur-Wise limit is represented in (a) and that of finite mass correction is represented in (b).}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
To draw the graphs as shown in figure 1, we have used equations (39) and (40) in (33). $\xi(Y)$ is found to have expected fall with $Y=v.v^\prime$. It is also seen from the figure that the computed results are well within the other model values \cite{17,21}.
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
We have calculated the values of masses and convexity parameter of the Isgur-Wise function considering the scaling factor `$c$' as zero. One of the important point about this work is that we have given equal fitting to both the Coulomb and linear part of the Cornell potential unlike in the previous analysis \cite{kkbj,5,pd,13,bjdk,6,ijmpa,14}. Also our calculations provide a measure of the slope and curvature of the form factors with finite mass corrections. We can say that the modification induced by mass effect are not so significant. Furthermore, the consideration of the finite mass correction changes the results only slightly (significantly for $B(u\bar{b}/d\bar{b})$ meson). However, for the mesons where light quark/antiquark is not so light compared to the heavy quark/antiquark, the finite mass limit do show a very strong dependence on the spectator quark mass; for example we can see $B_c(c\bar{b})$ meson (table 5).\\
Our calculated values of masses of mesons are found to be in good agreement with the experimental datas (table 3). Also the calculated values of slope and curvature of Isgur-Wise function in this work are well within the limit of other theoretical values (table 4). However the re-evaluation of the model with a non-zero scaling factor with the satisfaction of the quantum mechanical idea is currently under study.\\
Let us conclude this paper with a comment that the relativity is by no means negligible for heavy-light systems. Such effects do not merely lead to a Dirac modification factor as used in the present work, but also have other significant effects as have been studied in various relativistic treatments of the problem \cite{21}. Inspite of the phenomenological success of the present model, it falls short of such expectation.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
\textit{The final version of the work was completed when one of us (DKC) was a visitor at the Rudolf Peierls Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, UK. He thanks Prof Subir Sarkar for his hospitality. One of the authors (TD) acknowledges the support of University Grants Commission in terms of fellowship under BSR scheme to pursue research work at Gauhati University, Department of Physics.}
|
\section{Introduction}
The present study was performed in the course of the development of two-phase Cryogenic Avalanche Detectors (CRADs) \cite{CRADPropEL,RevCRAD}, operated in Ar, for dark matter search \cite{Warp,Darkside} and coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering \cite{CoNu1,CoNu2} experiments and their energy calibration \cite{LArIonYieldBern1,LArIonYieldScene,LArIonYieldCRAD,XRayYield}.
In two-phase detectors operated in Ar, the S2 signal (induced by the primary ionization in the noble-gas liquid), is detected through the effect of proportional electroluminescence (or proportional scintillation) in electroluminescence (EL) gap located directly above the liquid-gas interface \cite{Rev1}. In proportional electroluminescence the energy provided to the electrons by the electric field is almost fully expended in atomic excitations producing $Ar^{\ast}(3p^54s^1)$ and $Ar^{\ast}(3p^54p^1)$ states. These are followed by the photon emission in the Vacuum Ultraviolet (VUV), around 128 nm, due to excimer ($Ar^{\ast}_2$) productions in three-body collisions and their subsequent decays \cite{PropELMech,PropELGAr,PropELSim}, and by the photon emission in the Near Infrared (NIR), at 690-850 nm, due to $Ar^{\ast}(3p^54p^1)\rightarrow Ar^{\ast}(3p^54s^1)+h\nu$ atomic transitions \cite{NirCRAD,NirYieldSim}.
In presence of nitrogen admixture to gaseous argon the mechanism of proportional electroluminescence is modified. Namely, the excimer production (and hence the VUV emission) can be taken over by that of excited N$_2$ molecules in two-body collisions followed by their de-excitations in the Near Ultraviolet (NUV) \cite{PropELArN2}, through the emission of the so-called Second Positive System (SPS), at 260-430 nm \cite{ArN2SPS}.
It should be remarked that VUV recording is rather inefficient in two-phase detectors in Ar as compared to that of NUV, due to re-emission and total reflection losses in the Wavelength Shifter (WLS): the losses in light collection efficiency may exceed an order of magnitude \cite{CRADPropEL}. Accordingly, it looks attractive to dope argon with a small amount of nitrogen, to convert the VUV into the NUV directly in the EL gap. This idea has been recently realized by our group in \cite{CRADPropEL}. A high performance two-phase CRAD has been developed there, with EL gap optically read out using cryogenic PMTs located on the perimeter of the gap, and with combined THGEM/GAPD-matrix multiplier \cite{RevCRAD,NirCRAD,CRADMatrix} (THGEM is Thick Gas Electron Multiplier \cite{THGEMRev}; GAPD is Geiger-mode APD or MPPC or else SiPM \cite{CryoGAPD}). Such a combined charge/optical readout of two-phase detectors would result in a higher overall gain at superior spatial resolution.
In that work \cite{CRADPropEL} we systematically studied proportional electroluminescence in Ar in the two-phase mode, with a minor ($\sim$50 ppm) admixture of N$_2$, that might be typical for large-scale liquid Ar experiments \cite{LArN2Impure,LargeLArRef}. The results obtained there indicate that the effect of N$_2$ doping on proportional electroluminescence in Ar is enhanced at lower temperatures. In addition, the S2 signal response was found to be substantially (by a factor of 3) enhanced due to the fraction of the N$_2$ emission spectrum recorded directly, i.e. escaping re-emission in the WLS film and thus having a considerably higher light collection efficiency.
In this work we present some topics on the performance of the two-phase CRAD with EL gap in N$_2$-doped Ar, not covered in the previous work, namely the results of the measurements of the N$_2$ content, amplitude characteristics for X-ray-induced signals, EL gap yield and electron lifetime in the liquid.
\section{Experimental setup and procedures}
Fig.~\ref{Setup} shows the experimental setup; it is described elsewhere \cite{CRADPropEL}. Here we present the details relevant to the present study. The setup comprised a 9 l cryogenic chamber filled with 2.5 liters of liquid Ar. Ar was taken from a bottle with a specified purity of 99.998\%. During each cooling procedure Ar was purified from electronegative impurities by Oxisorb filter, providing electron lifetime in the liquid $>$100 $\mu$s. The detector was operated in two-phase mode in the equilibrium state, at a saturated vapor pressure of 1.000$\pm$0.003 atm and at a temperature of 87.3 K.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig1_Setup.eps}
\caption{Schematic view of the experimental setup (not to scale). The resistors of the voltage divider have the following values: R1, R2, R3 and R4 is 80, 40, 4 and 600 MOhm respectively.}
\label{Setup}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that a reliable measurement of the N$_2$ content in the cryogenic system at ppm level is a challenge; we describe below how this problem was solved. After each cryogenic measurement, the Ar was liquified from the chamber back to a stainless steel bottle ("CRAD bottle") cooled with liquid nitrogen, so that the N$_2$ content remained constant throughout the entire measurement campaign. The latter lasted 5 months during which the setup (operated on a closed loop) was repeatedly evacuated but neither baked nor purified from N$_2$, resulting in a certain N$_2$ content established in the system due to combined effect of the residual gas and internal outgassing in the bottle and cryogenic chamber. At the end of the campaign, the N$_2$ content in the CRAD bottle was measured in two ways: first, using a Residual Gas Analyzer (RGA) Pfeiffer-Vacuum QME220, and second, using a chromatography technique.
In case of RGA technique, the CRAD bottle was connected to a baked high-vacuum ($4\times10^{-9}$ mbar) test chamber equipped with RGA, where the N$_2$ content in Ar was measured in a flow mode at a pressure reaching $10^{-4}$ mbar: see Fig.~\ref{N2content}. It should be remarked that the RGA readings were difficult to get rid of the influence of outgassing from the walls of the test chamber and lead-in tubes. Therefore only the relative N$_2$ content had the meaning, measured with respect to the reference bottle with a known N$_2$ content. Thus the N$_2$ content value obtained using this technique was 56$\pm$5 ppm: it was composed of the difference between the RGA readings for the CRAD and the reference bottles (51 ppm) and of the N$_2$ content of the reference bottle (5$\pm$5 ppm) specified by the manufacturer.
In case of chromatography technique, the N$_2$ content in the CRAD bottle was measured by a local industrial company "Pure Gases": it amounted to 42 ppm. Thus the final value of N$_2$ content, averaged over the two techniques, amounted to 49$\pm$7 ppm. In the two-phase mode at 87 K, this value corresponds to the N$_2$ content of 49 ppm in the liquid and 132 ppm in the gas phase, according to "Raoult" law \cite{TPArN2CRAD}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig2_N2Content.eps}
\caption{N$_2$ content measurement using RGA technique. The N$_2$ content in Ar as measured by the RGA is shown as a function of the residual pressure, for the CRAD and reference bottles.}
\label{N2content}
\end{figure}
The cryogenic chamber included a cathode electrode, field-shaping electrodes and a THGEM0, immersed in a 55 mm thick liquid Ar layer. These elements were biased through a resistive high-voltage divider placed within the liquid, forming a drift region in liquid Ar, 48 mm long. A 4 mm thick liquid Ar layer above the THGEM0 acted as an electron emission region. A double-THGEM assembly, consisting of a THGEM1 and THGEM2, was placed in the gas phase above the liquid. The EL gap (the EL region), 18 mm thick, was formed by the liquid surface and the THGEM1 plate; the latter was grounded through a resistor acting as an anode of the gap. All electrodes had the same active area, of 10$\times$10 cm$^2$.
The voltage applied to the divider varied from 11 to 22 kV, producing the electric drift field in liquid Ar of 0.34-0.68 kV/cm, electric emission field of 2.6-5.1 kV/cm and electric field in the EL gap of 4.0-8.0 kV/cm. Using such a voltage divider, the THGEM0 was biased in a way to provide the effective transmission of drifting electrons from the drift region to that of electron emission: the electrons drifted successively from a lower to higher electric field region, with a field ratio of about 3 at each step, which in principle should result in electron transmittance through the THGEM0 approaching 100\%. The average drift time of the primary ionization electrons across the drift, emission and EL regions varied from about 25 to 35 $\mu$s, depending on the applied electric fields.
The detector was irradiated from outside by X-rays from a pulsed X-ray tube \cite{XRayYield}, with the energy of 30-40 keV after X-ray filtering \cite{CRADPropEL}, those from $^{109}$Cd source, with the energy of 22-25 and 88 keV, and those from $^{241}$Am source, with the energy of 60 keV.
The EL gap was viewed by four compact cryogenic 2-inch PMTs R6041-506MOD \cite{CryoPMT}, located on the perimeter of the gap. The PMTs were electrically insulated from the gap by a grounded mesh and an acrylic protective box of a rectangular shape. To convert the VUV into the blue light, four wavelength shifter (WLS) films, based on TPB (tetraphenyl-butadiene) in polystyrene matrix, were deposited on the inner box surface facing the EL gap, in front of each PMT. In addition, proportional electroluminescence in the spectral range other than the VUV, i.e. in the NUV (and visible and NIR range, if any) could be recorded using a MPPC (Multi-Pixel Photon Counter) S10931-100P \cite{CryoGAPD}, placed behind the THGEM2.
Three types of signals were recorded from the EL gap: the optical signal from the PMTs, the charge signal from the THGEM1 acting as an anode of the gap and the optical signal from the MPPC (see Fig.~\ref{Signals}). The optical signal from the four PMTs, called the total PMT signal, was obtained as a linear sum of all the PMT signals, amplified with a linear amplifier with a shaping time of 200 ns. The THGEM1 charge signal was recorded using a charge-sensitive preamplifier followed by a shaping amplifier with a time constant of 1 $\mu$s. The MPPC optical signal was recorded using a fast amplifier with a shaping time of 40 ns. Note the rather large drift time of the ionization electrons in Fig.~\ref{Signals}, equal to the distance between the trigger and the PMT pulse peak, which is about 31 $\mu$s.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig3_Signals.eps}
\caption{Typical signals from the EL gap, namely the total optical signal from the PMTs, the charge signal from the THGEM1 and the optical signal from the MPPC, induced by pulsed X-rays absorbed in liquid Ar, at an electric field of 6.5 kV/cm in the EL gap and 0.55 kV/cm in the drift region. Note that the ionization electron drift time, equal to the distance between the trigger indicated by a triangle and the PMT pulse peak, is about 31 $\mu$s.}
\label{Signals}
\end{figure}
\section{Amplitude characteristics and EL gap yield}
The amplitude characteristics of the detector, when recording the S2 (ionization-induced) signal, are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{CdSpectrum}: it shows the amplitude spectrum of the total PMT signal from the EL gap induced by X-rays from a mixture of the $^{109}$Cd and $^{241}$Am radioactive sources, at an electric field of 7.3 kV/cm in the EL gap and 0.62 kV/cm in the drift region. The peaks due to X-ray lines at 88 keV and 22-25 keV of the $^{109}$Cd source, as well as that at 60 keV of the $^{241}$Am sources, are well distinguished. The energy resolution improved with energy; it amounted to $\sigma/E$=42, 22 and 16\% at 22-25, 59.5 and 88 keV respectively.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig4_CdSpectrum.eps}
\caption{Amplitude distribution of the total PMT signal from the EL gap at an electric field of 7.3 kV/cm in the EL gap and 0.62 kV/cm in the drift region, under irradiation with X-rays from $^{109}$Cd and $^{241}$Am radioactive sources. The amplitude is expressed in the number of photoelectrons (pe) recorded at the PMTs.}
\label{CdSpectrum}
\end{figure}
The amplitude in Fig.~\ref{CdSpectrum} is expressed in the number of photoelectrons (pe) recorded at the PMTs. This allows one to estimate the detector yield (sensitivity) for electron-equivalent (ee) recoils induced by X-ray absorption: it is defined as the number of PMT photoelectrons per keV of deposited energy. The sensitivity amounted to 8.7, 15.1 and 16.1 pe/keV at 22-25, 60 and 88 keV respectively. One can see that the sensitivity degrades with the energy decrease. Such an energy dependence in fact rather precisely reflects the reduction of the X-ray ionization yield in liquid Ar with the energy decrease observed elsewhere \cite{XRayYield}. It was described there by the following dependence of the relative ionization yield ($n_e/N_i$) on the energy ($E$): at a drift field of 0.6 kV/cm, $n_e/N_i = 0.54/(1+41/E[keV])$=0.195, 0.320 and 0.368 at 23, 60 and 88 keV respectively.
The fact that the detector yield is proportional (within the experimental uncertainties, of about 5\% \cite{XRayYield}) to the X-ray ionization yield in liquid Ar allows one to estimate, inter alia, the lower limit of the electron lifetime in the liquid, using the fact that the electron drift path in liquid Ar is larger for softer X-rays than that for harder X-rays. The electron lifetime estimated this way exceeds 130 $\mu$s.
Another estimate of the lifetime can be obtained from Fig.~\ref{ELGapYield} showing the EL gap yield as a function of the electric field in the gap for X-rays from the pulsed X-ray tube, using the measured charge, and from the $^{241}$Am source, using the calculated charge. In the latter case the ionization charge arrived to the THGEM1 (anode) was too small to be measured. Consequently it was calculated theoretically by interpolation of the X-ray ionization yield dependence on energy at different electric fields using the data of ref. \cite{XRayYield}. One can see from Fig.~\ref{ELGapYield} that the EL gap yield for 60 keV X-rays is systematically reduced compared to that of pulsed X-rays. This reduction is due to the combined effect of the electron transmittance through the THGEM0 and electron lifetime in the liquid, not taking into account in the charge calculation. Hence we obtain the lower limit on the electron lifetime of 70 $\mu$s. Finally the electron lifetime in the liquid averaged over the two estimates exceeds 100 $\mu$s.
In addition, one can conclude from Fig.~\ref{ELGapYield} that the EL gap yield can be as high as 1.5 pe/e at an electric field in the gap of 7 kV/cm. This is a factor of 3 higher than expected in "pure Ar" approach and is due to the fraction of the N$_2$ emission spectrum recorded directly, i.e. escaping re-emission in the WLS film and thus having a considerably higher (by a factor of 20) light collection efficiency \cite{CRADPropEL}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig5_ELGapYieldAm.eps}
\caption{EL gap yield measured using PMT signals as a function of the electric field in the EL gap for X-rays from the pulsed X-ray tube, using the measured charge, and for X-rays from $^{241}$Am sources, using the calculated charge. The electric drift field in liquid Ar is also shown on the top axis.}
\label{ELGapYield}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
Following our first work in the field \cite{CRADPropEL}, we continued to study the performance of the two-phase Cryogenic Avalanche Detector (CRAD) with electroluminescence (EL) gap, operated in argon doped with a minor (49$\pm$7 ppm) admixture of nitrogen. The results of the measurements of the N$_2$ content, detector sensitivity to X-ray-induced (electron-equivalent recoil) signals, EL gap yield and electron lifetime in the liquid were presented. The detector sensitivity at a drift field in liquid Ar of about 0.6 kV/cm was measured to be 9 and 16 pe/keV at 23 and 88 keV respectively. The EL gap yield may reach 1.5 pe per drifting electron at an electric field in the gap of 7 kV/cm. The results obtained pave the way to the development of N$_2$-doped two-phase Ar detectors with enhanced sensitivity to the S2 signal. Such detectors are relevant in the field of argon detectors for dark matter search and low energy neutrino detection.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This study was composed of two parts. The first part (section 2) was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 15-02-01821). The second part (section 3) was supported by Russian Science Foundation (project N 14-50-00080). This work was done in the frame of DarkSide20k collaboration.
|
\section*{Funding Information}
Thailand Research Fund (TRF) (RSA5780061).
|
\section{Introduction}
Aspect level sentiment classification is a fundamental task in the field of sentiment analysis \cite{Pang2008,Liu2012a,Pontiki2014}.
Given a sentence and an aspect occurring in the sentence, this task aims at inferring the sentiment polarity (e.g. positive, negative, neutral) of the aspect. For example, in sentence ``\textit{great food but the service was dreadful!}'', the sentiment polarity of aspect ``\textit{food}'' is positive while the polarity of aspect ``\textit{service}'' is negative.
Researchers typically use machine learning algorithms and build sentiment classifier in a supervised manner.
Representative approaches in literature include feature based Support Vector Machine
\cite{Kiritchenko2014-SemEval,Wagner2014-SemEval} and neural network models \cite{Dong2014,Lakkaraju2014aspect,Vo2015,Nguyen2015:EMNLP,Tang2015arxiv}.
Neural models are of growing interest for their capacity to learn text representation from data without careful engineering of features, and to capture semantic relations between aspect and context words in a more scalable way than feature based SVM.
Despite these advantages, conventional neural models like long short-term memory (LSTM) \cite{Tang2015arxiv} capture context information in an implicit way, and are incapable of explicitly exhibiting important context clues of an aspect.
We believe that only some subset of context words are needed to infer the sentiment towards an aspect. For example, in sentence ``\textit{great food but the service was dreadful!}'', ``\textit{dreadful}'' is an important clue for the aspect ``\textit{service}'' but ``\textit{great}'' is not needed. Standard LSTM works in a sequential way and manipulates each context word with the same operation, so that it cannot explicitly reveal the importance of each context word.
A desirable solution should be capable of explicitly capturing the importance of context words and using that information to build up features for the sentence after given an aspect word.
Furthermore, a human asked to do this task will selectively focus on parts of the contexts, and acquire information where it is needed to build up an internal representation towards an aspect in his/her mind.
In pursuit of this goal, we develop deep memory network for aspect level sentiment classification, which is inspired by the recent success of computational models with attention mechanism and explicit memory \cite{Graves2014neural,Bahdanau2015,Sukhbaatar2015end}.
Our approach is data-driven, computationally efficient and does not rely on syntactic parser or sentiment lexicon.
The approach consists of multiple computational layers with shared parameters.
Each layer is a content- and location- based attention model, which first learns the importance/weight of each context word and then utilizes this information to calculate continuous text representation.
The text representation in the last layer is regarded as the feature for sentiment classification.
As every component is differentiable, the entire model could be efficiently trained end-to-end with gradient descent, where the loss function is the cross-entropy error of sentiment classification.
We apply the proposed approach to laptop and restaurant datasets from SemEval 2014 \cite{Pontiki2014}.
Experimental results show that our approach performs comparable to a top system using feature-based SVM \cite{Kiritchenko2014-SemEval}.
On both datasets, our approach outperforms both LSTM and attention-based LSTM models \cite{Tang2015arxiv} in terms of classification accuracy and running speed.
Lastly, we show that using multiple computational layers over external memory could achieve improved performance.
\section{Background: Memory Network}
Our approach is inspired by the recent success of memory network in question answering \cite{Weston2014memory,Sukhbaatar2015end}.
We describe the background on memory network in this part.
Memory network is a general machine learning framework introduced by \newcite{Weston2014memory}.
Its central idea is inference with a long-term memory component, which could be read, written to, and jointly learned with the goal of using it for prediction.
Formally, a memory network consists of a memory $m$ and four components $I$, $G$, $O$ and $R$, where
$m$ is an array of objects such as an array of vectors.
Among these four components, $I$ converts input to internal feature representation, $G$ updates old memories with new input, $O$ generates an output representation given a new input and the current memory state, $R$ outputs a response based on the output representation.
Let us take question answering as an example to explain the work flow of memory network. Given a list of sentences and a question, the task aims to find evidences from these sentences and generate an answer, e.g. a word.
During inference, $I$ component reads one sentence $s_i$ at a time and encodes it into a vector representation.
Then $G$ component updates a piece of memory $m_i$ based on current sentence representation.
After all sentences are processed, we get a memory matrix $m$ which stores the semantics of these sentences, each row representing a sentence.
Given a question $q$, memory network encodes it into vector representation $e_q$, and then $O$ component uses $e_q$ to select question related evidences from memory $m$ and generates an output vector $o$.
Finally, $R$ component takes $o$ as the input and outputs the final response.
It is worth noting that $O$ component could consist of one or more computational layers (hops).
The intuition of utilizing multiple hops is that more abstractive evidences could be found based on previously extracted evidences.
\newcite{Sukhbaatar2015end} demonstrate that multiple hops could uncover more abstractive evidences than single hop, and could yield improved results on question answering and language modeling.
\section{Deep Memory Network for Aspect Level Sentiment Classification}
In this section, we describe the deep memory network approach for aspect level sentiment classification.
We first give the task definition.
Afterwards, we describe an overview of the approach before presenting the content- and location- based attention models in each computational layer.
Lastly, we describe the use of this approach for aspect level sentiment classification.
\subsection{Task Definition and Notation}
Given a sentence $s=\{w_1, w_2, ..., w_i, ... w_n\}$ consisting of $n$ words and an aspect word $w_i$ \footnote{In practice, an aspect might be a multi word expression such as ``\textit{battery life}''. For simplicity we still consider aspect as a single word in this definition.} occurring in sentence $s$, aspect level sentiment classification aims at determining the sentiment polarity of sentence $s$ towards the aspect $w_i$.
For example, the sentiment polarity of sentence ``\textit{great food but the service was dreadful!}'' towards aspect ``\textit{food}'' is positive, while the polarity towards aspect ``\textit{service}'' is negative.
When dealing with a text corpus, we map each word into a low dimensional, continuous and real-valued vector, also known as word embedding \cite{Mikolov2013a,Pennington2014}.
All the word vectors are stacked in a word embedding matrix $L \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times |V|}$, where $d$ is the dimension of word vector and $|V|$ is vocabulary size.
The word embedding of $w_i$ is notated as $e_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times 1}$, which is a column in the embedding matrix $L$.
\subsection{An Overview of the Approach}
We present an overview of the deep memory network for aspect level sentiment classification.
Given a sentence $s=\{w_1, w_2, ..., w_i, ... w_n\}$ and the aspect word $w_i$, we map each word into its embedding vector.
These word vectors are separated into two parts, aspect representation and context representation.
If aspect is a single word like ``\textit{food}'' or ``\textit{service}'', aspect representation is the embedding of aspect word.
For the case where aspect is multi word expression like ``\textit{battery life}'', aspect representation is an average of its constituting word vectors \cite{Sun2015}.
To simplify the interpretation, we consider aspect as a single word $w_i$.
Context word vectors \{$e_1$, $e_2$ ... $e_{i-1}$, $e_{i+1}$ ... $e_n$\} are stacked and regarded as the external memory $m \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times (n-1)}$, where $n$ is the sentence length.
An illustration of our approach is given in Figure \ref{fig:framework}, which is inspired by the use of memory network in question answering \cite{Sukhbaatar2015end}.
Our approach consists of multiple computational layers (hops), each of which contains an attention layer and a linear layer.
In the first computational layer (hop 1), we regard aspect vector as the input to adaptively select important evidences from memory $m$ through attention layer.
The output of attention layer and the linear transformation of aspect vector\footnote{In preliminary experiments, we tried directly using aspect vector without a linear transformation, and found that adding a linear layer works slightly better.} are summed and the result is considered as the input of next layer (hop 2).
In a similar way, we stack multiple hops and run these steps multiple times, so that more abstractive evidences could be selected from the external memory $m$.
The output vector in last hop is considered as the representation of sentence with regard to the aspect, and is further used as the feature for aspect level sentiment classification.
It is helpful to note that the parameters of attention and linear layers are shared in different hops.
Therefore, the model with one layer and the model with nine layers have the same number of parameters.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{fig-framework.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of our deep memory network with three computational layers (hops) for aspect level sentiment classification.}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Content Attention}
We describe our attention model in this part.
The basic idea of attention mechanism is that it assigns a weight/importance to each lower position when computing an upper level representation \cite{Bahdanau2015}.
In this work, we use attention model to compute the representation of a sentence with regard to an aspect.
The intuition is that context words do not contribute equally to the semantic meaning of a sentence.
Furthermore, the importance of a word should be different if we focus on different aspect.
Let us again take the example of ``\textit{great food but the service was dreadful!}''.
The context word ``\textit{great}'' is more important than ``\textit{dreadful}'' for aspect ``\textit{food}''.
On the contrary, ``\textit{dreadful}'' is more important than ``\textit{great}'' for aspect ``\textit{service}''.
Taking an external memory $m \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times k}$ and an aspect vector $v_{aspect} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times 1}$ as input, the attention model outputs a continuous vector $vec \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times 1}$.
The output vector is computed as a weighted sum of each piece of memory in $m$, namely
\begin{equation}
vec = \sum_{i=1}^{k}\alpha_i m_i
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the memory size, $\alpha_i \in [0,1]$ is the weight of $m_i$ and $\sum_{i} \alpha_i = 1$.
We implement a neural network based attention model.
For each piece of memory $m_i$, we use a feed forward neural network to compute its semantic relatedness with the aspect. The scoring function is calculated as follows, where $W_{att} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times 2d}$ and $b_{att} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times 1}$.
\begin{equation}
g_i = tanh(W_{att} [m_i; v_{aspect}] + b_{att})
\end{equation}
After obtaining \{$g_1$, $g_2$, ... $g_k$\}, we feed them to a $softmax$ function to calculate the final importance scores \{$\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, ... $\alpha_k$\}.
\begin{equation}
\alpha_i = \frac{exp(g_i)}{\sum_{j=1}^k exp(g_{j})}
\end{equation}
We believe that such an attention model has two advantages.
One advantage is that this model could adaptively assign an importance score to each piece of memory $m_i$ according to its semantic relatedness with the aspect.
Another advantage is that this attention model is differentiable, so that it could be easily trained together with other components in an end-to-end fashion.
\subsection{Location Attention}\label{section:location-attention}
We have described our neural attention framework and a content-based model in previous subsection.
However, the model mentioned above
ignores the location information between context word and aspect.
Such location information is helpful for an attention model because intuitively a context word closer to the aspect should be more important than a farther one.
In this work, we define the location of a context word as its absolute distance with the aspect in the original sentence sequence\footnote{The location of a context word could also be measured by its distance to the aspect along a syntactic path. We leave this as a future work as we prefer to developing a purely data-driven approach without using external parsing results.}.
On this basis, we study four strategies to encode the location information in the attention model.
The details are described below.
$\bullet$ {Model 1}. Following \newcite{Sukhbaatar2015end}, we calculate the memory vector $m_i$ with
\begin{equation}
m_i = e_i \odot v_{i}
\end{equation}
where $\odot$ means element-wise multiplication and $v_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times 1}$ is a location vector for word $w_i$.
Every element in $v_i$ is calculated as follows,
\begin{equation}
v_{i}^{k} = (1 - l_i/n) - (k/d) (1 - 2 \times l_i/n)
\end{equation}
where $n$ is sentence length, $k$ is the hop number and $l_i$ is the location of $w_i$.
$\bullet$ {Model 2}. This is a simplified version of Model 1, using the same location vector $v_i$ for $w_i$ in different hops.
Location vector $v_i$ is calculated as follows.
\begin{equation}
v_{i} = 1 - l_i/n
\end{equation}
$\bullet$ {Model 3}. We regard location vector $v_i$ as a parameter and compute a piece of memory with vector addition, namely
\begin{equation}
m_i = e_i + v_i
\end{equation}
All the position vectors are stacked in a position embedding matrix, which is jointly learned with gradient descent.
$\bullet$ {Model 4}. Location vectors are also regarded as parameters.
Different from Model 3, location representations are regarded as neural gates to control how many percent of word semantics is written into the memory. We feed location vector $v_i$ to a sigmoid function $\sigma$, and calculate $m_i$ with element-wise multiplication:
\begin{equation}
m_i = e_i \odot \sigma(v_i)
\end{equation}
\subsection{The Need for Multiple Hops}
It is widely accepted that computational models that are composed of multiple processing layers have the ability to learn representations of data with multiple levels of abstraction \cite{LeCun2015}.
In this work, the attention layer in one layer is essentially a weighted average compositional function, which is not powerful enough to handle the sophisticated computationality like negation, intensification and contrary in language.
Multiple computational layers allow the deep memory network to learn representations of text with multiple levels of abstraction. Each layer/hop retrieves important context words, and transforms the representation at previous level into a representation at a higher, slightly more abstract level. With the composition of enough such transformations, very complex functions of sentence representation towards an aspect can be learned.
\subsection{Aspect Level Sentiment Classification}
We regard the output vector in last hop as the feature, and feed it to a $softmax$ layer for aspect level sentiment classification.
The model is trained in a supervised manner by minimizing the cross entropy error of sentiment classification, whose loss function is given below, where $T$ means all training instances, $C$ is the collection of sentiment categories, $(s, a)$ means a sentence-aspect pair.
\begin{equation}
loss = -\sum_{(s,a) \in T}^{}\sum_{c \in C} P_{c}^{g}(s, a) \cdot log(P_{c}(s, a))
\end{equation}
$P_c(s, a)$ is the probability of predicting $(s, a)$ as category $c$ produced by our system.
$P^g_c(s, a)$ is 1 or 0, indicating whether the correct answer is $c$.
We use back propagation to calculate the gradients of all the parameters,
and update them with stochastic gradient descent.
We clamp the word embeddings with 300-dimensional Glove vectors \cite{Pennington2014}, which is trained from web data and the vocabulary size is 1.9M\footnote{Available at: {http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/}.}.
We randomize other parameters with uniform distribution $U(-0.01, 0.01)$, and set the learning rate as 0.01.
\section{Experiment}
We describe experimental settings and report empirical results in this section.
\subsection{Experimental Setting}
We conduct experiments on two datasets from SemEval 2014 \cite{Pontiki2014}, one from laptop domain and another from restaurant domain.
Statistics of the datasets are given in Table \ref{table:dataset}. {It is worth noting that the original dataset contains the fourth category - conflict, which means that a sentence expresses both positive and negative opinion towards an aspect. We remove conflict category as the number of instances is very tiny, incorporating which will make the dataset extremely unbalanced.} Evaluation metric is classification accuracy.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
Dataset & Pos. & Neg. & Neu. \\
\hline
Laptop-Train & 994 & 870 & 464\\
Laptop-Test & 341 & 128 & 169\\
Restaurant-Train & 2164& 807 & 637\\
Restaurant-Test & 728& 196& 196\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Statistics of the datasets.}
\label{table:dataset}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison to Other Methods}
We compare with the following baseline methods on both datasets.
(1) \textbf{Majority} is a basic baseline method, which assigns the majority sentiment label in training set to each instance in the test set.
(2) \textbf{Feature-based SVM} performs state-of-the-art on aspect level sentiment classification.
We compare with a top system using ngram features, parse features and lexicon features \cite{Kiritchenko2014-SemEval}.
(3) We compare with three LSTM models \cite{Tang2015arxiv}). In \textbf{LSTM}, a LSTM based recurrent model is applied from the start to the end of a sentence, and the last hidden vector is used as the sentence representation. \textbf{TDLSTM} extends LSTM by taking into account of the aspect, and uses two LSTM networks, a forward one and a backward one, towards the aspect.
\textbf{TDLSTM+ATT} extends TDLSTM by incorporating an attention mechanism \cite{Bahdanau2015} over the hidden vectors.
We use the same Glove word vectors for fair comparison.
(4) We also implement \textbf{ContextAVG}, a simplistic version of our approach. Context word vectors are averaged and the result is added to the aspect vector.
The output is fed to a $softmax$ function.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
\hline
& {Laptop} & {Restaurant} \\
\hline
Majority & 53.45 & 65.00 \\
Feature+SVM & \textbf{72.10} & \textbf{80.89} \\
LSTM & 66.45 & 74.28 \\
TDLSTM & 68.13 & 75.63 \\
TDLSTM+ATT & 66.24 & 74.31 \\
ContextAVG & 61.22 & 71.33 \\
\hline
MemNet (1) & 67.66 & 76.10 \\
MemNet (2) & 71.14 & 78.61 \\
MemNet (3) & 71.74 & 79.06 \\
MemNet (4) & 72.21 & 79.87 \\
MemNet (5) & 71.89 & 80.14 \\
MemNet (6) & 72.21 & 80.05 \\
MemNet (7) & \textbf{72.37} & 80.32 \\
MemNet (8) & 72.05 & 80.14 \\
MemNet (9) & 72.21 & \textbf{80.95} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Classification accuracy of different methods on laptop and restaurant datasets. Best scores in each group are in bold.}
\label{table:experiment-baseline}
\end{table}
Experimental results are given in Table \ref{table:experiment-baseline}.
Our approach using only content attention is abbreviated to MemNet ($k$), where $k$ is the number of hops.
We can find that feature-based SVM is an extremely strong performer and substantially outperforms other baseline methods, which demonstrates the importance of a powerful feature representation for aspect level sentiment classification.
Among three recurrent models, TDLSTM performs better than LSTM, which indicates that taking into account of the aspect information is helpful.
This is reasonable as the sentiment polarity of a sentence towards different aspects (e.g. ``\textit{food}'' and ``\textit{service}'') might be different.
It is somewhat disappointing that incorporating attention model over TDLSTM does not bring any improvement.
We consider that each hidden vector of TDLSTM encodes the semantics of word sequence until the current position. Therefore, the model of TDLSTM+ATT actually selects such mixed semantics of word sequence, which is weird and not an intuitive way to selectively focus on parts of contexts.
Different from TDLSTM+ATT, the proposed memory network approach removes the recurrent calculator over word sequence and directly apply attention mechanism on context word representations.
We can also find that the performance of ContextAVG is very poor, which means that assigning the same weight/importance to all the context words is not an effective way.
Among all our models from single hop to nine hops, we can observe that using more computational layers could generally lead to better performance, especially when the number of hops is less than six.
The best performances are achieved when the model contains seven and nine hops, respectively.
On both datasets, the proposed approach could obtain comparable accuracy compared to the state-of-art feature-based SVM system.
\subsection{Runtime Analysis}
We study the runtime of recurrent neural models and the proposed deep memory network approach with different hops.
We implement all these approaches based on the same neural network infrastructure, use the same 300-dimensional Glove word vectors, and run them on the same CPU server.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c}
\hline
Method & Time cost\\
\hline
LSTM & 417 \\
TDLSTM & 490 \\
TDLSTM + ATT & 520 \\
\hline
MemNet (1) & 3 \\
MemNet (2)& 7\\
MemNet (3)& 9 \\
MemNet (4)& 15\\
MemNet (5)& 20\\
MemNet (6)& 24\\
MemNet (7)& 26\\
MemNet (8)& 27\\
MemNet (9)& 29\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Runtime (seconds) of each training epoch on the restaurant dataset.}
\label{table:time-cost}
\end{table}
The training time of each iteration on the restaurant dataset is given in Table \ref{table:time-cost}.
We can find that LSTM based recurrent models are indeed computationally expensive, which is caused by the complex operations in each LSTM unit along the word sequence.
Instead, the memory network approach is simpler and evidently faster because it does not need recurrent calculators of sequence length.
Our approach with nine hops is almost 15 times faster than the basic LSTM model.
\subsection{Effects of Location Attention}
As described in Section \ref{section:location-attention}, we explore four strategies to integrate location information into the attention model.
We incorporate each of them separately into the basic content-based attention model.
It is helpful to restate that the difference between four location-based attention models lies in the usage of location vectors for context words. In Model 1 and Model 2, the values of location vectors are fixed and calculated in a heuristic way. In Model 3 and Model 4,
location vectors are also regarded as the parameters and jointly learned along with other parameters in the deep memory network.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{position-3.pdf}
\caption{Classification accuracy of different attention models on the restaurant dataset. }
\label{fig:location}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]\footnotesize
\centering
\subtable[Aspect: {\textit{service}}, Answer: -1, Prediction: -1]{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
& hop 1 & hop 2 & hop 3 & hop 4 & hop 5 \\
\hline
great & \cellcolor{0.2}0.20 & 0.15 & 0.14 & 0.13 & \cellcolor{0.2}0.23 \\
food & 0.11 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.06 \\
but & \cellcolor{0.2}0.20 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.12 & 0.13 \\
the & 0.03 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.06 \\
was & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.06 \\
dreadful & \cellcolor{0.2}0.20 & \cellcolor{0.4}0.45 & \cellcolor{0.4}0.45 & \cellcolor{0.3}0.28 & \cellcolor{0.4}0.40 \\
! & 0.19 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.07 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\subtable[Aspect: {\textit{food}}, Answer: +1, Prediction: -1]{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
& hop 1 & hop 2 & hop 3 & hop 4 & hop 5 \\
\hline
great & \cellcolor{0.2}0.22 & 0.12 & 0.14 & 0.12 & \cellcolor{0.2}0.20 \\
but & \cellcolor{0.2}0.21 & 0.11 & 0.10 & 0.11 & 0.12 \\
the & 0.03 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.06 \\
service & 0.11 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.06 \\
was & 0.04 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.06 \\
dreadful & \cellcolor{0.2}0.22 & \cellcolor{0.3}0.32 & \cellcolor{0.4}0.45 & \cellcolor{0.3}0.32 & \cellcolor{0.4}0.43 \\
! & 0.16 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.07 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Examples of attention weights in different hops for aspect level sentiment classification. The model only uses content attention. The hop columns show the weights of context words in each hop, indicated by values and gray color. This example shows the results of sentence ``\textit{great food but the service was dreadful!}'' with ``\textit{food}'' and ``\textit{service}'' as the aspects.}
\label{table:case-only-context}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]\footnotesize
\centering
\subtable[Aspect: {\textit{service}}, Answer: -1, Prediction: -1]{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
& hop 1 & hop 2 & hop 3 & hop 4 & hop 5 \\
\hline
great & 0.08 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
food & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
but & 0.10 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.13 & 0.11 \\
the & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
was & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
dreadful & \cellcolor{0.5}0.52 & \cellcolor{0.4}0.48 & \cellcolor{0.4}0.48 & \cellcolor{0.5}0.50 & \cellcolor{0.5}0.52 \\
! & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\subtable[Aspect: {\textit{food}}, Answer: +1, Prediction: +1]{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
& hop 1 & hop 2 & hop 3 & hop 4 & hop 5 \\
\hline
great & \cellcolor{0.3}0.31 & \cellcolor{0.3}0.26 & \cellcolor{0.3}0.32 & \cellcolor{0.3}0.28 & \cellcolor{0.3}0.32 \\
but & 0.14 & 0.18 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 0.15 \\
the & 0.08 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 0.05 & 0.07 \\
service & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.09 \\
was & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.08 \\
dreadful & 0.18 & \cellcolor{0.2}0.21 & 0.18 & \cellcolor{0.2}0.22 & 0.19 \\
! & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.10 & 0.11 & 0.10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Examples of attention weights in different hops for aspect level sentiment classification. The model also takes into account of the location information (Model 2). This example is as same as the one we use in Table \ref{table:case-only-context}.}
\label{table:case-context-plus-position}
\end{table*}
Figure \ref{fig:location} shows the classification accuracy of each attention model on the restaurant dataset.
We can find that using multiple computational layers could consistently improve the classification accuracy in all these models.
All these models perform comparably when the number of hops is larger than five.
Among these four location-based models, we prefer Model 2 as it is intuitive and has less computation cost without loss of accuracy.
We also find that Model 4 is very sensitive to the choice of neural gate.
Its classification accuracy decreases by almost 5 percentage when the $sigmoid$ operation over location vector is removed.
\subsection{Visualize Attention Models}
We visualize the attention weight of each context word to get a better understanding of the deep memory network approach.
The results of context-based model and location-based model (Model 2) are given in Table \ref{table:case-only-context} and Table \ref{table:case-context-plus-position}, respectively.
From Table \ref{table:case-only-context}(a), we can find that in the first hop the context words ``\textit{great}'', ``\textit{but}'' and ``\textit{dreadful}'' contribute equally to the aspect ``\textit{service}''.
While after the second hop, the weight of ``\textit{dreadful}'' increases and finally the model correctly predict the polarity towards ``\textit{service}'' as negative.
This case shows the effects of multiple hops.
However, in Table \ref{table:case-only-context}(b), the content-based model also gives a larger weight to ``\textit{dreadful}'' when the target we focus on is ``\textit{food}''.
As a result, the model incorrectly predicts the polarity towards ``\textit{food}'' as negative.
This phenomenon might be caused by the neglect of location information.
From Table \ref{table:case-context-plus-position}(b), we can find that the weight of ``\textit{great}'' is increased when the location of context word is considered.
Accordingly, Model 2 predicts the correct sentiment label towards ``\textit{food}''.
We believe that location-enhanced model captures both content and location information.
For instance, in Table \ref{table:case-context-plus-position}(a) the closest context words of the aspect ``\textit{service}'' are ``\textit{the}'' and ``\textit{was}'', while ``\textit{dreadful}'' has the largest weight.
\subsection{Error Analysis}
We carry out an error analysis of our location enhanced model (Model 2) on the restaurant dataset, and find that most of the errors could be summarized as follows.
The first factor is non-compositional sentiment expression. This model regards single context word as the basic computational unit and cannot handle this situation.
An example is ``\textit{\underline{dessert} was also to die for!}'', where the aspect is underlined.
The sentiment expression is ``\textit{die for}'', whose meaning could not be composed from its constituents ``\textit{die}'' and ``\textit{for}''.
The second factor is complex aspect expression consisting of many words, such as
``\textit{ask for the \underline{round corner table next to the large window}.}''
This model represents an aspect expression by averaging its constituting word vectors, which could not well handle this situation.
The third factor is sentimental relation between context words such as negation, comparison and condition.
An example is ``\textit{but \underline{dinner} here is never disappointing, even if the prices are a bit over the top}''.
We believe that this is caused by the weakness of weighted average compositional function in each hop.
There are also cases when comparative opinions are expressed such as ``\textit{i 've had better \underline{japanese food} at a mall food court}''.
\section{Related Work}
This work is connected to three research areas in natural language processing.
We briefly describe related studies in each area.
\subsection{Aspect Level Sentiment Classification}
Aspect level sentiment classification is a fine-grained classification task in sentiment analysis, which
aims at identifying the sentiment polarity of a sentence expressed towards an aspect \cite{Pontiki2014}.
Most existing works use machine learning algorithms, and build sentiment classifier from sentences with manually annotated polarity labels.
One of the most successful approaches in literature is feature based SVM. Experts could design effective feature templates and make use of external resources like parser and sentiment lexicons \cite{Kiritchenko2014-SemEval,Wagner2014-SemEval}.
In recent years, neural network approaches \cite{Dong2014,Lakkaraju2014aspect,Nguyen2015:EMNLP,Tang2015arxiv} are of growing attention for their capacity to learn powerful text representation from data.
However, these neural models (e.g. LSTM) are computationally expensive, and could not explicitly reveal the importance of context evidences with regard to an aspect.
Instead, we develop simple and fast approach that explicitly encodes the context importance towards a given aspect.
It is worth noting that the task we focus on differs from fine-grained opinion extraction, which assigns each word a tag (e.g. B,I,O) to indicate whether it is an aspect/sentiment word \cite{Choi2010,Irsoy2014,Liu2015}. The aspect word in this work is given as a part of the input.
\subsection{Compositionality in Vector Space}
In NLP community, compositionality means that the meaning of a composed expression (e.g. a phrase/sentence/document) comes from the meanings of its constituents \cite{Frege1892}.
\newcite{Mitchell2010} exploits a variety of addition and multiplication functions to calculate phrase vector.
\newcite{Yessenalina2011} use matrix multiplication as compositional function to compute vectors for longer phrases.
To compute sentence representation, researchers develop denoising autoencoder \cite{Glorot2011}, convolutional neural network \cite{Kalchbrenner2014,Kim2014,Yin-schutze:2015:CoNLL}, sequence based recurrent neural models \cite{Sutskever2014sequence,Kiros2015skip,Li2015a} and tree-structured neural networks \cite{Socher2013a,Tai2015,Zhu2015}.
Several recent studies calculate continuous representation for documents with neural networks \cite{Le2014,Bhatia2015,Li2015,Tang2015,Yang2016hierarchical}.
\subsection{Attention and Memory Networks}
Recently, there is a resurgence in computational models with attention mechanism and explicit memory to learn representations of texts \cite{Graves2014neural,Weston2014memory,Sukhbaatar2015end,Bahdanau2015}.
In this line of research, memory is encoded as a continuous representation and operations on memory (e.g. reading and writing) are typically implemented with neural networks.
Attention mechanism could be viewed as a compositional function, where lower level representations are regarded as the memory, and the function is to choose ``where to look'' by assigning a weight/importance to each lower position when computing an upper level representation.
Such attention based approaches have achieved promising performances on a variety of NLP tasks \cite{Luong2015EMNLP,Kumar2015ask,Rush2015}.
\section{Conclusion}
We develop deep memory networks that capture importances of context words for aspect level sentiment classification.
Compared with recurrent neural models like LSTM, this approach is simpler and faster.
Empirical results on two datasets verify that the proposed approach performs comparable to state-of-the-art feature based SVM system, and substantively better than LSTM architectures.
We implement different attention strategies
and show that leveraging both content and location information could learn better context weight and text representation.
We also demonstrate that using multiple computational layers in memory network could obtain improved performance.
Our potential future plans are incorporating sentence structure like parsing results into the deep memory network.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would especially want to thank Xiaodan Zhu for running their system on our setup.
We greatly thank Yaming Sun for tremendously helpful discussions.
We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
This work was supported by the National High Technology Development 863 Program of China (No. 2015AA015407), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61632011 and No.61273321).
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetization dynamics in the presence of spin-transfer torques is a
very active area of research with applications to magnetic memory
devices and
oscillators~\cite{BaderParkin2010,BrataasKentOhno2012,KentWorledge2015}.
Some basic questions relate to the types of magnetization dynamics
that can be excited and the time scales on which the dynamics occurs.
Many of the experimental studies of spin-transfer torques are on thin
film magnetic elements patterned into asymmetric shapes (e.g. an
ellipse) in which the demagnetizing field strongly confines the
magnetization to the film plane. Analytic models that capture the
resulting nearly in-plane magnetization dynamics (see e.g.
\cite{GarciaCerveraE01, DKMO, KohnSlas05Dynamics, MuratovOsipov06,
CapellaOttoMelcher}) can lead to new insights and guide experimental
studies and device design. A macrospin model that treats the entire
magnetization of the element as a single vector of fixed length is a
starting point for most analyses.
The focus of this paper is on a thin-film magnetic element excited by
a spin-polarized current that has an out-of-plane component. This
out-of-plane component of spin-polarization can lead to magnetization
precession about the film normal or magnetization reversal. The
former dynamics would be desired for a spin-transfer torque
oscillator, while the latter dynamics would be essential in a magnetic
memory device. A device in which a perpendicular component of
spin-polarization is applied to an in-plane magnetized element was
proposed in {Ref.~[\onlinecite{Kent2004}]} and has been studied
experimentally {\cite{Liu2010, Liu2012, Ye2015}}. There have also
been a number of models that have considered the influence of thermal
noise on the resulting dynamics, e.g., {on} the rate of switching
and the dephasing of the oscillator motion
\cite{Newhall2013,Pinna2013,Pinna2014}.
Here we consider a weakly damped asymptotic regime of the
Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert--Slonczewski (LLGS) equation for a thin-film
ferromagnet, in which the oscillatory nature of the in-plane dynamics
is highlighted.
In this regime, we derive a reduced partial
differential equation (PDE) for the in-plane
magnetization dynamics under applied spin-torque, which is a
generalization of the underdamped wave-like model due to Capella,
Melcher and Otto \cite{CapellaOttoMelcher}. We then analyze the
solutions of this equation under the macrospin (spatially uniform)
approximation, and discuss the predictions of such a model in the
context of previous numerical studies of the full LLGS equation
\cite{ChavesKent15}.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we
perform an asymptotic derivation of the reduced underdamped equation
for the in-plane magnetization dynamics in a thin-film element of
arbitrary cross section, by first making a thin-film approximation to
the LLGS equation, then a weak-damping approximation. In Sec. III, we
then further reduce to a macrospin ordinary differential equation
(ODE) by spatial averaging of the underdamped PDE, and restrict to the
particular case of a soft elliptical element. A brief parametric study
of the ODE solutions is then presented, varying the spin-current
parameters. In Sec. IV, we make an analytical study of the macrospin
equation using an orbit-averaging method to reduce to a discrete
dynamical system, and compare its predictions to the full ODE
solutions. In Sec. V, we seek to understand transitions between the
different solution trajectories (and thus predict current-parameter
values when the system will either switch or precess) by studying the
discrete dynamical system derived in Sec. IV. Finally, we summarize
our findings in Sec. VI.
\section{Reduced model}
We consider a domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3$ occupied by a ferromagnetic
film with cross-section $D\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and thickness $d$, i.e.,
$\Omega = D \times (0, d)$.
Under the influence of a spin-polarized electric current applied perpendicular to the film plane, the magnetization vector $\v{m}=\v{m}(\v{r},t)$, with $|\v{m}|=1$ in $\Omega$ and $0$ outside, satisfies the LLGS equation (in SI units)
\beq
\pd{\v{m}}{t} = - \gamma\mu_0\v{m} \times \v{H}_{\text{eff}} + {\alpha} \v{m} \times \pd{\v{m}}{t} + {\tau_{\text{STT}}}
\eeq
in $\Omega$, with ${\partial \v{m}}/{\partial n}=(\v{n}\cdot\nabla)\v{m}=0$ on $\partial \Omega$, where $\v{n}$ is the outward unit normal to $\partial \Omega$.
In the above, $\alpha > 0$ is the Gilbert damping parameter, $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $\mu_0$ is the permeability of free space,
$
\v{H}_{\text{eff}} = -\frac{1}{\mu_0M_s}\frac{\delta E}{\delta \v{m}}
$
is the effective magnetic field,
\begin{multline}
E(\v{m}) = \int_\Omega \Big(A |\nabla \v{m}|^2 + K \Phi(\v{m}) - \mu_0 M_s \v{H}_{\text{ext}}\cdot\v{m}) \Big)\d^3 r\\
+ \mu_0 M_s^2 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{\nabla \cdot \v{m}(\v{r})\nabla \cdot \v{m}(\v{r'})}{8\pi |\v{r}-\v{r}'|}\d^3 r \d^3 r'
\end{multline}
is the micromagnetic energy with exchange constant $A$, anisotropy
constant $K$, crystalline anisotropy function $\Phi$, external
magnetic field $\v{H}_{\text{ext}}$, and saturation magnetization
$M_s$. Additionally, the Slonczewski spin-transfer torque
$\tau_\text{STT}$ is given by \beq \tau_\text{STT} = -\frac{\eta
\gamma \hbar j}{2 d e M_s} \v{m} \times\v{m} \times \v{p}, \eeq
where $j$ is the density of current passing perpendicularly through
the film, $e$ is the elementary charge (positive), $\v{p}$ is the
spin-polarization direction, and $\eta \in(0,1]$ is the
spin-polarization efficiency.
We now seek to nondimensionalize the above system. Let
\beq
\ell = \sqrt{\frac{2A}{\mu_0M_s^2}}, \quad Q = \frac{2K}{\mu_0M_s^2}, \quad \v{h}_{\text{ext}} = \frac{\v{H}_{\text{ext}}}{ M_s}.
\eeq
We then rescale space and time as
\beq
\v{r} \to \ell \v{r}, \quad t \to \frac{t}{\gamma \mu_0 M_s}
\eeq
obtaining the nondimensional form
\beq
\pd{\v{m}}{t} = -\v{m} \times \v{h}_{\text{eff}} + \alpha \v{m} \times \pd{\v{m}}{t} - \beta \v{m} \times\v{m} \times \v{p},
\label{LLG}
\eeq where $\v{h}_{\text{eff}} = \v{H}_{\text{eff}}/M_s$, and \beq
\beta = \frac{\eta \hbar j}{2 d e \mu_0M_s^2} \eeq is the
dimensionless spin-torque strength.
Since we are interested in thin films, we now assume that $\v{m}$ is
independent of the film thickness. Then, after rescaling
\beq
E\to \mu_0 M_s^2 d\ell^2 E,
\eeq
we have $\v{h}_{\text{eff}} \simeq -\frac{\delta E}{\delta \v{m}}$,
where $E$ is given by a local energy functional defined on the
(rescaled) two-dimensional domain $D$ (see, e.g., Ref. [\onlinecite{KohnSlas05Gamma}]):
\begin{multline}
E(\v{m}) \simeq \frac12 \int_D \left(|\nabla \v{m}|^2 + Q \Phi(\v{m}) - 2\v{h}_{\text{ext}} \cdot \v{m}\right) \d^2 r \\
+ \frac12 \int_D m_\perp^2 \d^2 r + \frac{1}{4\pi}\delta |\ln \lambda| \int_{\partial D} (\v{m} \cdot \v{n})^2 \d s,
\label{ThinFilmEnergy}
\end{multline}
in which now $\v{m}:D\to \mathbb{S}^2$, $m_\perp$ is its out-of-plane
component, $\delta = d/\ell$ is the dimensionless film thickness, and
$\lambda = d /L \ll 1 $ (where $L$ is the lateral size of the film) is the
film's aspect ratio. The effective field is given explicitly by
\beq
\v{h}_{\text{eff}} = \Delta \v{m} - \frac{Q}{2} \nabla_{\v{m}}\Phi(\v{m}) - m_\perp \v{e}_z + \v{h}_{\text{ext}},
\label{field}
\eeq
and $\v{m}$ satisfies equation \eqref{LLG} in $D$ with the boundary condition
\beq
\pd{\v{m}}{n} = -\frac{1}{2\pi}\delta |\ln \lambda| (\v{m} \cdot
\v{n})(\v{n} - ( \v{m}\cdot \v{n}) \, \v{m} )
\label{BCm}
\eeq on $\partial D$.
We now parametrize $\v{m}$ in terms of spherical angles as
\beq
\v{m}=(-\sin\theta \cos \phi, \cos\theta \cos \phi, \sin \phi),
\label{Mparam}
\eeq
and the current polarization direction $\v{p}$ in terms of an in-plane angle $\psi$ and its out-of-plane component $p_\perp$ as
\beq
\v{p} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+p_\perp^2}}(-\sin\psi, \cos \psi, p_\perp).
\eeq
Writing ${\beta}_* = {\beta}/\sqrt{1+p_\perp^2}$, after some algebra, one may then write equation \eqref{LLG} as the system
\begin{multline}
\pd{\phi}{t} = -\frac{1}{\cos\phi} \v{h}_{\text{eff}}\cdot \v{m}_\theta + \alpha \cos \phi \pd{\theta}{t} \\+ {\beta}_*(p_\perp \cos \phi - \sin\phi\cos(\theta-\psi)),
\end{multline}
\beq
-\cos\phi\pd{\theta}{t} = -\v{h}_{\text{eff}}\cdot \v{m}_\phi + \alpha \pd{\phi}{t} + {\beta}_*\sin(\theta-\psi),\eeq
where $\v{m}_\theta = \partial \v{m}/\partial \theta$ and $\v{m}_\phi = \partial \v{m}/\partial \phi$ for $\v{m}$ given by \eqref{Mparam}.
Again, since we are working in a soft thin film, we assume $\phi \ll 1$ and that the out-of-plane component of the effective field in equation \eqref{field} is dominated by the term $\v{h}_\text{eff} \cdot \v{e}_z \simeq - m_\perp = -\sin \phi$. Note that this assumes that the crystalline anisotropy and external field terms in the out-of-plane directions are relatively small, so we assume the external field is only in plane, though it is still possible to include a perpendicular anisotropy simply by renormalizing the constant in front of the $m_\perp$ term in $\v{h}_\text{eff}$. We then linearize the above system in $\phi$, yielding
\beq
\pd{\phi}{t} = \frac{\delta \mathcal{E}}{\delta \theta} + \alpha \pd{\theta}{t} + {\beta}_*(p_\perp - \phi \cos(\theta-\psi)),\eeq
\begin{multline} -\pd{\theta}{t} = \phi + {\beta}_*\sin(\theta-\psi)\\+ \phi(-h_x \sin\theta + h_y \cos\theta) + \alpha \pd{\phi}{t} .
\label{LLGlin2}
\end{multline}
where $h_x = \v{h}_{\text{eff}}\cdot\v{e}_x$ and $h_y = \v{h}_{\text{eff}}\cdot\v{e}_y$, and $\mathcal{E}(\theta)$ is $E(\v{m})$ evaluated at $\phi = 0$.
We now note that the last two terms in \eqref{LLGlin2} are negligible relative to $\phi$ whenever $|h_x|, |h_y|$ and $\alpha$ are small, which is true of typical clean thin-film samples of sufficiently large lateral extent. Neglecting these terms, one has
\begin{align}
\pd{\phi}{t} &= \frac{\delta \mathcal{E}}{\delta \theta} + \alpha \pd{\theta}{t} + \beta_*(p_\perp - \phi \cos(\theta-\psi)),\label{LLGunscaled1}\\
-\pd{\theta}{t} &= \beta_*\sin(\theta-\psi)+\phi.
\label{LLGunscaled2}
\end{align}
Then, differentiating \eqref{LLGunscaled2} with respect to $t$ and using the result along with \eqref{LLGunscaled2} to eliminate $\phi$ and $\pd{\phi}{t}$ from \eqref{LLGunscaled1}, we find a second-order in time equation for $\theta$:
\begin{multline}
0 = \pdd{\theta}{t} + \pd{\theta}{t}(\alpha + 2 \beta_*\cos(\theta-\psi)) +\frac{\delta \mathcal{E}}{\delta \theta} \\+ \beta_* p_\perp + \beta_*^2 \sin(\theta - \psi)\cos(\theta-\psi),
\label{reduced}
\end{multline}
where, explicitly, one has
\beq
\frac{\delta \mathcal{E}}{\delta \theta} = -\Delta \theta + \frac{Q}{2} {\tilde{\Phi}'}(\theta) + \v{h}_{\text{ext}}\cdot(\cos \theta,\sin \theta),
\eeq
and $\tilde{\Phi}(\theta) = \Phi(\v{m}(\theta))$.
In turn, from the boundary condition on $\v{m}$ in \eqref{BCm}, we can derive the boundary condition for $\theta$ as
\beq
\v{n}\cdot \nabla \theta = \frac{1}{2\pi}\delta|\ln \lambda|\sin(\theta - \varphi) \cos(\theta - \varphi),
\label{BCtheta}
\eeq
where $\varphi$ is the angle parametrizing the normal $\v{n}$ to
$\partial D$ via $\v{n} = (-\sin\varphi,\cos\varphi)$.
The model comprised of \eqref{reduced}--\eqref{BCtheta} is a
damped-driven wave-like PDE for $\theta$, which coincides with
the reduced model of Ref.~[\onlinecite{CapellaOttoMelcher}] for
vanishing spin-current density in an infinite sample. This constitutes
our reduced PDE model for magnetization dynamics in
thin-film elements under the influence of out-of-plane spin currents.
It is easy to see that all of the terms in \eqref{reduced}
balance when the parameters are chosen so as to satisfy
\beq \beta_* \sim p_\perp \sim \alpha \sim
{Q}^{1/2} \sim | \v{h}_{\text{ext}}|^{1/2} \sim
\frac{\ell}{L}\sim \delta|\ln \lambda|. \label{scalepde} \eeq
This shows that
it should be possible to rigorously obtain the reduced model in
\eqref{reduced}--\eqref{BCtheta} in the asymptotic limit of $L \to
\infty$ and $\alpha, \beta_*, p_\perp, Q, |\mathbf h_\mathrm{ext}|,
\delta \to 0$ jointly, so that \eqref{scalepde} holds.
\section{Macrospin switching}
In this section we study the behavior of the reduced model
\eqref{reduced}--\eqref{BCtheta} in the approximation that the
magnetization is spatially uniform on an elliptical domain, and
compare the solution phenomenology to that found by simulating the
LLGS equation in the same physical situation, as studied in
Ref.~[\onlinecite{ChavesKent15}].
\subsection{Derivation of macrospin model} Integrating equation
\eqref{reduced} over the domain $D$ and using the boundary condition
\eqref{BCtheta}, we have \begin{multline} \int_D \left(\pdd{\theta}{t}
+ \pd{\theta}{t}(\alpha + 2 \beta_*\cos(\theta-\psi))
\right. \\\left.+ \beta_* p_\perp+ \beta_*^2 \sin(\theta -
\psi)\cos(\theta-\psi)\right. \\\left.+ \frac{Q}{2}
{\tilde{\Phi}'}(\theta) + \v{h}_{\text{ext}}\cdot(\cos \theta,\sin
\theta) \right) \d^2 r \\= \frac{1}{2\pi}\delta|\ln \lambda|
\int_{\partial D} \sin(\theta - \varphi) \cos(\theta - \varphi) \d
s. \end{multline} Assume now that $\theta$ does not vary appreciably
across the domain $D$, which makes sense in magnetic elements that are
not too large. This allows us to replace $\theta(\v{r},t)$ by its
spatial average
$\bar{\theta}(t) = \frac{1}{|D|}\int_D\theta(\v{r},t) \d^2 r$, where
$|D|$ stands for the area of $D$ in the units of $\ell^2$. Denoting
time derivatives by overdots, and omitting the bar on $\bar{\theta}$
for notational simplicity, this spatial averaging leads to the
following ODE for $\theta(t)$:
\begin{multline} \ddot{\theta}
+\dot{\theta}\brackets{\alpha + 2\beta_* \cos(\theta-\psi)} +
\beta_*^2 \sin(\theta - \psi)\cos(\theta-\psi) \\+\beta_*
p_\perp + \frac{Q}{2} {\tilde{\Phi}'}(\theta) +
\v{h}_{\text{ext}}\cdot(\cos \theta,\sin \theta) \\=
\frac{\delta|\ln \lambda|}{4\pi |D|} \, \sin 2 \theta
\int_{\partial D} \cos (2 \varphi) \d s \\ - \frac{\delta|\ln
\lambda|}{4\pi |D|} \, \cos 2 \theta
\int_{\partial D} \sin (2 \varphi) \d s .
\label{MacrospinGeneral} \end{multline}
\begin{figure*} \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{odesols.pdf}
\caption{Solutions of macrospin equation \eqref{reducedODE} for
$\alpha=0.01$, $\Lambda=0.1$. In (a), $p_\perp=0.2$, $\sigma =0.03$:
decaying solution; in (b), $p_\perp=0.2$, $\sigma =0.06$:
limit cycle solution (the initial conditions in (a) and
(b) are $\theta(0)=3.5$, to better visualize the behavior).
In (c), $p_\perp=0.3$, $\sigma =0.08$: switching solution; in
(d), $p_\perp=0.6$, $\sigma =0.1$: precessing solution. }
\label{odesols}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Next, we consider a particular physical situation in which to study
the macrospin equation, motivated by previous work \cite{Liu2010,
Liu2012}. As in Refs.~[\onlinecite{Pinna2013, Pinna2014,
ChavesKent15}], we consider an elliptical thin-film element (recall
that lengths are now measured in the units of $\ell$):
\begin{align}
\label{eq:1}
D = \left\{ (x, y) \ : \ {x^2
\over a^2} + {y^2 \over b^2} < 1 \right\},
\end{align}
with no in-plane crystalline anisotropy, $Q=0$, and no external
field, $\v{h}_{\text{ext}}=0$. We take the long axis of the ellipse to
be aligned with the $\v{e}_y$-direction, i.e. $b > a$, with the
in-plane component of current polarization also aligned along this
direction, i.e.,
taking $\psi =0$. One can then compute the integral over the boundary in
equation \eqref{MacrospinGeneral} explicitly, leading to the equation
\begin{multline}
\ddot{\theta} +\dot{\theta}\brackets{\alpha + \beta_*
\cos\theta} + \Lambda \sin \theta\cos\theta \\+ \beta_*^2 \sin\theta\cos\theta+\beta_* p_\perp = 0,
\end{multline}
where we introduced the geometric parameter $0 < \Lambda \ll 1$
obtained by an explicit integration:
\beq
\Lambda = \frac{\delta|\ln \lambda|}{2\pi^2
ab} \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{b^2 \cos^2 \tau - a^2\sin^2 \tau}{\sqrt{b^2 \cos^2
\tau + a^2\sin^2 \tau}} \d \tau. \eeq This may be computed in
terms of elliptic integrals, though the expression is cumbersome so we
omit it here. Importantly, up to a factor depending only on the
eccentricity the value of $\Lambda$ is given by
\beq
\Lambda \sim \frac{d}{L} \ln \frac{L}{d}.
\eeq
For example, for an
elliptical nanomagnet with dimensions $100 \times 30 \times 2.5$ nm
(similar to those considered in Ref.~[\onlinecite{ChavesKent15}]),
this yields $\Lambda \simeq 0.1$.
It is convenient to rescale time by $\sqrt{\Lambda}$ and divide
through by $\Lambda$, yielding
\begin{multline}
\ddot{\theta} +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}\dot{\theta}\brackets{\alpha + 2\sigma \Lambda \cos\theta} + \sin\theta \cos \theta \\+ \sigma p_\perp+\sigma^2 \Lambda \sin\theta \cos\theta = 0,
\label{reducedODE}
\end{multline}
where we introduced $\sigma = \beta_*/\Lambda$. We then apply this
ODE to model the problem of switching of the thin-film elements,
taking the initial in-plane magnetization direction to be static and
aligned along the easy axis, antiparallel to the in-plane component of
the spin-current polarization. Thus, we take \beq \theta(0)=\pi,\quad
\dot{\theta}(0) = 0,
\label{ICMacro}
\eeq
and study the resulting initial value problem.
\subsection{Solution phenomenology}
Let us briefly investigate the solution phenomenology as the
dimensionless spin-current parameters $\sigma$ and $p_\perp$ are
varied, with the material parameters, $\alpha$ and $\Lambda$, fixed.
We take all parameters to be constant in time for simplicity. We find,
by numerical integration, 4 types of solution to the initial value
problem defined above. The sample solution curves are displayed in
Fig. \ref{odesols} below. The first (panel (a)) occurs for small
values of $\sigma$, and consists simply of oscillations of $\theta$
around a fixed point close to the long axis of the ellipse, which
decay in amplitude towards the fixed point, without switching.
Secondly (panel (b)), still below the switching threshold, the same
oscillations about the fixed point can reach a finite fixed amplitude
and persist without switching. This behavior corresponds to the
onset of relatively small amplitude
limit-cycle oscillations around the fixed point.
Thirdly (panel (c)), increasing either $\sigma, p_\perp$ or both, we obtain switching solutions. These have initial oscillations in $\theta$ about the fixed point near $\pi$, which increase in amplitude, and eventually cross the short axis of the ellipse at $\theta=\pi/2$. Then $\theta$ oscillates about the fixed point near 0, and the oscillations decay in amplitude toward the fixed point.
Finally (panel (d)), further increasing $\sigma$ and $p_\perp$ we obtain precessing solutions. Here, the initial oscillations about the fixed point near $\pi$ quickly grow to cross $\pi/2$, after which $\theta$ continues to decrease for all $t$, the magnetization making full precessions around the out-of-plane axis.
\section{Half-period orbit-averaging approach}
We now seek to gain some analytical insight into the transitions
between the solution types discussed above. We do this by averaging
over half-periods of the oscillations observed in the solutions to
generate a discrete dynamical system which describes the evolution of
the energy of a solution $\theta(t)$ on half-period time intervals.
Firstly, we observe that in the relevant parameter regimes the reduced
equation \eqref{reducedODE} can be seen as a weakly perturbed
Hamiltonian system. We consider both $\alpha$ and $\Lambda$ small,
with $\alpha \lesssim \sqrt{\Lambda}$, and assume
$\sigma \sim \alpha/\Lambda$ and $\sigma p_\perp \lesssim 1$. The
arguments below can be rigorously justified by considering, for
example, the limit $\Lambda \to 0$ while assuming that
$\alpha = O(\Lambda)$ and that the values of $\sigma$ and $p_\perp$
are fixed. This limit may be achieved in the original model by sending
jointly $d \to 0$ and $L \to \infty$, while
keeping\cite{KohnSlas05Gamma}
\begin{align}
{L d \over \ell^2} \ln {L \over d} \lesssim 1.
\end{align}
The last condition ensures the consistency of the assumption that
$\theta$ does not vary appreciably throughout $D$.
Introducing
$\omega(t) = \dot{\theta}(t)$,
\eqref{reducedODE} can be written to leading order as
\beq
\dot{\theta} = \pd{\mathcal{H}}{\omega}, \quad \dot{\omega} = -
\pd{\mathcal{H}}{\theta},
\label{HAMILTONIANSYSTEM}
\eeq where we introduced \beq \mathcal{H} = \frac12 \omega^2 +V(\theta),
\quad V(\theta) = \frac12{\sin^2
\theta} +{\sigma p_\perp \theta}.
\label{DEFINEHAMILTONIAN}
\eeq At the next order, the effects of finite $\alpha$ and $\Lambda$
appear in the first-derivative term in \eqref{reducedODE}, while the
other forcing term is still higher order. The behavior of
\eqref{reducedODE} is therefore that of a weakly damped Hamiltonian
system with Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$, with the effects of $\alpha$ and
$\sigma$ serving to slowly change the value of $\mathcal{H}$ as the system
evolves. Thus, we now employ the technique of orbit-averaging to
reduce the problem further to the discrete dynamics of $\mathcal{H}(t)$,
where the discrete time-steps are equal (to the leading order) to
half-periods of the underlying Hamiltonian dynamics (which thus vary
with
$\mathcal{H}$).
Let us first compute the continuous-in-time dynamics of $\mathcal{H}$. From \eqref{DEFINEHAMILTONIAN},
\beq
\dot{\mathcal{H}} = \omega(\dot \omega + V'(\theta)),
\eeq
which vanishes to leading order. At the next order, from \eqref{reducedODE}, one has
\beq
\dot{\mathcal{H}} = -\frac{\omega^2}{\sqrt\Lambda}(\alpha + 2 \sigma \Lambda \cos\theta).
\label{DYNAMICSOFHAM}
\eeq
We now seek to average this dynamics over the Hamiltonian orbits. The general nature of the Hamiltonian orbits is either oscillations around a local minimum of $V(\theta)$ (limit cycles) or persistent precessions. If the local minimum of $V$ is close to an even multiple of $\pi$, $\mathcal{H}$ cannot increase, while if it is close to an odd multiple then $\mathcal{H}$ can increase if $\sigma$ is large enough. The switching process involves moving from the oscillatory orbits close to one of these odd minima, up the energy landscape, then jumping to oscillatory orbits around the neighboring even minimum, and decreasing in energy towards the new local fixed point.
We focus first on the oscillatory orbits. We may define their half-periods as
\beq
T(\mathcal{H}) = \int_{\theta^*_-}^{\theta^*_+}\frac{\d\theta}{\dot{\theta}},
\label{PERIODOSCILLATORY}
\eeq
where $\theta_-^*$ and $\theta_+^*$ are the roots of the equation $V(\theta)=\mathcal{H}$ to the left and right of the local minimum of $V(\theta)$ about which $\theta(t)$ oscillates. To compute this integral, we assume that ${\theta(t)}$ follows the Hamiltonian trajectory:
\beq
\dot{\theta} = \pm \sqrt{2(\mathcal{H} - V(\theta))}.
\label{traj}
\eeq We then define the half-period average of a function $f(\theta(t))$ as \beq
\avg{f} = \frac{1}{T(\mathcal{H})}
\int_{\theta^*_-}^{\theta^*_+}\frac{f(\theta)
\d\theta}{\sqrt{2(\mathcal{H} -
V(\theta))}}, \eeq which agrees with the time average over
half-period to the leading order. Note that this formula applies
irrespectively of whether the
trajectory connects $\theta^*_-$ to $\theta^*_+$ or $\theta^*_+$ to
$\theta^*_-$. Applying this averaging to $\dot{\mathcal{H}}$, we then have
\beq \avg{\dot{\mathcal{H}}} = -\frac{1}{
T(\mathcal{H})}\int_{\theta^*_-}^{\theta^*_+} \chi(\theta,\mathcal{H}) \d
\theta,
\label{AVERAGEDDYNAMICS}
\eeq where we defined \beq \chi(\theta,\mathcal{H}) = \frac{\brackets{\alpha
+ 2 \sigma \Lambda \cos \theta}\sqrt{2(\mathcal{H} - V(\theta))}
}{\sqrt{\Lambda}}. \eeq
If the value of $\mathcal{H}$ is such that either of the roots $\theta^*_\pm$
no longer exist, this indicates that the system is now on a
precessional trajectory. In order to account for this, we can define
the period on a precessional trajectory instead as
\beq
T(\mathcal{H}) = \int_{\theta_C - \pi}^{\theta_C}\frac{\d\theta}{\dot{\theta}},
\label{PERIODPRECESSIONAL}
\eeq where $\theta_C$ is a local maximum of $V(\theta)$. On the
precessional trajectories, we then have \beq \avg{\dot{\mathcal{H}}} = -
\frac{1}{ T(\mathcal{H})}\int_{\theta_C-\pi}^{\theta_C} \chi(\theta,\mathcal{H}) \d
\theta. \eeq
In order to approximate the ODE solutions, we now decompose the
dynamics of $\mathcal{H}$ into half-period time intervals.
We thus take, at the $n$'th timestep, $\mathcal{H}_n = \mathcal{H}(t_n)$, $t_{n+1} =
t_n + T(\mathcal{H}_n)$ and
\beq
\mathcal{H}_{n+1} = \mathcal{H}_n - \int_{\theta^*_-(\mathcal{H}_n)}^{\theta^*_+(\mathcal{H}_n)} \chi(\theta,\mathcal{H}_n) \d \theta,
\label{discretemap}
\eeq if $\mathcal{H}_n$ corresponds to a limit cycle trajectory. The same
discrete map applies to precessional trajectories, but with the
integration limits replaced with $\theta_C - \pi$ and $\theta_C$,
respectively.
\subsection{Modelling switching with discrete map}
In order to model switching starting from inside a well of $V(\theta)$, we can iterate the discrete map above, starting from an initial energy $\mathcal{H}_0$. We choose $\mathcal{H}_0$ by choosing a static initial condition $\theta(0)=\theta_0$ close to an odd multiple of $\pi$ (let us assume without loss of generality that we are close to $\pi$), and computing $\mathcal{H}_0 = V(\theta_0)$.
On the oscillatory trajectories, the discrete map then predicts the
maximum amplitudes of oscillation ($\theta^*_\pm(\mathcal{H}_n)$) at each
timestep, by locally solving $\mathcal{H}_n = V(\theta)$ for each $n$. After
some number of iterations, the trajectory will escape the local
potential well, and one or both roots of $\mathcal{H}_n = V(\theta)$ will not
exist. Due to the positive average slope of $V(\theta)$ the most
likely direction for a trajectory to escape the potential well is
$\dot{\theta}<0$ (`downhill'). Assuming this to be the case, at some
timestep $t_N$, it will occur that the equation
$\mathcal{H}_N = V(\theta)$ has only one root
$\theta = \theta^*_+ > \pi$, implying that the trajectory has
escaped the potential well, and will proceed on a precessional
trajectory in a negative direction past $\theta=\pi/2$ towards
$\theta=0$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{averaged-switching.pdf}
\caption{Switching solution (blue line) and its discrete
approximation (green circles). Parameters: $\alpha=0.01$,
$\Lambda=0.1$, $p_\perp = 0.3$, $\sigma=0.08$. Panel (a) shows
the solution $\theta(t)$, and panel (b) shows the trajectory for
this solution in the $\mathcal{H}-\theta$ plane.
The red line in (b) shows $V(\theta)$.}
\label{averaged-switching}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
To distinguish whether a trajectory results in switching or precession, we then perform a single half-period step on the precessional orbit from $\theta_C$ to $\theta_C - \pi$, and check whether $\mathcal{H} < V(\theta_C-\pi)$: if this is the case, the trajectory moves back to the oscillatory orbits around the well close to $\theta=0$, and decreases in energy towards the fixed point near $\theta=0$, representing switching. If however $\mathcal{H} > V(\theta_C-\pi)$ after the precessional half-period, the solution will continue to precess.
In Fig. \ref{averaged-switching} below, we display the result of such
an iterated application of the discrete map, for the same parameters
as the switching solution given in Fig. \ref{odesols}(c). In Fig.
\ref{averaged-switching}(a), the continuous curve represents the
solution to \eqref{reducedODE}, and the points are the predicted peaks
of the oscillations, from the discrete map \eqref{discretemap}. Fig.
\ref{averaged-switching}(b) shows the energy of the same solution as a
function of $\theta$.
Again the blue curve gives $\mathcal{H}(t)$ for the ODE solution, the green points are the prediction of the iterated discrete map, and the red curve is $V(\theta)$. The discrete map predicts the switching behavior quite well, only suffering some error near the switching event, when the change of $\mathcal{H}$ is significant on a single period.
\subsection{Modelling precession}
Here we apply the discrete map to a precessional solution---one in
which the trajectory, once it escapes the potential well near $\pi$,
does not get trapped in the next well, and continues to rotate. Fig.
\ref{averaged-precession}(a) below displays such a solution
$\theta(t)$ and its discrete approximation, and Fig.
\ref{averaged-precession}(b) displays the energy of the same solution.
Again, the prediction of the discrete map is excellent.
\section{Transitions in trajectories}
In this section we seek to understand the transitions between the trapping, switching, and precessional regimes as the current parameters $\sigma$ and $p_\perp$ are varied.
\subsection{Escape Transition}
Firstly, let us consider the transition from states which are trapped
in a single potential well, such as those in Figs. \ref{odesols}(a,b),
to states which can escape and either switch or precess. Effectively,
the absolute threshold for this transition is for the value of $\mathcal{H}$
to be able to increase for some value $\theta$ close to the minimum of
$V(\theta)$ near $\pi$. Thus, we consider the equation of motion
\eqref{DYNAMICSOFHAM} for $\mathcal{H}$, and wish to find parameter values
such that $\dot{\mathcal{H}} > 0$ for some $\theta$ near $\pi$. This
requires that \beq \frac{\omega^2}{\sqrt\Lambda}(\alpha + 2 \sigma
\Lambda \cos \theta) < 0. \eeq Assuming that $\omega \neq 0$, we can
see that the optimal value of $\theta$ to hope to satisfy this
condition is $\theta=\pi$, yielding a theoretical minimum
$\sigma = \sigma_s$
for the
dimensionless current density for motion to be possible, with
\beq \sigma_s = \frac{\alpha}{2\Lambda}. \eeq This is similar to
the critical switching currents derived in previous work
\cite{Pinna2013}. We then require $\sigma > \sigma_s$ for the
possibility of switching or precession. Note that this estimate is
independent of the value of $p_\perp$.
\subsection{Switching--Precessing Transition}
We now consider the transition from switching to precessional states.
This is rather sensitive and there is not in general a sharp
transition from switching to precession. It is due to the fact
that for certain parameters, the path that the trajectory takes once
it escapes the potential well depends on how much energy it has as it
does so. In fact, for a fixed $\alpha, \Lambda$, and values of
$\sigma > \sigma_s$
we can separate the $(\sigma, p_\perp)$-parameter space into three
regions: (i) after escaping the initial well, the trajectory
always falls into the next well, and thus switches; (ii) after
escaping, the trajectory may either switch or precess depending on its
energy as it does so (and thus depending on its initial condition);
(iii) after escaping, the trajectory completely passes the next well,
and thus begins to
precess.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{averaged-precession.pdf}
\caption{Precessing solution (blue line) and its discrete
approximation (green circles). Parameters: $\alpha=0.01$,
$\Lambda=0.1$, $p_\perp = 0.6$, $\sigma=0.1$. Panel (a) shows the
solution $\theta(t)$, and panel (b) shows the trajectory for
this solution in the $\mathcal{H}-\theta$ plane. The red line in
(b) shows $V(\theta)$.}
\label{averaged-precession}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
We can determine in which region of the parameter space a given point $(\sigma,p_\perp)$ lies by studying the discrete map \eqref{discretemap} close to the peaks of $V(\theta)$. Assume that the trajectory begins at $\theta(0) = \pi$, and is thus initially in the potential well spanning the interval $\pi/2 \leq \theta \leq 3\pi/2$. Denote by $\theta_C$ the point close to $\theta=\pi/2$ at which $V(\theta)$ has a local maximum.
It is simple to compute
\beq
\theta_C = \frac{\pi}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \sin^{-1}(2\sigma p_\perp).
\eeq
Moreover, it is easy to see that all other local maxima of $V(\theta)$ are given by $\theta = \theta_C + k\pi$, for $k\in \mathbb{Z}$.
We now consider trajectories which escape the initial well by crossing $\theta_C$.
These trajectories have, for some value of the timestep $n$ while still confined in the initial well, an energy value $\mathcal{H}_n$ in the range
\beq
\mathcal{H}_{\text{\scriptsize{trap}}} < \mathcal{H}_n < V(\theta_C+\pi),
\label{range}
\eeq
where we define $\mathcal{H}_{\text{\scriptsize{trap}}}$ to be the value of $\mathcal{H}_n$ such that the discrete map \eqref{discretemap} gives $\mathcal{H}_{n+1} = V(\theta_C)$. We thus have $\mathcal{H}_{n+1} > V(\theta_C)$. In order to check whether the trajectory switches or precesses, we then compute $\mathcal{H}_{n+2}$ and compare it to $V(\theta_C-\pi)$. We may then classify the trajectories as switching if $\mathcal{H}_{n+2} - V(\theta_C-\pi) < 0$, and precessional if $\mathcal{H}_{n+2} - V(\theta_C-\pi) > 0$.
Figure \ref{prec_v_switch} displays a plot of
$\mathcal{H}_n - V(\theta_C+\pi)$ against $\mathcal{H}_{n+2} - V(\theta_C-\pi)$. The
blue line shows the result of applying the discrete map, while the red
line is the identity line. Values of $\mathcal{H}_n-V(\theta_C+\pi)$ which
are inside the range specified in \eqref{range} are thus on the
negative $x$-axis here. We can classify switching trajectories as
those for which the blue line lies below the $x$-axis, and precessing
trajectories as those which lie above. In Fig. \ref{prec_v_switch},
the parameters are such that both of these trajectory types are
possible, depending on the initial value of $\mathcal{H}_n$, and thus this
set of parameters are in region (ii) of the parameter space. We note
that, since the curve of blue points and the identity line intersect
for some large enough value of $\mathcal{H}$, this figure implies that if the
trajectory has enough energy to begin precessing, then after several
precessions the trajectory will converge to one which conserves energy
on average over a precessional period (indicated by the arrows). In
region (i) of the parameter space, the portion of the blue line for
$\mathcal{H}_n - V(\theta_C+\pi) < 0$ would have
$\mathcal{H}_{n+2} - V(\theta_C-\pi) <0$, while in region (iii), they would
all have $\mathcal{H}_{n+2} - V(\theta_C-\pi) >0$.
We can classify the parameter regimes for which switching in the opposite direction (i.e. $\theta$ switches from $\pi$ to $2\pi$) is possible in a similar way. It is not possible to have a precessional trajectory moving in this direction ($\dot\theta >0$), though.
We may then predict, for a given point $(\sigma, p_\perp)$ in
parameter space, by computing relations similar to that in Fig.
\ref{prec_v_switch}, which region that point is in, and thus generate
a theoretical phase diagram.
In Fig. \ref{phase} below, we display the phase diagram in the
$(\sigma, p_\perp)$-parameter space, showing the end results of
solving the ODE \eqref{reducedODE} as a background color, together
with predictions of the bounding curves of the three regions of the
space, made using the procedure described above. The predictions of
the discrete map, while not perfect, are quite good, and provide
useful estimates on the different regions of parameter space. In
particular, we note that the region where downhill switching reliably
occurs (the portion of region (i) above the dashed black line) is
estimated quite well. We would also note that we would expect the
predictions of the discrete map to improve if the values of $\Lambda$
and $\alpha$ were decreased.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth,trim=40 0 0 20, clip=true]{prec_v_sw-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Precession vs switching prediction from the discrete map. Parameters: $\alpha=0.01$, $\Lambda=0.1$, $p_\perp = 0.35$, $\sigma=0.08$. Values of $\mathcal{H}_n-V(\theta_C+\pi)$ to the left of the dashed line switch after the next period, the trajectory becoming trapped in the well around $\theta=0$. Values to the right begin to precess, and converge to a precessional fixed point of the discrete map.}
\label{prec_v_switch}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth, trim=20 0 0 20,clip=true]{phase_diag-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Macrospin solution phase diagram: $\alpha=0.01, \Lambda=0.1$.
The background color indicates the result of solving the ODE
\eqref{reducedODE} with initial condition \eqref{ICMacro}: the dark
region to the left of the figure indicates solutions which do not
escape their initial potential well, and the vertical dashed white
line shows the computed value of the minimum current required to
escape, $\sigma_s = \alpha/(2\Lambda)$. The black band represents
solutions which decay, like in Fig. \ref{odesols}(a),
while the dark grey band represents solutions like in
Fig. \ref{odesols}(b). In the rest of the figure, the green points
indicate switching in the negative direction like in
Fig. \ref{odesols}(c), grey indicate switching in the positive
direction, and white indicates precession like in
Fig. \ref{odesols}(d).
The solid black curves are the predictions of boundaries of the
regions (as indicated in the figure) by using the discrete map, and
the dashed line is the prediction of the boundary below which
switching in the positive direction is possible. }
\label{phase}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We have derived an underdamped PDE model for
magnetization dynamics in thin films subject to perpendicular applied
spin-polarized currents, valid in the asymptotic regime of small
$\alpha$ and $\Lambda$, corresponding to weak damping and strong
penalty for out-of-plane magnetizations. We have examined the
predictions of this model applied to the case of an elliptical
film under a macrospin approximation by using an orbit-averaging
approach. We found that they qualitatively agree quite well with
previous simulations using full LLGS dynamics \cite{ChavesKent15}.
The benefits of our reduced model are that they should faithfully
reproduce the oscillatory nature of the in-plane magnetization
dynamics, reducing computational expense compared to full
micromagnetic simulations. In particular, in
sufficiently small and thin magnetic
elements the problem further reduces to a single
second-order scalar equation.
The orbit-averaging approach taken here enables the investigation of
the transition from switching to precession via a simple discrete
dynamical system. The regions in parameter space where either
switching or precession are predicted, as well as an intermediate
region where the end result depends sensitively on initial conditions.
It may be possible to further probe this region by including either
spatial variations in the magnetization (which, in an earlier study
\cite{ChavesKent15} were observed to simply `slow down' the dynamics
and increase the size of the switching region), or by including
thermal noise, which could result in instead a phase diagram
predicting switching probabilities at a given temperature, or both.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
Research at NJIT was supported in part by NSF via Grant No.
DMS-1313687. Research at NYU was
supported in part by NSF via Grant No.
DMR-1309202.
|
\section{Introduction.}
The chiral magnetic effect (CME) has been widely discussed recently in different contexts both within the continuous quantum field theory and in the condensed matter physics. The CME for the case, when the left - handed and the right - handed fermions are truly separated was first discussed in \cite{Vilenkin}. In the context of quantum field theory the existence of chiral magnetic effect was considered in \cite{CME}, followed by a number of papers (see, for example, \cite{Kharzeev:2013ffa,Kharzeev:2009pj} and references therein). In particular, CME has been discussed using a different technique in the Fermi liquids \cite{SonYamamoto2012}.
The possible existence of the chiral magnetic contribution to conductivity was proposed in \cite{Nielsen:1983rb}, and was discussed later in a number of papers. The experimental observation of this contribution to conductivity in the recently discovered Dirac semimetals was reported in \cite{ZrTe5}. Notice, that from our point of view such a chiral magnetic contribution to conductivity should be distinguished from the equilibrium CME \cite{CME}. During the calculation of the chiral magnetic contribution to ordinary conductivity in \cite{Nielsen:1983rb,ZrTe5} the chiral imbalance appears as a pure kinetic phenomenon, and the final expression for the CME current is proportional to the squared magnetic field and, in addition, to electric field. At the same time in the equilibrium CME the nondissipative current is linear in magnetic field and is predicted to appear without any external electric field. Therefore, the linear response theory to be considered in the present paper, strictly speaking, does not describe the chiral magnetic contribution to conductivity. Thus we will concentrate on the equilibrium CME.
The family of the non - dissipative transport effects being the cousins of the CME has also been widely discussed recently both in the context of the high energy physics and in the context of condensed matter theory \cite{Landsteiner:2012kd,semimetal_effects7,Gorbar:2015wya,Miransky:2015ava,Valgushev:2015pjn,Buividovich:2015ara,Buividovich:2015ara,Buividovich:2014dha,Buividovich:2013hza}. The possible appearance of such effects in the recently discovered Dirac and Weyl semimetals has been considered \cite{semimetal_effects6,semimetal_effects10,semimetal_effects11,semimetal_effects12,semimetal_effects13,Zyuzin:2012tv,tewary}.
In the context of the high energy physics the possibility to observe CME in relativistic heavy - ion collisions was widely discussed (see, for example, \cite{Kharzeev:2015znc,Kharzeev:2009mf,Kharzeev:2013ffa} and references therein). Certain lattice calculations seem to confirm indirectly this possibility \cite{Polikarp}.
In several publications the existence of equilibrium CME was questioned. In particular, in \cite{Valgushev:2015pjn,Buividovich:2015ara,Buividovich:2015ara,Buividovich:2014dha,Buividovich:2013hza} using different numerical methods the CME current was investigated in the context of lattice field theory. It was argued, that the equilibrium bulk CME does not exist, but close to the boundary of the system the nonzero CME current may appear. It was demonstrated, that in the given systems the integrated total CME current remains zero. The similar conclusion was drawn in \cite{Gorbar:2015wya} basing on the consideration of the system of finite size with the special boundary conditions in the direction of the external magnetic field. The consideration of \cite{Gorbar:2015wya}, however, does not refer to the systems, which do not have boundaries or, say, have the form of a circle with magnetic field directed along the circle. In the context of condensed matter theory the absence of CME was reported within the particular model of Weyl semimetal \cite{nogo}. Besides, it was argued, that the equilibrium CME may contradict to the no - go Bloch theorem \cite{nogo2}.
In the present paper we consider CME on the basis of Wigner transformation technique \cite{Wigner,star} applied to Green functions. First of all, we demonstrate, that the derivative expansion within this technique allows to reduce the expression for the linear response of electric current to the external field strength to the momentum space topological invariant. The power of this method is demonstrated on the example of the 2+1 D quantum Hall effect (QHE), where it allows to derive in a simple way the conventional expression for Hall conductivity \cite{Volovik2003}. Momentum space topology is a powerful method, which was developed earlier mainly within condensed matter theory. In addition to the ordinary quantum Hall effect it allows to describe in a simple way a lot of the other effects (for the review see \cite{Volovik2003,Volovik:2011kg}). Recently certain aspects of momentum space topology were discussed in the framework of the four - dimensional lattice gauge theory \cite{VZ2012,Z2012}. Here we derive the expression for the linear response of the electric current to the external magnetic field in the wide class of the $3+1$ D fermionic systems, which includes popular lattice regularizations of continuum quantum field theory and the models of discovered recently Dirac semimetals.
Strictly speaking, our calculations remain unambiguous only for the systems with the Green functions that do not have poles (or zeros). It appears, that like in the $2+1$ D case the resulting $3+1$ D response of electric current to the external magnetic field is proportional to the topological invariant in momentum space. Unlike the case of the naive continuum fermions, for the wide class of the lattice regularizations of quantum field theory (and for the certain models of Dirac semimetals) the mentioned topological invariant vanishes for the nonzero chiral chemical potential. This means, that the equilibrium bulk CME current is absent in the properly regularized quantum field theory and in the discussed models of Dirac semimetals.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \ref{SectCont} we start the discussion of the linear response of electric current to external electromagnetic field using continuum formulation. The Wigner transform of the two - point Green function is defined in Sect. \ref{SectWignCont}. The main equation obeyed by this object is proved in Appendix A. In Section \ref{SectGradCont} we present the gradient expansion for the Wigner transform of the Green function. The linear response of the electric current to external gauge field is considered in Sect. \ref{SectLinCont}. It appears, that the resulting expression is divergent and requires regularization.
In Sect. \ref{SectLat} we consider lattice regularization. In Sect. \ref{SectGaugeLat} we discuss lattice theory of general form, which allows to describe not only the lattice regularization of the continuum quantum field theory, but also the tight - binding like models of solid state physics. We propose the unusual way to introduce the external gauge field to the lattice model. This method allows to deal with the theory written in momentum space, which is important for our further considerations. The proposed method is manifestly gauge invariant, and it is obviously reduced to the conventional minimal connection of theory with the gauge field in continuum limit. Therefore, it allows to introduce effectively the gauge field both into the lattice regularization of quantum field theory and to the models of the solid state physics. In Sect. \ref{SectWignLat} the Wigner transform of the lattice two - point Green function in momentum space is discussed. It appears, that it obeys the same equation as its continuum counterpart. This is proved in Appendix B. In Sect. \ref{SectLinLat} the linear response of the electric current to the external gauge field is derived for the lattice theory. It appears, that the resulting expression represents the direct lattice discretization of the corresponding continuum expression as expected. This expression is, in turn, a topological invariant in momentum space. This is proved in Appendix C. In Sect. \ref{SectHall} the celebrated expression for the Hall current is reproduced using the proposed technique. In Sect. \ref{SectCME} we finally discuss the chiral magnetic effect. In Sect. \ref{Sectmu5} we consider the introduction of the chiral chemical potential into the Green function. In Sect. \ref{Sectmu51} the conventional massive lattice fermions are considered while in Sect. \ref{Sectmu52} the marginal models of massive lattice fermions are discussed. In Sect. \ref{Sectmassless} the models with massless fermions are considered. We demonstrated, that in all considered models the bulk CME is absent. In Sect. \ref{SectConcl} we end with the conclusions.
\section{Continuum theory}
\label{SectCont}
\subsection{Wigner transform of the Green function.}
\label{SectWignCont}
In the present section we recall some of the basic notions of the Wigner (Weyl) transform. For the more details see, for example, \cite{berezin} and Appendix B in \cite{Weyl}. Next, we will apply those notions to the two point Green function of a non - interacting fermion system in the presence of external gauge field.
Let us consider the $d+1 = D$ dimensional continuum model with the fermionic Green function ${\cal G}({\bf p})$ that depends on the $D$ vector ${\bf p} = (p_1,...,p_D)$ of Euclidean momentum. (The Wick rotation has been performed.) When interactions between the fermions are neglected, the external electromagnetic field ${\bf A}({\bf r})$ may be taken into account through the Hermitian operator - valued function $\hat{\cal Q}({\bf r},\hat{\bf p}) = {\cal G}^{-1}(\hat{\bf p}-{\bf A}({\bf r}))$, where $\hat{\bf p}= - i \partial_{\bf r}$. Operators $\hat{p}_i - A_i({\bf r})$ and $\hat{p}_j - A_j({\bf r})$ do not commute for $i \ne j$. Therefore, we should point out the way of their ordering inside $\hat{\cal Q}$. We choose the following way for definiteness: each product $p_{i_1} ... p_{i_n}$ in the expansion of ${\cal G}^{-1}$ is substituted by the symmetrized product $\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{\rm permutations} (\hat{p}_{i_1}-A_{i_1}) ... (\hat{p}_{i_n}-A_{i_n})$. This way of ordering corresponds to the so - called symmetrical (or, Wigner) quantization according to \cite{berezin}. The resulting function $\hat{\cal Q}$ enters the functional integral representation for the Euclidean partition function
\begin{equation}
Z = \int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \, {\rm exp}\Big( - \int d^D {\bf r} \bar{\Psi}({\bf r})\hat{Q}({\bf r},\hat{\bf p})\Psi({\bf r}) \Big)
\end{equation}
Here $\Psi$, $\bar{\Psi}$ are the Grassmann - valued continuum fermionic fields. In the presence of the gauge field the Green function appears as a correlator
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2)&=& \frac{1}{Z}\int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \,\bar{\Psi}({\bf r}_2)\Psi({\bf r}_1)\nonumber\\ &&{\rm exp}\Big( - \int d^D {\bf r} \bar{\Psi}({\bf r})\hat{Q}({\bf r},\hat{\bf p})\Psi({\bf r}) \Big)
\end{eqnarray}
It obeys equation
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}({\bf r}_1,-i \partial_{{\bf r}_1})G({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) = \delta^{(D)}({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)\label{QG}
\end{equation}
Wigner transform \cite{Wigner} of the Green function is defined as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p}) = \int d^D{\bf r} e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} G({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2,{\bf R}-{\bf r}/2)\label{W}
\end{equation}
In Appendix A the Groenewold equation \cite{Weyl} for the function $\tilde{G}$ is derived
\begin{eqnarray}
1 &=& {\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p})*\tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p})\nonumber\\ && \equiv {\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p})e^{\frac{i}{2}(\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p} - \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf p}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R})}\tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p}) \label{id000}
\end{eqnarray}
Here function $\cal Q$ represents the so - called Weyl symbol of operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ being the Wigner transform of its matrix elements \cite{Weyl,berezin}. It depends on the real numbers rather than on the operators. The explicit form of the relation between $\cal Q$ and $\hat{\cal Q}$ is given in Appendix A. Here we will need only the following property of the correspondence between $\hat{\cal Q}$ and $\cal Q$. If $\hat{\cal Q}$ has the form of a function ${\cal G}^{-1}$ of the combination $(\hat{\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r}))$ with a gauge potential ${\bf A}({\bf r})$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}({\bf r},\hat{\bf p}) = {\cal G}^{-1}(\hat{\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r}))\label{Q000}
\end{equation}
then we have
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}({\bf r},{\bf p}) = {\cal G}^{-1}({\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r})) + O([\partial_i A_j]^2)\label{QF}
\end{equation}
Here $O([\partial_i A_j]^2)$ may contain the terms with the second power of the derivative of $\bf A$, with the squared derivative of $\bf A$, and the terms higher order in derivatives.
In principle, the restrictions on the term $O([\partial_i A_j]^2)$ may be more strong\footnote{For example, the Weyl symbol of the operator $f(-i\partial_{r} - Hr)$ for the one - dimensional problem ($r \in {\bf R}^1$) is given by $f(p-Hr)$ exactly \cite{berezin}.}, but for our purposes it will be enough, that the terms linear in the derivatives of $\bf A$ are absent in $O([\partial_i A_j]^2)$ (which is proved in Appendix A).
Notice, that the star product entering Eq. (\ref{id000}) is widely used in deformation quantisation \cite{berezin,star2} and also in some other applications (see, for example, \cite{star} and references therein). It is also worth mentioning, that the Wigner transformation of the Green function was used in a number of applications. In particular, it was applied to the derivation of quantum kinetic equations \cite{ke,ke2}. The methods to solve kinetic equations that operate with the Wigner transform of the Green function were discussed in \cite{ke3}.
\subsection{Gradient expansion for the Wigner transform of the Green function in the presence of external gauge field.}
\label{SectGradCont}
Here we apply the formalism of Wigner transform to the $d+1= $ D dimensional fermionic systems.
Let us consider the model with the Green function ${\cal G}({\bf p})$ that depends on the D - vector ${\bf p} = (p_1,p_2,...,p_4)$ of Euclidean momentum. We introduce the slowly varying external $U(1)$ vector gauge field ${\bf A}({\bf r})$ defining operator function $\hat{\cal Q}$ of Eq. (\ref{Q000}).
The Wigner transform of the Green function Eq. (\ref{W}) satisfies Eq. (\ref{id000}).
We apply the gradient expansion and come to
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p}) &= &\tilde G^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p}) + \tilde G^{(1)}({\bf R},{\bf p}) + ... \label{Gexp}\\
\tilde G^{(1)} &= &-\frac{i}{2} \tilde G^{(0)} \frac{\partial \Big[\tilde G^{(0)}\Big]^{-1}}{\partial p_i} \tilde G^{(0)} \frac{\partial \Big[\tilde G^{(0)}\Big]^{-1}}{\partial p_j} \tilde G^{(0)}
A_{ij} ({\bf R})\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\tilde G^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p})$ is defined as the Green function with the field strength $A_{ij} = \partial_i A_j - \partial_j A_i$ neglected. It is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\tilde G^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p}) = {\cal G}({\bf p}-{\bf A}({\bf R}))\label{Q0}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Linear response of electric current to the strength of external gauge field.}
\label{SectLinCont}
The components of vector $U(1)$ current in the system of non - interacting fermions may be expressed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
j^{k}({\bf R}) &=& -{\rm Tr}\, \frac{\partial {\cal G}^{-1}(-i\partial_{{\bf r}_1}-{\bf A}({\bf r}_1))}{\partial A_k}\, G( {\bf r}_1, {\bf r}_2)\Big|_{{\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2\rightarrow {\bf R}}\nonumber\\ &=& \int \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{(2\pi)^D}\, {\rm Tr}\, \tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p})\frac{\partial \Big[\tilde G^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p})\Big]^{-1}}{\partial p_k}\label{j14}
\end{eqnarray}
For the derivation of the second row in this expression we applied expressions of Appendix A. Also, this expression follows as a continuum limit of the corresponding formula to be derived in the next section. Besides, we advise the reader to consult Appendix B of \cite{Weyl}, where many useful relations are collected, including those, which give rise to Eq. (\ref{j14}).
In the $3+1$ D systems the contribution to electric current originated from $\tilde{G}^{(1)}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
j^{(1)k}({\bf R}) &= & \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\epsilon^{ijkl} {\cal M}_{l} A_{ij} ({\bf R}), \label{calM0}\\
{\cal M}_l &=& \int_{} \,{\rm Tr}\, \nu_{l} \,d^4p \label{Ml} \label{nuG0} \\ \nu_{l} & = & - \frac{i}{3!\,8\pi^2}\,\epsilon_{ijkl}\, \Big[ {\cal G} \frac{\partial {\cal G}^{-1}}{\partial p_i} \frac{\partial {\cal G}}{\partial p_j} \frac{\partial {\cal G}^{-1}}{\partial p_k} \Big] \label{nuG02}
\end{eqnarray}
In the linear response theory we should substitute ${\bf A}=0$ into the expression for ${\cal M}_l$. Therefore, in Eq. (\ref{nuG0}) we substitute $\cal G$ instead of $\tilde{G}^{(0)}$.
Notice, that our conventions of notations assume, that the field strength absorbs the elementary charge $e$, i.e. the Green function $\cal G$ contains the combination ${\bf p} -{\bf A}$ instead of the conventional ${\bf p}-e {\bf A}$. Besides, the electric current $j$ is defined in the units of $e$, which eliminates the second factor $e$ from Eq. (\ref{calM0}).
In order to understand how Eq. (\ref{nuG0}) works let us consider the single massless Dirac fermion, which is the couple of the left - handed and the right - handed Weyl fermions. The corresponding expression for the Green function in the presence of chiral chemical potential $\mu_5$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}^{}({\bf p}) = \Big(\sum_{k}\gamma^{k} p_{k} + i\gamma^4 \gamma^5 \mu_5\Big)^{-1}\label{G2W}
\end{equation}
with the Euclidean gamma - matrices that satisfy $\{\gamma^a,\gamma^b\}=2\delta^{ab}$ and the $\gamma^5$ matrix given by ${\rm diag}(1,1,-1,-1)$ in chiral representation.
In this situation the Green function contains poles. Besides, the integral in Eq. (\ref{nuG0}) is divergent at infinite values of $\bf p$. Therefore, in order to apply the above expressions the regularization is needed.
The obvious expectation about Eq. (\ref{nuG02}) is that in lattice regularization we need simply to substitute into it the lattice Green function defined as a function of lattice momentum, and integrate in Eq. (\ref{nuG0}) over the compact momentum space $\cal M$. Below we will see, that this is indeed what should be done.
\section{Lattice regularized theory}
\label{SectLat}
\subsection{A way to introduce the external gauge field to lattice model.}
\label{SectGaugeLat}
Again, let us consider the $d+1 = D$ dimensional model with the fermionic Green function ${\cal G}({\bf p})$ that depends on the $D$ vector ${\bf p} = (p_1,...,p_D)$ of Euclidean momentum. Now we assume, that momentum space is compact and has the form of the product ${\cal M} = S^1 \otimes \Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the $d$ - dimensional Brillouin zone while $S^1$ is the circle of $p^D$. Momentum space of such form is typical for the lattice regularization of quantum field theory. It also appears in the tight - binding models of condensed matter systems when evolution in time is discretized (which is always necessary to make Monte - Carlo simulations of such systems). Notice, that the lattice momentum ${\bf p}$ does not appear as the eigenvalue of the operator $-i\partial_{\bf r}$. The same refers also to the solid state models.
In the absence of the external electromagnetic field the partition function of the theory under consideration may be written as
\begin{equation}
Z = \int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \, {\rm exp}\Big( - \int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \bar{\Psi}({\bf p}){\cal G}^{-1}({\bf p})\Psi({\bf p}) \Big)\label{Z1}
\end{equation}
where $|{\cal M}|$ is the volume of momentum space $\cal M$. (We neglect here those interactions, which are not taken into account by the form of the two point Green function ${\cal G}({\bf p})$. Otherwise, the interaction terms with higher powers of $\Psi$ or with the additional dynamical fields would have been written.)
We assume, that the theory to be dealt with has the form of the lattice regularization of the continuum quantum field theory, or the form of the solid state tight - binding like model. In both cases the theory is defined in discrete coordinate space. We assume, that the dynamical variables $\Psi$ of this theory are attached to the lattice sites ${\bf r}_n$.
The fields in coordinate space are related to the fields in momentum space as follows
\begin{equation}
\Psi({\bf r}) = \int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} e^{i {\bf p}{\bf r}} \Psi({\bf p})\label{Psip}
\end{equation}
At the discrete values of $\bf r$ corresponding to the points of the lattice this expression gives the values of the fermionic field at these points, i.e. the dynamical variables of the original lattice model. However, Eq. (\ref{Psip}) allows to define formally the values of fields at any other values of $\bf r$. The partition function may be rewritten in the form
\begin{equation}
Z = \int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \, {\rm exp}\Big( - \sum_{{\bf r}_n} \bar{\Psi}({\bf r}_n)\Big[{\cal G}^{-1}(-i\partial_{\bf r})\Psi({\bf r})\Big]_{{\bf r}={\bf r}_n} \Big)\label{Z2}
\end{equation}
Here the sum in the exponent is over the discrete coordinates ${\bf r}_n$. However, the operator $-i\partial_{\bf r}$ acts on the function $\Psi({\bf r})$ defined using Eq. (\ref{Psip}). In order to derive Eq. (\ref{Z2}) we use identity
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\bf r}e^{i{\bf p}{\bf r}} = |{\cal M}|\delta({\bf p})
\end{equation}
Gauge transformation of the original lattice field
\begin{equation}
\Psi({\bf r}_n)\rightarrow e^{i \alpha({\bf r}_n)} \Psi({\bf r}_n)
\end{equation}
now may be understood as the gauge transformation of the field $\Psi$ defined for any values of $\bf r$: we simply extend the definition of the function $\alpha({\bf r})$ to the function, which is defined at any values of $\bf r$ and take the original values at the discrete lattice points. This prompts the following way to introduce the external gauge field to our lattice model. We consider the partition function of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
Z &=& \int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \, {\rm exp}\Big(-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{{\bf r}={\bf r}_n}\Big[ \bar{\Psi}({\bf r}){\cal G}^{-1}(-i\partial_{\bf r} \nonumber\\&& - {\bf A}({\bf r}))\Psi({\bf r})+ (h.c.)\Big]\Big)\label{Z3}
\end{eqnarray}
Here by $(h.c.)$ we denote the Hermitian conjugation, which is defined as follows. First of all, it relates the components of Grassmann variable $\Psi$ with the corresponding components of $\bar{\Psi}$. Besides, it inverses the ordering of operators and the variables $\bar{\Psi},\Psi$, and substitutes each operator by its Hermitian conjugated. For example, a conjugation of $\bar{\Psi} \hat{B} (i \partial_{r^{i_1}})...(i \partial_{r^{i_n}}) \Psi$ for a certain operator (in internal space) $\hat{B}$ is given by $\Big[(-i \partial_{r^{i_1}})...(-i \partial_{r^{i_n}}) \bar{\Psi} \Big]\hat{B}^+ \Psi$. As well as in continuum theory operators $\hat{p}_i - A_i({\bf r})$ and $\hat{p}_j - A_j({\bf r})$ do not commute for $i \ne j$. Therefore, we should point out the way of their ordering inside ${\cal G}^{-1}(-i\partial_{\bf r} - {\bf A}({\bf r}))$. We choose the following way for definiteness: each product $p_{i_1} ... p_{i_n}$ in the expansion of ${\cal G}^{-1}$ is substituted by the symmetrized product $\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{\rm permutations} (\hat{p}_{i_1}-A_{i_1}) ... (\hat{p}_{i_n}-A_{i_n})$.
This method of introducing the gauge field to the lattice model differs from the more conventional ways, but it is manifestly gauge invariant, and it is obviously reduced to the conventional way the gauge field is to be introduced in the naive continuum limit. Therefore, it satisfies all requirements to be fulfilled by the introduction of the gauge field in lattice regularization of quantum field theory.
Now let us come back to momentum space:
\begin{eqnarray}
Z &=& \int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \, {\rm exp}\Big( - \frac{1}{2} \int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \Big[\bar{\Psi}({\bf p}){\cal Q}_{right}(i{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p})\Psi({\bf p}) \nonumber\\ &&+ \bar{\Psi}({\bf p}){\cal Q}_{left}(i{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p})\Psi({\bf p}) \Big]\Big)\label{Z4}
\end{eqnarray}
Here by ${\cal Q}_{right}$ we denote the function, that is constructed of ${\cal G}^{-1}$ as follows. We represent ${\cal G}^{-1}(-i\partial_{\bf r} - {\bf A}({\bf r}))$ as a series in powers of $-i\partial_{\bf r}$ and $ {\bf A}({\bf r})$ such that in each term $ {\bf A}({\bf r})$ stand right to $-i\partial_{\bf r}$. For example, we represent $(-i \partial_{\bf r} - A({\bf r}))^2$ as $(-i \partial_{\bf r})^2 - 2(-i \partial_{\bf r}) {\bf A}({\bf r}) + {\bf A}^2({\bf r}) - i (\partial {\bf A})$. Next, we substitute the argument of ${\bf A}$ by $i \partial_{\bf p}$ and $-i\partial_{\bf r}$ by $\bf p$. Correspondingly, ${\cal Q}_{left}$ is defined with the inverse ordering.
Let us introduce the following notation
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q} = \frac{1}{2} \Big[{\cal Q}_{right}( i{\partial}^{}_{\bf p},{\bf p}) + {\cal Q}_{left}( i{\partial}^{}_{\bf p},{\bf p}) \Big]
\end{equation}
Since the commutators $[-i \partial_{r^i},r^j] = i \delta_i^j$ and $[p_i,i \partial_{p_j}] = i \delta_i^j$ are equal to each other, the actual expression for $\hat{\cal Q} $ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q} = {\cal G}^{-1}({\bf p} - {\bf A}(i{\partial}^{}_{\bf p}))
\end{equation}
The Green function of our system in momentum space satisfies equation
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}(i \partial_{{\bf p}_1},{\bf p}_1)G({\bf p}_1,{\bf p}_2) = |{\cal M}| \delta^{(D)}({\bf p}_1-{\bf p}_2)\label{QGl}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Wigner transform in momentum space}
\label{SectWignLat}
According to the proposed above way to introduce the gauge field the Green function appears as a correlator
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf p}_1,{\bf p}_2)&=& \frac{1}{Z}\int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \,\bar{\Psi}({\bf p}_2)\Psi({\bf p}_1)\\ &&{\rm exp}\Big( - \int \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \bar{\Psi}({\bf p})\hat{Q}(i\partial_{\bf p},{\bf p})\Psi({\bf p}) \Big)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It obeys equation Eq. (\ref{QGl}).
Wigner transform \cite{Wigner} of the Green function may be defined as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p}) = \int \frac{d^D{\bf P}}{|{\cal M}|} e^{i {\bf P} {\bf R}} G({\bf p}+{\bf P}/2,{\bf p}-{\bf P}/2)\label{Wl}
\end{equation}
In terms of the Green function in coordinate space this Green function is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p}) = \sum_{{\bf r}={\bf r}_n} e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} G({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2,{\bf R}-{\bf r}/2)\label{Wl2}
\end{equation}
which is the direct analogue of Eq. (\ref{W}). In Appendix B we prove, that this Green function obeys the same equation as the one of the continuum theory:
\begin{eqnarray}
1 &=& {\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p})*\tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p})\nonumber\\ && \equiv {\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p})e^{\frac{i}{2}(\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p} - \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf p}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R})}\tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p}) \label{id}
\end{eqnarray}
As well as in continuum case the Weyl symbol of operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ is given by function $\cal Q$ that depends on the real numbers rather than on the operators. As it is explained in Appendix B, if $\hat{\cal Q}$ has the form of a function ${\cal G}^{-1}$ of the combination $({\bf p} - {\bf A}(\hat{\bf r}))$ with a gauge potential ${\bf A}(\hat{\bf r})$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}({\bf r},\hat{\bf p}) = {\cal G}^{-1}({\bf p} - {\bf A}(i\partial_{\bf p}))\label{Q}
\end{equation}
then we have
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}({\bf r},{\bf p}) = {\cal G}^{-1}({\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r})) + O([\partial_i A_j]^2)\label{QF}
\end{equation}
Here $O([\partial_i A_j]^2)$ does not contain terms independent of the derivatives of $\bf A$ and the terms linear in those derivatives, i.e. it is higher order in derivatives. In certain particular cases the restrictions on the term $O(([\partial_i A_j]^2)$ may be more strong, or it may even vanish at all \cite{berezin}.
\subsection{Linear response of electric current to the strength of external gauge field.}
\label{SectLinLat}
In our lattice formalism the derivative expansion for the Wigner transform of the Green function is still given by Eq. (\ref{Gexp}), where
$\tilde G^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p}) = {\cal G}({\bf p}-{\bf A}({\bf R}))$.
Suppose, that we modified the external gauge field as ${\bf A} \rightarrow {\bf A} + \delta {\bf A}$. The response to this extra contribution to gauge potential gives electric current. Let us calculate this response basing on the description of the system given by Eq. (\ref{Z4}):
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\delta} \, {\rm log}\, Z&=& -\frac{1}{Z} \int D\bar{\Psi}D\Psi \, {\rm exp}\Big( - \int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \bar{\Psi}({\bf p})\hat{\cal Q}(i{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p})\Psi({\bf p}) \Big) \, \int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \bar{\Psi}({\bf p})\Big[\delta \hat{\cal Q}(i{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p})\Big]\Psi({\bf p}) \nonumber\\ & = & -\int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \, {\rm Tr} \, \Big[ \delta \hat{\cal Q}(i{\partial}_{{\bf p}_1},{\bf p}_1)\Big]G({\bf p}_1,{\bf p}_2)\Big|_{{\bf p}_1 = {\bf p}_2 = {\bf p}}\nonumber\\ & = & -\sum_{{\bf R}={\bf R}_n}\int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \, {\rm Tr} \, \Big[ \delta \hat{\cal Q}(i{\partial}_{{\bf P}}+i{\partial}_{{\bf p}}/2 ,{\bf p}+{\bf P}/2)\Big]\, e^{-i {\bf P}{\bf R}} \tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p})\Big|_{{\bf P} = 0} \label{j4}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
In Appendix B we introduce function ${\cal Q}({\bf r},{\bf p})$ of real - valued arguments entering Eq. (\ref{id}). Notice, that $2{\bf p}$ and ${\bf P}$ enter the expression inside $\hat{\cal Q}$ in a symmetric way. This allows to use Eq. (\ref{corrl}). The form of Eq. (\ref{j4}) demonstrates, that the above expression for the electric current may also be written through the function $\cal Q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\delta} \, {\rm log}\, Z &=& -\sum_{{\bf R}={\bf R}_n}\int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \, {\rm Tr} \, \Big[ \delta {\cal Q}(i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{{\bf P}}-i\overleftarrow{\partial}_{{\bf p}}/2 ,{\bf p}+{\bf P}/2)\Big]\, \nonumber\\&&e^{-i {\bf P}{\bf R}} \tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p})\Big|_{{\bf P} = 0}\nonumber\\&=& -\sum_{{\bf R}={\bf R}_n}\int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal M}|} \, {\rm Tr} \, \Big[ \delta {\cal Q}({\bf R} ,{\bf p}+{\bf P}/2)\Big]\, \nonumber\\&&e^{-i {\bf P}{\bf R}} \tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p})\Big|_{{\bf P} = 0} \label{j428}
\end{eqnarray}
According to the notations of Appendix B the arrows above the derivatives mean, that those derivatives act only outside of ${\cal Q}$, and do not act on the arguments of $\cal Q$, i.e. $\overleftarrow\partial_{\bf p}$ acts on the function equal to $1$ standing left to the function $\cal Q$ while $\overrightarrow\partial_{\bf P}$ acts on the exponent $e^{-i {\bf P}{\bf R}} $.
As a result of the above mentioned manipulations we come to the following simple expression for the electric current per unit volume of coordinate space, which follows from the relation $\delta \, {\rm log}\, Z = \sum_{{\bf R}={\bf R}_n}{\bf j}^k({\bf R}) \delta A_k({\bf R})|{\cal V}|$:
\begin{eqnarray}
j^k({\bf R}) &=& \int_{\cal M} \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{|{\cal V}||{\cal M}|} \, {\rm Tr} \, \tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p}) \frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}\Big[\tilde{G}^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p})\Big]^{-1}\label{j423}
\end{eqnarray}
Here by $|{\cal V}|$ we denote the volume of the unit cell understood as the ratio of the total volume of the system to the number of lattice points at which the field $\Psi$ is defined. For the ordinary hypercubic lattice the product of the two volumes is obviously equal to $(2\pi)^D$. One might think, that for the lattices of more complicated symmetry the product of the momentum space volume and the defined above volume of the lattice cell may differ from this expression. Nevertheless, this is not so, and in general case the given product is always equal to $(2 \pi)^D$ exactly \footnote{For the purpose of illustration let us consider the 2D lattice of graphene \cite{Katsbook}.
In coordinate space we should take the hexagons that are formed by the atoms of sublattice $A$ (or $B$) because the resulting two component spinor is composed of the variables incident at the two sublattices. The resulting unit cell of the lattice is the hexagon surrounding each atom of the sublattice $A$. The length of its size is $a$, where $a$ is the distance between the adjacent $A$ and $B$ atoms. The area of the hexagon is equal to $|{\cal V}| = \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2}\,a^2$. The Brillouin zone has also the form of the hexagon with the side length $\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}}\,\frac{2\pi}{a}$. Its volume is $|{\cal M}| = \frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}}\,\frac{(2\pi)^2}{a^2}$. One can see, that the product is given by $(2\pi)^2$ as it should.}. In general case of an arbitrary crystal the direct proof is rather complicated. However, the result for the product of the two volumes may be found from the simple field theoretical correspondence: the limit of the microscopic model described by the effective low energy theory should correspond to the product of the two volumes equal to $(2\pi)^D$. Notice, that the construction of the unit cell in the original lattice should be performed with care. One has to count only those sites of the original crystal lattice, at which the dynamical variables of the model described by Eq. (\ref{Z3}) are incident. (This was illustrated above by the case of graphene, where we surrounded by this unit cell only the $A$ (or $B$) - atoms.)
Thus Eq. (\ref{j423}) coincides with the continuum expression Eq. (\ref{j14}).
Let us apply the gradient expansion to Eq. (\ref{j423}). It results in the following expression for the electric current:
\begin{eqnarray}
j^{k}({\bf R}) &=& j^{(0)k}({\bf R}) + j^{(1)k}({\bf R}) + ...\nonumber\\
j^{(0)k}({\bf R}) & = & \int \frac{d^D {\bf p}}{(2\pi)^D}\, {\rm Tr}\, \tilde G^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p})\frac{\partial \Big[\tilde G^{(0)}({\bf R},{\bf p})\Big]^{-1}}{\partial p_k}\label{j142}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice, that the second row of this expression represents the topological invariant as long as we deal with the system with regular Green functions, which do not have poles or zeros, i.e. this expression is unchanged while we are continuously deforming the Green function. We will not need this expression below since it does not contain the linear response to the external field strength.
In the $3+1$ D systems the contribution to this current originated from $\tilde{G}^{(1)}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
j^{(1)k}({\bf R}) &= & \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\epsilon^{ijkl} {\cal M}_{l} A_{ij} ({\bf R}), \label{calM}\\
{\cal M}_l &=& \int_{} \,{\rm Tr}\, \nu_{l} \,d^4p \label{Ml} \\ \nu_{l} & = & - \frac{i}{3!\,8\pi^2}\,\epsilon_{ijkl}\, \Big[ {\cal G} \frac{\partial {\cal G}^{-1}}{\partial p_i} \frac{\partial {\cal G}}{\partial p_j} \frac{\partial {\cal G}^{-1}}{\partial p_k} \Big] \label{nuG}
\end{eqnarray}
In the linear response theory we should substitute ${\bf A}=0$ into the expression for ${\cal M}_l$. Therefore, in Eq. (\ref{nuG}) we substitute $\cal G$ instead of $\tilde{G}^{(0)}$. Further we will be interested in the component ${\cal M}_4$, which is the topological invariant, i.e. it is robust to any variations of the Green function $\tilde{G}$ as long as the singularities are not encountered (for the proof see Appendix C).
In the similar way for the $2+1$ D systems we get
\begin{eqnarray}
j^{(1)k}({\bf R}) &= & \frac{1}{2\pi}\epsilon^{ijk} \tilde{\cal N}_3 A_{ij} ({\bf R}), \label{calM2D}
\end{eqnarray}
where the topological invariant (denoted by $\tilde{\cal N}_3$ according to the classification of \cite{Volovik2003}) is to be calculated for the original system with vanishing background gauge field:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_3 &=& \frac{1}{24 \pi^2} {\rm Tr}\, \int_{} {\cal G}^{-1} d {\cal G} \wedge d {\cal G}^{-1} \wedge d {\cal G}\label{N3A}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice, that the above expression for ${\cal M}_l$ is the direct 4D generalization of the invariant $\tilde{\cal N}_3$. The proof that $\tilde{\cal N}_3$ is the topological invariant also follows from Appendix C.
It is worth mentioning, that in our calculations we use the Wigner transformation of the Green function without the parallel transporter factor. The Green functions with such a factor would be gauge invariant, and they are used, for example, in one of the methods of the chiral anomaly calculation \cite{anomaly_U}. In this method the chiral current is expressed through the limit of the two point Green function $G(x,y)$ when $x \rightarrow y$, in which the parallel transporter between $x$ and $y$ is inserted into the definition of $G$. Such a Green function is manifestly gauge invariant. Although in the limit $x \rightarrow y$ the mentioned parallel transporter tends to unity, its appearance is important when the derivative of the chiral current (i.e. anomaly) is calculated because in such a calculation the derivative over $(x+y)/2$ is taken first in order to have the finite expressions, and the limit $x \rightarrow y$ is taken at the end of the calculation. Thus, in such calculation of chiral anomaly the parallel transporter factor in the Green function is the tool necessary for the ultraviolet regularization that keeps gauge invariance.
This is in contrast to the expressions considered in the present paper. First of all, we do not calculate the derivative of the current. Therefore, even in Sect. \ref{SectCont}, where the continuum theory is discussed, we do not need such a factor in the Green function: Eq. (\ref{j14}) is manifestly gauge invariant. Moreover, the consideration of the present section deals with the lattice – regularization of theory, which is gauge invariant by construction. Indeed we use here the ordinary fermionic Green function, which is not gauge invariant, and depends on the external gauge field. The latter may be considered in a certain gauge, and with respect to the gauge transformations the status of our calculations is the same as the status of the perturbative calculations in quantum field theory performed in a certain fixed gauge. At the same time our final results of Eqs. (\ref{calM}) and(\ref{calM2D}) are gauge invariant by construction: they are obtained as variational derivatives with respect to the external gauge field of the manifestly gauge invariant lattice effective action Eq. (\ref{j4}).
\subsection{Applications to the $2+1$ D quantum Hall effect}
\label{SectHall}
In this section we demonstrate how the technique developed in the previous sections allows to reproduce the well - known expression for the Hall current in the gapped systems. Let us consider the $2+1 $ D model with the gapped fermions.
In the presence of external electric field ${\bf E} = (E_1,E_2)$ we substitute $A_{4k} = -i E_k$ into Eq. (\ref{calM2D}). This results in the following expression for the Hall current
\begin{equation}
{j}^k_{Hall} = \frac{1}{2\pi}\,\tilde{\cal N}_3\,\epsilon^{ki}E_i,\label{HALLj}
\end{equation}
Thus the well - known expression for the $2+1$ D QHE is reproduced (see Eqs. (11.1) and (21.12) of \cite{Volovik2003}). For one of the previous derivations of this result see, for example, \cite{Volovik1988}. The following remark is in order. In the real systems of finite sizes the total current is still given by this expression integrated over the direction of electric field, but the local current is concentrated close to the boundary. Our analysis based on the consideration of the systems of infinite volume does not allow to distinguish this inhomogeneity of current in coordinate space.
\section{Bulk chiral magnetic current.}
\label{SectCME}
\subsection{Chiral chemical potential and the Green function}
\label{Sectmu5}
Now let us concentrate on the $3+1$ D systems. We consider the situation, when vector gauge field $A_k({\bf R})$ has the nonzero components with $k=1,2,3$ that do not depend on (imaginary) time.
The conventional expression for the CME reads
\begin{equation}
j^{k}_{CME} = \frac{\mu_5}{4\pi^2}\,\xi_{CME}\,\epsilon^{ijk4}\, A_{ij}\label{jCSE}
\end{equation}
where $\xi_{CME}$ is integer number while $\mu_5$ is the chiral chemical potential\footnote{As it was mentioned above, our conventions of notations assume, that the field strength absorbs the elementary charge $e$, i.e. the Green function $\cal G$ contains the combination ${\bf p} -{\bf A}$ (where $\bf p$ is momentum) instead of the conventional ${\bf p}-e {\bf A}$ . Besides, the electric current $j$ is defined in the units of $e$, which eliminates the second factor $e$ from Eq. (\ref{jCSE}). Therefore, the conventional expression for the CME differs from Eq. (\ref{jCSE}) by the factor $e^2$.}. Such an expression should follow from Eq. (\ref{calM}): we need to substitute ${\bf A}=0$ into Eq. (\ref{calM}) in the linear response approximation. Then one might expect that ${\cal M}_4 = \mu_5 \xi_{CME}$. However, below we will demonstrate, that $\xi_{CME}$ calculated in this way vanishes identically (for the reasonable choice of the way the chiral chemical potential is introduced) in the certain cases of interest.
There may exist many different definitions of $\mu_5$. Possibly, the most straightforward way is to consider the following expression for the fermion Green function:
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}^{}({\bf p}) = \Big(\sum_{k}\gamma^{k} g_{k}({\bf p}) + i\gamma^4 \gamma^5 \mu_5 - i m({\bf p})\Big)^{-1}\label{G2}
\end{equation}
In the limit of vanishing chiral chemical potential it is reduced to
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}({\bf p})\Big|_{\mu_5=0} = \Big(\sum_{k}\gamma^{k} g_{k}({\bf p}) - i m({\bf p})\Big)^{-1}\label{G1}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma^k$ are Euclidean Dirac matrices while $g_k({\bf p})$ and $m({\bf p})$ are the real - valued functions, $k = 1,2,3,4$.
Here we define $\gamma^5$ in chiral representation as ${\rm diag}(1,1,-1,-1)$. It can be easily seen, that the consideration of the previous sections may be applied to the Green function, which has this form for nonzero value of $\mu_5$. Therefore, we may substitute ${\cal G}$ of Eq. (\ref{G2}) into Eq. (\ref{calM}) instead of $\tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p})$ while dealing with the linear response to the external magnetic field.
We are considering the theory with compact momentum space that can be represented as $S^1 \otimes \Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the compact $3D$ Brillouin zone. First, we assume, that with vanishing $\mu_5$ the Green functions do not have zeros or poles (at the real values of momenta), which means, that the fermions are massive. However, at the end of the calculations the limit of vanishing mass may always be considered.
Depending on the details of the given system the finite chiral chemical potential may induce the appearance of the poles of the Green function. For the Green function of the form of Eq. (\ref{G2}) the poles of the Green function appear as the zeros of ${\rm det} \, {\cal G}^{-1}_{}({\bf p}) \Big[{\cal G}^{-1}_{}({\bf p})\Big]^+$. The latter zeros are found as the solutions of the following equation
\begin{equation}
g^2_4({\bf p}) + \Big(\mu_5 \pm \sqrt{g_1^2({\bf p})+g_2^2({\bf p})+g_3^2({\bf p})}\Big)^2 + m^2({\bf p}) = 0\label{zero}
\end{equation}
Below we will analyse separately the electric current of Eq. (\ref{calM}) for the systems with and without poles of the Green function at the nonzero values of $\mu_5$.
\subsection{Massive fermions. The conventional case: nonzero $\mu_5$ does not induce the poles of $\cal G$.}
\label{Sectmu51}
For the massive fermions we consider as the conventional case the situation, when the nonzero $\mu_5$ does not induce the appearance of poles of the Green function. Let us explain this situation first by the particular example of the free lattice Wilson fermions with
\begin{equation}
g_k({\bf p}) = {\rm sin}\,
p_k, \quad m({\bf p}) = m^{(0)} +
\sum_{a=1,2,3,4} (1 - {\rm cos}\, p_a)\label{Wilson}
\end{equation}
Let us chose the conventional region of the values of parameter $m^{(0)} >0$. It corresponds to the vanishing value of the topological invariant $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ (see \cite{VZ2012}). In this case function $m({\bf p})$ never equals to zero. Therefore, the nonzero chiral chemical potential cannot cause the appearance of poles of the Green function.
Since the lattice model with Wilson fermions with $m^{(0)}$ is the typical (and in fact, the most popular) lattice regularization, we feel this appropriate to refer to the situation, when the chiral chemical potential does not cause poles of the Green function, as to the conventional case. It is realized, for example, for any Green function of the form of Eq. (\ref{G2}), such that there is no such value of ${\bf p}\in {\cal M}$, for which both $m({\bf p})$ and $g_4({\bf p})$ vanish.
This is in contrast to the case of the ordinary chemical potential added to the same system, in which the poles of the Green function may appear if the chemical potential exceeds the gap.
As it was mentioned above, ${\cal M}_4$ is topological invariant, i.e. it is robust to any variations of the Green function as long as the singularities are not encountered (for the proof see Appendix C). The introduction of chiral chemical potential is the particular case of such a variation. Therefore, ${\cal M}_4$ does not depend on $\mu_5$. Actually, for the Green function of the form of Eq. (\ref{G1}) ${\cal M}_4 = 0$, which may be checked by direct calculation:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}_{4} &=& - \frac{i}{2}\int dp^4 \tilde{\cal N}_3(p^4),\label{calM40}\\
\tilde{\cal N}_3(p^4) & = & \frac{1}{24 \pi^2}\epsilon_{ijk4} {\rm Tr}\, \int_{\Omega} d^3 p \Big( {\cal G} \partial^i {\cal G}^{-1} \Big)\nonumber\\&&\Big( {\cal G}\partial^j {\cal G}^{-1} \Big)\Big({\cal G} \partial^k {\cal G}^{-1}\Big) \label{F4B0}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us define the new auxiliary gamma - matrices $\Gamma^k = i\gamma^5\gamma^k$ for $k=1,2,3,4$, and $\Gamma^5 = \gamma^5$. One can easily check, that in terms of these gamma - matrices we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_3(p^4) & = & \frac{1}{24 \pi^2}\epsilon_{ijk4} {\rm Tr}\, \Gamma^a\Gamma^b\Gamma^c\Gamma^d \nonumber\\&& \int_{\Omega} d^3 p \frac{g_a}{g^2} \partial^i g_b \partial^j \Big( \frac{g_c}{g^2} \Big) \partial^k {g_d} \nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{6 \pi^2}\epsilon_{ijk4} (\delta^{ab}\delta^{cd}-\delta^{ac}\delta^{bd}+\delta^{ad}\delta^{bc}) \nonumber\\&&\int_{\Omega} d^3 p \frac{g_a \partial^i g_b \Big(\partial^j g_c - g_c \partial^j {\rm log}\,{g^2} \Big) \partial^k g_d}{g^4}
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{6 \pi^2}\epsilon_{ijk4} (\delta^{ab}\delta^{cd}+\delta^{ad}\delta^{bc}) \nonumber\\&&\int_{\Omega} d^3 p \frac{g_a \partial^i g_b \partial^j g_c \partial^k g_d}{g^4}=0
\label{F4B001}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g = \sqrt{\sum_{k=1,2,3,4,5}g_k^2}$.
Next, using continuous deformation of the Green function we may bring it to the form of Eq. (\ref{G2}) with nonzero $\mu_5$. During this deformation the poles of the Green function do not appear, and the value of ${\cal M}_4$ remains equal to zero.
However, we do not need here the particular form of the Green function. We only need that momentum space is compact and can be represented as $S^1 \otimes \Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the compact $3D$ Brillouin zone.
The absence of the dependence of electric current on chiral chemical potential means, that there is no CME as long as we deal with compact momentum space and regular Green function. The finite value of chiral chemical potential does not change the situation in the conventional case because as we mentioned above such a finite value cannot provide the Green function of the form of Eq. (\ref{G1}) with the pole.
\subsection{Massive fermions. The finite values of $\mu_5$ that cause the appearance of the Fermi lines.}
\label{Sectmu52}
In this subsection we consider the marginal situation, when function $m({\bf p})$ may have zeros while at $\mu_5=0$ there are still no poles of $\cal G$. This situation may be illustrated by the model with Wilson fermions Eq. (\ref{Wilson}) for the values of the parameter $m^{(0)}$ such that the topological invariant $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ is nonzero (for the details see \cite{Z2012}). For example, if $m^{(0)} \in (-2,0)$, then the zeros of the function ${m}({\bf p})$ form the $3$D hyper - surfaces in momentum space. When $m^{(0)} \rightarrow -2$ these hyper - surfaces form the pairs, which approach (from the different sides) the hypersurfaces that connect the four of the $16$ fermion doublers $p_k = n_k \pi$, (with $n_k = 0,1$ and $n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4 = 1$) and that satisfy \begin{equation}
{\rm cos}\, p_1 + {\rm cos}\, p_2 + {\rm cos}\, p_3 + {\rm cos}\, p_4 = 2\label{hyper}
\end{equation}
This lattice system describes four (rather than one) physical massive fermions in the continuum limit.
The solutions of equation
\begin{equation}
|\mu_5| = \sqrt{g_1^2({\bf p})+g_2^2({\bf p})+g_3^2({\bf p})}\label{mu50}
\end{equation}
form the closed tubes extended in $p_4$ direction that enclose the positions of the fermion doublers $p_k = n_k \pi$ with $n_k = 0,1$ ($k=1,2,3$). We are interested in the sections of these tubes (being the $2D$ closed surfaces) at the values $p_4 = 0,\pi$, for which $g_4({\bf p})=0$, where the poles of the Green function may occur. For the sufficiently small values of $\mu_5$ those sections do not intersect the positions of the zeros of $m({\bf p})$. In that case the poles of the Green function do not appear. However, for the sufficiently large values of $\mu_5$ the mentioned two types of surfaces intersect each other. The poles of the Green function appear along the closed Fermi lines in momentum space. Recall, that in case of the ordinary chemical potential we would deal with the Fermi surfaces, which have dimension $2$.
The value of ${\cal M}_4$ is given by Eq. (\ref{F4B0}).
For $p_4 \ne 0,\pi$ the quantity $\tilde{\cal N}_3(p_4)$ is the topological invariant (see Appendix C), and it has the same value when $\cal G$ is deformed smoothly. For example, we may perform the deformation, which brings $\mu_5$ to zero. For $\mu_5=0$ we have $\tilde{\cal N}_3(p_4) = 0$ because of the properties of the gamma - matrices. Thus, we come to the conclusion, that at $p_4\ne 0, \pi$ the value of $\tilde{\cal N}_3(p_4) $ vanishes at nonzero values of $\mu_5$. The integral over $p_4$ in Eq. (\ref{calM40}) may be regularized as $\int_{-\pi+\epsilon}^{-\epsilon} + \int_\epsilon^{\pi-\epsilon}$. The limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ should be taken at the end. With this regularization the value of ${\cal M}_4$ is equal to zero in the considered case.
In the similar way we may demonstrate that the value of ${\cal M}_4$ is equal to zero in the other systems that correspond to Eq. (\ref{G2}), when nonzero $\mu_5$ causes the appearance of the Fermi lines provided that $g({\bf p})$ depends on $p_4$ only. This is the typical case for the non - interacting condensed matter systems and for the lattice regularization of the non - interacting gauge theory.
\subsection{Massless fermions}
\label{Sectmassless}
In principle, we may take the limit of vanishing mass of the final expression for the electric current in the above considered cases of massive lattice fermions, and in this limit the CME will be absent. However, we may also discuss from the very beginning the lattice massless fermions, which will be done in this section.
In this case the pole of the Green function appears and expression for ${\cal M}_4$ becomes ambiguous already for $\mu_5 = 0$. Let us consider separately the systems with vanishing fermion mass being the extensions of the systems discussed in Sect. \ref{Sectmu51} and Sect. \ref{Sectmu52}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item{}
Let us set the fermion mass equal to zero in the conventional case of Sect. \ref{Sectmu51}. Again, let us start from the consideration of the Wilson fermions Eq. (\ref{Wilson}) with the zero bare mass parameter $m^{(0)}=0$: in this example Eq. (\ref{zero}) does not have a solution for $\mu_5 \ne 0$. For $\mu_5 \ne 0$ the poles disappear, the expression for ${\cal M}_4$ becomes well - defined and independent of $\mu_5$. Therefore, even for the gapless fermions our analysis gives the expression for the linear response of the electric current to the magnetic field that does not depend on chiral chemical potential as long as the latter is nonzero. This means, that the equilibrium CME is absent even for the fermions with zero mass.
For massless Wilson fermions with nonzero $\mu_5$ we may prove, that ${\cal M}_4 = 0$ as follows. At nonzero $\mu_5$ there are no poles of the Green function, and ${\cal M}_4$ is robust to the continuous transformations of the Green function, which do not give rise to such poles. In particular, we may make $m^{(0)}$ nonzero in this way, which follows from Eq. (\ref{zero}). Finally, $\mu_5$ may be continuously brought to zero, in which case the calculation of ${\cal M}_4$ is trivial, and gives $0$.
Following the same logic we may also prove, that ${\cal M}_4 = 0$ for the Green function with the form of Eq. (\ref{G2}) with nonzero chiral chemical potential $\mu_5$ under the following conditions:
1) The Green function does not have poles at the given value of $\mu_5$; 2) Function $m({\bf p})$ is either nonzero everywhere or may be brought to the form, when it does not have zeros, by the continuous deformation. During this deformation the common zeros of $m({\bf p})$ and $g_4({\bf p})$ should not cross the hyper - surface given by the solution of equation $$|\mu^{}_5|=\sqrt{g_1^2({\bf p})+g_2^2({\bf p})+g_3^2({\bf p})}$$
\item{}
Let us now discuss the modification with vanishing mass of the case considered in Sect. \ref{Sectmu52}. This pattern may again be considered using the example of Wilson fermions with $m^{(0)} = -2$. Function $m({\bf p})$ vanishes on the hypersurface, which is given by Eq. (\ref{hyper}). It connects the positions of those doublers $p_k = n_k \pi$ ($n_k = 0,1$), for which $n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4 = 1$. In this situation the nonzero value of $\mu_5$ does not eliminate the poles of the Green function: the surface given by Eq. (\ref{mu50}) intersects the $2D$ surface of the common zeros of $m({\bf p})$ and $g_4({\bf p})$. The manyfold of zeros of the Green function has dimension $1$ and represents the closed Fermi lines. This is marginal case because as it was explained above, typically in the $3+1$ D systems the ordinary chemical potential causes the appearance of the Fermi surfaces of dimension $2$.
The value of ${\cal M}_4$ is still given by Eq. (\ref{calM40}), and the discussion given after this equation may be applied. Thus we obtain ${\cal M}_4 =0$. This consideration may be extended to the more general forms of functions $g_k$ and $m$ (such that the Fermi lines are produced by the nonzero value of $\mu_5$) if $g_4({\bf p})$ depends on $p_4$ only.
\end{enumerate}
Thus we have considered the wide class of lattice models. In our opinion the consideration of this class is enough to draw the conclusion, that the equilibrium CME is absent in the properly regularized quantum field theory. We also suppose, that our results indicate the absence of the CME in real Dirac semimetals. Nevertheless, at the present moment we do not exclude, that the CME may be possessed by certain marginal lattice models with unusual dependence of the Green function on momentum. Both existence of such hypothetical models and their relevance to physics remain unclear.
\section{Conclusions and discussion.}
\label{SectConcl}
In the present paper we use the methodology, which allows to reduce the consideration of the linear response of electric current (to external gauge field) to the discussion of momentum space topology.
We propose the original method to introduce the slow varying external gauge field to the lattice models. Although the proposed method looks unusual, it is manifestly gauge invariant, and it is obviously reduced in continuum limit to the conventional minimal connection of the fermionic theory with the gauge field. Therefore, it allows to introduce effectively the gauge field both into the lattice regularization of quantum field theory and to the models of the solid state physics. Since the proposed formalism in momentum space utilizes the pseudo - differential operators, i.e. the argument of the gauge field ${\bf A}(i\partial_{\bf p})$ is substituted by the differential operator, this formalism is not useful for the numerical simulations. However, it appears as a powerful tool for the analytical derivations.
The power of this methodology was demonstrated by the consideration of the $2+1$ D quantum Hall effect, where the conventional expression of the Hall conductivity through the topological invariant in momentum space is reproduced.
Further, we apply the same technique to the analysis of the equilibrium chiral magnetic effect. We show that the corresponding current is also proportional to the momentum space topological invariant. We demonstrate, that this invariant is equal to zero for the wide class of systems with compact momentum space (that can be represented as $S^1 \otimes \Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the compact $3D$ Brillouin zone) and without poles or zeros of the Green function. This class includes the systems with nonzero chiral chemical potential described by certain lattice regularizations of quantum field theory, and certain solid state systems. The presence of the poles of the Green function at the real values of momenta and nonzero values of chiral chemical potential does not change this conclusion in several important cases, which include the lattice regularizations with Wilson fermions and the similar models of Dirac semimetals.
Therefore, we conclude, that the properly regularized quantum field theory does not possess the equilibrium bulk chiral magnetic effect. Although we did not considered the general case of arbitrary Dirac semimetals, our results indicate, that there is no equilibrium CME in those materials as well.
We calculated the response to the external magnetic field in the system of the non - interacting fermions. However, according to the general properties of the topological invariants, they cannot be changed by the continuous deformation of the system. Therefore, the mentioned above conclusion on the topological contribution to the CME remains the same if we turn on the self - interactions. The expression for the topological contribution to the considered current remains unchanged until the phase transition is encountered. Our considerations do not exclude that the self - interactions cause the non - topological contribution to electric current proportional to chiral chemical potential and external magnetic field. However, since such a contribution is not related to topology, it must be dissipative, which excludes its appearance because magnetic field cannot cause heat.
Our conclusion on the absence of bulk equilibrium CME current is in accordance with the recent lattice calculations of the CME by Buividovich and co - authors \cite{Buividovich:2015ara,Buividovich:2015ara,Buividovich:2014dha,Buividovich:2013hza}, it is also in accordance with the consideration of the particular model of Weyl semimetals \cite{nogo} and with the no - go Bloch theorem \cite{nogo2}. (The formulations used in \cite{nogo2}, however, seem to the author rather distant from the setup of the present paper.) Besides, our conclusion is in line with the discussion of the CME using the continuous model with special boundary conditions in the direction of magnetic field \cite{Gorbar:2015wya}. However, the methodology presented in the present paper is rather general, and it allows to draw the conclusion on the absence of the equilibrium CME for the wide class of systems, which is not limited to the particular models considered in the mentioned above papers.
Our conclusions also do not contradict with the certain calculations made within the continuum relativistic field theory in the Pauli - Villars regularization. Namely, in \cite{Buividovich:2013hza} (see also Eq. (1.2) in \cite{Valgushev:2015pjn} and the earlier paper \cite{Hou:2011ze}) the CME current was calculated in this regularization for the inhomogeneous magnetic field. It was demonstrated, that the frequency dependence of the CME conductivity gives zero in the limit ${\rm lim}_{\vec{q}\to 0}{\rm lim}_{q_0 \to 0}$ (here $q = (q_0,\vec{q})$ is the four - momentum corresponding to the inhomogeneous magnetic field). It is also worth mentioning, that the conclusion on the absence of the CME in the properly defined quantum field theory was reached within the holographic pattern (see \cite{Rebhan,Rubakov} and references therein). It was noticed in \cite{Rubakov} that the notion of chiral chemical potential may be redefined in the way different from that of discussed in the present paper and in the mentioned above publications. Namely, it may be defined as the chemical potential corresponding to the conserved chiral charge. The latter is given by the sum of the naive, non - conserved chiral charge and the Chern - Simons form. The Chern - Simons term being multiplied by $\mu_5$ induces the current, which formally coincides with the naive CME expression. Therefore, in \cite{Rubakov} the conclusion was drawn, that with this modification of the notion of chiral chemical potential the CME is back\footnote{See also \cite{Gorsky}.}. At this point we would like to emphasise the essential difference between this modified understanding of the chiral magnetic effect and its original understanding, which assumes, that the chiral chemical potential is introduced according to Eq. (\ref{G2}). In the present paper we demonstrate that the CME understood in its original form is absent while that of \cite{Rubakov} is indeed back.
Notice, that our conclusion refers to the equilibrium states only. The contribution to the conductivity in the presence of both electric and magnetic fields \cite{Nielsen:1983rb,ZrTe5}) due to the chiral chemical potential induced by chiral anomaly may avoid the restrictions imposed on the CME by momentum space topology. This may be related to essentially non - equilibrium nature of this phenomenon. The notion of the chiral chemical potential generated by the interplay of chiral anomaly and the quasiparticle interactions with the change of chirality may differ from the notion of the chiral chemical potential of equilibrium theory. Actually, the given contribution to conductivity is to be described by the higher orders of the derivative expansion for the Wigner transform of the Green function just because it is expected to be proportional to the magnetic field squared. This could restore the CME (possibly, in a modified form). Besides, the experience of the quantum Hall effect prompts, that inclusion into consideration of boundaries may be important. These issues are, however, out of the scope of the present paper.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author is grateful to G.E. Volovik, who pointed out that the equilibrium CME in solids may contradict to Bloch theorem, and thus changed the point of view of the author on the subject of the present paper. The author also kindly acknowledges useful discussions with M.N.Chernodub. This work was supported by LE STUDIUM research
fellowship.
\section*{Appendix A. Wigner transform of the Green function}
\label{SectWigner}
Let us consider the $d+1 = D$ dimensional model with the Green function ${\cal G}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2)$ that obeys equation
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}({\bf r}_1,-i \partial_{{\bf r}_1})G({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) = \delta^{(D)}({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)\label{QG}
\end{equation}
for some Hermitian operator - valued function $\cal Q$. Let us apply Wigner decomposition
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p}) = \int d^D{\bf r} e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} G({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2,{\bf R}-{\bf r}/2)\label{W0}
\end{equation}
Below we will prove the following identity
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p})e^{\frac{i}{2}(\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p} - \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf p}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R})}\tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p}) = 1 \label{idB0}
\end{equation}
Here the function $\cal Q$ depends on the real numbers rather than on the operators. $\cal Q$ is called the Weyl symbol of the operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ \cite{Weyl}. We determine relation between the function ${\cal Q}({\bf r},{\bf p})$ (of real - valued vectors ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf p}$) and the function $\hat{\cal Q}({\bf r}, \hat{\bf p})$ (of the operators ${\bf p}$ and $\hat{\bf p} = - i \partial_{\bf r}$) through the identity
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int d^D {\bf r}\, f({\bf r},{\bf R})\, {\cal Q}({\bf R}+\frac{\bf r}{2},i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf r}-\frac{i}{2}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R})\, h({\bf r},{\bf R})\nonumber\\ && = \int d^D {\bf r}\, f({\bf r},{\bf R}) \hat{\cal Q}\Big({\bf R}+\frac{\bf r}{2},-i \frac{\partial}{\partial ({\bf R}+ \frac{\bf r}{2})}\Big) \, h({\bf r},{\bf R}) \label{corr}
\end{eqnarray}
which works for arbitrary functions $f({\bf r},{\bf R})$ and $h({\bf r},{\bf R})$ that decrease sufficiently fast at infinity. The important point concerning this expression is that the derivatives $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}$ and $\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf r}$ inside the arguments of $\cal Q$ act only outside of this function, i.e. $\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf r}$ acts on $f({\bf r},{\bf R})$ while $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}$ acts on $h({\bf r},{\bf R})$. At the same time
the derivatives without arrows act as usual operators, i.e. not only right to the function $\hat{\cal Q}$, but inside it as well. Notice, that $\frac{\partial}{\partial ({\bf R}+ \frac{\bf r}{2})} = \partial_{\bf r} + \frac{1}{2}{\partial_{\bf R}}$.
The given correspondence looks rather complicated. However, it takes the simple form in certain particular cases.
For example, if $\hat{\cal Q} = (\hat{\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r}))^2 = \hat{\bf p}^2 + {\bf A}^2({\bf r}) + i \Big(\partial^k A_k({\bf r})\Big) - 2 {\bf A}({\bf r})\hat{\bf p}$, then ${\cal Q} = {\bf p}^2 + {\bf A}^2({\bf r}) - 2 {\bf A}({\bf r}){\bf p}$. Besides, one can easily check, that if $\hat{\cal Q}$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}({\bf r},\hat{\bf p}) = {\cal F}(\hat{\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r}))
\end{equation}
then we have
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}({\bf r},\hat{\bf p}) = {\cal F}({\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r})) + O([\partial_i A_j]^2)\label{QF0}
\end{equation}
Here $O([\partial_i A_j]^2)$ may contain the terms with the second power of the derivatives of $\bf A$ and the terms higher order in derivatives. In order to prove Eq. (\ref{QF0}) it is necessary to consider the function ${\cal F}(\hat{\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r})) = \sum_{n}{\cal F}_{i_1...i_n}(-i\partial_{i_1} - A_{i_1}({\bf r}))...(-i\partial_{i_n} - A_{i_n}({\bf r}))$ as a series in powers of its arguments (${\cal F}_{i_1...i_n}$ are the Hermitian operator - valued coefficients), and apply the correspondence of Eq. (\ref{corr}) to each term. The details of the consideration are similar to that of Appendix B, where the Wigner transform in momentum space is discussed. Therefore, we do not represent them here and advise the reader to follow Appendix B.
In order to prove Eq. (\ref{idB0}) let us substitute Eq. (\ref{W0}) into it.
Argument of the exponent in Eq. (\ref{idB0}) acts on $\cal Q$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
1&=&\int d^D{\bf r} {\cal Q}({\bf R}+\frac{i}{2}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p}-\frac{i}{2}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}) \nonumber\\&& e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} G({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2,{\bf R}-{\bf r}/2)
\end{eqnarray}
The important point concerning this expression is that the derivatives $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}$ and $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p}$ inside the arguments of $\cal Q$ act only outside of this function, i.e. on $e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} G({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2,{\bf R}-{\bf r}/2)$ and do not act inside the function $\cal Q$, i.e. on $\bf p$ and $\bf R$ in its arguments.
This gives
\begin{eqnarray}
1&=&\int d^D{\bf r} e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} {\cal Q}({\bf R}+\frac{\bf r}{2},i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf r}-\frac{i}{2}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R})\\&& G({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2,{\bf R}-{\bf r}/2) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Up to the boundary terms (which are assumed to be absent) we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\int d^D{\bf r} e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} \hat{\cal Q}({\bf R}+\frac{\bf r}{2},-i {\partial}_{\bf r}-\frac{i}{2}{\partial}_{\bf R}) G({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2,{\bf R}-{\bf r}/2) = 1\nonumber
\end{equation}
Now it is clear why we should order operators $\hat{\bf p}$ and $\bf r$ in $\hat{\cal Q}$ according to Eq. (\ref{corr}) in order to obtain function $\cal Q$.
Applying the inverse Wigner transform we finally arrive at Eq. (\ref{QG}).
Notice, that the Weyl symbol $\cal Q$ of the operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ may also be defined as \cite{Weyl,berezin} the Wigner transform of the matrix elements of $\hat{\cal Q}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p}) &=& \int d^D {\bf x} d^D{\bf r} e^{-i {\bf p} {\bf r}} \delta({\bf R}-{\bf r}/2 - {\bf x}) \nonumber\\&& \hat{\cal Q}({\bf x},-i {\partial}_{\bf x}) \delta({\bf R}+{\bf r}/2 - {\bf x})\label{W000}
\end{eqnarray}
\section*{Appendix B. Wigner transform of the Green function (lattice version)}
\label{SectWignerl}
We consider the $d+1 = D$ dimensional model with the Green function ${\cal G}({\bf p}_1,{\bf p}_2)$ that obeys equation
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}(i \partial_{{\bf p}_1},{\bf p}_1)G({\bf p}_1,{\bf p}_2) = |{\cal M}| \delta^{(D)}({\bf p}_1-{\bf p}_2)\label{QGlA}
\end{equation}
for some Hermitian operator - valued function $\hat{\cal Q}$. Let us apply Wigner decomposition in momentum space
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}({\bf R},{\bf p}) = \int \frac{d^D{\bf P}}{|{\cal M}|} e^{i {\bf P} {\bf R}} G({\bf p}+{\bf P}/2,{\bf p}-{\bf P}/2)\label{WlA}
\end{equation}
We will prove identity
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p})e^{\frac{i}{2}(\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p} - \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf p}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R})}\tilde G({\bf R},{\bf p}) = 1 \label{idBl}
\end{equation}
Weyl symbol $\cal Q$ of the operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ is the function of real numbers rather than the operators. Similar to the continuum case we determine relation between the function ${\cal Q}({\bf r},{\bf p})$ (of real - valued vectors ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf p}$) and the function $\hat{\cal Q}(\hat{\bf r}, {\bf p})$ (of the operators ${\bf p}$ and $\hat{\bf r} = i \partial_{\bf p}$) through the identity
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int d^D {\bf X} d^D {\bf Y}\, f({\bf X},{\bf Y})\, {\cal Q}(-i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf Y}+i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf X},{\bf X}/2+{\bf Y}/{2})\, h({\bf X},{\bf Y})\nonumber\\ && = \int d^D {\bf X}d^D {\bf Y}\, f({\bf X},{\bf Y}) \hat{\cal Q}\Big(i \partial_{\bf X}+ i\partial_{\bf Y},{\bf X}/2+ {\bf Y}/{2}\Big) \, h({\bf X},{\bf Y}) \label{corrl}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
which works for arbitrary functions $f({\bf X},{\bf Y})$ and $h({\bf X},{\bf Y})$ defined on compact momentum space ${\bf X},{\bf Y}\in {\cal M}$. The important point concerning this expression is that the derivatives $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf X}$ and $\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf Y}$ inside the arguments of $\cal Q$ act only outside of this function, i.e. $\overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf Y}$ acts on $f({\bf X},{\bf Y})$ while $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf X}$ acts on $h({\bf X},{\bf Y})$. At the same time
the derivatives without arrows act as usual operators, i.e. not only right to the function $\hat{\cal Q}$, but inside it as well. Notice, that $\frac{\partial}{\partial ({\bf X}/2+ {\bf Y}/{2})} = \partial_{\bf Y} + {\partial_{\bf X}}$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial ({\bf X}/2 - {\bf Y}/{2})} = \partial_{\bf X} - {\partial_{\bf Y}}$. Therefore, we may rewrite Eq. (\ref{corrl}) as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int d^D {\bf X} d^D {\bf Y}\, f({\bf X},{\bf Y})\, {\cal Q}(-i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf Y}+i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf X},{\bf X}/2+{\bf Y}/{2})\, h({\bf X},{\bf Y})\nonumber\\ && = -2 \int d^D {\bf Q} d^D {\bf K}\, f({\bf Q}+{\bf K},{\bf Q}-{\bf K}) \hat{\cal Q}\Big(i \partial_{\bf Q},{\bf Q}\Big) \, h({\bf Q}+{\bf K},{\bf Q}-{\bf K}) \label{corrl2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
The given correspondence takes the simple form in certain particular cases.
For example, if $\hat{\cal Q} = ({\bf p} - {\bf A}(\hat{\bf r}))^2 = {\bf p}^2 + {\bf A}^2(\hat{\bf r}) + i \Big(\partial^k A_k(\hat{\bf r})\Big) - 2 {\bf A}(\hat{\bf r}){\bf p}$ (recall, that $\hat{\bf r}$ is operator equal to $i\partial_{\bf p}$), then ${\cal Q} = {\bf p}^2 + {\bf A}^2({\bf r}) - 2 {\bf A}({\bf r}){\bf p}$. Besides, one can easily check, that if $\hat{\cal Q}$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}(\hat{\bf r},{\bf p}) = {\cal F}({\bf p} - {\bf A}(\hat{\bf r}))
\end{equation}
then we have
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}({\bf r},{\bf p}) = {\cal F}({\bf p} - {\bf A}({\bf r})) + O([\partial_i A_j]^2)\label{QF}
\end{equation}
Here $O([\partial_i A_j]^2)$ may contain the terms with the second power of the derivatives of $\bf A$ and the terms higher order in derivatives. Let us prove Eq. (\ref{QF}). First of all, this is necessary to consider the function ${\cal F}({\bf p} - {\bf A}(\hat{\bf r})) = \sum_{n}{\cal F}_{i_1...i_n}(p_{i_1} - A_{i_1}(i\partial_{\bf p}))...(p_{i_n} - A_{i_n}(i\partial_{\bf p}))$ as a series in powers of its arguments (${\cal F}_{i_1...i_n}$ are Hermitian operators that do not depend on $\bf p$). Operator $\hat{Q}$ is Hermitian, therefore, the kernel of the first row in Eq. (\ref{corrl2}) should also be Hermitian.
It may be represented as follows. Suppose, that function $\cal Q$ is expanded in powers of ${\bf Q}=({\bf X}+{\bf Y})/2$ and $-i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf Y}+i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf X}$ as follows
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}(-i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf Y}+i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf X},{\bf X}/2+{\bf Y}/{2}) = \sum q_{i_1...i_n;j_1...j_m;k_1...k_l}(-i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{Y_{i_1}})...(-i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{Y_{i_n}}) Q_{j_1}...Q_{j_m}(i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{X_{k_1}})(i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{X_{k_l}})\label{QQ}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
In this expression inside the first row of Eq. (\ref{corrl}) we may be substitute $-i\overleftarrow{\partial}_{Y_{i}}$ by $i{\partial}_{Y_{i}}$ and $i\overrightarrow{\partial}_{X_{k}}$ by $i{\partial}_{X_{k}}$. Because the second row in Eq. (\ref{corrl}) is symmetric under the interchange of $\bf X$ and $\bf Y$, we have $q_{i_1...i_n;j_1...j_m;k_1...k_l}=q_{k_1...k_l;j_1...j_m;i_1...i_n}$. For the same reason Eq. (\ref{QQ}) is invariant under the interchange ${\bf X}\leftrightarrow {\bf Y}$. Then the change of $q_{...}$ by its Hermitian conjugate $q^+_{...}$ is equivalent to the Hermitian conjugation of the whole expression. This demonstrates that coefficients $q_{...}$ are Hermitian. Now let us suppose, that ${\cal Q}$ is linear in the derivative of ${\bf A}$. Algebraically the linear term appears as a product of a certain combination of ${\cal F}_{...}$ and the commutator $[{p}_k,{\bf A}(i\partial_{\bf p})] = - i (\partial_k {\bf A})$. Therefore, it would lead to the appearance of imaginary unity in the expression for $q_{...}$ as a combination of ${\cal F}_{...}$, which means that $q_{...}$ is not Hermitian. The contradiction proves the non - appearance of the terms linear in the derivatives of ${\bf A}$ in the expression for ${\cal Q}({\bf r},{\bf p})$.
In order to prove Eq. (\ref{idBl}) let us substitute Eq. (\ref{WlA}) into it.
Argument of the exponent in Eq. (\ref{idBl}) acts on $\cal Q$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
1&=&\int \frac{d^D{\bf P}}{|{\cal M}|} {\cal Q}({\bf R}+\frac{i}{2}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p}-\frac{i}{2}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}) \nonumber\\&& e^{i {\bf P} {\bf R}} G({\bf p}+{\bf P}/2,{\bf p}-{\bf P}/2)
\end{eqnarray}
In this expression the derivatives $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p}$ and $\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf R}$ inside the arguments of $\cal Q$ act only outside of this function, i.e. on $e^{i {\bf P} {\bf R}} G({\bf p}+{\bf P}/2,{\bf p}-{\bf P}/2)$ and do not act inside the function $\cal Q$, i.e. on $\bf p$ and $\bf R$ in its arguments.
This gives
\begin{eqnarray}
1&=&\int \frac{d^D{\bf P}}{|{\cal M}|} e^{i {\bf P} {\bf R}} {\cal Q}(-i \overleftarrow{\partial}_{\bf P}+\frac{i}{2}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p}+\frac{\bf P}{2})\\ && G({\bf p}+{\bf P}/2,{\bf p}-{\bf P}/2) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Because of the absence of boundary of $\cal M$ we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{d^D{\bf P}}{|{\cal M}|} e^{i {\bf P} {\bf R}} \hat{\cal Q}(i {\partial}_{\bf P}+\frac{i}{2}{\partial}_{\bf p},{\bf p}+\frac{\bf P}{2}) G({\bf p}+{\bf P}/2,{\bf p}-{\bf P}/2) = 1\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we applied Eq. (\ref{corrl}). Now it is clear why we should order operators ${\bf p}$ and $\bf{\bf r}$ in $\hat{\cal Q}$ according to Eq. (\ref{corrl}) in order to obtain function $\cal Q$.
Taking into account Eq. (\ref{corrl2}) and applying the inverse Wigner transform we finally arrive at Eq. (\ref{QGlA}).
Finally, let us notice, that the Weyl
symbol $\cal Q$ of the operator $\hat{\cal Q}$ may also be defined following that of Appendix A (see also \cite{Weyl,berezin}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Q}({\bf R},{\bf p}) &=& \int {d^D {\bf K}} {d^D{\bf P}} e^{i {\bf P} {\bf R}} \delta({\bf p}-{\bf P}/2 - {\bf K}) \nonumber\\&& \hat{\cal Q}(i {\partial}_{\bf K},{\bf K}) \delta({\bf p}+{\bf P}/2 - {\bf K})\label{W000}
\end{eqnarray}
\section*{Appendix C. Topological invariant responsible for the linear response of electric current to magnetic field}
\label{SectN34}
In the main text we encountered Eq. (\ref{Ml}) for the coefficient entering the linear response of electric current to external magnetic field. If momentum space $\cal M$ has the form of the product $S^1\otimes \Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the 3D Brillouin zone, while $S^1$ is the circle of the values of $p_4$, then for $l=4$ we may rewrite this quantity as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}_{4} &=& - \frac{i}{2}\int dp^4 \tilde{\cal N}_3(p^4),\nonumber\\
\tilde{\cal N}_3(p^4) & = & \frac{1}{24 \pi^2}\epsilon_{ijk4} {\rm Tr}\, \int_{\Omega} d^3 p \Big( {\cal G} \partial^i {\cal G}^{-1} \Big)\nonumber\\&&\Big( {\cal G}\partial^j {\cal G}^{-1} \Big)\Big({\cal G} \partial^k {\cal G}^{-1}\Big) \label{F4B}
\end{eqnarray}
Here for the fixed value of $p^4$ we encounter the expression for the topological invariant in the 3D Brillouin zone. Green function $\cal G$ should be considered here as the function of the 3 arguments $p^1,p^2,p^3$ while $p^4$ is to be considered as a parameter.
Notice, that for the Green function of the form of Eq. (\ref{G1}) the value of $\tilde{\cal N}_3(p^4)$ is equal to zero. At the same time for the Green function of general form this invariant may be nonzero. This explains the quantization of Hall conductivity as has been explained in Sect. \ref{SectHall}. One might naively think, that the deviation of the Green function from the form of Eq. (\ref{G1}) - say, of the form of Eq. (\ref{G2}) may change the expressions for $\tilde{\cal N}_3$ and ${\cal M}_4$. Below we will demonstrate, that this does not occur as long as we deal with the compact Brillouin zone and regular Green functions.
Let us consider arbitrary variation of the Green function:
${\cal G} \rightarrow {\cal G} + \delta {\cal G}$. Then expression
for $\tilde{\cal N}_3$ is changed as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \tilde{\cal N}_3 & = &-
\frac{3 }{24 \pi^2} \int_{} {\rm Tr} \Big( ([\delta {\cal G}]
d {\cal G}^{-1}+{\cal G}
d [\delta {\cal G}^{-1}])\wedge {\cal G}
d {\cal G}^{-1} \nonumber\\&& \wedge {\cal G}
d {\cal G}^{-1}\Big)\nonumber\\&=&
\frac{3}{24 \pi^2} \int_{} d \, {\rm Tr} \left(
([\delta {\cal G}^{-1}] {\cal G} )
d {\cal G}^{-1}\wedge
d {\cal G}\right) = 0 \label{dNP}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we proved that $\tilde{\cal N}_3$ is the topological invariant.
|
\section{Introduction}
The fact that living cells constitute crowded cytoplasmic and nuclear environments has been appreciated for several decades \cite{zimmerman1993macromolecular,ellis2001macromolecular}. However, the significance of excluded volume effects to specific biochemical processes has recently been highlighted by a multitude of experimental and theoretical observations. It is now established that crowding by large inert molecules can place limits on the total number of transcription factors in a cell \cite{li2009effects}, can cause DNA to change its shape \cite{zhang2009macromolecular}, can encourage protein structure self-assembly \cite{rivas2001direct}, and can both enhance and diminish transcription factor binding rates \cite{tan2013molecular}.
Correspondingly, several authors have recently proposed a variety of mathematical descriptions of crowding effects. Many of these are modifications of the compartment-based reaction-diffusion master equation \cite{cianci2015molecular,taylor2015reconciling,meinecke2016multiscale}, which divides space into a lattice and models diffusion as particles hopping between neighbouring lattice sites. Lattice-based models have, however, been shown to underestimate the effects of crowding compared to more detailed descriptions \cite{grima2006systematic,meinecke2016excluded}. Some authors have proposed introducing crowding effects directly into non-spatial descriptions such as the chemical master equation \cite{grima2010intrinsic} or the deterministic reaction rate equations \cite{berry2002monte,schnell2004reaction}. The most popular technique, however, involves Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations \cite{wieczorek2008influence,ando2010crowding,mcguffee2010diffusion}.
BD simulations explicitly track the positions of particles and model diffusion as a Brownian random walk in continuous space. Several popular modern BD simulators do not model crowding explicitly, since they assume particles to be point-particles with no physical volume \cite{andrews2004stochastic,van2005simulating}. However, designing algorithms to accurately study the behaviour of hard sphere colloids (uniform suspensions of insoluble particles) without hydrodynamic interactions was a popular problem in chemical physics long before the biochemical implications of volume exclusion were fully appreciated \cite{lowen1991brownian,schaertl1994brownian,cichocki1994friction}.
One such algorithm was proposed by Cichocki and Hinsen \cite{cichocki1990dynamic}. The idea behind the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm is simple to state: only one particle is moved at a time, and if the attempted move results in a collision the particle is simply placed back in its previous position, thereby crudely modelling a steric repulsion. Despite its relative simplicity, the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm has been proved to converge to the Smoluchowski equation in the limit of short simulation time-steps \cite{cichocki1990dynamic} and has been shown to agree perfectly with far more detailed algorithms which incorporate particle velocity and momentum \cite{strating1999brownian}. It is therefore commonly used to simulate Brownian diffusion of hard spheres \cite{doliwa1998cage,auer2001prediction,auer2004numerical}, yet because of its fine-grained detail, the algorithm must be run for a long time to get statistically significant results.
In this article, we propose a modification to the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm for reaction-diffusion systems. Our simplification arises from distinguishing between reactive particles (which may either be point particles or have a finite volume) and hard sphere crowders. We rigorously derive the probability that a reactive particle will collide with a crowder in a single time step, and use this to write a modified Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm which does not explicitly simulate crowders: we call this the \emph{crowder-free} algorithm. Unsurprisingly, the crowder-free algorithm results in a dramatic speed increase over the original Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm of up to three orders of magnitude. Perhaps more surprisingly, the output data of the two algorithms is near-indistinguishable for each example that we test.
In section \ref{PointParticles} we propose the crowder-free algorithm for a system of reactive point particles in a sea of hard sphere crowders. We first outline the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm for a point particle reaction-diffusion system. We then derive the probability that a small diffusive jump by a reactive point particle results in a collision with a crowder. Using this expression, we outline the crowder-free algorithm. We subsequently test our algorithm's speed and accuracy in modelling both pure diffusion and the reaction-diffusion system $A+B \xrightleftharpoons[]{}C$ in the presence of crowders.
In section \ref{Finite} we analogously propose the crowder-free algorithm for a system of finite-size reactive particles in a sea of hard sphere crowders. We then derive the probability that a small diffusive jump by a finite-size reactive particle results in a collision with a crowder: this is shown to be very similar to the point particle expression. We again test our algorithm's speed and accuracy in modelling pure diffusion and the reaction-diffusion system $\emptyset \xrightarrow{} X,~ X+X \xrightarrow{} \emptyset$ in the presence of crowders. We conclude with a discussion in section \ref{Discussion}.
\section{Point particles in a crowded environment}\label{PointParticles}
We first describe the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm as applied to a system of reactive point particles in a sea of inert spherical crowders of radius $R$. Since the original Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm was written for purely diffusive systems, we have added some steps for reactive systems. The reactive method we use is the Doi model \cite{doi1976stochastic,erban2009stochastic}, which assigns each bimolecular reaction $j$ a distance $r_j$ and a rate $\lambda_j$. Bimolecular reaction $j$ occur with rate $\lambda_j$ when two reactive particles of the relevant type come within a distance $r_j$ of each other. Unbinding reactions are assigned a rate $\lambda_j$ and an unbinding distance $\sigma_j$. These reactions occur with rate $\lambda_j$ and the daughter particles are placed a distance $\sigma_j$ from each other, at a uniformly distributed angle. Other monomolecular and zero-order reactions are simply assigned a rate $\lambda_j$. Note that reaction distances and unbinding distances are not physical radii, and do not exclude any volume.\\~\\
\textbf{Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm with reactive point particles}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Uniformly distribute the reactive particles and the crowders in the volume, such that no crowders are intersecting each other and no reactive particles lie inside a crowder. Let $N$ be the total number of particles (reactive and crowders), and randomly assign each particle a unique index $1,...,N$.
\item For each $i=1,...,N$, propose a new position for particle $i$ at a random Normal$(0,\sqrt{2 D_i \Delta t})$ displacement in each spatial dimension, where $D_i$ is the diffusion coefficient of particle $i$ and $\Delta t$ is the simulation time step. If this new position causes an intersection between any particles (reactive and crowder), place particle $i$ back in its original position. If not, place particle $i$ in the new position.
\item For each reactive particle involved in a bimolecular reaction $j$, check if any reactive particles of the appropriate types lie inside a sphere of radius $r_j$ around the particle. For each appropriate reactive particle inside this sphere, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$. If successful, check if any daughter particles would intersect a crowder. If so, skip the reaction; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item For each reactive particle of a type involved in a unimolecular reaction $j$, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$. If successful, check if any daughter particles would intersect a crowder. If so, skip the reaction; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item For each zero-order reaction, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$. If successful, check if any of the new particles would intersect a crowder. If so, skip the reaction; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item Advance time by $\Delta t$. Let $N$ be the new total number of particles and randomly reassign each particle a unique index $1,...,N$. Return to (2) and repeat until a target time has elapsed.
\end{enumerate}
The overwhelmingly time-consuming step of this algorithm is step (2), in which potential particle overlaps must be checked $N$ times. The reaction steps (3)-(5) also involve potential overlaps, but as $\Delta t$ should typically be taken small enough that at most one reaction could plausibly happen per time step, these should not be particularly time-consuming. Our aim in the next subsection is therefore to reduce the time taken by step (2). Note that step (1) can also be particularly time-consuming: although our simplification does not particularly aim to fix that problem, it happens that by increasing the speed of step (2) we also dramatically shorten step (1).
\subsection{Derivation}
We first make two observations which form the basis of our method of reducing the time taken by the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm. Firstly, the crowders are inert and contribute little to the actual reactive behaviour of the system; their only function is to occasionally prevent a reactive particle from moving or reaction from happening. Secondly, the crowders are uniformly distributed in space: this implies that each proposed reactive particle movement has roughly the same chance of being impeded by a crowder.
One common method of modelling diffusion in a crowded environment, based on the crowder uniformity assumption, is to simply replace the diffusion coefficient $D$ with $D(1-\phi)$, where $\phi$ is the proportion of the total volume occupied by crowders \cite{fanelli2010diffusion}. The idea is that if a particle attempts to move to a new location, there is a $1-\phi$ probability of that location not being occupied by a crowder. This is a valid assumption if the particle displacement at a time step $\delta x \gg R$, that is, if the particle moves by a distance much greater than the crowder size, such that its new location can be roughly considered a uniform random variable. However, it makes little sense to take $\delta x \gg R$, because that would allow particles to pass through crowders with a single jump.
On the other hand, taking $\delta x \ll R$ makes physical sense, because the tiny perturbations which make up Brownian motion are much smaller than any particle radius. Furthermore, this is precisely the limit in which Cichocki and Hinsen proved their algorithm to be exact \cite{cichocki1990dynamic}. In that limit, however, we cannot use the $1-\phi$ assumption. To understand why not, consider that the particle is already in a permitted location: this implies that there is a small sphere with radius $\epsilon>0$ around the particle which does not intersect any crowders. This local effect implies that the particle's new position cannot be treated as uniformly distributed: if $\delta x$ is small enough ($\delta x<\epsilon$), the particle's new position is guaranteed to not intersect any crowders. In summary, if we require that $\delta x \ll R$, then the probability that the particle's new position is illegal (intersects a crowder) is not given by $1-\phi$ but by some function of $\delta x$. We now attempt to derive that function.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 4cm 0cm, clip=true,scale=0.348]{fig1}
\caption{Diagram of a point particle attempting to move near a crowder of radius $R$. The particle attempts to displace itself a distance $\delta x$, such that its future position is on the surface of sphere of radius $\delta x$ around its current position. There may be crowders with their centres in the spherical shell of radius $R+\delta x$ (grey region), which could prevent the particle displacement. The proposed position will be illegal if it is on the dotted segment of the sphere of radius $\delta x$.}\label{diag1}
\end{figure}
Consider what happens when a point-particle proposes to move by a displacement $\delta x$. This is illustrated in Fig. \ref{diag1}. The particle's proposed new position will be on the surface of a sphere of radius $\delta x$ around its current position. There will be no crowders with their centres in a sphere of radius $R$ around the particle (otherwise the point particle could not be where it is currently), however there is a non-zero probability that there are crowders with their centres inside the spherical shell between the sphere of radius $R+\delta x$ and the sphere of radius $R$ (the grey region in Fig. \ref{diag1}). If there are crowders in this region, then there is some probability that the point particle's proposed new position is illegal: this is precisely the probability that the proposed position intersects the crowder (the dotted line segment in Fig. \ref{diag1}).
Now, suppose that there are $N_C$ crowders of radius $R$ inside a volume $V$. Assuming a uniform crowder distribution, the probability that a given crowder is at risk of intersecting the point particle is simply the ratio of the volume of the grey region to the total volume:
\begin{equation}
p=\frac{\frac{4}{3} \pi (R+\delta x)^3-\frac{4}{3} \pi R^3}{V}=\frac{4\pi R^2 \delta x}{V}+o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R}\right).
\end{equation}
The probability of finding $n$ crowders in the grey region is then given by the Binomial distribution:
\begin{equation}\label{Pncrowders}
P(n\text{ crowders})= \frac{N_C!}{n!(N_C-n)!} p^n(1-p)^{N_C-n}.
\end{equation}
Of course, Eq. \eqref{Pncrowders} is only valid for small $n$, because there is a physical limit to how many crowders can fit in the relevant region. However, this is of little concern, since we are only concerned with the probabilities up to $o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R}\right)$, which turns out to correspond only to $n=0$ and $n=1$.
\begin{align}\label{P1crowder}
P(0\text{ crowders})&=1-\frac{4\pi N_CR^2 \delta x}{V}+o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R}\right),\\
P(1\text{ crowder})&=\frac{4\pi N_C R^2 \delta x}{V}+o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R}\right).\label{P2crowder}
\end{align}
We now consider the probability that the proposed new point particle position intersects the crowder. This is given by the surface area of the spherical cap of the sphere of radius $\delta x$ which lies inside the sphere of radius $R$ around the crowder (the dotted line segment in Fig. \ref{diag1}) divided by the total surface area of the sphere of radius $\delta x$. This is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{Pintersect}
P(\text{intersect})=\frac{2 \pi \delta x \frac{(R-\delta x+ d)(R+\delta x - d)}{2d}}{4 \pi \delta x^2},
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the separation between the centres of the point particle and the crowder \cite{mathworld}. The expected value of $d$ is simply $R+\frac{\delta x}{2}$, so inserting this into Eq. \eqref{Pintersect} gives:
\begin{equation}\label{Pintersect2}
P(\text{intersect})=\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3 \delta x}{16 R}+o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R}\right).
\end{equation}
Combining Eq. \eqref{P2crowder} with Eq. \eqref{Pintersect2} gives the probability that the proposed move is illegal:
\begin{equation}\label{pille}
P(\text{illegal})=\frac{4\pi N_C R^2 \delta x}{V}\left(\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3 \delta x}{16 R}\right)=\frac{\pi N_C R^2 \delta x}{V}+o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R}\right).
\end{equation}
Writing this in terms of the proportion of occupied volume, $\phi=\frac{\frac{4}{3} \pi N_C R^3}{V}$, leads to the simplified expression:
\begin{equation}\label{pillegal}
P(\text{illegal})=\frac{3\phi \delta x}{4R}+o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R}\right).
\end{equation}
We can therefore write a much faster version of Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm which \emph{does not include any crowders}. Only point particles need to be modelled explicitly in our algorithm, while the effect of crowders is incorporated by denying a point particle's proposed movement with probability $P(\text{illegal})$. For obvious reasons, we call this a \emph{crowder-free} algorithm. This idea is shown in Fig. \ref{diag2}. The left panel shows the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm with crowders (red) and point particles (blue, purple). The points are not allowed to intersect the crowders, but the reaction radii are. The right panel shows the crowder-free algorithm, which looks identical to Cichocki-Hinsen without crowders. It is clear that the crowder-free algorithm will be easier to simulate.
Since none of the remaining particles in the crowder-free algorithm occupy any volume, we can move all particles simultaneously. The algorithm therefore essentially reduces to the classical Doi algorithm, with an extra clause for preventing particle movement.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=1.2cm 13.8cm 2cm 6.3cm, clip=true,scale=0.49]{fig2}
\caption{Cartoons of the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm (left) and the crowder-free algorithm (right) for reactive point particles. The point particles (blue, purple) may have a reaction radius (translucent circle) which does not exclude any volume and is therefore permitted to intersect crowders (red) or other particles. The centres of the point particles (solid dots) are not permitted to intersect crowders.}\label{diag2}
\end{figure}
Some minor changes must also be made to the reaction parts of the algorithm (steps (3)-(5)), which originally prevented a reaction if a newly created particle would intersect a crowder. Since we no longer explicitly model crowders, we must modify this step. If the reaction is either bimolecular or monomolecular, the new particle will be placed at a small displacement $\sigma$ from a previous particle location. If $\frac{\sigma}{R} \ll 1$, then we can simply modify the diffusion formula to become $P(\text{illegal})=\frac{3\phi \sigma}{4R}$. Can we assume that $\frac{\sigma}{R} \ll 1$? In some cases, such as monomolecular conversion reaction of the type $A \rightarrow B$, we will have $\sigma = 0$, and it would be absurd to prevent such reactions due to crowding. However, some reactions may have quite a large unbinding distance, and the diffusion formula may prove to be invalid. At each such reaction, we therefore check if $\frac{\sigma}{R} < 0.1$. If this condition is true, we use the formula $P(\text{illegal})=\frac{3\phi \sigma}{4R}$, otherwise we use the formula $P(\text{illegal})=\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi N_CR^3}{V}$, which is the probability that a uniformly distributed point particle would intersect a crowder. The choice of $0.1$ is essentially arbitrary, and can obviously be made smaller if required; we find that it gives good results, however. For zero-order reactions, we always use the formula $P(\text{illegal})=\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi N_CR^3}{V}$, since particles created by these reactions have no parent particles.\\~\\
\textbf{Crowder-free algorithm with reactive point particles}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Uniformly distribute the reactive particles in the volume.
\item Propose new positions for all particles at a random Normal$(0,\sqrt{2 D_i \Delta t})$ displacement in each spatial dimension, where $D_i$ is the diffusion coefficient of particle $i$ and $\Delta t$ is the simulation time step. Calculate $\delta x$, the length of the displacement, for each particle. With probability $\frac{3\phi \delta x}{4R}$ reject the proposed move, otherwise accept it.
\item For each particle of a type involved in a bimolecular reaction $j$, check if any particles of the appropriate types lie inside a sphere of radius $r$ around the particle, where $r$ is the reaction radius for the relevant reaction. For each appropriate particle inside this sphere, propose the reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$, where $\lambda_j$ is the corresponding reaction rate. For each daughter particle, calculate $\sigma$, the length of the displacement from the nearest parent particle. If $\frac{\sigma}{R}<0.1$, with probability $\frac{3\phi \sigma}{4R}$ reject the proposed reaction, otherwise accept it. Otherwise if $\frac{\sigma}{R} \geq 0.1$, with probability $\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi N_CR^3}{V}$ (where $N_C$ is the number of crowders) reject the proposed reaction, otherwise accept it.
\item For each reactive particle of a type involved in a unimolecular reaction, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$, where $\lambda_j$ is the reaction rate. For each daughter particle, calculate $\sigma$, the length of the displacement from the nearest parent particle. If $\frac{\sigma}{R}<0.1$, with probability $\frac{3\phi \sigma}{4R}$ reject the proposed reaction, otherwise accept it. Otherwise if $\frac{\sigma}{R} \geq 0.1$, with probability $\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi N_C R^3}{V}$ reject the proposed reaction, otherwise accept it.
\item For each zero-order reaction, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$, where $\lambda_j$ is the reaction rate. With probability $\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi N_CR^3}{V}$ reject the proposed reaction, otherwise accept it.
\item Advance time by $\Delta t$. Return to (2) and repeat until a target time has elapsed.
\end{enumerate}
In the next section, we confirm that the crowder-free algorithm is orders of magnitude faster than Cichocki-Hinsen, while retaining its accuracy.
\subsection{Comparative tests}\label{pptest}
In our first test of the crowder-free algorithm, we consider a single point particle diffusing in space, surrounded by a uniform distribution of crowders. This is the scenario for which the crowder-free algorithm should show the most dramatic improvement over the original Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm in terms of computation time.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig3}
\caption{Time taken for 100 time steps of both the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm (blue) and the crowder-free algorithm (red), for a single point particle diffusing in space. With only 10 crowders, the crowder-free algorithm is over 10 times faster. With 500 crowders, the crowder-free algorithm is over $10^3$ times faster. Parameter values are $V=1$, $R=0.05$, $\Delta t=10^{-5}$, $D=0.1$ for the point particle, $D=0.01$ for the crowders.}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Indeed, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}, we find that the crowder-free algorithm is at least an order of magnitude faster than the standard algorithm when there are only 10 crowders, this increases to three orders of maginitude when there are 500 crowders. A significant advantage is that the crowder-free algorithm does not scale with number of crowders, making it particularly useful for studying high levels of crowding.
Of course, fast simulation is of little use if the results of the algorithm are inaccurate. In our second test, we therefore use sample paths from both algorithms to compute the effective short-time diffusion coefficient $D^*$ of a single point particle in crowded space \cite{saxton1994anomalous}. This is done by performing a simulation with input diffusion coefficient $D$, computing the squared displacement of the particle at each time step and taking the mean of that value over the entire simulation. This value is equated to $6 D^* \Delta t$ to find an estimate for the effective short-time diffusion coefficient $D^*$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig4}
\caption{Relative reduction in short-time diffusion coefficient for both the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm (blue) and the crowder-free algorithm (red), for a single point particle diffusing in space, as a function of the proportion of occupied volume $\phi$. All data points are an average of 10 simulations, error bars are 1 standard deviation. Parameter values are $V=1$, $R=0.05$, $\Delta t=10^{-5}$, $D=0.1$ for the point particle, $D=0.01$ for the crowders.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The non-dimensional parameter $\frac{D^*}{D}$ is the effective reduction in short-time diffusion coefficient due to crowding. For no crowding, we expect $\frac{D^*}{D}=1$, and the value should decrease as crowding increases. This is because large jumps are more likely to result in a collision with a crowder than small jumps, so the effective diffusion coefficient appears to be reduced. In Fig. \ref{fig2} we plot $\frac{D^*}{D}$ as a function of the proportion of occupied volume $\phi$. As expected, both algorithms show a reduction in the effective short-time diffusion coefficient as crowding increases, and both algorithms give very similar results, with their error bars always intersecting. Each data point is an average of 10 simulations, each simulation ran until the point particle, initially located at $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$, left the unit cube with corners at $(0,0,0)$ and $(1,1,1)$.
We have confirmed that the crowder-free algorithm simulates diffusion as accurately as the original Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm, but we have not tested whether it accurately simulates reactions. In our next test, we use both algorithms to compute the equilibrium distribution of the reaction $A+B \xrightleftharpoons[]{}C$ in the presence of low and high levels of crowding. We expect the typical number of $C$ molecules to be higher for high crowding, because the unbinding reaction will occur less frequently.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig5}
\caption{Equilibrium distribution of the number of $C$ molecules for the reaction $A+B \xrightleftharpoons[]{}C$. Each distribution is a time average over single long trajectory of length $10^5$ iterations. Parameter values are $V=1$, $R=0.05$, $\Delta t=10^{-4}$, $D_0=0.1$ for the point particle, $D_0=0.01$ for the crowders, reaction radius $r=0.025$, forward reaction rate $\lambda_1=9\times 10^3$, backward reaction rate $\lambda_2=1$, unbinding distance $\sigma=0.025$.}\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
For each algorithm, we simulated two long trajectories of a system initially consisting of $30$ uniformly distributed $A$ molecules and 30 uniformly distributed $B$ molecules, in a sea of 10 (low crowding) and 700 (high crowding) crowders. The simulation time was much longer than the time for the system to reach equilibrium. In Fig. \ref{fig3} we show the equilibrium distribution for the number of $C$ molecules. The mean number of $C$ molecules shifts from around $6$ with low crowding to around $11$ with high crowding. The crowder-free algorithm agrees almost perfectly with the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm for both examples, thus confirming that the crowder-free algorithm accurately imitates the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm, but with a dramatic reduction in computation time.
\subsection{A note on more complex systems}
The crowder-free algorithm proposed above specifically concerns a uniform distribution of crowders with the same radius, however the results can equally be applied to more complex systems.
For sets of crowders with different radii, say $N_C^{(i)}$ crowders of radius $R_i$ for $i=1,...,k$, we can simply use the formula:
\begin{equation}
P(\text{illegal})=\sum_{i=1}^k\frac{N_C^{(i)}\pi R_i^2 \delta x}{V},
\end{equation}
which will give the probability of a move $\delta x$ resulting in a collision. Of course, this formula relies on the assumption that $\delta x \ll R_i$ for all $i=1,...,k$.
For systems with a non-uniform distribution of crowders of radius $R$, the algorithm can still be used if the crowder distribution is locally uniform. In that case, we can divide the volume up into $k$ subvolumes $V_i$ with $N_C^{(i)}$ crowders for $i=1,...,k$, whre $V_1+...+V_k=V$ and $N_C^{(1)}+...+N_C^{(k)}=N_C$. Then we can apply the formula:
\begin{equation}
P(\text{illegal})=\frac{N_C^{(i)}\pi R^2 \delta x}{V_i},
\end{equation}
for a point particle in the $i^\text{th}$ subvolume. However, this method will only really work if the crowder distribution remains roughly constant in time. If the crowders are diffusing fast enough that the overall distribution flattens on the timescale of the simulation, then subvolume $i$ will not always contain $N_C^{(i)}$ crowders. Since we do not know how $N_C^{(i)}$ will change \emph{a priori}, we cannot really use the crowder-free algorithm for such examples.
\section{Finite-size particles in a crowded environment}\label{Finite}
Studying the behaviour of reactive point particles in the presence of crowders provides useful information about real biochemical systems in which the reactive particles are much smaller than the crowders they encounter. This is an accurate description of, for example, small proteins or amino acids diffusing in the vicinity of ribosomes or large enzymes. However, biochemical particles also encounter crowders with a similar size to themselves. In order to study these examples effectively, we must also be able to simulate reactive particles which occupy a non-zero volume. A version of the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm for which the reactive particles occupy a non-zero volume is given below. Since reactive particles now have a physical radius, we no longer need to define a reaction distance for bimolecular reactions: particles react with a rate $\lambda_j$ if they physically intersect. This is known as partial-absorption Smoluchowski binding \cite{agbanusi2014comparison}. \\~\\
\textbf{Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm with finite-size reactive particles}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Uniformly distribute the reactive particles and the crowders in the volume, such that no particles (reactive or crowder) are intersecting each other. Let $N$ be the total number of particles, and randomly assign each particle a unique index $1,...,N$.
\item Uniformly sample an integer $i$ from $1,...,N$. Propose a new position for particle $i$ at a random Normal$(0,\sqrt{2 D_i \Delta t})$ displacement in each spatial dimension, where $D_i$ is the diffusion coefficient of particle $i$ and $\Delta t$ is the simulation time step. If particle $i$ is a crowder, check if this new position causes an intersection between any particles. If so, place particle $i$ back in its original position, if not, place particle $i$ in the new position. Otherwise if particle $i$ is a reactive particle, check if this new position causes an intersection between $i$ and exactly one other reactive particle and no crowders. If so, and if that particle can react with $i$, proceed to (3). Otherwise, if the new position causes any other type of intersection, place the particle back in its original position, if not, place the particle in its new position. Proceed to (4).
\item Propose a bimolecular reaction $j$ with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$, where $\lambda_j$ is the corresponding reaction rate. If successful, check if any daughter particles would intersect another particle. If so, skip the reaction, place particle $i$ back in its original position; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item For each reactive particle of a type involved in a unimolecular reaction $j$, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t/N$, where $\lambda_j$ is the reaction rate. If successful, check if any daughter particles would intersect any other particles. If so, skip the reaction; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item For each zero-order reaction $j$, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t/N$, where $\lambda_j$ is the reaction rate. If successful, check if any of the new particles would intersect another particle. If so, skip the reaction; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item Advance time by $\Delta t/N$. Let $N$ be the new total number of particles and randomly reassign each particle a unique index $1,...,N$. Return to (2) and repeat until a target time has elapsed.
\end{enumerate}
Note that this algorithm is distinct from the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm in Section \ref{PointParticles} in several ways, mainly because in this algorithm time is advanced by $\frac{\Delta t}{N}$ at each time step. This is because here step (3) is nested inside step (2). The reason for this is that bimolecular reactions occur in this algorithm when two reactive particles physically intersect. This is an illegal move, and if the particles do not react then they must not be allowed to remain in that position, but rather revert to the previous position, hence bimolecular reactions and diffusion are closely coupled in this algorithm. It follows that $N$ can change during steps (2)-(3), and so it does not make sense to place step (2) inside a for-loop over $i=1,...,N$.
Again, step (2) is the overwhelmingly time consuming step for this algorithm, so as before we will attempt to find an expression giving the probability that a given jump causes an intersection with a crowder. However, we will not be able to get substantial speed gains on the same scale that we obtained with point-particles, because now even a crowder-free algorithm will contain finite-size reactive particles. Our speed increase will arise from removing a subset of the volume-occupying particles (the crowders) rather than all of them, as before. Obviously, our method will work best if there are many more crowders than reactive particles, though it will always be faster than the standard algorithm.
\subsection{Derivation}
To derive an analogous formula to Eq. \eqref{pillegal} for the finite-volume case, consider a reactive particle with radius $r>0$ attempting to move a distance $\delta x$ in a sea of $N_C$ uniformly distributed crowders of radius $R$. In Section \ref{PointParticles}, we observed that, to first order in $\frac{\delta x}{R}$, the probaiblity of a reactive particle performing an illegal move depends only on its behaviour in the vicinity of a single crowder. However, a particle of radius $r$ moving near a single crowder of radius $R$ is identical to a point-particle moving near a crowder of radius $R+r$: in both cases, the two particle centres are forbidden from being nearer than $R+r$ from each other. It follows that Eq. \eqref{pille} can be easily adapted for use in this section, but with $R$ replaced by $R+r$. In other words, we can simply write:
\begin{equation}
P(\text{illegal})=\frac{\pi N_C (R+r)^2 \delta x}{V}+o\left(\frac{\delta x}{R+r}\right).
\end{equation}
Observe that we do not need to consider the probability of intersecting reactive particles here. This is because the reactive particles will all be simulated explicitly, so a collision between reactive particles in the crowder-free algorithm will be simulated identically to the original algorithm.
As before, we will also need to moderately adapt the reaction part of our algorithm. Again, if a daughter particle is created a small distance $\sigma$ from a parent particle, and $\sigma \ll R+r$, then we can use the formula $P(\text{illegal})=\frac{\pi N_C (R+r)^2 \sigma}{V}$. Note, however, that this is much less likely to occur with finite-size particles, since $\sigma$ will typically be a similar order of magnitude to $r$, which is in turn typically a similar order of magnitude to $R$. Exceptions include the monomolecular conversion reaction $A \rightarrow B$, but even this may pose problems if the radius of $B$ is larger than that of $A$. For almost all reactions we therefore use the probability that a uniformly distributed point in space can accomodate a particle of radius $r$.
This probability is not the simple expression used in Section \ref{PointParticles}, rather it derives from scaled particle theory (SPT). The reason for this is that there are unoccupied points in space which are inaccessible to the particle of radius $r$. These are the points which do not lie inside a crowder but do lie within a distance $R+r$ from a crowder's centre. SPT has been used to obtain analytical expressions for the effect of crowding on intrinsic noise in two-dimensional systems, and was observed to give very accurate results \cite{grima2010intrinsic}. In three dimensions, it offers an expression for the probability that a uniformly distributed point in space of volume $V$ can accomodate a particle of radius $r$, given that the space contains $N_C$ crowders of radius $R$ \cite{zimmerman1991estimation}:
\begin{align}\label{SPT}
\text{log}&\left[P(\text{legal})\right]=\text{log}(1-\phi)-\frac{Br}{1-\phi}-\frac{4\pi Ar^2}{1-\phi}-\frac{B^2r^2}{2(1-\phi)^2}\nonumber\\
&-\frac{4\pi}{3} \left[ \frac{N_C}{V(1-\phi)}+\frac{B^2C}{3(1-\phi)^3}+\frac{AB}{(1-\phi)^2}\right]r^3,
\end{align}
where $A=\frac{N_CR}{V}$, $B=\frac{4 \pi N_C R^2}{V}$, and $C=\frac{N_CR^2}{V}$. The crowder-free algorithm for finite-size reactive particles is then as follows:\\~\\
\textbf{Crowder-free algorithm with finite-size reactive particles}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Uniformly distribute the reactive particles in the volume, such that no particles are intersecting each other. Let $N$ be the total number of particles, and randomly assign each particle a unique index $1,...,N$.
\item Uniformly sample an integer $i$ from $1,...,N$. Propose a new position for particle $i$ at a random Normal$(0,\sqrt{2 D_i \Delta t})$ displacement in each spatial dimension, where $D_i$ is the diffusion coefficient of particle $i$ and $\Delta t$ is the simulation time step. With probability $\frac{\pi N_C (R+r)^2 \delta x}{V}$, where $r$ is the radius of particle $i$, put the particle back in its original position. Otherwise, check if this new position causes an intersection between $i$ and exactly one other particle. If so, and if that particle can react with $i$, proceed to (3). Otherwise, if the new position causes any other type of intersection, place the particle back in its original position, if not, place the particle in its new position. Proceed to (4).
\item Propose a bimolecular reaction $j$ with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t$, where $\lambda_j$ is the corresponding reaction rate. If successful, evaluate $P(\text{legal})$ according to Eq. \eqref{SPT} for each daughter particle. Let $p$ be the product of each $P(\text{legal})$. With probability $1-p$, skip the reaction, place particle $i$ back in its original position. Otherwise check if any daughter particles would intersect another particle. If so, skip the reaction, place particle $i$ back in its original position; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item For each reactive particle of a type involved in a unimolecular reaction $j$, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t/N$, where $\lambda_j$ is the reaction rate. If the reaction is of the type $A \xrightarrow{} B$ and the radius of $B$ is less than or equal to that of $A$, allow the reaction to proceed. Otherwise, evaluate $P(\text{legal})$ according to Eq. \eqref{SPT} for each daughter particle. Let $p$ be the product of each $P(\text{legal})$. With probability $1-p$, skip the reaction. Otherwise, check if any daughter particles would intersect any other particles. If so, skip the reaction; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item For each zero-order reaction $j$, propose a reaction with probability $\lambda_j \Delta t/N$, where $\lambda_j$ is the reaction rate. If successful, evaluate $P(\text{legal})$ according to Eq. \eqref{SPT}. With probability $1-P(\text{legal})$, skip the reaction. Otherwise check if any of the new particles would intersect another particle. If so, skip the reaction; if not, allow the reaction to proceed.
\item Advance time by $\Delta t/N$. Let $N$ be the new total number of particles and randomly reassign each particle a unique index $1,...,N$. Return to (2) and repeat until a target time has elapsed.
\end{enumerate}
There is one significant case for which our crowder-free algorithm will not give accurate results, namely if the crowders are stationary and the level of crowding is high. Simulating such systems with Cichocki-Hinsen reveals that reactive particles can get trapped in regions surrounded by stationary crowders, and simply stay there for the entirety of the simulation without reacting or moving significantly. Obviously, these cases cannot be covered by the crowder-free algorithm because all reactive particles (of the same radius) have the same probability of diffusing at any time. We therefore recommend not using the crowder-free algorithm for systems with stationary crowders unless the level of crowding is sufficiently low that no trapping regions could exist. Note that this is not a problem if the reactive particles are point-particles, because they occupy no volume and will always be able to escape from a trapping region.
\subsection{Comparative tests}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig6}
\caption{Time taken for 100 time steps of both the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm (blue) and the crowder-free algorithm (red), for 50 finite-size particles diffusing in crowded space. With only 10 crowders, the crowder-free algorithm is more than twice as fast. With 400 crowders, the crowder-free algorithm is over $20$ times faster. Parameter values are $V=1$, $R=0.05$, $r=0.02$, $\Delta t=10^{-5}$, $D=0.1$ for the point particle, $D=0.1$ for the crowders.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
In this section we perform similar tests on the crowder-free algorithm for finite-size particles to those we performed in section \ref{pptest}. We initially test the time taken for both methods to simulate pure diffusion in the presence of an increasing number of crowders. To ensure that the results are different from those in section \ref{pptest}, we now simulate 50 diffusing ``reactive'' particles (so-called even though they do not react in this example) in a sea of crowders. Of course, we do not expect to get anywhere near the 1000-fold speed increase that we achieved for the point-particle case: even with no crowders, we have to simulate 50 volume-occupying molecules, constantly ensuring that they do not intersect.
The results of this test are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig4}. With 10 crowders, the crowder-free algorithm takes half the time of the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm, while with 400 crowders, the crowder-free algorithm has a speed increase of over 20 times. Even for finite-size particles, therefore, the crowder-free algorithm offers a considerable speed increase, and its lack of dependence on crowder number makes it especially useful for studying high levels of crowding.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig7}
\caption{Relative reduction in short-time diffusion coefficient for both the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm (blue) and the crowder-free algorithm (red), for a single point particle diffusing in space, as a function of the proportion of occupied volume $\phi$. All data points are an average of 20 particles from a single simulation, error bars are 1 standard deviation. Parameter values are $V=1$, $R=0.05$, $r=0.02$, $\Delta t=10^{-5}$, $D=0.1$ for the point particle, $D=0.1$ for the crowders.}\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
The next test we perform compares estimates of short-time diffusion coefficients from the two algorithms. In both cases, we simulate $20$ finite-size particles diffusing in a sea of crowders. Because of this, a single simulation gives 20 different estimates of the diffusion coefficient. In Fig. \ref{fig5} we plot the mean (points) and standard deviation (error bars) of this sample of 20, for a variety of levels of crowding. Since the ``reactive'' particles themselves occupy a volume, we incorporate this into our calculation of the proportion of occupied volume $\phi$. As in Fig. \ref{fig2}, the two algorithms agree, with errorbars intersecting for each data point. Note that, compared to Fig. \ref{fig2}, the diffusion coefficient is reduced more for the same level of crowding. This confirms the intuitive hypothesis that finite-size particles are more influenced by crowding than point particles.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig8}
\caption{Equilibrium distributions of the reaction $\emptyset \xrightarrow{} X,~X+X \xrightarrow{} \emptyset$ for both crowder-free algorithm (histograms) and Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm (lines) for low (blue, yellow) and high (green, red) crowding conditions. Each distribution is a time average over single long trajectory of length $10^5-10^7$ iterations. The crowder-free algorithm generally requires many fewer iterations than Cichocki-Hinsen, because the total number of particles is lower. Parameter values are $V=1$, $R=0.05$, $r=0.05$, $\Delta t=3 \times 10^{-5}$, $D=0.1$ for the point particle, $D=0.1$ for the crowders. For the forward reaction, $\lambda_1=2 \times 10^2$, for the backward reaction, $\lambda_2=3 \times 10^4$.}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Finally, we compare the algorithms' performance at estimating an equilibrium distribution of a chemical reaction. This time we simulate the reaction $\emptyset \xrightarrow{} X,~X+X \xrightarrow{} \emptyset$, in which particles are created at uniformly distributed points in space and react with a fixed rate when they collide. This system has previously been studied spatially as an example of protein synthesis and degradation \cite{smith2016analytical}. We expect that, contrary to the example in Fig. \ref{fig3}, crowding will reduce the mean number of $X$, since the creation of $X$ will be less likely in crowded conditions.
In Fig. \ref{fig6} we plot the equilbrium distribution of the number of $X$ molecules for both algorithms in both low and high crowding conditions. Each distribution is calculated as a time average over a single long trajectory, of between $10^5$ and $10^7$ iterations. The crowder-free algorithm clearly requires fewer iterations than Cichocki-Hinsen because each iteration of both algorithms advances time by $\frac{\Delta t}{N}$ where $N$ is the total number of particles, and Cichocki-Hinsen generally has many more particles to simulate. As predicted, the mean of the distribution is much lower in the high crowding example than the low crowding example. As with all previous tests, the crowder-free algorithm agrees almost perfectly with the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm, confirming that our algorithm suffers little apparent loss of accuracy compared to the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm, despite its considerable speed increases. Note that we do not calculate $\phi$ for these examples, because the number of reactive particles fluctuates over time, and therefore so does $\phi$.
\section{Discussion}\label{Discussion}
In this paper, we have proposed a modification to the commonly used Cichocki-Hinsen Brownian dynamics algorithm for simulating reaction-diffusion systems in a crowded environment. We call our modified algorithm a \emph{crowder-free} algorithm because we don't simulate crowders explicitly. Instead, we rigorously derive the probability that a small displacement of size $\delta x$ would result in a collision with a crowder. This implies that, instead of simulating crowders, we can simply reject each attempted particle displacement with precisely that probability.
We tested our algorithm in terms of both speed and accuracy, both for cases with reactive point particles and with finite-size reactive particles. The crowder-free algorithm always provides a speed increase over the underlying Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm: this speed increase varied from $2$ to over $1000$ for the set of examples studied in this paper. Furthermore, the crowder-free algorithm provides data which is near-indistinguishable from the data extracted from the corresponding Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm: this was shown to be true for both diffusive and reactive information. The crowder-free algorithm therefore shows no apparent loss of accuracy compared to the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm, which, coupled with the clear speed increases, makes it a very attractive algorithm for simulating chemical reactions in a crowded environment.
There are two main cases where the crowder-free algorithm is not more effective than the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm. Firstly, if the initial crowder distribution is not uniform and spreads out over time. In that case, our algorithm is inadequate because we do not know \emph{a priori} how fast the crowders will diffuse. Note, however, that non-uniform crowder distributions are not a problem in themselves: we can simply subdivide the volume into regions where the distribution is locally uniform, and derive separate values of $P(\text{illegal})$ in each region. The second case involves stationary crowders. If the level of crowding is high and the crowders do not diffuse, then some regions of space may be entirely segregated from others. Since the crowder-free algorithm allows all reactive particles to diffuse anywhere in space, it cannot accurately imitate the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm in this case.
Finally, we note that further speed increases in both the crowder-free algorithm and the Cichocki-Hinsen algorithm may be possible by more efficient methods of measuring the distance between particles. One smart idea, used in Ref. \cite{andrews2004stochastic}, is to subdivide the volume into regions and only check distances between particles in the same or neighbouring regions. We did not use such methods in this paper so as to not overcomplicate the algorithms, however any implementations of our algorithm would certainly benefit from these techniques.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by a BBSRC EASTBIO PhD studentship to S.S. and by a Leverhulme grant award to R.G. (RPG-2013-171).
|
\section{Introduction}
Gauge/gravity duality has achieved its stature in theorists' arsenal to attack problems notoriously difficult to fight with perturbative tools.
This applicability stems from the fact that the duality relates a theory at strong coupling to another theory at weak coupling, and vice versa. This is a particularly useful property when dealing with situations that one would normally describe using gauge field theory techniques, but when such systems are subject to conditions where strong interactions are expected and thus behave drastically differently. The prototypical example is the theory of strong interactions, QCD, at finite baryon chemical potentials. Here the implementation of the gauge/gravity duality, holography, has been successfully utilized both at high \cite{AdS_CFT_reviews} and at low temperatures \cite{Hoyos:2016zke}, natural environments for dense quark matter in heavy ion collisions and at the cores of neutron stars, respectively.
In its best understood scenario, the gauge/gravity correspondence relates string theory living in an Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime (times a compact manifold) to a conformal field theory (CFT) in one less non-compact spatial dimension. Natural extensions consist of those bulk spacetimes which are still asymptotically AdS and act as dual geometries to relativistic matter. However, in many cases the configurations one deals with in the laboratories are not relativistic. The bulk geometries then ought to be warped products of Lifshitz spaces with compact manifolds. However, only a few examples of top-down constructions have been found to possess Lifshitz scaling. Moreover, it seems very subtle to nail down the precise holographic dictionary \cite{Taylor:2015glc}.
While there is no obvious obstruction to deriving generic metrics possessing Lifshitz scaling from string theory, the progress has been excruciatingly slow due to highly technical reasons. For this reason, most of the holographic studies related to Lifshitz geometries have been bottom-up, meaning that some broader form of the gauge/gravity correspondence is assumed while the string theory embedding of the background is lacking. In this paper, we will also follow this approach and start with a background metric possessing Lifshitz scaling with dynamical exponent $z$. We will also allow hyperscaling violation, introduced via an additional parameter $\theta$ in the background metric. The matter in our model is introduced by adding flavor D-branes with appropriate bulk gauge fields turned on in the worldvolume of the brane, in particular, in such a manner that the matter has finite charge density. We note that this has been under systematic study also in the past \cite{HoyosBadajoz:2010kd,Dey:2013vja,Edalati:2013tma}, though essentially only at zero temperature. In this paper, we will also consider thermal effects on the collective excitations of the system, putting special focus on exploring how the system enters in the hydrodynamic regime. We will also discuss charge diffusion and establish the Einstein relation for all parameter values.
An important new development that we will report is the analysis of the matter in the background of an external magnetic field. The standard prescription of introducing an external magnetic field in holography is via introducing new non-vanishing components for the gauge field living on the brane, $F_{xy}\propto B$. In generic dimensions, one needs to keep $B$ fixed, corresponding to Dirichlet boundary conditions. However, when the bulk spacetime is four-dimensional, an alternative scheme for quantizing the gauge field opens up \cite{Witten:2003ya,Yee:2004ju}. In particular, one can implement combined Dirichlet/Neumann (or Robin) boundary conditions for the gauge field \cite{Jokela:2013hta,Ihl:2016sop}, leading to dynamical gauge fields. In such a scenario, the magnetic field is not kept fixed, but one allows for it to adjust its own expectation value. This leads us to the study of matter which is not only charged electrically, but also carries magnetic charges. These are anyons, particles of fractional statistics, which are the subject of the latter part of our work.
There has been a tremendous amount of work devoted to the study of anyons, since their inception in the late seventies \cite{Leinaas:1977fm}. Yet, they are very mysterious and the field is still in its infancy. The main reason for the difficulties arise from the property that multi-anyon states cannot be expressed as a simple product of single particle states. The anyons are linked together via braiding, which might be suggestive of strong interactions. This is precisely where the holography applies and may help in rearranging thoughts in seeking answers to puzzles raised by anyonic fluids. The anyonic fluids have been studied in several holographic works \cite{Jokela:2013hta,Jokela:2015aha,Brattan:2013wya,Brattan:2014moa,Itsios:2015kja,Itsios:2016ffv,Jokela:2014wsa}. The most recent work \cite{Ihl:2016sop} was able to obtain the explicit equation of state for anyons (holographically modeled using a dyonic black brane), an achievement that has been extremely challenging to reach with perturbative methods. Clearly, one should try to implement the prescription given in \cite{Ihl:2016sop} to other setups as well, in particular to those that are presented in this paper. This is, however, beyond the scope of current work.
The collective excitations of our system are dual to the quasinormal modes of the D-brane probes, which are obtained from the fluctuations of the Dirac-Born-Infeld action. At sufficiently high temperature, the system is in a hydrodynamical diffusive regime, characterized by a diffusion constant. We will find a closed expression for this constant and we will study its dependence on the scaling exponents $z$ and $\theta$, as well as on the magnetic field $B$. At low temperature, the dominant excitation is the so-called holographic zero sound \cite{Karch:2008fa,Karch:2009zz}. We will determine analytically the dispersion relation of the zero sound in the Lifshitz geometry for non-zero magnetic field. We will show that the zero sound mode is gapped when $B\not= 0$, generalizing similar previous results in other geometries \cite{Jokela:2012vn,Brattan:2012nb}. We will generalize this analysis to include alternative quantization conditions in the case of $(2+1)$-dimensional field theories on the boundary. We will find that the effect of the new boundary conditions on the zero sound is similar to the one of a magnetic field. In particular, we will show that one can adjust them to make the zero sound gapless, as was found in \cite{Jokela:2015aha,Itsios:2015kja,Itsios:2016ffv} for relativistic backgrounds.
We will also study the diffusion constant and the conductivities of the anyonic fluid.
The organization of the rest of this paper is the following.
We will begin by introducing the background geometry in section \ref{setup}. We embed a probe D-brane in a generic black hole metric possessing both Lifshitz scaling with dynamical exponent $z$ and hyperscaling violating exponent $\theta$. We review the basic thermodynamic properties and then focus on deriving the fluctuation equations extracted from perturbing the flavor brane embedding function and the gauge fields. Section \ref{sec:collective} solves the fluctuation equations in various limits of the background charge density, magnetic field, and temperature. We also compare the analytic results that we will obtain to those from numerics. In section \ref{sec:alternative}, we switch gears by constraining to 2+1 dimensions to allow the gauge fields become dynamical via alternative quantization. We will discuss collective excitations of the resulting anyonic fluid. One important result that we can establish is the Einstein relation in the most generic case. This result we will take literally in section \ref{sec:comments} and predict the conductivity of the matter at finite (and large) magnetic field strength, a regime where some of the other approximation schemes fall short. Section \ref{conclusions} contains a brief summary of our results together with remarks on a few open problems left in future works.
The paper is complemented with several appendices which contain technical steps filling in the gaps in the calculations of the bulk text.
\section{Set-up}\label{setup}
We begin by introducing the bulk geometry which exhibits Lifshitz scaling and hyperscaling violation. We then embed flavor probe D-brane in this background, thus introducing massless quenched fundamental degrees of freedom localized on a lower-dimensional defect field theory with flavor symmetry $U(N_f)$. We analyze the thermodynamics of such holographic matter at non-zero baryonic charge density by introducing a chemical potential for the diagonal $U(1)\subset U(N_f)$.
\subsection{Background}
Let us consider the following $(p+2)$-dimensional metric,
\bea
ds^2_{p+2} & = & g_{tt}(r)f_p(r) dt^2+g_{xx}(dx^i)^2+\frac{g_{rr}}{f_p(r)}dr^2 \nonumber \\
& = & r^{-\frac{2\theta}{p}}\left[-f_p(r)r^{2z}dt^2+r^2 (dx^i)^2 +\frac{dr^2}{f_p(r) r^2}\right] \ , \ i=1,\ldots,p \ , \label{eq:metric}
\eea
where the blackening factor reads
\be\label{eq:blackening}
f_p = 1-\left(\frac{r_h}{r}\right)^{p\,\xi + z} \ ,
\ee
and where the metric components we record separately for ease of reference
\be
g_{tt}(r) = -r^{2\xi+2(z-1)} \qquad , \qquad g_{xx}(r)=r^{2\xi} \qquad , \qquad g_{rr}(r)=r^{2\xi-4} \ .
\ee
In (\ref{eq:blackening}) we have defined a parameter $\xi$, which is related to the hyperscaling violating parameter $\theta$ as follows:
\be
\xi = 1-\frac{\theta}{p} \ ,
\ee
and $z$ is the dynamical exponent.
We note that the radial coordinate $r$ is defined as is standard, {\em i.e.}, $r=\infty$ corresponds to the boundary, where the field theory lives and $r_h$ is the horizon radius of the black hole. By demanding the absence of conical singularity in the bulk, the horizon radius can be related to the field theory temperature according to
\be
r_h = \left(\frac{4\pi T}{p+z-\theta}\right)^{\frac{1}{z}} \ .
\ee
Here we are assuming that
\be
z\geq 1 \quad , \quad \theta\leq 0 \ .
\ee
Realizations of $z<1$ seem pathological as they lead to violations of the null energy condition \cite{Hoyos:2010at}, whereas the latter requirement comes from thermodynamic stability (see below).
We now wish to embed $N_f$ probe D-branes in this background, so that the branes are extended in $q\leq p$ spatial dimensions of the Lifshitz spacetime (\ref{eq:metric}). In the generic case then the flavor fields reside on a ($q+1$)-dimensional defect. We will consider the following ansatz for the gauge field on the probes:
\be\label{eq:F}
F = A'_t dr\wedge dt + B dx^1\wedge dx^2 \ ,
\ee
where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to $r$. The Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action for massless probes thus reads
\be\label{eq:DBIaction}
S = -N_f T_{D}V\int dt dr d^{q}x\sqrt{-\det\left(g+F\right)} = -{\cal N}\int dr \sqrt H\sqrt{|g_{tt}|g_{rr}-A'^2_t} \ ,
\ee
where ${\cal N} = N_f T_{D}V_{q+1}V$, $T_D$ is the tension, $V$ is the volume of the internal space which the D-branes may be wrapping, and the function $H$ is
\be
H = g_{xx}^2+g_{xx}^{q-2}B^2 = r^{2q\xi}+r^{2(q-2)\xi}B^2 \ .
\ee
Notice that we have not included a dilaton which is generically non-trivial in top-down string theory constructions dual to non-conformal field theories.
The equation of motion for $A_t$, which follows from (\ref{eq:DBIaction}), can be integrated once to find
\be\label{eq:At_prime}
A'_t = \frac{d\sqrt{g_{rr}|g_{tt}|}}{\sqrt{H+d^2}} \ ,
\ee
where $d$ is an integration constant, proportional to the physical charge density of the field theory: $\langle J^t\rangle\equiv {\cal N}d$. From now on, we will consider $d$ to be positive.
\subsection{Thermodynamics}
Let us now proceed with discussing some properties of the probe brane system. We are, in particular, interested in thermodynamic relations and how the parameters $z$, $\xi$, and $q$ affect them.
\paragraph{Zero temperature}\mbox{}\newline
Let us first consider the system at $T=0$ with vanishing magnetic field $B=0$. From (\ref{eq:At_prime}) we have that:
\beq
A_t'\,=\,d\,{r^{2\xi+z-3}\over \sqrt{r^{2q\xi}+d^2}}\,\,\,.
\eeq
Therefore, the (zero-temperature) chemical potential is:
\beq\label{eq:chem0a}
\mu_0=A_t(\infty)=\int_0^{\infty}\,dr\,A_t'\,=\,d\,\int_0^{\infty}\,{r^{2\xi+z-3}\over \sqrt{r^{2q\xi}+d^2}}dr \equiv d\,I_{2\xi+z-3\,,\,2q\xi}(r=0) \ .
\eeq
The integrals of the kind (\ref{eq:chem0a}) appear frequently in this paper, for sake of which we have defined two classes of integrals and collected their useful properties in Appendix \ref{appendix:calculations}.
The explicit form of the chemical potential follows
\beq
\mu_0\,=\,\gamma\,d^{{2\xi+z-2\over \xi q}}\qquad , \qquad \gamma\,=\,{1\over 2\xi q}\,\, B\Big({2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi q}\,,\,{\xi (q-2)+2-z\over 2\xi q}\Big) \ .
\eeq
The on-shell action is:
\beq
S_{on-shell}\,=\,-{\cal N}\,\int_0^{\infty}\,dr\,
{\sqrt{g_{rr}|g_{tt}|}\over \sqrt{H+d^2}}\,\,H\,=\,
-{\cal N}\,\int_0^{\infty}\,{r^{2\xi q+2\xi+z-3}\over
\sqrt{r^{2 q\xi}+d^2}}\,dr\,\,.
\eeq
This is a divergent integral. We regulate it by subtracting an on-shell action for probe branes at zero density:
\beq
S_{on-shell}^{reg}\,=\,-{\cal N}\,\int_0^{\infty}\,dr\,
r^{\xi q+2\xi+z-3}\Bigg[ {r^{\xi q}\over
\sqrt{r^{2 q\xi}+d^2}}\,-\,1\Bigg]\,\,.
\eeq
To evaluate this integral we use the general result:
\beq
\int_0^{\infty}\,r^{{\lambda_2\over 2}}\,\Big[{r^{{\lambda_1\over 2}}\over
\sqrt{r^{\lambda_1}+d^2}}\,-1\Big]\,dr\,=\,
{1\over \lambda_1}\,B\Big(-{\lambda_2+2\over 2\lambda_1}\,,\,
{1\over 2}+{\lambda_2+2\over 2\lambda_1}\Big)\,
d^{{\lambda_2+2\over \lambda_1}}\,\,,
\eeq
which is valid for $\lambda_2<2(\lambda_1-1)$. We get:
\beq
S_{on-shell}^{reg}\,=\,-{{\cal N}\over 2 q\xi}\,
B\Big(-{q\xi+2\xi+z-2\over 2 q\xi}\,,\,
{2q\xi+2\xi+z-2\over 2 q\xi}\Big)\,d^{1+{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi}}\,\,.
\eeq
The (zero temperature) grand potential $\Omega_0=\Omega_0(\mu_0)=-S_{on-shell}^{reg}$ reads,
\beq\label{eq:OmatT0}
\Omega_0\,=\,-{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\,{\cal N}\,\gamma\,d^{1+{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi}} =-{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\,{\cal N}\,
\gamma^{-{\xi q\over 2\xi+z-2}}\,\mu_0^{1+{\xi q\over 2\xi+z-2}} \ .
\eeq
It is now straightforward to obtain the density $\rho=\langle J^t\rangle$ as:
\beq
\rho\,=\,-{\partial\Omega_0\over \partial\mu_0}\,=\,{\cal N}\,d\,\,,
\label{density}
\eeq
{\em i.e.}, $d$ is proportional to $\rho$, as promised. The energy density can be obtained by Legendre transformation $\epsilon\,=\,\Omega_0+\mu_0\,\rho$:
\beq
\epsilon\,=\,{q\xi\over q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\,{\cal N}\,\gamma\,
d^{1+{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi}}\,\,.
\eeq
For the pressure we find:
\beq
P = -\Omega_0 ={2\xi+z-2\over q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\,{\cal N}\,\gamma\,d^{1+{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi}} \,=\,
{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi}\,\epsilon\,\,.
\eeq
Therefore, the speed of first sound is:
\beq
u_s^2\,=\,{\partial P\over \partial\epsilon}\,=\,
{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi}\,\,. \label{eq:speed-1st-sound}
\eeq
This result agrees with the one found in \cite{Edalati:2013tma}.
\paragraph{Non-zero temperature}\mbox{}\newline
To extract more useful information, we commit to heat up the system.
Let us begin by analyzing the chemical potential at $T\not=0$:
\beq\label{eq:chem}
\mu= d\,\int_{r_h}^{\infty}\,{r^{2\xi+z-3}\over \sqrt{r^{2q\xi}+d^2}}dr = \mu_0-{r_h^{2\xi+z-2}\over 2\xi+z-2}\,
F\Big({1\over 2}, {2\xi+z-2\over 2 q\xi}; 1+{2\xi+z-2\over 2 q\xi};-{r_h^{2 q\xi}\over d^2}\Big) \ ,
\eeq
where $\mu_0$ is the chemical potential at zero temperature (\ref{eq:chem0a}).
The grand potential at $T\not=0$ is:
\beq
\Omega\,=\,{\cal N}\,\int_{r_h}^{\infty}\,dr\,
r^{\xi q+2\xi+z-3}\Bigg[ {r^{\xi q}\over
\sqrt{r^{2 q\xi}+d^2}}\,-\,1\Bigg]\,\,.
\eeq
We evaluate this integral using the formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int_{r_h}^{\infty}\,r^{{\lambda_2\over 2}}\,\Big[{r^{{\lambda_1\over 2}}\over
\sqrt{r^{\lambda_1}+d^2}}\,-1\Big]\,dr\,=\,
{1\over \lambda_1}\,B\Big(-{\lambda_2+2\over 2\lambda_1}\,,\,
{1\over 2}+{\lambda_2+2\over 2\lambda_1}\Big)\,
d^{{\lambda_2+2\over \lambda_1}}\,+\,{2\over 2+\lambda_2}\,r_h^{{\lambda_2+2\over 2}} \nonumber\\
&&
\qquad\qquad\qquad
-{2\over \lambda_1+\lambda_2+2}\,{r_h^{1+{\lambda_1+\lambda_2\over 2}}}\,
F\Big({1\over 2}, {2+\lambda_1+\lambda_2\over 2\lambda_1};
{2+3\lambda_1+\lambda_2\over 2\lambda_1};-{r_h^{\lambda_1}\over d^2}\Big)\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We find
\beq
\Delta\Omega\,=\,\Omega_0\,-\,{{\cal N}\over 2 q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\,{r_h^{2 q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\over d}\,
F\Big({1\over 2}, 1+{2\xi+z-2\over 2 q \xi};
2+{2\xi+z-2\over 2 q \xi};-{r_h^{2 q\xi}\over d^2}\Big)\,\,,
\eeq
where $\Omega_0$ is the grand potential at zero temperature (\ref{eq:OmatT0}) and $\Delta\Omega$ is the density-dependent part of $\Omega$, defined as:
\beq
\Delta\Omega\,=\,\Omega-{r_h^{q\xi +2\xi+z-2}\over q\xi +2\xi+z-2}\,\,.
\eeq
Notice that the natural variable of $\Omega$ is $\mu$, as $d$ depends on it through (\ref{eq:chem}). At low temperature we can explicitly invert (\ref{eq:chem}). Indeed, let us consider the low temperature case in which $r_h$ is small. The chemical potential can then be expanded as:
\beq\label{eq:muinvert}
\mu = \mu_0\,-\,{r_h^{2\xi+z-2}\over 2\xi+z-2}\,+\,{1\over 2}\,
{1\over 2q\xi +2\xi+z-2}\,{r_h^{2q\xi +2\xi+z-2}\over d^2}\,+\,\ldots \ .
\eeq
The expansion of $\Delta \Omega$ is:
\beq
\Delta\Omega=-{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\,{\cal N}\,\gamma\,d^{1+{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi}}\,-\,
{{\cal N}\over 2q\xi +2\xi+z-2}\,{r_h^{2q\xi +2\xi+z-2}\over d}\,+\,
\ldots\,\,.
\eeq
Plugging in the expression for $d=d(\mu)$ from (\ref{eq:muinvert}), we can write at leading order in temperature:
\beq
\Delta\Omega\,=\,
-{2\xi+z-2\over q\xi+2\xi+z-2}\,{\cal N}\,\gamma^{-{q\xi\over 2\xi+z-2}}\,
\Big[\mu\,+\,{r_h^{2\xi+z-2}\over 2\xi+z-2}\Big]^{{q\xi\over 2\xi+z-2}}\,+\,\ldots \ .
\eeq
Let us then compute the entropy
\beq
s=-{\partial \Omega\over \partial T}\Big|_{\mu}\,=\,-
{\partial \Omega\over \partial r_h}\Big|_{\mu}\,
{\partial r_h\over \partial T}\,\,.
\eeq
After some calculation we get (at low temperature):
\beq
s\,\approx\,{{\cal N}\,q(p-\theta)\,\over z(p(q+z)-(2+q)\theta) }\,\frac{d}{\mu}\,\Big[{4\pi\over p+z-\theta}\Big]^{1-{2\theta\over p z}}\,\,T^{-{2\theta\over pz}}\,\,.
\eeq
Notice that the $T$ behavior coincides with the one found in \cite{Dey:2013vja} but the coefficient is different. The specific heat at low temperature thus scales as:
\beq
c_v\,=\,T\,{\partial s\over \partial T}\Big|_{d}\,\sim\, T^{-{2\theta\over pz}} \ .
\eeq
The stability of the system ({\em i.e.}, $c_v\geq 0$) then requires $\theta/z\leq 0$.
\subsection{Fluctuations}
\label{fluctuation_equations}
Having understood the thermodynamics of the underlying holographic fluid and the scaling upon varying $\xi$ and $z$, we now wish to lay out a framework to exploring the response of the fluid under small perturbations. The relevant physics we are after are due to vector (gauge) fluctuations; the scalar deformations turn out to decouple as we focus on massless flavor degrees of freedom. We will thus consider fluctuations of the form:
\bea
A = A^{(0)}+a(r,x^\mu) \ ,
\eea
where $A^{(0)} = A^{(0)}_\nu dx^\nu = A_t dt+ B x^1 dx^2$ and $a(r,x^\mu)=a_\nu(r,x^\mu)dx^\nu$. The total gauge field strength is:
\be
F = F^{(0)}+f \ ,
\ee
where $F^{(0)}= dA^{(0)}$ is the two-form written in (\ref{eq:F}) and $f=da$. We note that we consider the fluctuations to depend only on $r,t,x^1$ as we can always choose the momentum vector to align along one of the spatial directions.
The powerful method to fluctuating the DBI action is the approach introduced in \cite{Jokela:2015aha}. In fact, we can just quote the corresponding results in \cite{Jokela:2015aha} by first stating the relevant elements of the open string metric:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}^{tt} & = & -{1\over f_p}\,{g_{rr}\over g_{rr}\,|g_{tt}|\,-\,A_t'^{\,2}}\,=\,
-{H+d^2\over f_p\,|g_{tt}|\,H}\nonumber\\
{\cal G}^{r r} & = & f_p\,{|g_{tt}|\over g_{rr}\,|g_{tt}|\,-\,A_t'^{\,2}}\,=\,
{H+d^2\over g_{rr}\,H}\,f_p \nonumber\\
{\cal G}^{x^1\,x^1} & = & {\cal G}^{x^2\,x^2}\,=\,{g_{xx}\over g_{xx}^2+B^2} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
while those of the antisymmetric matrix ${\cal J}$ are:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal J}^{tr} & = & -{\cal J}^{r t}\,=\,-{A_t'\over g_{rr}\,|g_{tt}|\,-\,A_t'^{\,2}}\,=\,
-{d\over \sqrt{|g_{tt}|\,g_{rr}}}\,
{\sqrt{H+d^2}\over H}
\nonumber\\
{\cal J}^{x^1\,x^2} & = & -{\cal J}^{x^2\,x^1}\,=\,-{B\over g_{xx}^2+B^2}\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The Lagrangian for the fluctuations is:
\beq\label{eq:fluctuationLagrangian}
{\cal L}\,\sim\,{\sqrt{g_{rr}\,|g_{tt}|}\over \sqrt{H+d^2}}\,\,H\,\,
\Big(\,{\cal G}^{ac}\,{\cal G}^{bd}\,-\,
{\cal J}^{ac}\,{\cal J}^{bd}\,+\,{1\over 2}\,{\cal J}^{cd}\,{\cal J}^{ab}
\Big)f_{cd}\,f_{ab} \ ,\ \ \ a,b,c,d\in\{t,x,y,r\} \ .
\eeq
The corresponding equation of motion for $a_d$ then follows:
\beq
\partial_{c}\,\Bigg[{\sqrt{g_{rr}\,|g_{tt}|}\over \sqrt{H+d^2}}\,\,H
\Big(\,{\cal G}^{ca}\,{\cal G}^{db}\,-\,
{\cal J}^{ca}\,{\cal J}^{db}\,+\,{1\over 2}\,{\cal J}^{cd}\,{\cal J}^{ab}
\Big)\,f_{ab}\Bigg]\,=\,0\,\,.
\label{eom_general}
\eeq
From the equation of motion for $a_{r}$ (with $a_{r}=0$) we get the transversality condition:
\beq
\partial_t\,a_t'\,-\,u^2(r)\,\partial_x\,a_x'\,=\,0\,\,,
\label{transversality_xt}
\eeq
where $u(r)$ is the function:
\beq
u^2(r)\,=\,-{{\cal G}^{xx}\over {\cal G}^{tt}}=\,{g_{xx}\,|g_{tt}|\,f_p\over g_{xx}^2\,+B^2}\,\,{H\over H+d^2} = {f_p r^{2q\xi+2\,z-2}\over
r^{2q\xi}\,+\,r^{2(q-2)\xi}\,B^2\,+\,d^2} \ .
\eeq
The next step is to Fourier transform the fields:
\be
a_\nu(r,t,x) = \int \frac{d\omega dk}{(2\pi)^2}a_\nu(r,\omega,k)e^{-i\omega t+ikx} \ .
\ee
We now define the electric field $E$ as the gauge-invariant combination:
\beq
E\,=\,k\,a_t\,+\,\omega\,a_x\,\,.
\label{E_at_ax}
\eeq
Using the transversality condition (\ref{transversality_xt}) in the momentum space, we obtain $a_t'$ and $a_x'$ in terms of $E'$ as follows:
\beq
a_t'\,=\,-{k\,u^2\over \omega^2\,-\,k^2\,u^2}\,E'\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
a_x'\,=\,{\omega\over \omega^2\,-\,k^2\,u^2}\,E'\,\,.
\label{at_ax_E}
\eeq
Using these relations, we obtain the equation of motion for the electric field $E$, as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E''\,+\,\partial_{r}\log\Bigg[
{\sqrt{|g_{tt}|}\over \sqrt {g_{rr}}}\,{g_{xx}\,f_p\over g_{xx}^2+B^2}\,
{\sqrt{H+d^2}\over \omega^2-k^2\,u^2}\,\Bigg]\,E'\,+\,
{g_{rr}\over |g_{tt}|\,f_p^2}\,(\omega^2-k^2\,u^2)\,E\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
=i\,B\,d\,{\sqrt{g_{rr}}\over \sqrt{|g_{tt}|}}\,{g_{xx}^{\,2}+B^2\over g_{xx}\,f_p}\,
{\omega^2-k^2\,u^2\over \sqrt{H+d^2}}\,
\partial_{r}\Bigg({1\over g_{xx}^2+B^2}\Bigg)\,a_y \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Let us write more explicitly this expression by plugging in the value of the function $u$ and the following relation:
\beq
\omega^2\,-\,k^2\,u^2\,=\,
{(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}\,f_p\, k^2)r^{2\xi q}+\omega^2\,B^2\,r^{2\xi (q-2)}+\omega^2\,d^2\over
r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2}\,\,.
\eeq
The equation for the fluctuation of the electric field $E$ becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Eeom}
&&E''+\,\partial_r\log\Bigg[
{r^{2\xi+z+1}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\,
{(r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2)^{{3\over 2}} f_p\over
(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}\,f_p\, k^2)r^{2\xi q}+\omega^2\,B^2\,r^{2\xi (q-2)}+\omega^2\,d^2}
\Bigg]\,E'\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad
+{1\over r^{2z+2}f_p^2}\,{
(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}f_p\, k^2)r^{2\xi q}+\omega^2\,B^2\,r^{2\xi (q-2)}+\omega^2\,d^2\over
r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2}\,E\nonumber\\
&&=-4i\xi Bd\,{r^{2\xi-z-2}\over (r^{4\xi}+B^2)f_p}\,
{(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}f_p\, k^2)r^{2\xi q}+\omega^2\,B^2\,r^{2\xi (q-2)}+\omega^2\,d^2\over
(r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2)^{{3\over 2}}}\,a_y\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, the equation for $a_y$ can be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a_y''\,+\,\partial_{r}\,\log\,\Bigg[{g_{xx}\,\sqrt{|g_{tt}|}\over \sqrt{g_{rr}}}\,f_p\,
{\sqrt{H+d^2}\over g_{xx}^2+B^2}
\Bigg]\,a_y'\,+\,
{g_{rr}\over f_p^2\,|g_{tt}|}\,
(\omega^2-k^2\,u^2)\,a_y \nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\,=\,-iB\,d\,{\sqrt{g_{rr}}\over g_{xx}\,\sqrt{|g_{tt}|}}\, {1\over f_p}\,
{g_{xx}^2+B^2\over \sqrt{H+d^2}}\,
\partial_{r}\Bigg({1\over g_{xx}^2+B^2}\Bigg)\,E
\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Using the expressions for $u$ and the metric elements, this equation becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ayeom}
&&a_y''\,+\,\partial_r\log\Bigg[{r^{2\xi+z+1}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\,
(r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2)^{{1\over 2}} f_p\Bigg]\,a_y'\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad
+{1\over r^{2z+2}f_p^2}\,{
(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}f_p\, k^2)r^{2\xi q}+\omega^2\,B^2\,r^{2\xi (q-2)}+\omega^2\,d^2\over
r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2}\,a_y\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad
=4i\xi Bd\,{r^{2\xi-z-2}\over (r^{4\xi}+B^2)f_p}\,
{E\over (r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2)^{{1\over 2}}}\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The rest of the paper analyzes the solutions to (\ref{eq:Eeom}) and (\ref{eq:ayeom}) in different regimes, at high temperature in section \ref{sec:diffusion} and at low temperature in section \ref{sec:zerosound}. A particularly interesting setting can be obtained in the special case of $q=2$ as one can make use of mixed boundary conditions for the gauge fluctuations. This leads us to the study of anyons and is the topic of section \ref{sec:alternative}.
\subsection{Scalings}
Let us now see how one can eliminate $r_h$ in the equations of motion by rescaling. First of all, we define the new rescaled radial coordinate $\hat r$ as:
\beq
r\,=\,r_h\,\hat r\,\,.
\eeq
This rescaling eliminates $r_h$ from the blackening factor $f_p$. Moreover, it is easy to see that the different factors in (\ref{eq:Eeom}) and (\ref{eq:ayeom}) transform homogeneously if $\omega$, $k$, $d$, and $B$ are rescaled as:
\beq
\omega\,=\,r_h^{z}\,\hat \omega\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
k\,=\,r_h\,\hat k\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
d\,=\,r_h^{\xi q}\,\hat d\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
B\,=\,r_h^{2\xi}\,\hat B \ .\label{eq:scalings1}
\eeq
Notice that $\omega$ and $k$ are rescaled differently for $z\ne 1$, in agreement with the Lifshitz nature of the metric. For this same reason the different components of the gauge field $a_{\mu}$ must transform differently. As the fluctuation equations are linear, we can simply assume that the electric field $E$ does not transform. As $E=\omega a_x+k a_t$, it is clear that $a_t$ and $a_x$ should be rescaled as:
\beq
a_t\,=\,r_h^{-1}\,\hat a_t\,\,,
\qquad\quad
a_x\,=\,r_h^{-z}\,\hat a_x\,\,.
\eeq
Due to symmetry of the indices, $a_y$ should transform as $a_x$. Thus:
\beq
a_y\,=\,r_h^{-z}\,\hat a_y\,\,.
\eeq
It is now straightforward to verify that the two equations of motion scale homogeneously and that working with the hatted variables is equivalent to taking $r_h=1$. Of course, instead of the temperature, one could have chosen to scale out $d$ or $B$, too.
\section{Collective excitations}\label{sec:collective}
In this section, we will analyze the collective excitations of the magnetized brane probes in the Lifshitz background. These collective excitations are dual to the quasinormal modes of the fluctuation equations of section \ref{fluctuation_equations}. We consider first the system at non-zero temperature and we will look for hydrodynamic diffusive modes. By employing analytical techniques, we obtain the expression of the diffusion constant, which we compare with the result obtained from the numerical integration of the fluctuation equations. We then consider the system at zero temperature and find the dispersion relation of the zero sound mode in the collisionless regime. Again, we obtain analytic results which we then compare with the numerical values. The transition between the collisionless and hydrodynamic regime is studied numerically.
\subsection{Diffusion constant}\label{sec:diffusion}
Let us start by analyzing the equation (\ref{eq:Eeom}) for the fluctuation of the electric field $E$ near the horizon $r=r_h$.
The blackening factor $f_p(r)$ behaves near $r=r_h$ as:
\beq
f_p={z+p\,\xi\over r_h}(r-r_h)\,+\,\ldots\,\,.
\eeq
The coefficients of $E$ and $E'$ in (\ref{eq:Eeom}) can be expanded near $r=r_h$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\partial_r\log\Bigg[
{r^{2\xi+z+1}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\,
{(r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2)^{{3\over 2}} f_p\over
(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}\,f_p\, k^2)r^{2\xi q}+\omega^2\,B^2\,r^{2\xi (q-2)}+\omega^2\,d^2}
\Bigg] = \frac{1}{r-r_h}+c_1+\ldots\qquad\nonumber\\\rc
&&{1\over r^{2z+2}f_p^2}\,{
(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}f_p\, k^2)r^{2\xi q}+\omega^2\,B^2\,r^{2\xi (q-2)}+\omega^2\,d^2\over
r^{2\xi q}+r^{2\xi (q-2)} B^2+d^2} = \frac{A}{(r-r_h)^2}+\frac{c_2}{r-r_h}\,+\,\ldots \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A$, $c_1$, and $c_2$ are the following constant coefficients:
\begin{eqnarray}
A &=& \frac{\omega ^2\, r_h^{-2 z}}{(\xi p+z)^2} \nonumber\\
c_1 &=& \frac{ r_h^{2 z-3} (\xi p+z)}{ \left( B^2\, r_h^{-4 \xi }+d^2 r_h^{-2 \xi q}+1\right)}\,
{k^2\over \omega^2}
\nonumber\\\rc
&&+\, {\xi\over r_h}\,\Bigg[{(q-2)\,B^2 r_h^{-4 \xi }+q\over B^2\, r_h^{-4 \xi }+d^2\, r_h^{-2 \xi q}+1}
-{4\over B^2\, r_h^{-4 \xi }+1}\Bigg]\,+\,{z+1+(4-p)\xi\over 2 r_h}
\nonumber\\\rc
c_2 &=& -\frac{ r_h^{-3}}{(\xi p+z) \left( B^2\, r_h^{-4 \xi }+d^2\,r_h^{-2 \xi q}+1\right)}
\,k^2\,-\,\frac{ r_h^{-2 z-1} (-\xi p+z+1)}{(\xi p+z)^2}\,\omega ^2.
\end{eqnarray}
We want to solve (\ref{eq:Eeom}) in the hydrodynamic diffusive regime in which $k$ and $\omega$ are small and
$\omega={\mathcal O}(k^2)={\mathcal O}(\epsilon^2)$. In this regime, we can neglect the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:Eeom}) and the equations for $E$ and $a_y$ decouple. Near the horizon we solve (\ref{eq:Eeom}) in a Frobenius series of the type:
\beq\label{Frobenius_expansion}
E = E_{nh}(r-r_h)^{\alpha}\,\Big[1+\beta (r-r_h)\,+\,\ldots\Big] \ ,
\eeq
where $E_{nh}$ is a constant. One can easily show that the exponent $\alpha$ in (\ref{Frobenius_expansion}) is given by:
\beq
\alpha\,=\,-i\,{\omega\over (z+p\,\xi)\,r_h^z}\,\,, \label{eq:alpha}
\eeq
whereas the coefficient $\beta$, at leading order in $\epsilon$, is given by:
\beq
\beta\,\approx \,-\alpha\,c_1\,=\,i\,{k^2\over \omega}\,{r_h^{z-3}\over 1+B^2r_h^{-4 \xi }+d^2r_h^{-2 \xi q}} \ .
\eeq
Notice from (\ref{eq:alpha}) that $\alpha\sim {\mathcal O}(\epsilon^2)$ and, therefore, we can neglect the
$(r-r_h)^{\alpha}$ prefactor in (\ref{Frobenius_expansion}). Thus we write:
\beq
E\approx E_{nh}\Big[1+\beta (r-r_h)\Big]\,\,.
\label{nh_lowfreq_diff_expansion}
\eeq
We now analyze (\ref{eq:Eeom}) by taking the limit at low frequencies first. In this limit, we can neglect the terms without derivatives and (\ref{eq:Eeom}) becomes:
\beq
E''\,+\,\partial_{r}\log \left(\frac{r^{\xi(q-2)-z+3} \left(1+B^2 r^{-4\xi}+d^2 r^{-2\xi q }\right)^{3/2}}{1+B^2r^{-4 \xi}}\right)\,E'=0 \ ,
\eeq
which can be readily integrated to give
\beq
E = E^{(0)} + c_E \int\limits_{r}^{\infty}\frac{\left(1+B^2\rho ^{-4 \xi }\right) \rho ^{\xi(2-q) +z-3}}{\left(1+
B^2\rho ^{-4 \xi }+d^2\rho^{-2\xi q}\right)^{3/2}} d\rho\,\,,
\label{E_low_freq_diff}
\eeq
where $E^{(0)}$ and $c_E$ are constants. Notice that $E^{(0)}=E(r\to \infty)$.
The integral in (\ref{E_low_freq_diff}) does not have a closed analytic form in general but we can easily study its properties in the UV and IR limits. Near the horizon, it has the form
\beq
E = E^{(0)}\,+\,c_E\, \mathcal{I}\, -\,c_E\,\frac{\left(1+B^2r_h^{-4\xi}\right) r_h ^{\xi(2-q)+z-3}}{\left( 1+B^2r_h ^{-4 \xi}+d^2r_h^{-2 \xi q}\right)^{3/2}}\,(r-r_h)\,+\,\ldots\,\,,
\label{E_low_freq_nh_diff}
\eeq
where $\mathcal{I}$ is defined as the integral:
\beq
\mathcal{I} = \int\limits_{r_h}^{\infty}\frac{\left(1+B^2\rho^{-4 \xi }\right) \rho ^{\xi(2-q) +z-3}}{\left( 1+ B^2\rho^{-4\xi}+d^2\rho ^{-2 \xi q} \right)^{3/2}} d\rho.
\label{math_I_def}
\eeq
Let us switch to the rescaled variables $\hat{d}$ and $\hat{B}$ defined in \eqref{eq:scalings1} and change to the variable $x=\rho/r_h$ in the integral (\ref{math_I_def}). We get
\beq
\mathcal{I} = r_h^{\xi (2-q)+z-2}\int\limits_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(1+\hat{B}^2x^{-4\xi}\right) x ^{\xi (2-q)+z-3}}{\left(1+\hat{B}^2x^{-4\xi}+\hat{d}^2x^{-2\xi q}\right)^{3/2}}dx\,\equiv\, r_h^{\xi (2-q)+z-2}\,\hat{\mathcal{I}}\,.
\label{I-hat}
\eeq
Moreover, in the UV limit $r\to\infty$ the electric field $E$ can be expanded as
\beq
E = E^{(0)}+\frac{c_E\,r^{\xi(2-q)+z-2}}{\xi(q-2)+2-z}\,+\,\ldots \ .
\eeq
We now match the expansions done in different orders. We have to compare (\ref{nh_lowfreq_diff_expansion}) and (\ref{E_low_freq_nh_diff}). First, we match the constant terms and get
\beq
E_{nh}=E_0+c_E\,\mathcal{I}\,\,,
\label{matching_constant_diff}
\eeq
and then the linear terms to arrive at the condition
\beq
(E_0+c_E\,\mathcal{I})\frac{i k^2 r_h^{z-3}}{\omega \left(1+B^2r_h^{-4 \xi }+d^2r_h^{-2 \xi q}\right)}=-c_E\frac{\left(1+B^2r_h^{-4\xi}\right) r_h^{\xi(2-q)+z-3}}{\left( 1+B^2r_h ^{-4 \xi}+d^2r_h ^{-2 \xi q}\right)^{3/2}}\,\,.
\label{matching_linear_diff}
\eeq
Imposing the Dirichlet boundary condition, $E^{(0)}=0$, (\ref{matching_linear_diff}) leads to the following dispersion relation
\beq
\omega = -iD\,k^2\,\,,
\label{eq:diffusion-eq}
\eeq
where $D$ is the diffusion constant, given by
\beq
D \,=\, \frac{r_h^{\xi(q-2)}\sqrt{1+\hat{B}^2+\hat{d}^2}}{1+\hat{B}^2}\,\mathcal{I}
\,=\, \frac{r_h^{z-2}\sqrt{1+\hat{B}^2+\hat{d}^2}}{1+\hat{B}^2}\,\hat{\mathcal{I}}.
\label{D_result}
\eeq
Notice that, in terms of the rescaled frequency and momentum introduced in \eqref{eq:scalings1}, the diffusion dispersion relation can be written as:
\beq
\hat\omega\,=\,-i\,\hat D\,\hat k^2\,\,,
\eeq
where $\hat D$ is related to $D$ as:
\beq\label{hat_D_result}
\hat D\,=\,r_h^{2-z}\,D = \frac{\sqrt{1+\hat{B}^2+\hat{d}^2}}{1+\hat{B}^2}\,\hat{\mathcal{I}} \ .
\eeq
The diffusion constant $D$ can be related to the charge susceptibility $\chi$ by means of the so-called Einstein relation, which reads:
\beq
D\,=\,\sigma\,\chi^{-{1}}\,\,,
\label{Einstein_rel}
\eeq
where $\sigma$ is the DC conductivity and $\chi$ is defined as:
\beq
\chi\,=\,{\partial\rho \over \partial\mu}\,\,,
\label{suscept_def}
\eeq
and $\rho$ is the charge density (see (\ref{density})) and $\mu$ is the chemical potential, which, for $B\not=0$, can be written as the following integral:
\beq
\mu\,=\,d\,\int_{r_h}^{\infty}\,
{\rho^{2\xi+z-3}\over \sqrt{\rho^{2q\xi}+\rho^{2(q-2)}\,B^2\,+\,d^2}}\,d\rho\,\,.
\label{mu_B}
\eeq
From (\ref{mu_B}) it is straightforward to compute the derivative (\ref{suscept_def}) and get $\chi$. We obtain
\beq
\chi^{-1}\,=\,{\mathcal{I}\over {\cal N}}\,\,,
\eeq
where $\mathcal{I}$ is the integral (\ref{math_I_def}) and ${\cal N}$ is the normalization constant defined after (\ref{eq:DBIaction}). The DC conductivity $\sigma$ can be obtained using several techniques. In Appendix \ref{Karch-O'Bannon}, we perform this calculation for our setup, with the result:
\beq
\sigma\,=\,{\cal N}\,r_h^{\xi(q-2)}\,
\frac{\sqrt{1+\hat{B}^2+\hat{d}^2}}{1+\hat{B}^2}\,\,.
\eeq
It is now immediate to check that the Einstein relation (\ref{Einstein_rel}) gives the same value as our direct result (\ref{D_result}), which confirms the validity of (\ref{Einstein_rel}) for our non-relativistic background.
The Einstein relation was postulated to hold in \cite{Kovtun:2008kx} in a holographic setting. To our knowledge \cite{Mas:2008qs} is the first work to establish its foundation concretely. Our results are the generalizations thereof.
In general, the integral $\hat{\mathcal{I}}$ cannot be evaluated analytically. However, there are two particular cases where this is not the case. These two systems are discussed in the next two subsections.
\subsubsection{Diffusion in $2+1$ dimensions }
Let us consider the case in which $q=2$, {\em i.e.}, when the field theory is $(2+1)$-dimensional. In this case the integral
$\hat{\mathcal{I}}$ can be written in terms of the integrals $J_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}$ defined in (\ref{J_integral_definition}) of Appendix \ref{appendix:calculations}. Actually, using (\ref{J_value}) we can write
$\hat{\mathcal{I}}$ as:
\be
\hat{\mathcal{I}}={1\over 2-z}F\Big({3\over 2},{2-z\over 4\xi};1+{2-z\over 4\xi};-\hat d^2-\hat B^2\Big)+{\hat B^2\over 2\xi+2-z}F\Big({3\over 2},1+{2-z\over 4\xi};2+{2-z\over 4\xi};-\hat d^2-\hat B^2\Big) \ .
\ee
Moreover, using the identity
\beq
\sqrt{1-x}\,F\Big({3\over 2}, \alpha ; \alpha+1;x\Big)\,=\,
\,F\Big(1, \alpha-{1\over 2} ; \alpha+1;x\Big)\,\,,
\label{hypergeometric_identity}
\eeq
we arrive at the following expression of $\hat D$ for $q=2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hat D\,=\,{1\over 1+\hat B^2}\,\Bigg[{1\over 2-z}\,
F\Big(1, {2-z-2\xi\over 4\xi} ; {2-z+4\xi\over 4\xi}
;-\hat d^2-\hat B^2\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\,{\hat B^2\over 2-z+\xi}\,
F\Big(1, {1\over 2}+{2-z\over 4\xi} ; 2\,+\,{2-z\over 4\xi}
;-\hat d^2-\hat B^2\Big)
\Bigg]\,\,.
\label{hatD_q2}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Vanishing magnetic field}
The integral $\mathcal{I}$ in (\ref{math_I_def}) can also be computed analytically when $B=0$. Using again (\ref{J_value}), we get:
\beq
D\,=\,{r_h^{z-2}\over \xi(q-2)-z+2}\,(1+r_h^{-2\xi q}\,d^2)^{{1\over 2}}\,
F\Big({3\over 2}, {\xi(q-2)-z+2\over 2\xi q}
; {\xi(3q-2)-z+2\over 2\xi q}
;-r_{h}^{-2\xi q}\,d^2\Big)\,\,.
\eeq
Notice that this expression coincides with the one obtained in section 5.2 of \cite{Lee:2010uy} for $\xi=1$ and $q=p$.
Moreover, this expression can be simplified by using the identity (\ref{hypergeometric_identity}), leading to the following value of the rescaled diffusion constant:
\beq
\hat D\,=\,{1\over \xi(q-2)-z+2}\,
F\Big(1, {2-z-2\xi\over 2\xi q}
; {2-z+(3q-2)\xi\over 2\xi q}
;-\hat d^2\Big)\,\,.
\label{hatD_zeroB}
\eeq
Notice that (\ref{hatD_q2}) and (\ref{hatD_zeroB}) coincide, as they should, when $q=2$ and $B=0$.
\subsubsection{Limiting behavior}
Let us return to the general case and let us study the behavior of $D$ at high and low temperature. We begin by analyzing the $T\to\infty$ limit, which corresponds to $r_h\to \infty$ and $\hat d, \hat B$ small. In this case we can neglect $\hat d, \hat B$ inside the integral (\ref{math_I_def}). If $z<2+\xi (q-2)$, we get
\beq
D \approx {r_h^{z-2}\over
\xi(q-2)\,-\,z+2} = {1\over
\xi(q-2)\,-\,z+2}\,\Big[{p\xi+z\over 4\pi}\Big]^{{2-z\over z}}\,T^{{z-2\over z}}\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
(T\to \infty) \ .
\eeq
This behavior matches the one found in \cite{Tong:2012nf} by applying general arguments. We observe
that the large $T$ behavior changes qualitatively as $z$ is increased and passes through $z=2$.
Let us next consider the low $T$ limit of $D$. In this case we can substitute $r_h=0$ in the integral
${\mathcal I}$ and the behavior is determined by the prefactor in (\ref{D_result}). If $B$ is kept small enough
($\hat B\ll 1$), we can neglect the contribution of the $B$ field to the prefactor and we get that, for small $T$, in the hydrodynamic regime, $D$ behaves as:
\beq
D\sim r_h^{-2\xi}\,\,.
\eeq
Therefore, for small $T$ the diffusion constant $D$ behaves as:
\beq
D\sim T^{-{2\xi\over z}}\sim T^{-{2\over z}(1-{\theta\over p})}\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
(T\to 0)\,\,.
\eeq
\subsubsection{Comparison of analytic results to numerical results}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{diffq2plot.pdf}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{diffq3plot.pdf}
\caption{We depict the diffusion constant against the charge density in the absence of the magnetic field $\hat B=0$ for various cases. The numerical data is represented as points, whereas the continuous curves stem from analytic results (\ref{hatD_zeroB}). Left: We set $q=2$ and $\xi=1$. The different curves correspond to $z=1,1.5,1.9,1.95$ (bottom-up). Right: We set $q=3$ and $\xi=2$. The different curves correspond to $z=1,2,3,3.5,3.9,3.95$ (bottom-up). Notice that the plots are logarithmic.}
\label{Diffusion_zeroB}
\end{figure}
Having obtained lots of analytic results using different approximation schemes, we now wish to turn to quantifying how good they are in comparison to numerical results.
We thus compare our analytic results to those coming out of numerically solving the full fluctuation equations of motion (\ref{eq:Eeom}) and (\ref{eq:ayeom}). The numerical methods that we use are by now standard, we refer the reader to \cite{Kaminski:2009dh,Bergman:2011rf} for more details. Before direct comparisons, consider the integral $\hat{ \mathcal{I}}$ in \eqref{I-hat}. When $z$ approaches the value $\xi(q-2)+2$, it is evident that the integral becomes larger and larger, eventually diverging. It is evident that near these values, our approximation $\omega\sim k^2$ is no longer valid.
Thus, to be more precise, we wish to find out if the diffusion mode is well-represented beyond the critical value of $z$ and what is the lower bound for
\beq
g(q,z,\xi)\equiv\xi(q-2)-z+2 \label{eq:g}
\eeq
such that our analytical results differ from the numerical results only by a few percent. Generically then, the smaller values $g$ takes, the worse analytic results conform with the numerics.
We first consider the case without the magnetic field. Both the analytical and numerical results are represented in Fig.~\ref{Diffusion_zeroB} as functions of ${\hat d}$. We see that cleaving the two when $g\geq 0.2$ with all values of ${\hat d}$, is practically impossible. When $g\geq 0.1$ ,the analytic results are at most $5 \%$ larger than the numeric results. The difference grows slightly when considering larger values of ${\hat d}$. When $g<0.05$, the analytic result differs by more than $30 \%$ from the numerics and becomes worse as ${\hat d}$ grows. In the regime $g<0$, the diffusion mode persists although the diffusion coefficient grows fast with decreasing $g$. Interestingly, when $g$ goes to more and more negative values, the diffusion coefficient scales as $D\propto d$ as $d\to \infty$. According to our analytic result, the diffusion constant should be linear in $d$ already at $g=0$, while numerics only support this for $g\ll 0$.
Now, let us consider the effect of the magnetic field. The analytic and numerical results are compared in Fig.~\ref{Diffusion_B} in various different cases. Again, we see that for largish values of $g$, the results agree very well.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{B01diffplot.pdf}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{B1diffplot.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{B10diffplot.pdf}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{B100diffplot.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the numerically computed diffusion constant $\hat D$ as a function of the charge density $\hat d$ with that of analytic prediction. Different panels focus on different magnetic field strengths as indicated in the plots. The points stand for numerical data while the curves follow from formulas (\ref{hat_D_result}). We focus on $q=3$, $\xi=2$ for all the cases. The different curves have dynamical exponent $z=1,2,3,3.5,3.9,3.95$ (bottom-up). Notice that the plots are logarithmic.}
\label{Diffusion_B}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Zero sound}\label{sec:zerosound}
Let us now study the system in the collisionless regime. With this purpose,
let us consider the equations for the fluctuations (\ref{eq:Eeom}) and (\ref{eq:ayeom}) at zero temperature and non-zero $B$ field. We will assume that $B$ is small. Near the horizon $r=0$ the equations (\ref{eq:Eeom}) and (\ref{eq:ayeom}) read:
\begin{eqnarray}
E''\,+\,\Bigg({z+1-2\xi\over r}+{4\xi B^2\over r(r^{4\xi}+B^2)}
\Bigg)
\,E'\,+\,{\omega^2\over r^{2z+2}}\,E & = &
-4i\,B\,\xi\,\omega^2\,{r^{2\xi-z-2}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\,a_y\nonumber\\
a_y''\,+\,\Bigg({z+1-2\xi\over r}+{4\xi B^2\over r(r^{4\xi}+B^2)}
\Bigg)
\,a_y'\,+\,{\omega^2\over r^{2z+2}}\,a_y & = &
4i\,B\,\xi\,{r^{2\xi-z-2}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\,E\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us define an operator $\hat {\cal O}$ as the one that acts on any function $F(r)$ as follows:
\beq
\hat {\cal O}\,F\,\equiv\,F''\,+\,\Bigg({z+1-2\xi\over r}+{4\xi B^2\over r(r^{4\xi}+B^2)}
\Bigg) \,F'\,+\,{\omega^2\over r^{2z+2}}\,F \ .
\eeq
Then, the system of coupled equations can be written as:
\beq
\hat {\cal O}\,E\,=\,-4i\,B\,\xi\,\omega^2\,{r^{2\xi-z-2}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\,a_y\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
\hat {\cal O}\,a_y\,=\,4i\,B\,\xi\,{r^{2\xi-z-2}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\,E\,\,.
\eeq
These equations can be decoupled. Let us define the functions
\beq
y_{\pm}(r)\,=\,{E\over i\omega}\,\pm\,a_y\,\,.
\eeq
The equations for $y_{\pm}(r)$ are:
\beq
\Bigg(\hat {\cal O}\pm 4\,B\,\xi\omega\,{r^{2\xi-z-2}\over r^{4\xi}+B^2}\Bigg)\,y_{\pm}\,=\,0 \ .
\eeq
Let us study these equations when $B$ is small. Neglecting the terms that are quadratic in $B$, we get:
\beq
y_{\pm}''\,+\,{z+1-2\xi\over r}
\,y_{\pm}'\,+\,\Bigg({\omega^2\over r^{2z+2}}\pm {4\xi \omega B \over r^{2\xi+z+2}}
\Bigg)\,y_{\pm}\,=\,0 \ .
\eeq
We now solve this equation in powers of $B$. As the equation for $y_+$ is obtained from the equation of $y_-$ by changing $B$ by $-B$, we can write (at first order in $B$):
\beq
y_{\pm}(r)=y_0(r)\pm B\, y_1(r)\,\,.
\eeq
The equations of $y_0$ and $y_1$ do not depend on $B$ and are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&y_{0}''\,+\,{z+1-2\xi\over r}
\,y_{0}'\,+\,{\omega^2\over r^{2z+2}}
\,y_{0}\,=\,0\nonumber\\
&&y_{1}''\,+\,{z+1-2\xi\over r}
\,y_{1}'\,+\,{\omega^2\over r^{2z+2}}
\,y_{1}\,=\,-{4\,\xi\, \omega \over r^{2\xi+z+2}}\,y_0\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The solution for $y_0$ with infalling boundary conditions can be written in terms of a Hankel function as:
\beq
y_0(r)\,=\,c_+\, r^{\xi-{z\over 2}}\,H^{(1)}_{{1\over 2}-{\xi\over z}}\,
\Big({\omega\over z\,r^{z}}\Big)\,\,.
\eeq
Moreover, if we write $y_1=c_+\,y$, we get the following equation for $y$:
\beq
y''\,+\,{z+1-2\xi\over r}
\,y'\,+\,{\omega^2\over r^{2z+2}}
\,y\,=\,-{4\,\xi\, \omega \over r^{\xi+{3z\over 2}+2}}\,
H^{(1)}_{{1\over 2}-{\xi\over z}}\,
\Big({\omega\over z\,r^{z}}\Big)\,\,.
\label{inhomo_y_eq}
\eeq
This equation is solved in appendix \ref{wronskian} by using the Wronskian method, with the result:
\beq
y(r)\,=\,r^{-\xi-{z\over 2}}\,
H_{-{\xi\over z}-{1\over 2}}^{(1)}\Big({\omega\over z r^z}\Big)\,\,.
\eeq
Let us now write the complete near-horizon solution. First we define the functions
$z_1(r)$ and $z_2(r)$ as:
\beq
z_1(r)\equiv r^{\xi-{z\over 2}}\,H^{(1)}_{{1\over 2}-{\xi\over z}}\,
\Big({\omega\over z\,r^{z}}\Big)\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
z_2(r)\equiv r^{-\xi-{z\over 2}}\,
H_{-{\xi\over z}-{1\over 2}}^{(1)}\Big({\omega\over z\, r^z}\Big)\,\,.
\eeq
Then, $y_{\pm}(r)$ are given by:
\beq
y_{+}(r)\,=\,c_+\,z_1(r)\,+\,c_+\,B\,z_2(r)\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
y_{-}(r)\,=\,c_-\,z_1(r)\,-\,c_-\,B\,z_2(r)\,\,,
\eeq
where, to obtain $y_{-}$ we changed $B\to -B$ and $c_+\to c_-$. Let us now redefine these constants as follows
\beq
c_1\,=\,{i\omega\over 2}\,(c_++c_-)\,\,,
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
c_2\,=\,{i\omega\over 2}\,(c_+-c_-)\,\,.
\eeq
Then, $E$ and $a_y$ can be written in matrix form as:
\beq
\begin{pmatrix}
E\\ \\ a_y
\end{pmatrix}
\,=\,
\begin{pmatrix}
z_1(r) &&& B\,z_2(r)\\
{} & {} \\
- {iB\over \omega}\,z_2(r) &&& -{i\over \omega}\,z_1(r)
\end{pmatrix}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
c_1\\ \\c_2
\end{pmatrix}\,\,.
\eeq
Let us now consider this solution at low frequency ($\omega r^{-z}\ll 1$).
When the index $\nu$ is not integer ({\em i.e.}, for $z\not= 2\xi$) the Hankel function has the following expansion near the origin:
\beq
H_{\nu}^{(1)}(\alpha x)= -{2^{\nu}\,\Gamma(\nu)\over \pi \alpha^{\nu}}\,i\,
\Big[{1\over x^{\nu}}\,+\,{\pi\over \Gamma(\nu)\,\Gamma(\nu+1)}\,
\Big({\alpha\over 2}\Big)^{2\nu}\,
\Big(i\,-\,\cot (\pi\nu)\Big)\,x^{\nu}\,+\,\ldots\Big]\,\,,
\eeq
Using this expression, we expand $z_1(r)$ and $z_2(r)$ for low $\omega$ as:
\beq
z_1(r)\approx -{2^{\nu}\,\Gamma(\nu)\over \pi \alpha^{\nu}}\,i\,
\Big[1\,+\,c\,\omega^{1-{2\xi\over z}}\,r^{2\xi-z}\,\Big]\,\,,
\qquad
z_2(r)\approx -{2^{\nu}\,\Gamma(\nu)\over \pi \alpha^{\nu}}\,i\,
\Big[ c (z-2\xi)\,\omega^{-{2\xi\over z}}\Big]\,\,,
\eeq
where $\nu$ is the index written in (\ref{nu_dz}), $\alpha=\omega/z$ and $c$ is the constant
\beq
c\,=\,{\pi\over z-2\xi}\,
{(2z)^{{2\xi\over z}}\over \Gamma\Big({1\over 2}-{\xi\over z}\Big)^2}\,
\Big[i-\tan\Big({\pi\xi\over z}\Big)\Big]\,\,.
\label{c_def}
\eeq
By absorbing the common factor in $z_1$ and $z_2$, we have:
\beq
\begin{pmatrix}
E\\ \\ a_y
\end{pmatrix}
\,\approx\,
\begin{pmatrix}
1+c\,
\omega^{1-{2\xi\over z}} r^{2\xi-z}&&& B\,c(z-2\xi)\,\omega^{-{2\xi\over z}}
\\
{} & {} \\
-iB\,c(z-2\xi)\,\omega^{-1-{2\xi\over z}}
&&& -{i\over \omega}\,
\big(1+c\,\omega^{1-{2\xi\over z}} r^{2\xi-z} \big)
\end{pmatrix}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
c_1\\ \\c_2
\end{pmatrix}\,\,.
\label{E_ay_nh_low}
\eeq
\subsubsection{Matching}
Let us now obtain the values of $E$ and $a_y$ when the near-horizon and low frequency limits are taken in the opposite order. We thus consider $\omega$ and $k$ being small and of the same order. It is easy to see, that in this limit, the equation of $E$ decouples from that of $a_y$ and that one can neglect the terms without derivatives in (\ref{eq:Eeom}). Moreover, we will assume that $B$ is small and, therefore, we will just take $B=0$ in the remaining terms in (\ref{eq:Eeom}). After these approximations, the equation for $E$ at low frequency becomes:
\beq
E''\,+\,\partial_r\,\log\Bigg[
{r^{z+1-2\xi}(r^{2\xi q}+d^2)^{{3\over 2}}\over
(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}\,k^2)\,r^{2\xi q}\,+\,\omega^2\,d^2}\Bigg]
\,E'\,=\,0\,\,.
\eeq
This equation can be readily integrated:
\beq
E'\,=\,c_E\,
{(\omega^2-r^{2z-2}\,k^2)\,r^{2\xi q}\,+\,\omega^2\,d^2\over
r^{z+1-2\xi}(r^{2\xi q}+d^2)^{{3\over 2}}}\,\,,
\eeq
with $c_E$ being a constant of integration. A second integration yields:
\beq
E(r)\,=\,E^{(0)}\,-\,c_E\,\big[\,\omega^2\, I(r)\,-\,k^2\,J(r)\big]\,\,, \label{E-sol-zs-small-k}
\eeq
where $E^{(0)}=E(r\to\infty)$ and $I(r)$ and $J(r)$ are defined in terms of the integrals
(\ref{I_lambda12_def}) and (\ref{J_integral_definition}) of Appendix \ref{appendix:calculations}:
\beq
I(r) = I_{2\xi-z-1\,, \,2\xi q}(r)\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
J(r) = J_{2\xi q+2\xi+z-3, 2\xi q}(r)\,\,.
\label{I_J_def}
\eeq
From (\ref{I_lambda12_value}) and (\ref{J_value}) we get:
\begin{eqnarray}
{ I}(r) & = & {r^{\xi(2-q)-z}\over z+\xi(q-2)}\,
F\Big({1\over 2},{z+\xi(q-2)\over 2\xi q};
{z+\xi(3q-2)\over 2\xi q};-r^{-2\xi q}\,d^2\Big)\nonumber\\
J(r) &= &
{r^{\xi(2-q)+z-2}\over \xi(q-2)-z+2}\,
F\Big({3\over 2}, {\xi(q-2)-z+2\over 2\xi q}
; {\xi(3q-2)-z+2\over 2\xi q};-r^{-2\xi q}\,d^2\Big)\,\,.\qquad\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now expand ${ I}(r)$ and ${ J}(r)$ near the horizon $r=0$. From (\ref{I_lambda12_expansion}) we have:
\beq
I(r)\,=\,I_0+{r^{2\xi-z}\over z-2\xi}\,d^{-1}\,+\,\ldots\,\,,
\label{I_nh}
\eeq
with
\beq
I_0\,=\,{1\over 2\xi q}\,B\Big({2\xi-z\over 2\xi q}\,,\,{z+\xi(q-2)\over 2\xi q}\Big)\,
d^{{2\xi-z\over \xi q}-1}\,\,.
\label{I_0}
\eeq
Moreover, at the order we are working we can take $ J(r)$ as its value at $r=0$:
\beq
J(r)\approx J_0\,=\,{2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi^2\,q^2}\,
B\Big({2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi q}\,,\,{1\over 2}\,-\,{2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi q}\Big)\,
d^{{2\xi+z-2\over \xi q}-1}\,\,.
\eeq
Therefore, near $r=0$, we have:
\beq
E(r)\approx -{c_E\over z-2\xi}\,{\omega^2\over d}\,r^{2\xi-z}\,+\,E^{(0)}\,-\,
c_E\,\big(\omega^2\,I_0-k^2\,J_0\big)\,\,.
\label{E_low_nh}
\eeq
Let us now consider the fluctuations of $a_y$. At low frequency and small $B$, (\ref{eq:ayeom}) becomes:
\beq
a_y''\,+\,\partial_r\,\Big[r^{z+1-2\xi}\,(r^{2\xi q}\,+\,d^2)^{{1\over 2}}\Big]\,a_y'\,=\,0\,\,.
\eeq
This equation can be integrated once as:
\beq
a_y'\,=\,{c_y\over r^{z+1-2\xi}\,(r^{2\xi q}\,+\,d^2)^{{1\over 2}}}\,\,,
\eeq
where $c_y$ is an integration constant. An additional integration yields:
\beq
a_y(r)\,=\,a_y^{(0)}\,-\,c_y\,\int_{r}^{\infty}\,
{d\rho \over \rho^{z+1-2\xi}\,(\rho^{2\xi q}+d^2)^{{1\over 2}}}\,\,. \label{ay-sol-zs-small-k}
\eeq
Clearly, $a_y^{(0)}=a_y(r\to \infty)$. Moreover, $a_y(r)$ can be written in terms of the integral ${ I}(r)$ defined in (\ref{I_J_def}). We get:
\beq
a_y(r)\,=\,a_y^{(0)}\,-\,c_y\, {\cal I}(r)\,\,.
\eeq
The expansion of $a_y(r)$ near the horizon $r=0$ can be readily obtained from (\ref{I_nh}). We get:
\beq
a_y(r)\,=\,a_y^{(0)}\,-\,c_y\,I_0\,-\,{c_y\over (z-2\xi)d}\,r^{2\xi-z}\,\,,
\label{ay_low_nh}
\eeq
where $I_0$ has been defined in (\ref{I_0}).
Let us now compare (\ref{E_low_nh}) and (\ref{ay_low_nh}) to (\ref{E_ay_nh_low}). From the terms depending on $r$ we get:
\beq
c_1\,=\,-{c_E\over (z-2\xi)c}\,{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over d}\,\,,
\qquad\quad
c_2\,=\,-i\,{c_y\over (z-2\xi)c}\,{\omega^{{2\xi\over z}}\over d}\,\,.
\eeq
Using these results we get the following matrix relation from the comparison of the constant terms:
\beq
\begin{pmatrix}
E^{(0)}\\ \\ a_y^{(0)}
\end{pmatrix}
\,=\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\omega^2\,I_0\,-\,k^2\,J_0\,-\,{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d}
&&&-i{B\over d}\\
{} & {} \\
i{B\over d} &&&
I_0-{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d}
\end{pmatrix}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
c_E\\ \\c_y
\end{pmatrix}\,\,.
\label{E0_ay0_B}
\eeq
The non-trivial solution in which the sources $E^{(0)}$ and $a_y^{(0)}$ vanish only exists when the determinant of matrix in (\ref{E0_ay0_B}) is zero. This condition is equivalent to the equation:
\beq
\Big(\omega^2\,-\,{J_0\over I_0}\,k^2\,\,-\,{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d I_0}\Big)\,
\Big(1-{\omega^{{2\xi\over z}-1}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d I_0}\Big)\,=\,\Big({B\over d\,I_0}\Big)^2\,\,,
\label{zero_disp_general}
\eeq
which determines the dispersion relation of the zero sound. We will analyze this in great detail by starting with the vanishing magnetic field case.
\subsubsection{Vanishing magnetic field}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{disprelationplot.pdf}
\caption{We present a typical dispersion relation at low energy at vanishing magnetic field strength $\hat B=0$. The parameters here are chosen such that $q=3$, $z=1.5$, $\xi = 1$, and $\hat d= 2000$. The continuous curves denote imaginary parts of the modes, whereas dashed curves represent the corresponding real parts, if non-vanishing. The red curve starting from the origin is the diffusion mode which merges at $\hat k\sim 0.04$ with another purely imaginary mode (blue curve), that can be traced to the longitudinal excitation mode (can be identified $\hat k=0$). At $\hat k=0$ there is degeneracy for the longitudinal and transverse (orange curve) gauge field fluctuations. The merging point $\hat k\sim 0.04$ defines the transition point from the hydrodynamical regime to the collisionless regime. Beyond this point, the lowest excitation mode is the zero sound (black curves).}
\label{Dispersion_relation}
\end{figure}
Let us consider in detail the case $B=0$. By imposing the Dirichlet boundary condition
$E^{(0)}=0$ in (\ref{E0_ay0_B}), we get the following dispersion relation:
\beq\label{zero_disp_general_B0}
\omega^2\,I_0-k^2\,J_0\,=\,
{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d}\,\,.
\eeq
At leading order we can neglect the right-hand side of the equation, which leads to:
\beq\label{eq:omega0B0}
\omega\,=\,\pm\sqrt{{J_0\over I_0}}\,\,k\,\,.
\eeq
Thus, the speed of zero sound is:
\beq
c_s^2\,=\,{J_0\over I_0}={2\xi+z-2\over \xi\,q}\,d^{{2(z-1)\over \xi q}}\,
{B\Big({2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi q}\,,\,{1\over 2}\,-\,{2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi q}\Big)\over
B\Big({2\xi-z\over 2\xi q}\,,\,{z+\xi(q-2)\over 2\xi q}\Big)}\,\,,
\label{c_s}
\eeq
in agreement with the result found in \cite{Dey:2013vja}. Interestingly, this differs from the speed of first sound \eqref{eq:speed-1st-sound} only by the power of $d$ and the Euler Beta-functions. Also, it exactly reduces to the speed of first sound when $z=1$. Let us next take into account the next order contribution and write the more general expression in (\ref{zero_disp_general_B0}) in such a way that a comparison to the results of \cite{Dey:2013vja} is transparent. First of all, we recast the constant $c$ defined in (\ref{c_def}) as:
\beq
c\,=\,{(2z)^{{2\xi\over z}-1}\over \pi}\,
{\Gamma\Big({\xi\over z}+{1\over 2}\Big)\,\Gamma\Big({\xi\over z}-{1\over 2}\Big)\over
i+\tan\Big({\pi \xi\over z}\Big)}\,\,.
\eeq
Then, we can verify that:
\beq
(z-2\xi)\,c\,J_0\,d\,=\,-{\alpha_1\over \alpha_3}\,\,,
\eeq
where $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_3$ are the constants defined in \cite{Dey:2013vja}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_1 & = & {(2\xi-z)(2\xi+z-2)\,(2z)^{{2\xi\over z}-1}\over
2\xi^2\,q^2\,\pi d^{{2-2\xi-z\over \xi q}}}\,\,
\Gamma\Big({\xi\over z}+{1\over 2}\Big)\,\Gamma\Big({\xi\over z}-{1\over 2}\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\times B\Big({2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi q}\,,\,{1\over 2}\,-\,{2\xi+z-2\over 2\xi q}\Big)\nonumber\\
\alpha_3 & = &i+\tan\Big({\pi \xi\over z}\Big)\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The dispersion relation can now be written as in \cite{Dey:2013vja}:
\beq
k^2\,-\,{\omega^2\over c_s^2}\,-\,{\alpha_3\over \alpha_1}\,\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\,=\,0\,\,.
\eeq
The next-to-leading order contribution to gives an imaginary part for $\omega$. Introducing $\delta\omega=\omega-c_s k$, we can solve to linear order
\begin{eqnarray}
&{\rm{Im}} \,\delta \omega&= -\frac{c_s^{2+\frac{2\xi}{z}}}{2\alpha_1}k^{\frac{2\xi}{z}}\\
\!\!\!\!\! &=& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!-\frac{(2z^2)^{-\frac{\xi}{z}}d^{\frac{z^2-2\xi}{q z \xi}}\pi q \xi }{B\left(\frac{2\xi-z}{2\xi q},\frac{z+(q-2)\xi}{2 \xi q}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\xi}{z}\right)^2 }\left( \frac{\Gamma \left(\frac{2-z+(q-2) \xi}{2 q \xi }\right) \Gamma \left(\frac{z+2 \xi -2}{2 q \xi }+1\right)}{\Gamma
\left(\frac{2\xi-z}{2 q \xi}\right) \Gamma \left(\frac{z+(q-2) \xi }{2 q \xi }\right)} \right)^{\frac{\xi}{z}} k^{\frac{2\xi}{z}} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Non-zero magnetic field}
Let us continue solving (\ref{zero_disp_general}) at non-zero $B\ne 0$ but at leading order in frequency and momentum. In this case, we can write
\beq\label{eq:omatBne0withk}
\omega^2\,=\,c_s^2\,k^2\,+\,\omega_0^2\,\,,
\eeq
where $c_s$ is the speed of zero sound written in (\ref{c_s}) and the gap $\omega_0$ is
\beq
\omega_0\,=\,{B\over d\,I_0}\,\,.
\eeq
More explicitly, $\omega_0$ can be written as:
\beq\label{eq:omatBne0}
\omega_0\,=\,{2\,\xi\,q\,B\,d^{{z-2\xi\over \xi q}}\over
B\Big({2\xi-z\over 2\xi q}\,,\,{z+\xi(q-2)\over 2\xi q}\Big)
}\,\,.
\eeq
We notice that the mass gap is linear in the magnetic field strength, in accordance with the Kohn's theorem. At finite temperature, we expect that there is a critical magnetic field above which the zero sound will acquire a mass \cite{Jokela:2012vn} (see also subsequent work in other holographic models \cite{Goykhman:2012vy,Brattan:2012nb,Jokela:2012se,Jokela:2015aha,Itsios:2015kja,Itsios:2016ffv}). We have indeed numerically verified this expectation in the current system. In Fig.~\ref{zero_sound_gap_B}, we have restricted to low-temperature regime and plotted numerical data against the gap in (\ref{eq:omatBne0}). We nicely see that the analytic results conform with full numerical analysis for sufficiently small magnetic field strengths. We have also presented the dispersions in Fig.~\ref{zero_sound_gap_B} following (\ref{eq:omatBne0withk}), which also match the numerics.
Like before, we can obtain the next-to-leading order corrections, where we encounter an imaginary part of $\omega$. A straightforward computation yields
\beq
{\rm{Im}}\, \delta\omega = -\frac{\pi(c_s^2k^2+\omega_0^2)^{\frac{\xi}{z}-1}(c_s^2k^2+2 \omega_0^2)}{2 d I_0 (2z)^{\frac{2\xi}{z}}\Gamma\left(\frac{\xi}{z}+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2} \ .
\eeq
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{gapplot_z15.pdf}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{B-zerosoundplot.pdf}
\caption{Left: We present a comparison of numerical computation of the gap in the zero sound mode to our analytical result (\ref{eq:omatBne0}) by varying $\hat d$. The parameters are $q =3$, $\xi = 2$, and $z = 1.5$. The different curves correspond to different values of the magnetic field: $\hat B=1, 2, 16, 100, 150$ (bottom-up). Right: We show a comparison of the numerical and analytical results (\ref{eq:omatBne0withk}) for the real part of the zero sound mode as a function of $\hat k$. The parameters are: $q=3$, $z=1.5$, $\xi = 2$, and $\hat d = 10^5$. The values used for the magnetic field are $\hat B=0.5$, $1$, $ 2$, $4$, and $8$ (bottom-up).}
\label{zero_sound_gap_B}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Crossover from hydrodynamic to collisionless regime}
We found the zero sound mode analytically in the $T=0$ case and the diffusion mode in the $T\neq 0$ case. It is natural to expect that for some range of temperatures, both modes would coexist although dominate at different momenta. The regime close to the $T=0$ is called the collisionless (quantum) regime, where the dominant physics are captured by the collective sound mode-like excitation appearing as the pole in the density-density correlator. In usual Landau-Fermi liquids, such a mode is visible as due to oscillations of the Fermi surface of the underlying interacting fermions. The system is pretty robust to temperature variations. For example, while the attenuation of the zero sound gets corrections from thermal effects, the speed of zero sound is quite insensitive to these. At sufficiently high temperatures, there is a phase transition to a hydrodynamic regime. The scaling of this phase transition point strongly depends on parameters of the system.
In Fig.~\ref{damping_rate} we have plotted the imaginary value of the most dominant mode as a function of increasing temperature. In this plot, we notice the different regimes. To the far-left is the collisionless quantum regime, which transitions to thermal collisionless regime, where the attenuation of the zero sound assumes (positive) exponential scaling with the temperature. At sufficiently large temperature, we find a sharp transition to the hydrodynamic regime, where the physics is dominated by the diffusion mode, whose decay rate scales with negative power of the temperature.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{traplotb.pdf}
\caption{The damping rate of the most dominant mode is plotted against increasing temperature in the logarithmic scale with fixed $\frac{\hat k}{\hat d^{1/(q\xi)}} = 0.01$ and at $B=0$ for $q=3,\ z=1.5$, and $\xi=2$. We have chosen to normalize the imaginary part of the frequency at $T=0$. The collisionless $T\sim 0$ regime corresponds to the left-most part of the plot, where the zero sound is the dominant mode. The zero slope means that its imaginary part is pretty robust to temperature variations up until the system enters in the thermal collisionless regime. The transition to the hydrodynamic regime is marked as the highest point of the plot, after of which the diffusion mode takes over. The slopes of the lines are $0,2/3,-2/3,1/12$. We find a very accurate match with the numerics and the analytic predictions.}
\label{damping_rate}
\end{figure}
The aim of this subsection is to extract the scaling law of the phase transition point from numerical results at $B=0$. We were successful in predicting the quite complicated form of the scaling exponents (see equation (\ref{omega_k_cr}) below) and they match the numerical results very accurately. More explicitly, we work at finite temperature and small momenta, and set up the numerics to finding a transition point where a purely imaginary diffusive mode transforms into a zero sound mode. A typical representation of the dispersions is as in Fig.~\ref{Dispersion_relation}, where the transition point from the hydrodynamic diffusive mode merging with another purely imaginary mode to form a pair of complex sound modes is clearly visible. At this point the angular frequency and momentum take what we call critical values: ($\hat k_{cr}$, $\hat \omega_{cr}$). The critical values depend on the temperature and chemical potential of the system. Using numerical analysis, we determined how these parameters depend on the temperature and on the chemical potential:
\beq
\omega_{cr} \sim \frac{T^{\frac{2 \xi}{z}}}{\mu_0^{\frac{2\xi-z}{z+2\xi-2}}}\,\,,
\qquad\qquad
k_{cr} \sim \frac{T^{\frac{2 \xi}{z}}}{\mu_0^{\frac{2\xi-1}{z+2\xi-2}}} \ .
\label{omega_k_cr}
\eeq
Here, we have used the zero temperature chemical potential, $\mu_0$.
We emphasize that the scaling relations in (\ref{omega_k_cr}) are only expected to hold at sufficiently low temperatures.
When we set both $z$ and $\xi$ to unity, the scaling becomes $\frac{T^2}{\mu_0}$, which is the expected result for conformal background generated by D3-branes, see {\emph{e.g.}}, \cite{Jokela:2015aha}. In Fig.~\ref{omega_k_crit} we plot the transition values as functions of increasing temperature. The predicted scaling laws (\ref{omega_k_cr}) match the numerics extremely well.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{critomegaplotb.pdf}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{critkplotb.pdf}
\caption{We depict the frequencies $|\hat \omega_{cr}|$ (left) and wave vectors $\hat k_{cr}$ (right) corresponding to the transition point from the hydrodynamical to the collisionless regime for various values of the parameters against increasing temperature (from left to right) in a logarithmic scale. We have chosen to plot the various lines that we fit to numerical data (points) such that all the cases have slopes corresponding to 1. Notice, that we have included a constant vertical shift to separate the lines. The lines correspond to $(q=3,\xi=1,z=1)$, $(q=4,\xi=2,z=2)$, $(q=4,\xi=3,z=2)$, $(q=3,\xi=2,z=3)$, and $(q=3,\xi=3,z=3)$ (top-down). We conclude that the scaling laws (\ref{omega_k_cr}) are faithfully captured by the numerical data.}
\label{omega_k_crit}
\end{figure}
\section{Alternative quantization}
\label{sec:alternative}
In this section, we consider the special case $q=2$ as it allows us to move away from the traditional Dirichlet boundary condition and consider a mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions.
We will briefly review the necessary notation and the background of this following \cite{Jokela:2013hta} (see also \cite{Jokela:2014wsa,Brattan:2013wya,Brattan:2014moa,Jokela:2015aha,Itsios:2015kja,Itsios:2016ffv}), which contains a more detailed analysis of the alternative quantization. For a complementary discussion in implementing alternative boundary conditions in holography, see \cite{Ihl:2016sop}. The approach in \cite{Ihl:2016sop} is slightly more abstract, but has the benefit of straightforward generalization off-shell as well as an unambiguous way of computing the thermodynamic potentials of the anyonized system.
Consider our original action. When we vary the gauge fields and impose the equations of motion, we have the boundary term
\beq
\delta S_D = \int_{\rm{bdry}} J^{\mu}\delta A_{\mu} \ ,
\eeq
where $J^{\mu}$ is interpreted as the conserved current of the boundary theory. In the previous sections, we have demanded that this be zero, effectively requiring $\delta A_{\mu}=0$ at the boundary, {\em i.e.}, the Dirichlet boundary condition. The modified boundary conditions are achieved by adding additional boundary terms to the action.
As $\partial_{\mu}J^{\mu}=0$, we can write $J_{\mu}= \frac{1}{2\pi}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}\partial^{\nu}v^{\lambda}$, where $v^\mu$ is an arbitrary vector corresponding to the gauge redundancy.\footnote{For discussion on how to fix this, see \cite{Ihl:2016sop}. The freedom parameterized by $v^\mu$, does not enter in the pole structure, but will be important if one wishes to compute thermodynamic potentials.} In the following, we also write $B_{\mu} = \frac{1}{2\pi}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}\partial^{\nu}A^{\lambda}$. Now, the most general action we can write while still retaining the original equations of motion is
\beq\label{eq:alternativebc}
S = S_D + \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{bdry} \left[a_1\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}A^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}v^{\lambda} +a_2\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}A^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}A^{\lambda} + a_3\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}v^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}v^{\lambda}\right] \ .
\eeq
Variation of both $v^{\mu}$ and $A^{\mu}$ gives us
\beq
\delta S = \int_{\rm{bdry}} (a_s J_{\mu}+b_s B_{\mu})(c_s\delta v^{\mu}+d_s\delta A^{\mu}) \ ,
\eeq
where
\beq
a_sd_s = 1+a_1\ ,\quad b_sc_s = a_1\ ,\quad b_sd_s=2a_2\ ,\quad a_sc_s = 2 a_3\ .
\eeq
Notice that $a_sd_s-b_sc_s=1$, as the transformations can be identified with the elements in $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$. From the variation of $S$, we can see that our boundary condition has become
\beq
c_s\delta v^{\mu}+d_s \delta A^{\mu}\Big |_{r\to \infty}=0 \qquad\Leftrightarrow\qquad c_s\delta J^{\mu}+d_s \delta B^{\mu}=0 \ .
\eeq
In addition, we can read the new current corresponding to the new boundary conditions,
\beq
J_\mu^* =a_s J_{\mu}+b_s B_{\mu} \ .
\eeq
Having reviewed some basic renditions from adding boundary terms in the action, we will now focus on the pole structure of the Green's functions. The effect of using mixed boundary conditions for the electromagnetic fields can be summarized in the following condition
\beq
\lim\limits_{r\to \infty}\left[\mathfrak{n}r^{\lambda}f_{r\mu}-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta}f^{\alpha\beta}\right]=0 \ , \quad \mu=t\,,x\,,y \ .
\eeq
The indices in the second term have been raised with the Minkowski metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ whose temporal component has been scaled with $r^{2(z-1)}$ to take into account the Lifshitz scaling. The parameter $\lambda$ is determined from the scaling properties of the classical fields. The parameter $\mathfrak{n}$ measures the state of mixedness of the boundary conditions in comparison to the Dirichlet boundary condition. When $\mathfrak{n}=0$, we recover the Dirichlet boundary condition and with $\mathfrak{n}\to\infty$, we asymptotically approach the Neumann boundary condition. Equivalently, we could use
\beq
\lim\limits_{r\to \infty}\left[r^{\lambda}f_{r\mu}-\frac{\mathfrak{m}}{2}\varepsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta}f^{\alpha\beta}\right]=0 \ ,
\eeq
where $\mathfrak{m}=1/\mathfrak{n}$.
More explicitly, these conditions are for $\mu=t,\,x$:
\beq
\lim\limits_{r\to \infty}\left[\mathfrak{n}r^{\lambda}a'_{t}-ik a_y\right]=0,\quad \lim\limits_{r\to \infty}\left[\mathfrak{n}r^{\lambda}a'_{x}+i\omega r^{2(1-z)}a_y\right]=0 \ . \label{mixed_at_ax}
\eeq
We can use the relation \eqref{at_ax_E}, to write the two conditions \eqref{mixed_at_ax} in a single condition in terms of $a_y$ and $E$:
\beq
\lim\limits_{{r\to \infty}}\left[{\mathfrak{n}r^{\lambda+2(z-1)}E'\over \omega^2 -k^2r^{2(z-1)}}+ia_y\right]=0 \ .
\eeq
Finally, for $\mu=y$:
\beq
\lim\limits_{r\to \infty}\left[\mathfrak{n}r^{\lambda}a'_{y}-ir^{2(1-z)}E\right]=0 \ .
\eeq
\subsection{Zero sound}
We now apply the boundary conditions to our solution for the equations of motion for the zero sound mode with magnetic field turned on, \eqref{E-sol-zs-small-k}, \eqref{ay-sol-zs-small-k}. Setting $\lambda=3-z$, the boundary conditions become
\beq
\left\{\begin{array}{l}\mathfrak{n} c_E+ i a_y^{(0)}=0\\ \mathfrak{n}c_y-iE^{(0)} =0\end{array}\right. \ .
\eeq
Implementing these conditions to match the two expansions done in different orders, the matrix relation \eqref{E0_ay0_B} becomes,
\beq
\begin{pmatrix}
E^{(0)}+i\mathfrak{n}c_y\\ \\ a_y^{(0)}-i\mathfrak{n}c_E
\end{pmatrix}
\,=\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\omega^2\,I_0\,-\,k^2\,J_0\,-\,{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d}
&&&-i\left({B\over d}-\mathfrak{n}\right)\\
{} & {} \\
i\left({B\over d}-\mathfrak{n}\right) &&&
I_0-{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d}
\end{pmatrix}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
c_E\\ \\c_y
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\eeq
For the non-trivial solution, we require that the determinant of the matrix vanishes. We see that the dispersion relation can be obtained from our previous solution by a simple shift $B\to B - d\mathfrak{n}$. With this, we can have a gapless dispersion relation even with the magnetic field. More explicitly, the dispersion relation in leading order is
\beq\label{eq:alterzero}
\omega = \pm\sqrt{c_s^2\,k^2+\left(\frac{4\xi (B-d\mathfrak{n}) d^{\frac{z-2\xi}{2\xi}} }{B\left(\frac{2\xi-z}{4\xi},\frac{z}{4\xi}\right)}\right)^2} \ .
\eeq
The next-to-leading order contribution can also be found by modifying the previous results accordingly.
The effect of mixing the boundary conditions agrees exactly with \cite{Jokela:2015aha}.
We also compare the analytic expression in (\ref{eq:alterzero}) with the numerics in Fig.~\ref{zero_sound_alternative}. We have chosen to present the dispersion of (\ref{eq:alterzero}) for a given set of parameters, but the numerical match is very good for other choices $\xi$ and $z$, as well.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{B-zerosoundplot-altquantization.pdf}
\caption{A comparison of real part of the zero sound mode with a non-zero $B$ and alternative quantization. The parameters are $\hat d=10^4$, $\hat B=1000$, $q=2$, $z=1.5$, and $\xi =2$. We vary the alternative quantization parameter $\mathfrak{n}=0, 250/10^4, 500/10^4, 750/10^4, 1000/10^4$ (top-down).}
\label{zero_sound_alternative}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Diffusion constant}
For the diffusion constant, we consider the case without a magnetic field.\footnote{The calculation could be generalized to finite, and small, $B$. To streamline the discussion, we have decided not to include it in as it would be a very long illustration.} For this calculation, we need the solution to the finite temperature equations of motion for the transverse field $a_y$. The calculation can be found in Appendix \ref{appendix:transverse}. Applying these solutions to the new boundary conditions and setting $\lambda =3-z$ we get
\beq
\left\{\begin{array}{l} \frac{\mathfrak{n}}{k^2}c_E + i a_y^{(0)}=0\\
\mathfrak{n}\alpha_0 Z(\omega,k)-iE^{(0)} =0 \end{array} \right. \ ,
\eeq
where $\alpha_0$ and $Z(\omega,k)$ appear in (\ref{eq:defofZ}). We can reduce this to a single equation,
\beq
E^{(0)}=\frac{\mathfrak{n}^2 Z(\omega,k)}{k^2} c_E
\eeq
which we can plug into the matching condition for $E$ \eqref{matching_linear_diff}, to solve for the dispersion relation
\be
\omega = -iD_{\mathfrak{n}}k^2\ ,\qquad D_{\mathfrak{n}}=D^*+\frac{(D-D^*)r_H^{4\xi}}{r_H^{4\xi}+\mathfrak{n}^2(d^2+r_H^{4\xi })} \ ,
\ee
where we have employed $D^*$ from \eqref{dstar}. We see that the diffusion constant starts from $D$ and ends up at $D^*$ as we vary $\mathfrak{n}^2$ from $0$ to $\infty$. This agrees qualitatively with the results in \cite{Jokela:2015aha,Brattan:2013wya}. In these papers, the authors obtained the results using the properties of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ transformations.
\subsection{Conductivities}
We now make use of our previous results to determine the conductivities of the system. We will stick to the case with no magnetic field. In general, the conductivity can be calculated as follows
\beq
\sigma_{ij}(\omega) = \frac{1}{i\omega}\langle J_i(-\omega,0)J_j(\omega,0)\rangle \ .
\eeq
As we wish to compute the whole Green's function and not focus solely on the poles, we need to analyze the on-shell action. We first focus on the original Lagrangian written in (\ref{eq:fluctuationLagrangian}). We will then proceed to adding appropriate boundary terms, as discussed in the beginning of this section, to extracting the Green's function for the anyonized system. To simplify the procedure, we will restrict to $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ transformations. For complementary discussion on computing the alternatively quantized conductivities, see \cite{Brattan:2013wya,Itsios:2016ffv,Jokela:2015aha,Ihl:2016sop}.
\subsubsection{Conductivities with the Dirichlet boundary condition}
First, we compute the conductivities at the low frequency limit using the Dirichlet boundary conditions. Notice that $q$ can take any value in this subsection, whereas in the following subsection, where we consider the alternative quantization, it is assumed to be 2. The part of the Lagrangian density involving $E$ is
\beq
\mathcal{L}\propto -\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}G^{tt}\frac{\sqrt{g_{rr}|g_{tt}|}}{\sqrt{H+d^2}}H\left[-G^{rr}v^2a_x'^2+G^{rr}a_t'^2-G^{xx}E^2 \right]
\eeq
which can be easily partially integrated to give, after using the constraint (\ref{at_ax_E}),
\beq
S_{\rm on-shell}=-\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\int {\rm d}\omega\,{\rm d}^{q}k\, G^{tt}G^{rr}\frac{\sqrt{g_{rr}|g_{tt}|}}{\sqrt{H+d^2}}H\frac{E(-\omega,-k) E'(\omega,k)}{\omega^2-k^2u^2}\Big|_{r\to\infty}.
\eeq
Using the solutions to the equations of motion at zero temperature, we have
\beq
S_{\rm{on-shell}}=\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\int {\rm d}\omega\, {\rm d}^{q}k\, E^{(0)}(-\omega,-k)c_E(\omega,k).
\eeq
Using the matching condition \eqref{E0_ay0_B}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle J_x(-\omega,-k)J_x(\omega,k)\rangle \!&=&\! \frac{\delta^2 S_{\rm{on-shell}}}{\delta a_x(\omega,k)\delta a_x(-\omega,-k)}\\
&= &\frac{{\rm d} E(\omega,k)}{{\rm d} a_x(\omega,k)}\,\frac{{\rm d} E(-\omega,-k)}{{\rm d} a_x(-\omega,-k)}\,\frac{\delta^2S_{\rm{on-shell}}}{\delta E(\omega,k)\delta E(-\omega,-k)}\\
&=& -\frac{\omega^2 \mathcal{N}}{\Big(\omega^2\,I_0-k^2\,J_0\,-\,{\omega^{1+{2\xi\over z}}\over (z-2\xi)\,c\,d}\,\Big)} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
At the low-frequency limit, the conductivity is
\beq
\sigma_{xx}(\omega) = i\mathcal{N}\begin{cases}\frac{1}{I_0}\omega^{-1} & {\rm{if}}\,z<2\xi\\
-(z-2\xi)cd\omega^{-\frac{2\xi}{z}} & {\rm{if}}\, z>2\xi\end{cases} \ , \ \ T = 0 \ .
\eeq
In addition, when $z=2\xi$, there is also a logarithmic contribution.
When we consider the system at finite temperature, we get
\beq
S_{\rm{on-shell}}=\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}\int {\rm d}\omega {\rm d}^{q}k\, \frac{E^{(0)}(-\omega,-k)c_E(\omega,k)}{k^2}.
\eeq
and using the matching condition \eqref{matching_linear_diff}, we have the two-point function
\beq
\langle J_x(-\omega,-k)J_x(\omega,k)\rangle = \mathcal{N}\frac{\omega^2 r_H^{\xi(q-2)}\sqrt{1+d^2r_H^{-2\xi q} } }{k^2 D-i \omega} \ ,
\eeq
from which we get the DC conductivity (for any $q$),
\beq
\sigma_{xx}(\omega) = \frac{1}{i \omega}\langle J_x(-\omega,0)J_x(\omega,0)\rangle = \mathcal{N} r_H^{\xi(q-2)}\sqrt{1+d^2r_H^{-2\xi q} } \ .\label{dc-conductivity}
\eeq
Due to the absence of the magnetic field, there is no coupling between $E$ and $a_y$, and therefore the conductivity tensor is diagonal, $\sigma_{ij}\propto\delta_{ij}$.
However, in the following we will consider the alternative boundary conditions jazzing up the situation. These boundary conditions have the effect that, while the equations of motion remain intact, they link $E$ and $a_y$ together, and will therefore generate off-diagonal elements in the conductivity tensor.
\subsubsection{Effect of alternative quantization on conductivity}
In the following, we will calculate the effect of the $S$ and $T$ transformations of $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ on the conductivity tensor and also a more general $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ transformation. We will only consider the case $k=0$.
Let $a(\omega)=(a_t(\omega),a_x(\omega),a_y(\omega))^T$ be a vector of the gauge fields on the boundary. Also, let $M^{\mu\nu}(\omega)$ be a $3\times 3$ matrix with the property $M^{\mu\nu}(-\omega)=M^{\nu\mu}(\omega)$. Now, for the Dirichlet boundary condition, let the action on the boundary be
\beq\label{eq:action-dirichlet}
S^{(2)}_{\rm{on-shell}}=\frac{1}{2}\int {\rm d}\omega \, a_{\mu}(-\omega) M^{\mu\nu}(\omega) a_{\nu}(\omega)\ .
\eeq
The current terms with the Dirichlet boundary conditions are
\beq
J^{\mu}(\omega)=\frac{\delta S^{(2)}_{\rm{on-shell}}}{\delta a_{\mu}(-\omega)}=M^{\mu\nu}(\omega) a_{\nu}(\omega)\ ,
\eeq
or expressing them in terms of the vector $v^\mu$ defined earlier around (\ref{eq:alternativebc}), we have
\beq
J^t(\omega)=0 \ , \quad J^x(\omega) = -\frac{i\omega}{2\pi}v^y(\omega)\ ,\quad J^y(\omega) =\frac{i\omega}{2\pi}v^x(\omega) \ .
\eeq
Restricting ourselves to the spatial components of $M$, we can express the relation above of the spatial components neatly with a matrix $S$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{J}(\omega) &=& -\frac{i\omega}{2\pi}\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1\\ -1 & 0\end{array}\right)\vec{v}(\omega)=-\frac{i\omega}{2\pi}S\cdot \vec{v}(\omega)\\
\vec{v}(\omega)&=&-\frac{i 2\pi}{\omega} S\cdot \vec{J}=-i\frac{2\pi}{\omega}S\cdot M(\omega)\cdot \vec{a} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The new boundary conditions can be written in a matrix form
\begin{eqnarray}
c_s \vec{v}(\omega)+d_s \vec{a}(\omega)&=& \left(-\frac{i c_s2\pi}{\omega}S\cdot M+d_s\right)\vec{a}(\omega)\equiv \vec{H}(\omega)=0 \\
\vec{a}(\omega)&=&\left(-\frac{i c_s2\pi}{\omega}S\cdot M(\omega)+d_s\right)^{-1}\vec{H}(\omega) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Consider the additional boundary terms given at the beginning of this section around (\ref{eq:alternativebc}). First, we consider a $T^K$ transformation, for which $a_s=d_s=1$, $b_s=K$ and $c_s=0$. Thus, the new additional boundary terms will be (with $\vec{a}=\vec{H}$)
\beq
-\frac{K}{4\pi}\int {\rm d}\omega\,i\omega\vec{a}^T(-\omega)\cdot S \cdot \vec{a}(\omega)\ ,
\eeq
thus the full action integral is modified to the following form
\beq
S_{T^K}=\frac{1}{2}\int \vec{a}^T(-\omega)\left(M-i\frac{K\omega}{2\pi}S\right)\vec{a}(\omega)\ ,
\eeq
which gives us the transformed conductivities
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^*_{L,T^K}(\omega)&=&\frac{M_{xx}(\omega)}{i\omega}=\sigma_L(\omega) \\
\sigma^*_{H,T^K}(\omega)&=&\frac{M_{xy}}{i\omega}-\frac{K}{2\pi}=\sigma_H(\omega)-\frac{K}{2\pi} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The $S$ transformation can be done similarly although the calculation is slightly more involved. This time $a_s=d_s=0$ and $b_s=1=-c_s$. The additional boundary term is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-\frac{i}{2\pi}\int {\rm d}\omega\, \omega\vec{a}^T(-\omega)\cdot S \cdot \vec{v}(\omega)=-\int {\rm d}\omega \, \vec{a}^T(-\omega)\cdot M(\omega) \cdot \vec{a}(\omega)\\
&=&-\int {\rm d}\omega\, \vec{H}^T(-\omega)S^T M^{-1}(\omega) S \vec{H}(\omega)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the full action takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{1}{2}\int {\rm d}\omega\,\frac{\omega^2}{4\pi^2} \vec{H}^T(-\omega) S^T M^{-1}(\omega) S \vec{ H}(\omega)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
from which we can compute the conductivities
\beq
\sigma^*_{L,S}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{\sigma_L}{\sigma_L^2+\sigma_H^2}\quad , \quad \sigma^*_{H,S}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{-\sigma_H}{\sigma_L^2+\sigma_H^2} \ .
\eeq
The above results agree with previous results in the literature. Let us finally note, that the general transformation for the $ST^K$ reads
\beq
\sigma^*_{L,ST^K}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{\sigma_L}{\sigma_L^2+\frac{K^2}{4\pi^2}}\quad , \quad \sigma^*_{H,ST^K}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{K}{\sigma_L^2+\frac{K^2}{4\pi^2}} \ . \label{eq:conductivity-STK}
\eeq
Recall the relation $\mathfrak{n}^{-1}=\mathfrak{m}=\frac{K}{2\pi \mathcal{N}}$. It is noteworthy that we recover the longitudinal conductivity of Dirichlet quantization by multiplying the expression of $\sigma^*_{L,ST^K}$ with $\frac{4\pi^2}{\mathfrak{n}^2}$ and taking the limit $\mathfrak{n}\to 0$. This is due to the fact that the alternative quantization not only alters position of poles in the Green function but also the source fields and currents. For more discussion on this limiting procedure, we refer the reader to \cite{Brattan:2013wya}.
\subsection{Einstein relation}
Let us illustrate that the Einstein relation holds in our system. The Einstein relation states that the diffusion coefficient, charge susceptibility, and longitudinal DC conductivity are related by
\beq
D \chi = \sigma_L \ ,
\eeq
where $\chi=\left(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial\mu}\right)_T$. Recalling our previous results in the absence of magnetic field, (\ref{eq:chem}), (\ref{hatD_zeroB}), and (\ref{dc-conductivity}), we can indeed verify that the Einstein relation holds exactly for all $z$, $\xi$, and $q$ when the system obeys Dirichlet boundary conditions. We revisit this claim in the presence of $B$ in section \ref{sec:comments}.
When we consider the case of alternative quantization, we face the obstacle of defining what we mean with the chemical potential and charge density. However, we can easily circumvent most of this by considering the alternatively quantized current-current correlator \cite{Brattan:2014moa},
\beq
\chi^* = \langle J_t^*(-k) J_t^*(k)\rangle\bigg|_{\omega=0,{\vec k} \ll 1} \ .
\eeq
The computation of this quantity is similar to the above computation of conductivity.
We start working with the action with the Dirichlet boundary condition
\beq
S^{(2)}_{\rm{on-shell}}=\frac{1}{2}\int {\rm d}k \, a_{\mu}(-k) M^{\mu\nu}(k) a_{\nu}(k)\,
\eeq
which bears a striking resemblance to \eqref{eq:action-dirichlet} with the difference that we have set $\omega=0$ and we are working with $k\equiv k_x$ dependence only. Following the steps we took previously, we can compute the currents and relate the function $v$ to the currents
\beq
\left(\begin{array}{c} v_t\\ v_y \end{array}\right)= -\frac{2\pi i}{k}S\cdot \left(\begin{array}{c} -J_t\\ J_y \end{array}\right)= -\frac{2\pi i}{k}S\cdot M\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c} a_t\\ a_y \end{array}\right) \ ,
\eeq
with which we can write the modified boundary conditions,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(-\frac{c_s 2\pi i}{k}S\cdot M + d_s\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} a_t\\ a_y \end{array}\right)\equiv \left(\begin{array}{c} H_t\\ H_y \end{array}\right) = 0 \\
\left(\begin{array}{c} a_t\\ a_y \end{array}\right) = \left(-\frac{c_s 2\pi i}{k}S\cdot M + d_s\right)^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{c} H_t\\ H_y \end{array}\right) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
We consider the $T^K$ transformation first. This transformation does not affect the susceptibility as it only modifies the non-diagonal terms:
\beq
M_{ty}\to M_{ty}-i\frac{kK}{2\pi} \ .
\eeq
We can also recall from our previous discussion that the $T$ transformation does not affect the longitudinal conductivity or the diffusion coefficient either, trivially satisfying the Einstein relation.
Then, consider the effect of $S$ transformation. Following the steps taken with conductivity, we can easily see that
\beq
\chi^*_S = -\frac{k^2}{4\pi^2}\frac{M_{tt}}{M_{tt}M_{yy}+M_{ty}^2} \ .
\eeq
Thus, after an $ST^K$ transformation, the susceptibility of our system is
\beq
\chi^*_{ST^K}=\frac{-1}{4\pi^2}\frac{\chi}{-\chi D^*\sqrt{1+d^2r_H^{-2\xi q}} -\frac{K^2}{4\pi^2}}\label{eq:susceptibility-STK} \ ,
\eeq
where we used the coefficient $D^*$ from \eqref{dstar} and $\chi$ is the original susceptibility. Combining all of our results from discussions of conductivity and diffusion with alternative quantization, we can verify that the Einstein relation is satisfied in this case, too.
\section{Comments: DC conductivity with a magnetic field}\label{sec:comments}
Encouraged by the successful confirmation of the Einstein relation above, we attempt to obtain an expression for longitudinal DC conductivity by considering the Einstein relation true even in the presence of $B$.
Both the numerical and analytical evidence for the Einstein relation was overwhelming in the absence of the magnetic field in the preceding sections, so we now take the next logical step and predict the DC conductivity of the (normally quantized) system also in the presence of the magnetic field $B$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{sigmalplot.pdf}
\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{sigmahplot.pdf}
\caption{A comparison of the numerical (points) and the analytical (continuous curves from (\ref{eq:dc})) results for both the longitudinal (left) and Hall (right) DC conductivities of the system with $\hat d=1$ (lower) and $\hat d=5$ (upper).
}
\label{conductivities_B}
\end{figure}
Let us collect together the pieces needed for the Einstein relation, in the presence of the magnetic field. First, the diffusion coefficient appears in \eqref{D_result}. Second, for the susceptibility we need first the chemical potential. This can be computed using \eqref{eq:chem} but now with the magnetic field turned on, \emph{i.e.}, we need to use the expression \eqref{eq:At_prime} for $A'_t$. Susceptibility then follows from $\chi = \mathcal{N}\left(\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial d}\right)_{B,T}^{-1}$.
However, the situation is less straightforward as both the diffusion coefficient and susceptibility contain integrals that we were not able to evaluate. Luckily, it turns out that these integrals are the same upto a constant coefficient and that they cancel when considering the product of the diffusion coefficient and susceptibility. This gives us the longitudinal DC conductivity
\beq\label{eq:dc}
\sigma_L = D\chi = \mathcal{N}r_H^{\xi(q-2)}\frac{\sqrt{1+{\hat d}^2+{\hat B}^2}}{1+{\hat B}^2} \ .
\eeq
We note that we have also included an alternative derivation of this result in Appendix \ref{Karch-O'Bannon}, which we were able to utilize with probe branes.
It is somewhat surprising that the DC conductivity could have such a simple expression. In addition, when considering the dimensionless expression ${\hat \sigma}_L=\sigma_L\,r_H^{\xi(2-q)}$, there is no dependence on the parameters $q$, $\xi$, or $z$. Furthermore, even though our expression for $D$ became unreliable when $g$ in \eqref{eq:g} was smaller than $0.1$ and even divergent when $g<0$, no such difficulties are present in our current situation. Indeed, comparing our results to numerical calculations (see Fig.~\ref{conductivities_B}), the expression we have in (\ref{eq:dc}) agrees virtually perfectly, even if we go to parameter region where $g<0$.
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
In this paper, we studied holographic matter with both Lifshitz scaling $z$ and hyperscaling violating exponent $\theta$. We allowed these parameters to take any values with only modest assumptions on their range. Moreover, we did not constrain the spatial dimensionality of the (defect) conformal field theory and thus maintained as generic approach as possible. We aimed at drawing general lessons of what are the universal features shared by different holographic models. An important conclusion is the following. While the holographic matter under study has four different parameters: the spatial dimensionalities of the ambient $p$ and defect field theories $q\leq p$, together with $z$ and $\theta$, only three parameters (say $q,\ z$, and $\xi\equiv 1-\theta/p$) were needed for complete description of all physics processes.
We extracted several key properties of the cold, dense matter as modeled holographically by adding probe D-branes in the background of the most generic metric possessing the parameters $z\ne 1$ and $\theta\ne 0$. However, as such metrics are not yet derived from first principles using concrete brane constructions (except for a few exceptions), our work should be regarded as string inspired. In particular, we did not allow for a non-trivial dilaton in the background geometry. This, however, has the advantage that it is much more straightforward to apply the rules of holographic dictionary for the Lifshitz backgrounds \cite{Taylor:2015glc}.
We worked out the standard thermodynamics, and put special emphasis on the thermodynamic first sound. We then focused on the fluctuations of the probe D-branes and computed the quasi-normal mode spectrum. We carefully contrasted the results that we obtained for the collective modes ({\emph{e.g.}}, zero sound and diffusion mode) to those from the background thermodynamics. Most of the results that we obtained were completely novel, in particular all $B\ne 0$ results are original.
The latter part of the paper focused on holographic matter with fractional spin. That is, we restricted the field theory to reside in 2+1 dimensions and studied a dense system of anyons both at finite magnetic field and temperature. The holographic realization of rendering the standard charge carriers to anyons is to perform alternative quantization for the bulk gauge field. We briefly reviewed this procedure, but quickly turned to analyzing the collective excitations of the anyonic fluid. Our focus was again on the diffusion mode and the zero sound and their behavior under varying $z$ and $\theta$. One of the great successes was to show that the Einstein relation holds, no matter the parameter values.
There are several avenues where our work could be directed in the future. One of the most pressing issues is to try to come up with an approximation scheme to analytically capture temperature corrections for the dispersion relation for the zero sound. This has not been achieved in any holographic model. Another important question is to understand the effect of the backreaction of the charge density on the background geometry. For example, it is currently an open question if the zero sound exists in such settings, {\emph{e.g.}}, in electron star/cloud geometries \cite{Hartnoll:2010gu,Hartnoll:2010ik,Puletti:2010de}. We hope to give a definite answer to this puzzle in near future \cite{NJcloud}.
\vspace{0.5cm}
{\bf \large Acknowledgments}
We thank Daniel Are\'an, Georgios Itsios, and Tobias Zingg for discussions.
N.~J. and J.~J. are supported in part by the Academy of Finland grant no. 1268023.
A.~V.~R. is funded by the Spanish grant FPA2011-22594, by the Consolider-Ingenio 2010 Programme CPAN (CSD2007-00042), by Xunta de
Galicia (Conselleria de Educaci\'on, grant INCITE09-206-121-PR and grant PGIDIT10PXIB206075PR), and by FEDER.
N.~J. wishes to thank Technion for warm hospitality while this work was being finished.
|
\section*{Introduction}
As proved by Ju-Lee Kim in \cite{kim:07a}, all irreducible supercuspidal representations of tamely ramified $p$-adic groups can be built from ``data'' introduced by Jiu-Kang Yu in \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 15}.
While the type, in the sense of Bushnell \& Kutzko \cite{bushnell-kutzko:98a}, of a supercuspidal representation built from Yu data can be constructed directly from the datum, it is convenient to consider an intermediate object, introduced in \cite{yu:01a}*{Remark 15.4}, which we call a \emph{Yu type datum}.
Yu type data are studied in \cite{Yu:models}, which concludes with the following observation.
\begin{quotation}
{\it Therefore, up to some linear characters, all the ingredient representations
are on groups of the form $\underline{H}(\mathcal{O})$, where $\underline{H}$ is a smooth group scheme over [a henselian discrete valuation ring with finite residue field $\kappa$] $\mathcal{O}$, and the representations are inflated from $\underline{H}(\kappa)$. These results suggest that algebraic geometry and group schemes should play an
important role in the representation theory of $p$-adic groups.}
\end{quotation}
In this paper we follow the suggestion above by showing that Yu type data are geometrizable, in the following sense.
A Yu type datum determines a sequence of representations ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i$ of compact $p$-adic groups ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$, for $i=0, \ldots, d$, such that $({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^d, \rho_d)$ is a type for a supercuspidal representation of a $p$-adic group.
Let $R$ be the ring of integers of a local field with finite residue field $k$.
The main result of \cite{Yu:models} shows how to find, for each $i=0, \ldots, d$, a smooth group scheme $\underline{G}^i$ over the ring $R$ with $\underline{G}^i(R)=\,^\circ K^i $.
The geometrization of the Yu type datum uses Lusztig's theory of character sheaves on reductive groups over finite fields, so it is necessary to assume that the geometric component group of the reductive quotient of the special fibre of the group scheme $\underline{G}^0$ is cyclic, in order to bring his work to bear. Under this assumption we show how each representation ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i$ can be replaced by a pair $(\underline{G}^i, \cs{F}^i)$, where $\cs{F}^i$ is a {\it rational virtual} sheaf complex on the Greenberg transform $G^i$ of $\underline{G}^i$, by which we mean $\cs{F}^i$ is an element in the group obtained by tensoring the Grothendieck group of such sheaves with ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
Writing $\trFrob{\cs{F}^i}$ for the function on $G^i(k) = \underline{G}^i(R) = \,^\circ K^i$ obtained by evaluating the trace of the action of Frobenius on the rational virtual complex $\cs{F}^i$, we show in Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes} that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:intro1}
\trFrob{\cs{F}^i} = \trace(\,^\circ\rho_i).
\end{equation}
By this theorem, then, we obtain geometric avatars for each type in a Yu datum:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i,{\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i) \arrow[bend left, dashed]{rrr}{\text{geometrization}} &&& \arrow[bend left, dashed]{lll}{\text{trace of Frob}}
(\underline{G}^i, \cs{F}^i).
\end{tikzcd}
\]
We refer to the pair $(\underline{G}^d, \cs{F}^d)$ as a \emph{geometric type}.
To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes}, we must find a way to geometrize linear characters of groups of the form $\underline{H}(R)$, where $\underline{H}$ is a smooth group scheme over $R$.
In order to do so in a systematic manner, we begin this paper by describing the function-sheaf dictionary for characters of arbitrary smooth group schemes over finite fields.
When coupled with the Greenberg transform, this dictionary will allow for the geometrization of linear characters of $\underline{H}(R)$.
The function-sheaf dictionary over a finite field $k$ \cite{deligne:SGA4.5}*{Sommes trig.}
provides a way of encoding functions on the $k$-rational points of an algebraic group $G$
as $\ell$-adic local systems on $G$. More specifically, if $G$ is a connected, commutative, algebraic group
then there is a certain category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ of rank-one local systems on $G$ and an
explicit isomorphism between isomorphism classes
of objects in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ and $G(k)^* {\, :=\, } \Hom(G(k), \EE^\times)$;
the isomorphism is given by mapping $\cs{L}$ to the function
$\TrFrob{G} : g \mapsto \Tr(\Frob{} \vert \cs{L}_g)$.
In previous work \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}, we generalized the function-sheaf dictionary to
smooth commutative group schemes $G$, allowing for non-connected groups.
We gave a description of the category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ in this context, as well
as an epimorphism $\TrFrob{G} : \CSiso{G} \to G(k)^*$.
In contrast to the connected case, $\TrFrob{G}$ may have nontrivial kernel;
we gave an explicit description of its kernel as $\Hh^2(\pi_0(\bar{G}), \EE^\times)^{\Frob{}}$ \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.6}.
We repair this defect in the function-sheaf dictionary
by describing a full subcategory ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ of ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ so that $\TrFrob{G}$ restricts to an isomorphism $\CCSiso{G} \to G(k)^*$.
We refer to objects of ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ as character sheaves and objects in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ as \emph{commutative character sheaves}, since the passage from ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ to ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ involves a condition that exchanges the inputs to the multiplication morphism on $G$ (see Definition \ref{def:CCScom}).
When $G$ is connected, all character sheaves on $G$ are commutative.
Category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ clarifies several questions about ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
Invisible character sheaves \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Def. 2.8} are precisely those $\cs{L}$ with $\TrFrob{G}(\cs{L}) = 1$ that are not commutative. Moreover, $\TrFrob{G}^{-1} : G(k)^* \to \CCSiso{G}$ provides a canonical splitting of $\TrFrob{G} : \CSiso{G} \to G(k)^*$ \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Rem. 3.7}.
Next, we broaden our scope further to encompass smooth group schemes $G$ over $k$ that are not necessarily commutative.
We assume $G$ is smooth, but not that it is connected, reductive or commutative.
The category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ has a straightforward generalization to this case, but again
there are more character sheaves than there are characters, as pointed out by Kamgarpour \cite{kamgarpour:09a}*{(1.1)}.
We then define category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ for such $G$ and a forgetful functor to ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ so that $\TrFrob{G} : \CCSiso{G} \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)^*$
is an isomorphism.
Since $G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)^*$ surjects onto $G(k)^*$, it follows that for each character $\chi \in G(k)^*$ there is a commutative
character sheaf $\cs{L}$ on $G$ with $\TrFrob{G}(\cs{L}) = \chi$. Moreover, we find that pullback along the quotient $q : G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$
defines an equivalence of categories ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
The functor ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is not
essentially surjective, missing the kinds of linear character sheaves highlighted by Kamgarpour.
In order to provide further justification for referring to objects in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ as commutative character sheaves, suppose for the moment that $G$ is a connected, reductive algebraic group over $k$.
Let $\gcs{L}$ be the geometric part of an object in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$; see Section~\ref{sec:defs}.
Let $T$ be a maximal torus in $\bar{G}$ and let $\gcs{L}_T$ be the restriction of $\gcs{L}$ to $T$.
Then the perverse sheaf $\gcs{L}[\dim G]$ appears in the semisimple complex $\operatorname{ind}_{B,T}^{\bar{G}}(\gcs{L}_T)$ produced by parabolic induction.
It follows that every object in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ determines a Frobenius-stable character sheaf on $G$, in the sense of \cite{lusztig:85a}*{Def.~2.10}.
Of course, the sheaves arising in this way represent a small part of Lusztig's geometrization of characters of representations of connected, reductive groups over finite fields, but they are precisely those needed to describe one-dimensional characters of such groups.
Armed with the function-sheaf dictionary for smooth group schemes over finite fields, we return to the task of geometrizing Yu type data.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes} requires: Yu's work on smooth integral models \cite{Yu:models}; the geometrization of the character of the Heisenberg-Weil representation over finite fields by Gurevich \& Hadani \cite{gurevich-hadani:07a}; Lusztig's character sheaves on reductive groups over finite fields; and finally, the function-sheaf dictionary for characters of smooth group schemes over finite fields, now at our disposal in Theorem~\ref{thm:geo}.
These pieces are assembled in Section~\ref{ssec:geotypes}, where we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes}.
With this theorem, we provide all of the ingredients needed to parametrize supercuspidal representations of arbitrary depth in the same category: rational virtual Weil perverse sheaves on group schemes over finite fields.
The hypothesis in Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes} -- that the geometric component group of the reductive quotient of the special fibre of the smooth group scheme $\underline{G}^0$ appearing in the Yu type datum is cyclic -- is required only because Lusztig's theory of character sheaves has the same hypothesis.
If Lusztig's theory of character sheaves can be generalized to all disconnected reductive algebraic groups, then the hypothesis in Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes} can be removed.
\bigskip
We now summarize the sections of the paper in more detail.
In Section \ref{sec:defs}, we recall the category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ from \cite{cunningham-roe:13a} and note that it still makes sense when $G$ is not commutative.
We focus on the case of commutative $G$ in Section \ref{sec:comcom},
giving the definition of a commutative character sheaf and proving our first main theorem, that
$\TrFrob{G} : \CSiso{G} \to G(k)^*$ induces an isomorphism on $\CCSiso{G}$.
Passing to the case that $G$ is non-commutative, we give the definition of and main results about commutative character sheaves in Section \ref{sec:noncom}.
We note that we should only consider character sheaves that arise via pullback from $G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ in order to eliminate those that have nontrivial restriction to the derived subgroup.
This observation underlies the definition of commutative character sheaves for non-commutative $G$.
We state our second main result, Theorem~\ref{thm:geo}, that pullback along the abelianization map defines an equivalence of categories ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
In Section \ref{ssec:obmor}, we use Galois cohomology to describe the relationship between $G(k)^*$ and $G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)^*$.
We also compute the automorphism groups in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
In Section~\ref{sec:types} we use Theorem~\ref{thm:geo} to geometrize types for supercuspidal representations of $p$-adic groups, in a sense made precise in Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes}.
As preparation for the proof, we review some facts about the Heisenberg-Weil representation and its geometrization, in Section~\ref{ssec:Jacobi}.
Then, in Section~\ref{ssec:review}, we review Yu's theory of types and his study of smooth integral models.
These elements are pulled together in Section~\ref{ssec:geotypes}, where the proof Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes} is given.
\bigskip
We are extremely grateful to Loren Spice for explaining Yu's types for supercuspidal representations.
We also thank Masoud Kamgarpour for helpful conversations, and the anonymous referee of this paper, would pointed out an error in an earlier version and helped us clarify several points.
\section{Recollections and definitions} \label{sec:defs}
Let $G$ be a smooth group scheme over a finite field $k$; that is, let $G$ be a group scheme over $k$
for which the structure morphism $G \to \Spec{k}$ is smooth in the sense of \cite{EGAIV4}*{Def 17.3.1}.
This implies $G \to \Spec{k}$ is locally of finite type, but not that it is of finite type.
We remark that the identity component $G^0$ of $G$ is of finite type over $k$, while the component group scheme
$\pi_0(G)$ of $G$ is an \'etale group scheme over $k$, and both are smooth over $k$.
In this paper we use a common formalism for Weil sheaves, writing $\cs{L}$ for the pair $(\gcs{L},\phi)$, where $\gcs{L}$ is an $\ell$-adic sheaf on $\bar{G} {\, :=\, } G\otimes_{k} \bar{k}$ and where $\phi : \Frob{}^*\gcs{L} \to \gcs{L}$ is an isomorphism of $\ell$-adic sheaves.
We also follow convention by referring to $\cs{L}$ as a Weil sheaf on $G$.
If $\cs{L}$ and $\cs{L}' {\, :=\, } (\gcs{L}', \phi')$ are Weil sheaves, we write $\alpha : \cs{L} \to \cs{L}'$ for a morphism $\alpha : \gcs{L} \to \gcs{L}$ such that
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\Frob{}^* \gcs{L} \arrow{d}[swap]{\phi} \arrow{r}{\Frob{}^*\alpha} & \Frob{}^* \gcs{L} \arrow{d}{\phi'}\\
\gcs{L} \arrow{r}{\alpha} & \gcs{L}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
commutes.
These conventions simplify notation considerably, but they were not employed in \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}.
We write $m : G \times G \to G$ for the multiplication morphism, and $G(k)^*$ for $\Hom(G(k), \EE^\times)$.
Define $\theta : G\times G \to G\times G$ by $\theta(g,h) = (h,g)$.
When $G$ is commutative, a \emph{character sheaf} on $G$ is a triple $(\gcs{L}, \mu, \phi)$,
where $\gcs{L}$ is a rank-one $\ell$-adic local system on $\bar{G}$,
$\mu : \bar{m}^* \gcs{L} \to \text{$\gcs{L} \tight{0}{\boxtimes}{0} \gcs{L}$}$ is an isomorphism
of sheaves on $\bar{G} \times \bar{G}$,
and $\phi : \Frob{G}^* \gcs{L} \to \gcs{L}$ is an isomorphism of sheaves on $\bar{G}$;
the triple $(\gcs{L}, \mu, \phi)$ is required to satisfy certain conditions \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Def. 1.1}.
Write ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ for the category of character sheaves on $G$.
Even when $G$ is not commutative, the category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$, defined as in \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Def. 1.1},
still makes sense. In order to distinguish the resulting objects from
the character sheaves of Lusztig, we will refer to the former as \emph{linear character sheaves}
(to evoke the one-dimensional character sheaves of \cite{kamgarpour:09a}).
\section{Commutative character sheaves on commutative groups}\label{sec:comcom}
We consider first the case that $G$ is commutative, which we will later apply to the case of general smooth $G$.
Let $\cs{L}$ be a character sheaf on $G$. Since $m = m \circ \theta$ in this case,
there is a canonical isomorphism $\xi : m^* \cs{L} \to \theta^* m^* \cs{L}$.
There is also an isomorphism $\vartheta : \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L} \to \theta^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L})$
given on stalks by the canonical map $\gcs{L}_{g} \otimes \gcs{L}_{h} \to \gcs{L}_{h} \otimes \gcs{L}_{g}$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:CCScom}
A character sheaf $(\cs{L}, \mu)$ on a smooth commutative group scheme $G$ is \emph{commutative}
if the following diagram of Weil sheaves on $G \times G$ commutes.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=30]
m^*\cs{L} \arrow{d}[swap]{\xi}{m= m\circ\theta} \arrow{r}{\mu} & \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L} \arrow{d}{\vartheta}\\
\theta^*(m^*\cs{L}) \arrow{r}{{\theta}^*\mu} & \theta^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L})
\end{tikzcd}
\]
We write ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ for the full subcategory of ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ consisting of commutative character sheaves.
\end{definition}
In \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.6}, we showed that $\TrFrob{G} : \CSiso{G} \to G(k)^*$ is surjective and
explicitly computed its kernel. In this section, we show that the corresponding map
$\TrFrob{G} : \CCSiso{G} \to G(k)^*$ for commutative character sheaves is an isomorphism.
We begin by reinterpreting Definition \ref{def:CCScom} in terms of cocycles.
Let $G$ be a commutative \'etale group scheme over $k$. For a character sheaf $\cs{L}$ on $G$, recall
\cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{\S 2.3} that $S_G : \CSiso{G} \to \Hh^2(E_G^\bullet)$ is an isomorphism mapping
$[\cs{L}]$ to $[\alpha \oplus \beta]$, where $E_G^\bullet$ is the total space of the zeroth page
of the Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence, $\alpha \in {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^0(\Weil{}, {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times))$ is obtained from $\mu$ and
$\beta \in {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^1(\Weil{}, {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^1(\bar{G}, \EE^\times))$ is obtained from $\phi$.
Let $a \in Z^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times)$ correspond to $\alpha$. We say that $[\alpha \oplus \beta] \in \Hh^2(E_G^\bullet)$
is \emph{symmetric} if $a(x,y) = a(y,x)$ for all $x,y \in \bar{G}$. This condition is well defined, since every
coboundary in $B^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times)$ is symmetric. The connection between commutative character sheaves
and symmetric classes is given in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:symccslink}
Suppose $G$ is a smooth commutative group scheme, and let $\cs{L}$ be a character sheaf on $G$.
Then $\cs{L}$ is commutative if and only if $S_G(\cs{L})$ is symmetric.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The symmetry of $S_G(\cs{L})$ is a direct consequence of the commutativity of the diagram in Definition \ref{def:CCScom}
after choosing bases for each stalk.
\end{proof}
We may similarly define a symmetric class in $\Hh^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times)$ to be one represented by a symmetric $2$-cocycle.
The following lemma will allow us to show that there are no invisible commutative character sheaves.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:symtriv}
Let $\bar{G}$ be a commutative group. Then the only symmetric class in $\Hh^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times)$ is the trivial class.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the universal coefficient theorem,
\[
0 \to \Ext^1_{\mathbb{Z}}(\Hh_{n-1}(\bar{G}, {\mathbb{Z}}), \EE^\times) \to \Hh^n(\bar{G}, \EE^\times) \to \Hom(\Hh_n(\bar{G}, {\mathbb{Z}}), \EE^\times) \to 0
\]
is exact for all $n > 0$. When $n = 2$, using the fact that $\bar{G}$ is commutative, we have that $\Hh_1(\bar{G}, {\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \bar{G}$
and that $\Hh_2(\bar{G}, {\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \wedge^2 \bar{G}$. We get
\[
0 \to \Ext^1_{\mathbb{Z}}(\bar{G}, \EE^\times) \to \Hh^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times) \to \Hom(\wedge^2 \bar{G}, \EE^\times) \to 0.
\]
The map $\Hh^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times) \to \Hom(\wedge^2 \bar{G}, \EE^\times)$ maps a $2$-cocycle $f$ to the alternating function
\[
(x,y) \mapsto \frac{f(x,y)}{f(y,x)}.
\]
Thus the cohomology classes represented by symmetric cocycles are precisely those in the image of $\Ext^1_{\mathbb{Z}}(\bar{G}, \EE^\times)$.
But $\Ext^1_{\mathbb{Z}}(-, \EE^\times)$ vanishes because $\EE^\times$ is divisible.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:conncomm}
If $G$ is a connected commutative algebraic group over $k$ then every character sheaf on $G$ is commutative.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $S_G(\cs{L}) = [\alpha\oplus \beta]\in \Hh^2(E_G^\bullet)$.
We can use \'etale descent to see that pullback by the Lang isogeny defines an equivalence
of categories between local systems on $G$ and $G(k)$-equivariant local systems on $G$.
Thus every character sheaf $\cs{L}$ on $G$ arises through the Lang isogeny, together with a character $G(k) \to \EE^\times$.
Pushing forward the Lang isogeny along this character defines an extension of $\bar{G}$ by $\EE^\times$ whose class is fixed by Frobenius; let $a\in Z^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times)$ be a representative $2$-cocycle.
Then $a$ corresponds to the $\alpha \in {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^0(\Weil{}, {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times))$, above.
Since the covering group of the Lang isogeny is $G(k)$, which is commutative, the class of this extension satisfies $a(x,y) = a(y,x)$ for all $x,y \in \bar{G}$.
This shows that $S_{G}(\cs{L})$ is symmetric.
It follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:symccslink} that $\cs{L}$ is a commutative character sheaf.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:trfrobiso}
If $G$ is a smooth commutative group scheme over $k$ then $\TrFrob{G} : \CCSiso{G} \to G(k)^*$ is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $G$ is \'etale. Consider the isomorphism of short exact sequences
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
0 \arrow{r} & \ker \TrFrob{G} \arrow{d} \arrow{r} & \CSiso{G}\arrow{d}{S_G} \arrow{r}{\TrFrob{G}} \arrow{r} & G(k)^* \arrow{d} \arrow{r} & 0\\
0 \arrow{r} & \Hh^0(\Weil{},\Hh^2(\bar{G},\EE^\times)) \arrow{r} & \Hh^2(E^\bullet_G) \arrow{r} & \Hh^1(\Weil{},\Hh^1(\bar{G},\EE^\times)) \arrow{r} & 0
\end{tikzcd}
\]
from \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Prop. 2.7}.
Suppose that $\cs{L}$ is a commutative character sheaf with $\trFrob{\cs{L}} = 1$, and set $[\alpha, \beta] = S_G([\cs{L}])$.
Then $S_G([\cs{L}])$ is in the image of $\Hh^2(\bar{G}, \EE^\times)^\Weil{}$, so is cohomologous to
$[\alpha', 0]$. Since $\alpha$ is symmetric and coboundaries are symmetric, $\alpha'$ is symmetric as well.
So by Lemma \ref{lem:symtriv}, $\alpha'$ is cohomologically trivial, and thus $[\cs{L}]$ is trivial as well.
To see that $\TrFrob{G}$ is still surjective on $\CCSiso{G}$, note that the character sheaf constructed in the proof of
\cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Prop. 2.6} has trivial $\alpha$, and is thus commutative.
For general smooth commutative group schemes, we use Lemma \ref{lem:conncomm} and the snake lemma, as in the proof of
\cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.6}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Since $\Hh^0(\Weil{},\Hh^2(\bar{G},\EE^\times))$ is not necessarily trivial \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Ex. 2.10}, the functor
${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is not necessarily essentially surjective. Indeed, the invisible character sheaves \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Def. 2.8}
defined in our previous paper are precisely those non-commutative character sheaves with trivial trace of Frobenius.
\end{remark}
\section{Commutative character sheaves on non-commutative groups}\label{sec:noncom}
We now consider the case of a smooth group scheme without the commutativity assumption. We start
by relating character sheaves on $G$ to character sheaves on its abelianization.
If $\chi \in G(k)^*$ is a character, it must vanish on the derived subgroup $G_{\operatorname{der}}(k)$.
Kamgarpour gives an example \cite{kamgarpour:09a}*{(1.1)} of a character sheaf
that does not vanish on $G_{\operatorname{der}}$, defined by the extension
\[
1 \to \mu_n \to \SL_n \to \PGL_n \to 1.
\]
In order to obtain a relationship between character sheaves on $G$ and characters of $G(k)$,
he opts to give a different definition of commutator and, in doing so, introduces a `stacky abelianization' of $G$ in order to geometrize characters of $G(k)$.
Since we have already seen the need to adapt the
notion of character sheaf, even in the commutative case, we instead add restrictions
to the definition of commutative character sheaf and leave the definition of $G_{\operatorname{der}}$ unchanged, allowing us to use the schematic abelianization of $G$ in the geometrization of characters of $G(k)$.
We begin this section with the main definition in this paper - the category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ of commutative character sheaves, Definition~\ref{def:CCS}.
This definition is delicate and somewhat technical, but it is vindicated in Theorem~\ref{thm:Gab} which shows that ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is equivalent to the category of commutative character sheaves on the abelianization $G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ of $G$.
To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:Gab} we use descent theory in Section~\ref{ssec:descent}, in the process giving insight into Definition~\ref{def:CCS}.
Section~\ref{sec:noncom} concludes with Theorem~\ref{thm:geo}, showing that the dictionary from ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ to characters of $G(k)$ is as precise as possible.
\subsection{Main definition}\label{ssec:noncomdef}
In order to get character sheaves that correspond to characters in $G(k)^*$, we must discard those
character sheaves whose restriction to the derived subgroup is nontrivial.
Recall from Section~\ref{sec:defs} that we refer to objects in category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$, defined as
in \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Def. 1.1}, as linear character sheaves when $G$ is smooth but
not necessarily commutative.
We define the following category to track the trivialization on the derived subgroup;
commutative character sheaves will then be defined as a subcategory.
\begin{definition}\label{def:CSab}
Let $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ denote the category of triples $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)$ where $(\cs{L},\mu) \in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ and
$\beta : \cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$ is an isomorphism in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{der}})$.
A morphism $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)\to (\cs{L}',\mu',\beta')$ is a morphism $\alpha : (\cs{L},\mu)\to (\cs{L}',\mu')$
in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ such that $\beta = \beta' \circ \alpha\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$.
\end{definition}
The reason for tracking $\beta$ is that it determines an isomorphism $\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \to \theta^*m^*\cs{L}$ as follows,
which will replace the $\xi$ of Definition \ref{def:CCScom}.
Let $i : G \to G$ be inversion and $c : G\times G\to G_{\operatorname{der}}$ be the commutator map, defined by $c(x,y)= xyx^{-1}y^{-1}$.
Both are smooth morphisms of $k$-schemes.
Set $m' = i \circ m \circ \theta$ and let $j_{\operatorname{der}} : G_{\operatorname{der}}\to G$ be inclusion; then $j_{\operatorname{der}}\circ c = m \circ (m \times m')$.
Then $\beta : \cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$ determines the isomorphism $\gamma' : m^*\cs{L} \otimes \theta^* m^* i^*\cs{L} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G\times G}$ by the diagram of isomorphisms below.
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzcd}
\arrow[equal]{d} c^* (\cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}) \arrow{r}{c^*(\beta)}
& c^*((\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}) \arrow[equal]{d} \\
\arrow{d}[swap]{j_{\operatorname{der}}\circ c = m \circ (m \times m')} c^* j_{\operatorname{der}}^* \cs{L}
& (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G\times G} \\
(m \times m')^* m^* \cs{L} \arrow{d}[swap]{(m \times m')^*(\mu)}
& m^*\cs{L} \otimes \theta^* m^* i^* \cs{L} \arrow[dashed]{u}[swap]{\gamma'} \\
(m \times m')^* (\cs{L} \boxtimes \cs{L}) \arrow[equal]{r}
& m^*\cs{L} \otimes (m')^*\cs{L} \arrow{u}[swap]{m' = i\circ m\circ \theta}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
In the diagram above, the arrows labeled with equations come from canonical isomorphisms of functors on Weil sheaves derived from the equations; so, for example, the middle left isomorphism comes from $(m\times m')^* m^* {\ \cong\ } c^* j_{\operatorname{der}}^*$ since $j_{\operatorname{der}}\circ c = m \circ (m \times m')$.
Using the monoidal structure of the category of Weil local systems on $G\times G$, the isomorphism $\gamma' : m^*\cs{L} \otimes \theta^* m^* i^*\cs{L} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G\times G}$ defines an isomorphism
\[
m^*\cs{L} \to (\theta^* m^* i^*\cs{L})^\vee.
\]
Applying the canonical isomorphisms $(\theta^* m^* i^*\cs{L})^\vee {\ \cong\ } \theta^* m^* i^* (\cs{L}^\vee)$ and $i^*(\cs{L}^\vee) \cong \cs{L}$, this map provides the promised isomorphism
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \arrow{r} & \theta^* m^* \cs{L}.
\end{tikzcd}
\]
\begin{definition}\label{def:CCS}
The category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ of commutative character sheaves on $G$ is the full subcategory of $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ consisting of triples $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)$ such that the following diagram of Weil sheaves on $G \times G$ commutes:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=30]
m^*\cs{L} \arrow{d}[swap]{\gamma} \arrow{r}{\mu} & \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L} \arrow{d}{\vartheta}\\
\theta^*(m^*\cs{L}) \arrow{r}{{\theta}^*\mu} & \theta^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}).
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Here $\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \to \theta^* m^* \cs{L}$ is the isomorphism built from $\beta : \cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$ as above.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Descent}\label{ssec:descent}
In this section we give an equivalence of categories between ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ and $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ and use it to describe
the pullback functor $q^* : {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ in terms of the forgetful functor $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$, where $q : G\to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ is the abelianization quotient with kernel $G_{\operatorname{der}}$.
But first, in order to study commutative character sheaves, we need some auxiliary categories.
\subsubsection{Equivariant Weil local systems}\label{ssec:equivariant1}
Let $\Loc(G)$ and $\Loc(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ be the categories of Weil local systems on $G$ and $G_{\operatorname{ab}}$, respectively.
Let $\Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ be the category of $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant Weil local systems on $G$, whose definition we now recall.
Let $n : G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G\to G$ be the restriction of $m : G\times G\to G$ to $G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G$,
let $p : G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G \to G$ be projection to the second component, and let $s: G \to G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G$ be given by $s(g) = (1,g)$.
Then the quotient $q : G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ is a regular epimorphism of smooth group schemes with kernel pair $(n,p)$.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G
\arrow[shift left=1]{r}{n}
\arrow[shift right=1,swap]{r}{p}
&
G
\arrow{r}{q}
&
G_{\operatorname{ab}}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Consider the morphisms
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
G_{\operatorname{der}} \times G_{\operatorname{der}} \times G
\arrow[shift left=2]{r}{b_1, b_2, b_3}
\arrow{r}{}
\arrow[shift right=2]{r}{}
& G_{\operatorname{der}} \times G
\arrow[shift left=1]{r}{n}
\arrow[shift right=1]{r}[swap]{p}
& G
\end{tikzcd}
\]
defined by
\begin{align*}
b_1(h_1,h_2,g) &= (h_1h_2,g) \\
b_2(h_1,h_2,g) &= (h_1,h_2g) \\
b_3(h_1,h_2,g) &= (h_2,g).
\end{align*}
Note that
\begin{align*}
n\circ b_1 &= n\circ b_2 \\
n\circ b_3 &= p\circ b_2 \numberthis \label{eqn:bap}\\
p\circ b_1 &= p\circ b_3.
\end{align*}
A $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant Weil local system on $G$ is a Weil local system $\cs{L}$ on $G$ together with an isomorphism
\[
\nu : n^*\cs{L} \to p^*\cs{L}
\]
of Weil local systems on $G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{E1}
s^*(\nu) = \id_{\cs{L}}
\end{equation}
and such that the following diagram of isomorphisms of local systems on $G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G$ commutes.
\begin{equation}\label{E2}
\begin{tikzcd}
\ & \arrow{dl}{n\circ b_1 = n\circ b_2} b_2^* n^*\, \mathcal{L} \arrow{rr}{b_2^*(\nu)} && b_2^* p^*\, \mathcal{L} \arrow{dr}[swap]{p\circ b_2 = n\circ b_3} & \\
b_1^* n^*\, \mathcal{L} \arrow{dr}{b_1^*(\nu)} &&&& \arrow{dl}[swap]{b_3^*(\nu)} b_3^* n^*\, \mathcal{L} \\
& b_1^* p^*\, \mathcal{L} && \arrow{ll}[swap]{p\circ b_3 = p\circ b_1} b_3^* p^*\, \mathcal{L} &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Morphisms of $H$-equivariant Weil local systems $(\cs{L},\nu)\to (\cs{L}',\nu')$ are morphisms of Weil local systems $\alpha: \cs{L}\to \cs{L}'$ for which the diagram
\begin{equation}\label{E3}
\begin{tikzcd}
\arrow{d}[swap]{\nu} n^*\cs{L} \arrow{r}{n^*(\alpha)} & n^*\cs{L}' \arrow{d}{\nu'} \\
p^*\cs{L} \arrow{r}{p^*(\alpha)} & p^*\cs{L}'
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
commutes.
This defines $\Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$, the category of $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant Weil local systems on $G$.
The reader will recognize this notion as the Weil local system version of equivariant sheaves for the action $n$ of $G_{\operatorname{der}}$ on $G$, as can be found, for example, in \cite{bernstein-lunts:equivariant}*{0.2}.
\subsubsection{Equivariant linear character sheaves}\label{ssec:equivariant2}
With reference to Section~\ref{ssec:equivariant1}, we define a $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant linear character sheaf on $G$ to be a triple $(\cs{L},\mu, \nu)$, where $(\cs{L},\mu)$ is a linear character sheaf and $(\cs{L},\nu)$ is an $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant Weil local system.
A morphism of $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant linear character sheaves $(\cs{L},\mu,\nu) \to (\cs{L}',\mu',\nu')$ is a morphism of $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant Weil local systems $\alpha : \cs{L}\to \cs{L}'$ which is also a morphism of linear character sheaves.
Let ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ be the category of $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant linear character sheaves on $G$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:nubeta}
Categories ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ and ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ are equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $i_{\operatorname{der}} : G_{\operatorname{der}} \to G$ be the kernel of $q:G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ and define $j : G_{\operatorname{der}} \to G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G$ by $j(h) = (h,1)$.
If $(\cs{L},\mu,\nu)\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ then $j^*(\nu) : \cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$ is an isomorphism.
This defines a functor by
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
{\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G) &\to& \CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G) \\
(\cs{L},\mu,\nu) &\mapsto& (\cs{L},\mu,j^*(\nu))
\end{array}
\]
on objects and trivially on morphisms.
It is easy to verify that morphisms that commute with $\mu$ and $\nu$ also commute with $\mu$ and $j^*(\nu)$.
This functor is an equivalence; its adjoint is given as follows.
Define $k: G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G\to G\times G$ by $k(h,g) = (i_{\operatorname{der}}(h),g)$.
Then for $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta) \in \CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$, define $\nu : n^*\cs{L} \to p^*\cs{L}$ by the following diagram.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
& n^* \cs{L} \arrow{dl}{m\circ k = n} \arrow[dashed]{r}{\nu} & p^*\cs{L} & \\
k^* m^* \cs{L} \arrow{dr}{k^*(\mu)} &&& (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} \boxtimes \cs{L} \arrow[equal]{ul} \\
& k^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}) \arrow[equal]{r} & \cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}\boxtimes \cs{L} \arrow{ur}{\beta\boxtimes \id_\cs{L}}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
This defines the functor ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$, after confirming that morphisms that commute with $\mu$ and $\beta$ also commute with $\mu$ and $\nu$.
\end{proof}
Set $G^2 = G\times G$, so $G^2_{\operatorname{der}} = G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G_{\operatorname{der}}$ and $G^2_{\operatorname{ab}} = G_{\operatorname{ab}}\times G_{\operatorname{ab}}$.
Likewise define $n^2 : G_{\operatorname{der}}^2 \times G^2 \to G^2$ and $p^2 : G_{\operatorname{der}}^2\times G \to G$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:HH}
If $(\cs{L},\mu,\nu)$ is a $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant linear character sheaf on $G$ then $\mu : m^*\cs{L} \to \cs{L}\boxtimes \cs{L}$
is a morphism of $G^2_{\operatorname{der}}$-equivariant Weil local systems on $G^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define
\begin{align*}
d : G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G\times G &\to G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G\times G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G \\
(h_1,h_2,g_1,g_2) &\mapsto (h_1, g_1, h_2, g_2)\\
n_2 : G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G\times G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G &\to G\times G \\
(h_1,g_1,h_2,g_2) &\mapsto (h_1g_1, h_2g_2) \\
p_2 : G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G\times G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G &\to G\times G \\
(h_1,g_1,h_2,g_2) &\mapsto ( g_1,g_2).
\end{align*}
The following diagram defines the isomorphisms needed to see that both $m^*\cs{L}$ and $\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}$ are $G_{\operatorname{der}}^2$-equivariant Weil local systems.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=40]
\arrow{d}[swap]{n_2^*(\mu)} n_2^* (m^*\cs{L}) \arrow[dashed]{r}
& \arrow{d}{p_2^*(\mu)} p_2^*(m^*\cs{L})\\
\arrow{d}[swap]{n_2= n^2\circ d} n_2^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}) \arrow[dashed]{r}
& \arrow{d}{p_2= p^2\circ d} p_2^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}) \\
d^* (n^*\cs{L}\boxtimes n^*\cs{L}) \arrow{r}{d^*(\nu\boxtimes \nu)}& d^*(p^*\cs{L}\boxtimes p^*\cs{L})
\end{tikzcd}
\]
The dashed arrows both satisfy \eqref{E1} and \eqref{E2} as they apply here.
This diagram also shows that $\mu : m^*\cs{L} \to \cs{L}\boxtimes \cs{L}$ is a morphism of $G_{\operatorname{der}}^2$-equivariant local systems, since it satisfies \eqref{E3} as it applies here.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Descent}
We may now relate $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ to ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
To do so, we use decent along $q : G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$.
If $\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}\in \Loc(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ then $q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}\in \Loc(G)$ comes equipped with a canonical isomorphism $\nu(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}) : n^* \cs{L} \to p^* \cs{L}$ defined by the following diagram of isomorphisms.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=40]
n^*\cs{L} \arrow[equal]{d} \arrow[dashed]{r}{\nu(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}})} & \arrow[equal]{d} p^*\cs{L} \\
n^* ( q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}) \arrow{r}{q\circ n = q\circ p}
& p^* (q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}})
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Then $(q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\nu(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}))$ satisfies \eqref{E1} and \eqref{E2}, so $(q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\nu(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}})) \in \Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$.
Moreover, if $\alpha_{\operatorname{ab}} : \cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}} \to \cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}$ is a morphism in $\Loc(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ then $q^*(\alpha_{\operatorname{ab}})$ satisfies the condition in \eqref{E3}, so $q^*(\alpha_{\operatorname{ab}})$ is a morphism in $\Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$.
This defines the functor
\[
L : \Loc(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to \Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G)
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:descent}
The functor $L : \Loc(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to \Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ is an equivalence.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The quotient $q : G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ is an $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-torsor in the fppf topology by \cite{demazure:SGA3-VIA}*{Thm. 3.2}, and thus a $G_{\operatorname{der}}$-torsor in the fpqc topology.
The lemma is now a result from descent theory, arguing as in \cite{Vistoli:notes}*{Theorem 4.46} for example.
\end{proof}
Consider the functor
\[
q^* : {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)
\]
given on objects by $(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}) \mapsto (q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}, (q^2)^* \mu_{\operatorname{ab}})$; this is an instance of \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Lem. 1.4}.
To see that $(q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}, (q^2)^* \mu_{\operatorname{ab}})$ is indeed a linear character sheaf on $G$,
verify \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{CS.3}.
Now set $L(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}) = (\cs{L},\nu)$, where $L : \Loc(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to \Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ is the comparison functor above, so $\cs{L} = q^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}$ and $\nu = \nu(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
Then $(\cs{L}, \mu,\nu)$ is an object in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$.
If $\alpha_{\operatorname{ab}} : (\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to (\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}',\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}')$ is a morphism in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$,
then $q^*(\alpha_{\operatorname{ab}}) : (\cs{L},\mu) \to (\cs{L}',\mu')$ satisfies \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{CS4}, so $\alpha = q^*(\alpha_{\operatorname{ab}})$ is a morphism in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
These simple observations define the comparison functor
\[
q_{\operatorname{ab}}^* : {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)
\]
and also show that the functor $q^* : {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ factors according to the following commuting diagram of functors
\begin{equation}\label{qH}
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G) &\arrow{l}[swap]{q^*}
{\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \arrow{dl}{q_{\operatorname{ab}}^*}\\
\arrow{u}{\text{forget}} {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G). &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
The definition of $q_{\operatorname{ab}}^* : {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ will be revisited in the proof of the following result.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:CSGabab}
Suppose $G$ is a smooth group scheme.
Then pullback along $q : G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ defines an equivalence ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to \CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In light of Lemma~\ref{lemma:nubeta}, it suffices to prove that the comparison functor $q_{\operatorname{ab}}^* : {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G)$ is an equivalence.
Let $L^2 : \Loc(G^2_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to \Loc_{\operatorname{der}}(G^2)$ be the comparison functor for the quotient $q^2 : G^2 \to G^2_{\operatorname{ab}}$.
Then $L^2$ is also an equivalence by Lemma~\ref{lemma:descent}.
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:HH}, we may rewrite the comparison functor $q_{\operatorname{ab}}^*$ on objects by
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
{\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) &\to& {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{der}}(G) \\
(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}) &\mapsto& (L(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}), L^2(\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}))
\end{array}
\]
and on morphisms by $\alpha \mapsto L(\alpha)$.
The proposition now follows from the fact that both $L$ and $L^2$ are equivalences.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If $G$ is a smooth group scheme and $(\cs{L},\mu) \in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$, then
the restriction of $\cs{L}$ to $G_{\operatorname{der}}$ is trivial if and only if $(\cs{L},\mu) \cong q^*(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})$ in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$, for some $(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}) \in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Notation as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:CSGabab}.
Consider the following diagram.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{der}}) & \arrow{l}[swap]{i_{\operatorname{der}}^*} {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G) &\arrow{l}[swap]{q^*}
{\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \arrow{dl}{q_{\operatorname{ab}}^*} \\
& \CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G) \arrow{u}{\text{forget}} &
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Now, suppose $(\cs{L},\mu)\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ and there is an isomorphism $\beta : \cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$ in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{der}})$, so that
$(\cs{L},\mu,\beta) \in \CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:CSGabab}, there is some $(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ with $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta) {\ \cong\ } q_{\operatorname{ab}}^*(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
Applying the forgetful functor ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}(G)\to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ to this isomorphism, it follows that $(\cs{L},\mu) {\ \cong\ } q^*(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})$ in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$, as desired.
Conversely, suppose $(\cs{L},\mu)\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ and $(\cs{L},\mu) {\ \cong\ } q^*(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})$ in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
Then
\[
i_{\operatorname{der}}^*(\cs{L},\mu) {\ \cong\ } i_{\operatorname{der}}^*q^*(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})
\]
in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{der}})$.
Since $q\circ i_{\operatorname{der}} = 1$, it follows that $\cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} {\ \cong\ } (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$ in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{der}})$.
\end{proof}
We may interpret this corollary as measuring how far $q^*$ is from being essentially surjective. The next result shows that it is also not full.
Let $C$ denote the cokernel of the natural map
\[
\Hom(\pi_0(\bar{G})_{\Frob{}}, \EE^\times) \to \Hom(\pi_0(\bar{G}_{\operatorname{der}})_{\Frob{}}, \EE^\times),
\]
where $\pi_0(\bar{G})_{\Frob{}}$ denotes the covariants of the action of Frobenius on
the component group of $\bar{G}$
\begin{corollary}
If $G$ is a smooth group scheme and $(\cs{L},\mu)$ is a character sheaf on $G$ with trivial restriction to $G_{\operatorname{der}}$,
then the set of isomorphism classes of objects in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ mapping to $(\cs{L},\mu)$ under $q^*$ is a principal homogeneous space
for $C$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:CSGabab}, it suffices to find the set of isomorphism classes in $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ mapping to
$(\cs{L},\mu)$ under the forgetful functor. By the previous corollary this set is nonempty.
If $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)$ and $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta')$ both map to $(\cs{L},\mu)$, then $\beta' \circ \beta^{-1}$ is an
automorphism of the constant sheaf on $G_{\operatorname{der}}$. Conversely, if $\varphi$ is an automorphism of $(\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$
and $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta) \in \CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ then $(\cs{L},\mu,\varphi \circ \beta) \in \CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$. By \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.9},
the automorphism group is isomorphic to $\Hom(\pi_0(\bar{G}_{\operatorname{der}})_{\Frob{}}, \EE^\times)$. Finally, we note that any
automorphism $\alpha$ of $(\cs{L},\mu) \in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ defines an isomorphism $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta \circ \alpha|_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}) \to (\cs{L},\mu,\beta)$.
Applying \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.9} again yields the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Objects and maps in commutative character sheaves} \label{ssec:obmor}
We are now in a position to prove that commutative character sheaves on $G$ match perfectly with commutative character sheaves on $G_{\operatorname{ab}}$.
We start with a method that will allow us to situate the diagram in Definition \ref{def:CCS} within $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G^2)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:morinCSab}
If $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ then $\mu : m^*\cs{L} \to \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}$, $\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \to \theta^*(m^*\cs{L})$ and $\vartheta: \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L} \to \theta^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes \cs{L})$ are morphisms in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G\times G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $m^2 : G^2\times G^2 \to G^2$ by $m^2(g_1,g_2,g_1',g_2') = (g_1g_1',g_2g_2')$. Also define $p^2_i : G^2\times G^2 \to G^2$ by $p^2_i(g_1,g_2,g_1,'g_2') = (g_i,g_i')$.
First we show that $m^*\cs{L}$ is an object in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G^2)$ by equipping it with an isomorphism $\mu_m^2: (m^2)^* (m^*\cs{L}) \to m^*\cs{L} \boxtimes m^*\cs{L}$ defined by the diagram below.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
(m^2)^* (m^*\cs{L}) \arrow{d}{(m^2)^*\mu} \arrow[dashed]{rr}{\mu_m^2} && m^*\cs{L} \boxtimes m^*\cs{L}\\
(m^2)^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}) \arrow[equal]{r} & (m^2)^*(p_1)^*\cs{L} \otimes (m^2)^*(p_2)^*\cs{L} \arrow{r} & (p^2_1)^*m^*\cs{L} \otimes (p^2_2)^*m^*\cs{L} \arrow[equal]{u}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
The pair $(m^*\cs{L},\mu_m^2)$ satisfies the conditions appearing in \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Def. 1.1}.
The restriction of $m^*\cs{L}$ to $G^2_{\operatorname{der}}= G_{\operatorname{der}}\times G_{\operatorname{der}}$ is canonically isomorphic to $(\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G^2_{\operatorname{der}}}$ by
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
(m^*\cs{L})\vert_{G^2_{\operatorname{der}}} \arrow{d}{\mu\vert_{G^2_{\operatorname{der}}}} \arrow[dashed]{r}{\beta^2_m} & (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G^2_{\operatorname{der}}}\\
(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L})\vert_{G^2_{\operatorname{der}}} \arrow[equal]{r} & (\cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}})\boxtimes(\cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}) \arrow{u}{\beta\boxtimes\beta}.
\end{tikzcd}
\]
This shows that $(m^*\cs{L},\mu_m^2,\beta_m^2) \in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G^2)$.
Similar work defines $(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L},\mu_\boxtimes^2,\beta_\boxtimes^2) \in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G^2)$.
By construction, $\mu: m^*\cs{L} \to \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L}$ is a morphism in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G^2)$.
Similar work shows that $\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \to \theta^*(m^*\cs{L})$ and $\vartheta: \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L} \to \theta^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes \cs{L})$ are also morphisms in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G^2)$.
\end{proof}
Suppose $G$ is commutative, so $G_{\operatorname{der}} = 1$.
Suppose $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)$ is an object in $\CS_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$.
Then $\beta : \cs{L}_1\to \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell$ is an isomorphism in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(1)$, which is unique by \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.9}.
Tracing through the construction of $\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \to \theta^*m^*\cs{L}$ from $\beta : \cs{L}_1\to \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell$, we find
that $\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \to \theta^*m^*\cs{L}$ is the canonical isomorphism coming from the equation $m = m \circ \theta$.
Thus, when $G$ is commutative, Definition~\ref{def:CCS} agrees with Definition~\ref{def:CCScom}.
The next result generalizes this observation.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Gab}
Pull-back along the abelianization $q : G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$
defines an equivalence of categories
\[
{\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \to {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By definition, ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is a full subcategory of ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$; likewise, ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ is a full subcategory of ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
We have just seen that ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ is equivalent to ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:CSGabab}, pullback along the abelianization $q : G \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}$ induces an equivalence $q^*_{\operatorname{ab}} : {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$.
Thus, the functor ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ induced by pullback along $q$ is an equivalence.
The functor ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ under consideration is the restriction of ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ to the subcategory ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
{} & \arrow{dl}[swap]{q^*_{\operatorname{ab}}} {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\\
{\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G) & \arrow{l} {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \arrow{u}[swap]{\text{equiv.}}\\
{\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G) \arrow[>->]{u} & \arrow{l} {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}}) \arrow[>->]{u}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
To prove the theorem, it is now sufficient to show that ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})\to {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is essentially surjective.
Suppose $(\cs{L},\nu,\beta)\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
Then $(\cs{L},\nu,\beta)\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$.
Let $(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ be given by the equivalences above.
Let $\xi : m_{\operatorname{ab}}^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}} \to \theta^* m_{\operatorname{ab}}^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}$ be the isomorphism attached to $(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ as in Section~\ref{sec:comcom}.
Let $\gamma : m^*\cs{L} \to \theta^* m^*\cs{L}$ be the isomorphism attached to $\beta : \cs{L}\vert_{G_{\operatorname{der}}} \to (\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)_{G_{\operatorname{der}}}$ as in Section~\ref{ssec:noncomdef}.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:morinCSab}, the diagrams below are in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$ (right) and ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}_{\operatorname{ab}}(G)$ (left).
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=10, column sep = 20]
m^*\cs{L} \arrow{dd}[swap]{\gamma} \arrow{r}{\mu}
& \cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L} \arrow{dd}{\vartheta}
&&& m_{\operatorname{ab}}^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}} \arrow{dd}[swap]{\xi} \arrow{r}{\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}}
& \cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}\boxtimes\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}} \arrow{dd}{\vartheta}\\
&& \ &\arrow{l}[swap]{(q^2)^*_{\operatorname{ab}}} & &\\
\theta^*(m^*\cs{L}) \arrow{r}{{\theta}^*\mu}
& \theta^*(\cs{L}\boxtimes\cs{L})
&&& \theta^*(m_{\operatorname{ab}}^*\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}) \arrow{r}{{\theta}^*\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}}
& \theta^*(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}}\boxtimes\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}})
\end{tikzcd}
\]
The diagram on the left is the result of applying the functor $(q^2)^*_{\operatorname{ab}}$ to the one on the right; in particular $\gamma = (q^2)^*_{\operatorname{ab}} \xi$.
Since $(q^2)^*_{\operatorname{ab}}$ is an equivalence by Proposition~\ref{prop:CSGabab}, it follows that the diagram in Definition~\ref{def:CCS} commutes if and only if the diagram in Definition~\ref{def:CCScom} commutes.
In other words, $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ if and only if $(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})\in {\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})$.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:Gab} shows that ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is a categorical solution to the problem that linear character sheaves on $G$ need not be trivial on $G_{\operatorname{der}}$, as discussed at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:noncom}. At the same time, changing ${\mathcal{C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ to ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ resolves the lack of bijectivity in \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.6}.
We may also use Theorem~\ref{thm:Gab} to give a description of the morphisms and the isomorphism classes of objects in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:Gab}
The category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is monoidal and there is a canonical isomorphism
\[
\CCSiso{G} {\ \cong\ } \Hom(G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k),\EE^\times).
\]
Every map in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is either trivial or an isomorphism, and the automorphism group of any object in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ is canonically
isomorphic to $\Hom(\pi_0(\bar{G}_{\operatorname{ab}})_{\Frob{}},\EE^\times)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The first claim follows from Theorems \ref{thm:trfrobiso} and \ref{thm:Gab}. Let us write $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta) \mapsto (\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}})$ to indicate the equivalence appearing in Theorem~\ref{thm:Gab};
then \[\Aut_{{\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)}(\cs{L},\mu,\beta) = \Aut_{{\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})}(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}).\]
By \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Theorem 3.9}, $\Aut_{{\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G_{\operatorname{ab}})}(\cs{L}_{\operatorname{ab}},\mu_{\operatorname{ab}}) = \Hom(\pi_0(\bar{G}_{\operatorname{ab}})_{\Frob{}},\EE^\times)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Geometrization of characters} \label{ssec:geo}
Corollary~\ref{cor:Gab} shows that commutative character sheaves on $G$ provide a natural geometrization of characters of $G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)$. In Theorem~\ref{thm:geo} we take this one small step further by exploring the relation between characters of $G(k)$ and objects in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:geo}
The trace of Frobenius $\TrFrob{} : \CCSiso{G}\to G(k)^*$ fits into the following diagram,
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\ & & \CCSiso{G_{\operatorname{ab}}} \arrow{d}{\TrFrob{}}[swap]{{\ \cong\ }} \arrow{r}{{\ \cong\ }} & \CCSiso{G} \arrow{d}{\TrFrob{}}& \\
1 \arrow{r} & \Delta_G^* \arrow{r} & G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)^* \arrow{r} & G(k)^* \arrow{r} & 1,
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where $\Delta_G$ is the image of the connecting homomorphism $G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k) \to \Hh^1(k, G_{\operatorname{der}})$.
Thus the category ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ geometrizes characters of $G(k)$ in the following sense: for every group homomorphism $\chi : G(k) \to \EE^\times$ there is an object $(\cs{L},\mu,\beta)$ in ${\mathcal{C\hskip-.8pt C\hskip-0.8pt S}}(G)$ such that $\trFrob{\cs{L}} = \chi$.
While the geometrization of $\chi : G(k) \to \EE^\times$ is not unique, the group of isomorphism classes of possibilities are enumerated by $\Delta_G^*$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of $\Delta_G$, we have a short exact sequence
\[
1 \to G(k) / G_{\operatorname{der}}(k) \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k) \to \Delta_G \to 1.
\]
Applying $\Hom(-, \EE^\times)$ and using the fact that every homomorphism $G(k) \to \EE^\times$ vanishes on $G_{\operatorname{der}}(k)$, we get
\[
1 \to \Delta_G^* \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)^* \to G(k)^* \to 1.
\]
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Gab}, the map $\CCSiso{G_{\operatorname{ab}}} \to \CCSiso{G}$ is an isomorphism.
Moreover, since both $\CCSiso{G_{\operatorname{ab}}} \to \CCSiso{G}$ and $G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)^* \to G(k)^*$ are
defined by pullback along $q$, the square in the statement of the theorem commutes.
Finally, $\TrFrob{} : \CCSiso{G_{\operatorname{ab}}} \to G_{\operatorname{ab}}(k)^*$ is an isomorphism by Corollary \ref{cor:Gab}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Note that when $\Hh^1(k,G_{\operatorname{der}}) = 0$ then $\CCSiso{G} {\ \cong\ } G(k)^*$, so
we succeed in geometrizing characters of $G(k)$ on the nose.
\end{remark}
\section{Application to type theory for \texorpdfstring{$p$}{p}-adic groups}\label{sec:types}
We now show how to use Theorem~\ref{thm:geo} to geometrize Yu type data and how to geometrize types for supercuspidal representations of tamely ramified $p$-adic groups.
\subsection{Quasicharacters of smooth group schemes over certain henselian traits}
Recall that $R$ is the ring of integers of a local field with finite residue field $k$.
The maximal idea of $R$ will be denoted by $\mathfrak{m}$.
Let $\underline{G}$ be a smooth group scheme over $R$.
Here we shall use \cite{bertapelle-gonzales:Greenberg} for the definition and fundamental properties of the Greenberg transform.
Let $G$ be the Greenberg transform of $\underline{G}$; then $G$ is a group scheme over $k$ and there is a canonical isomorphism
\[
G(k) = \underline{G}(R).
\]
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:quasicharacters}
For every quasicharacter character $\varphi : \underline{G}(R) \to \EE^\times$ there is a Weil sheaf $\cs{L}$ on $G$ such that \[\trFrob{\cs{L}} = \varphi.\] \end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By continuity of $\varphi : \underline{G}(R) \to \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell^\times$, there is some $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a factorization
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\underline{G}(R) \arrow{rr}{\varphi} \arrow{rd} && \EE^\times\\
& \underline{G}(R/\mathfrak{p}^{m+1}) \arrow{ru}[swap]{\varphi_m}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Set $R_m = R/\mathfrak{p}^{m+1}$ and
set $G_m = \Gr_m^{R}(\underline{G})$, the Greenberg transform of $\underline{G}\times_{\Spec{R}}\Spec{R_m}$.
Then $G_m$ is a smooth group scheme over $k$ and $G_m(k) = \underline{G}(R_m)$.
Using Theorem~\ref{thm:geo}, let $\cs{L}_m$ be a geometrization of the character $\varphi_m: G_m(k) \to \EE^\times$; so
\[
\trFrob{\cs{L}_m} = \varphi_m
\]
on $G_m(k)$.
Recall that the full Greenberg transform $G {\, :=\, } \Gr^{R}(\underline{G})$ is a group scheme over $k$ such that $G(k) = \underline{G}(R)$; it comes equipped with a morphism $G \to G_m$.
Let $\cs{L}$ be the Weil sheaf on $G$ obtained from $\cs{L}_m$ by pullback along $G \to G_m$.
Then $\cs{L}$ is a quasicharacter sheaf on $G$, in the sense of \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{Def 4.3}, such that $\trFrob{\cs{L}} = \varphi$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Jacobi theory over finite fields}\label{ssec:Jacobi}
For use below, we recall some facts about the Heisenberg-Weil representation.
Let $V$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over a finite field $k$ equipped with a symplectic paring $\langle\ ,\ \rangle : V\times V \to Z$, where $Z$ is a one-dimensional vector space over $k$.
Let $V^\sharp$ be the Heisenberg group determined by $(Z, \langle\ ,\ \rangle)$ \cite{gurevich-hadani:07a}*{\S 1.1}.
Let ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V)$ be the symplectic group determined by the symplectic pairing $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$; this group acts on $V^\sharp$.
The group ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V)\ltimes V^\sharp$ is called the Jacobi group.
From the construction above, it is clear that the Jacobi group may be viewed as the $k$-points of an algebraic group over $k$; we will refer to that algebraic group as the Jacobi group.
Let $\psi : Z \to \EE^\times$ be an additive character and let $\omega_\psi$ be the Heisenberg representation on $V^\sharp$ with central character $\psi$ \cite{gurevich-hadani:07a}*{\S 1.1}.
The Heisenberg representation determines a representation $\pi_{\psi}$ of ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V)$ with the same representation space as $\omega_\psi$ and with the defining property: for each $g\in {\operatorname{Sp}}(V)$, $\pi_\psi(g)$ determines an isomorphism of representations $\omega_\psi^g \to \omega_\psi$.
Let $W_\psi = \pi_\psi \ltimes \omega_\psi$ be the Heisenberg-Weil representation of the Jacobi group ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V)\ltimes V^\sharp$ given by $\omega_\psi$ and $\pi_\psi$ \cite{gurevich-hadani:07a}*{\S 2.2}.
There is a Weil sheaf complex $\cs{K}_\psi$ on ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V)\ltimes V^\sharp$ \cite{gurevich-hadani:07a}*{Theorem 3.2.2.1} (see also \cite{gurevich-hadani:11a}*{Theorem 4.5}) such that
\begin{equation}
\trFrob{\cs{K}_\psi} = \trace(W_\psi).
\end{equation}
Since $\cs{K}_\psi$ is an object in Deligne's category $D^b_c({\operatorname{Sp}}(V)\ltimes V^\sharp,\mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell)$, the left hand side of this equality must be interpreted accordingly.
\subsection{Review of Yu's types and associated models}\label{ssec:review}
For the rest of Section~\ref{sec:types}, $K$ is a $p$-adic field and $R$ is the ring of integers of $K$.
A Yu type datum consists of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\labitem{Y0}{Y0} a sequence of compact groups ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^0 \subseteq {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^1 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^d = {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}$;
\labitem{Y1}{Y1} a continuous representation ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0$ of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^0$;
\labitem{Y2}{Y2} quasicharacters $\varphi^i : {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \to {\mathbb{C}}^\times$, for $i=0, \ldots d$.
\end{enumerate}
The representation ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0$ and the quasicharacters $(\varphi^0, \ldots , \varphi^d)$ enjoy certain properties which allow Yu to construct the representations ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i$ of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$ that form the sequence of types $({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i,{\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i)$, for $i=1, \ldots, d$.
In order to prepare for the construction of the geometric types of Theorem~\ref{thm:geotypes} we review some further detail here.
In Table~\ref{table:notation} we explain how to convert the constructions appearing in this section into the notation of \cite{yu:01a}.
First, Yu introduces
\begin{enumerate}
\labitem{Y3}{Y3}
compact groups $J_i\subset {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}$, for $i=0, \ldots d$, such that
$
{\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i = J_0\cdots J_{i}
$
and, for $i=0, \ldots d-1$, a natural action of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$ on $J_{i+1}$ defining the groups ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1}$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:semiprod}
\begin{tikzcd}
\ && 1 \arrow{d} && \\
\ && {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^{i}\cap J_{i+1}\arrow{d} && \\
1 \arrow{r} & J_{i+1} \arrow{r} & {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1} \arrow{d}{\pi_{i+1}} \arrow{r}{p_i} & {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \arrow{r} & 1\\
&& {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^{i+1} \arrow{d}{} && \\
&& 1 &&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Next, Yu defines a group homomorphism (in fact, a quotient)
$
J_{i+1} \to V_{i+1}
$
where $V_{i+1}$ is a finite abelian group, the latter also given the structure of a $k$-vector space.
The vector space $V_{i+1}$ is then equipped with a symplectic pairing $\langle\ ,\ \rangle_{i+1} : V_{i+1}\times V_{i+1} \to Z_{i+1}$, where $Z_{i+1}$ is a one-dimensional vector space over $k$, itself equipped with an additive character $\psi_{i+1} : Z_{i+1} \to {\mathbb{C}}^\times$.
This, in turn, is used to define a map
$
J_{i+1} \to V_{i+1}^\sharp,
$
where $V_{i+1}^\sharp$ is the Heisenberg group determined by $V_{i+1}$, $Z_{i+1}$, $\langle\ ,\ \rangle_{i+1}$ and $\psi_{i+1}$, as in Section~\ref{ssec:Jacobi}.
In fact, the quotient $J_{i+1} \to V_{i+1}^\sharp$ factors through a quotient $J_{i+1} \to H_{i+1}$ and an isomorphism $j_{i+1} : H_{i+1} \to V_{i+1}^\sharp$, where $H_{i+1}$ is a Heisenberg $p$-group in the sense of \cite{yu:01a}*{}.
Finally, Yu constructs a group homomorphism $f_{i+1} : {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \to {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1})$ such that the pair $(f_{i+1}, j_{i+1})$ is a symplectic action of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$ on $H_{i+1}$ in the sense of \cite{yu:01a}.
Taken together, this defines
\begin{enumerate}
\labitem{Y4}{Y4}
a group homomorphism $h_{i+1} : {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1} \to {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1})\ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp$ making the following diagram commute.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
1 \arrow{r} & J_{i+1} \arrow{d} \arrow{r} & {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1} \arrow[dashed]{d}{h_{i+1}} \arrow{r}{p_i} & {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \arrow{r} \arrow{d}{f_i} & 1\\
1 \arrow{r} & V_{i+1}^\sharp \arrow{r} & {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1}) \ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp \arrow{r} & {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1}) \arrow{r} & 1
\end{tikzcd}
\]
\end{enumerate}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Notation conversion chart.}
\begin{spacing}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{| c|l | l | }
\hline
\text{this paper} & \text{Jiu-Kang Yu, {\it Construction of tame}} & \cite{yu:01a} \\
& \text{{\it supercuspidal representations}} & \\
\hline
${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^0$ & $\,^\circ K^0 = G^0(F)_y$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 15} \\
${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^{i+1}$ & $\,^\circ K^{i+1} = (\,^\circ K^0) \vec{G}^{(i+1)}(F)_{y,(0, s_0, \ldots, s_{i})}$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 15} \\
${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0$ & $\,^\circ \rho^0$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 15} \\
${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1}$ & $\,^\circ \rho^{i+1}$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 15} \\
$\varphi^i$ & $\phi_i\vert_{\,^\circ K^i }$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 3}\\
$J_{i+1}$ & $J^{i+1} = (G^i,G^{i+1})(F)_{y, (r_i, s_i)}$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 3} \\
$V_{i+1}$ & $J^{i+1}/J^{i+1}_+ = (G^i,G^{i+1})(F)_{y, (r_i, s_i)}/ (G^i,G^{i+1})(F)_{y, (r_i, s_i^+)}$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 3} \\
$V_{i+1}^\sharp$ & $(G^i,G^{i+1})(F)_{y, (r_i, s_i)}/ \ker(\widehat{\phi}_i\vert_{(G^i,G^{i+1})(F)_{y, (r_i, s_i^+)}})$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 4} \\
$Z_{i+1}$ & $\ker(V_{i+1}^\sharp\to V_{i+1})$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 11} \\
$(f_{j+1}, j_{i+1})$ & $(f,j)$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 11} \\
$\langle\ ,\ \rangle_{i+1}$ & $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$ & \cite{yu:01a}*{\S 11} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{spacing}
\label{table:notation}
\end{table}%
We can now recall how Yu uses all this to construct representations ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^i$ of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$, for $i=1, \ldots, d$ and the types $({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i,{\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i)$; see \cite{yu:01a}*{\S\S 4, 15}.
The representations ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^i$ and ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i$ are defined recursively.
For the base case $i=0$, set ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_0 {\, :=\, } {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0\otimes \varphi^0$; see \ref{Y1} above.
Now fix $i$.
Let $W_{i+1}$ be the Heisenberg-Weil representation of the Jacobi group ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1})\ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp$, whose restriction to $V_{i+1}^\sharp$ has central character $\psi_{i+1}$.
Pull-back along $h_{i+1}$ to form $h_{i+1}^*(W_{i+1})$, a representation of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1}$.
Write $\inf({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i)$ for the representation of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1}$ obtained by pulling back ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^i$ along ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1} \to {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$.
Consider the representation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tensor}
{\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1} {\, :=\, } h_{i+1}^*(W_{i+1}) \otimes \inf({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i)
\end{equation}
of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1}$.
By \cite{yu:01a}*{}, the representation ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1}$ of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1}$ is trivial on ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^{i}\cap J_{i+1}$ so ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1}$ descends to ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^{i+1}$.
Set ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_{i+1} = {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1}\otimes \varphi^{i+1}$.
This completes the recursive definition of the Yu $({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i,{\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i)$ for $i=0, \ldots , d$.
By \cite{Yu:models}*{Prop 10.2} there is a sequence
\[
\underline{G}^0 \to \underline{G}^1 \to \cdots \to \underline{G}^d = \underline{G}
\]
of morphisms of affine smooth group schemes of finite type over $R$ such that, on $R$-points it gives the sequence ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^0 \subseteq {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^1 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^d$ above.
Indeed, this is the main result of \cite{Yu:models}.
As explained in \cite{Yu:models}*{\S 10.4}, there is morphism of affine smooth group schemes of finite type over $R$
\[
\underline{J}^i \to \underline{G},
\]
for each $i=0,\ldots d$, such that $\underline{J}^i(R) = J_i$ as a subgroup of $C$ and such that the image of the $R$-points under the multiplication map $\underline{J}^0 \times \cdots \times \underline{J}^i \to \underline{G}$ is ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$, for $i=0, \ldots , d$.
There is a natural action of $\underline{G}^i$ on $\underline{J}^{i+1}$ in the category of smooth affine group schemes over $R$ so that the group scheme
\[
\underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1}
\]
gives $(\underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})(R) = {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i \ltimes J_{i+1}$
\newcommand{{\operatorname{red}}}{{\operatorname{red}}}
Write $\underline{J}^{i+1}_k$ for the special fibre $\underline{J}^{i+1}\times_{\Spec{R}} \Spec{k}$ of $\underline{J}^{i+1}$.
The vector space $V_{i+1}$ may realized as the $k$-points on a variety $V^{i+1}$ over $k$, where $V^{i+1}$, appears as a quotient $\underline{J}^{i+1}_{k} \to V^{i+1}$ of algebraic groups over $k$. Then the quotient $J_{i+1} \to V_{i+1}$ is realized as the composition
\[
\underline{J}^{i+1}(R) \to \underline{J}^{i+1}(k) = \underline{J}^{i+1}_k(k) \to V^{i+1}(k) = V_{i+1}.
\]
Likewise, the Heisenberg $p$-group $H_{i+1}$, appearing in \ref{ssec:review}, may be realized as a quotient of algebraic groups, and $\underline{J}^{i+1}_{k} \to H^{i+1}$ as the composition
\[
\underline{J}^{i+1}(R) \to \underline{J}^{i+1}(k) = \underline{J}^{i+1}_k(k) \to H^{i+1}_{k}(k) = H_{i+1}.
\]
Finally, the group homomorphism $f_i : J_0\cdots J_i \to {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1})$ may be made geometric in much the same way.
Writing $\underline{G}^{i}_k$ for the special fibre $\underline{G}^{i}\times_{\Spec{R}} \Spec{k}$ of $\underline{G}^{i}$, and writing $\underline{G}^{i,{\operatorname{red}}}_k$ for the reductive quotient of $\underline{G}^{i}_k$, there is a quotient of algebraic groups $\underline{G}^{i,{\operatorname{red}}}_k \to W^{i+1}_k$ so that $f_i : J_0\cdots J_i \to {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1})$ is realized as the composition
\[
\underline{G}^{i}(R) \to \underline{G}^{i}(k) = \underline{G}^{i}_k(k) \to \underline{G}^{i,{\operatorname{red}}}_k(k) \to W^{i+1}_{k}(k) = {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1}).
\]
With all this, we may revisit the quotients appearing in Section~\ref{ssec:review}:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
1 \arrow{r} & \underline{J}^{i+1} \arrow{r} & \underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1} \arrow{r} & \underline{G}^i \arrow{r} & 1\\
1 \arrow{r} & \underline{J}^{i+1}_k \arrow{d} \arrow{u} \arrow{r} & \underline{G}_k^i \ltimes \underline{J}_k^{i+1} \arrow{d} \arrow{u} \arrow{r} & \underline{G}_k^i \arrow{r} \arrow{d} \arrow{u} & 1\\
1 \arrow{r} & V_{i+1}^\sharp \arrow{r} & {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1}) \ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp \arrow{r} & {\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1}) \arrow{r} & 1,
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where the last two rows are now understood as forming a diagram in the category of algebraic groups over $k$.
This realizes the Jacobi group ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1}) \ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp$ as a quotient of the special fibre of the smooth group scheme $\underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1}$ over $R$.
We may now revisit the ingredients in the construction of the representation $\rho$ of $\underline{G}(R)$ along the lines indicated by Yu and recalled in Section~\ref{ssec:review}.
\begin{enumerate}
\labitem{M0}{M0}
The compact groups ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$ have been replaced by the smooth group schemes $\underline{G}^i$.
\labitem{M1}{M1}
The continuous representation ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0$ of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^0$ is a representation of $\underline{G}^0(R)$ obtained by inflation along $\underline{G}^0(R) \to \underline{G}^0(k)$ from a representation $\varrho_0$ of $\underline{G}^0(k) = \underline{G}^0_k(k)$.
In fact, $\varrho_0$ is itself obtained by pulling back a representation $\varrho_0^{\operatorname{red}}$ along the $k$-points of the quotient $\underline{G}^0_k \to (\underline{G}^0)_k^{\operatorname{red}}$.
\labitem{M2}{M2} The quasicharacters $\varphi^i$ are quasicharacters of $\underline{G}^i(R)$, for $i=0, \ldots, d$.
\labitem{M3}{M3}
Diagram \eqref{eq:semiprod} is now replaced by the following diagram of smooth group schemes over $R$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pimodel}
\begin{tikzcd}
\ && 1 \arrow{d} && \\
\ && \underline{G}^{i}\times_{\underline{G}} \underline{J}^{i+1}\arrow{d} && \\
1 \arrow{r} & \underline{J}^{i+1} \arrow{r} & \underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1} \arrow{d} \arrow{r} & \underline{G}^i \arrow{r} & 1\\
&& \underline{G}^{i+1} \arrow{d} && \\
&& 1 &&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
\labitem{M4}{M4}
The representation $h_{i+1}^*(W_{i+1})$ appearing in \ref{Y4} is now obtained by pulling back a representation along
\[
(\underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})(R) \to (\underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})(k).
\]
Let $w_{i+1}$ be that representation of $(\underline{G}^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})(k) = (\underline{G}_k^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1}_k)(k)$.
Then $w_{i+1}$ is itself obtained by pulling back the representation $W_{i+1}$ along the $k$-points of the quotient
\[
\underline{G}_k^i \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1}_k \to
{\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1}) \ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp.
\]
\end{enumerate}
This brings us back to \cite{Yu:models}*{\S 10.5} as quoted in the Introduction to this paper.
\subsection{Geometrization of characters of types}\label{ssec:geotypes}
Finally, we come to the main result of Section~\ref{sec:types}.
Since Yu's theory refers to complex representations, and since our geometrization uses $\ell$-adic sheaves, we grit our teeth and fix an isomorphism ${\mathbb{C}} \approx \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:geotypes}
Let ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$ ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0$, $\varphi^i$, for $i=0, \ldots d$, be a Yu type datum as in Section~\ref{ssec:review}, \ref{Y0}, \ref{Y1} and \ref{Y2}.
Let $\underline{G}^i$ and $\varrho_0^{\operatorname{red}}$ be as in Section~\ref{ssec:review}, \ref{M0} and \ref{M1}.
Assume $\pi_0((\underline{G}^0)_k^{\operatorname{red}})$ is cyclic.
For $i=0, \ldots ,d$, let $G^i = \Gr_{R}(\underline{G}^i)$ be the Greenberg transform of the smooth group scheme $\underline{G}^i$ appearing in Section~\ref{ssec:review}.
Then there is a rational virtual Weil sheaf complex $\cs{F}_i$ on $G^i$ such that $\trFrob{\cs{F}_i} = \trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i)$, for $i=0, \ldots , d$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For every $i=0, \ldots ,d$, set $G^i = \Gr_{R}(\underline{G}^i)$.
Recall that $G^i(k) = \underline{G}^i(R) = {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt K}^i$, canonically.
We begin with an argument already employed in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:quasicharacters}.
By continuity of the quasicharacters $\varphi^i : G^i(k) \to {\mathbb{C}}^\times$, there is some $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a factorization
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
G^i(k) \arrow{rr}{\varphi^i} \arrow{rd} && \EE^\times\\
& \underline{G}^i(R_m) \arrow{ru}[swap]{\varphi^i_m}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
for all $i=0, \ldots, d$.
Set $G_m^i = \Gr_m^{R}(\underline{G}^i)$.
Then $G_m^i$ is a smooth group scheme over $k$ and $G_m^i(k) = \underline{G}^i(R_m)$, canonically.
Using Theorem~\ref{thm:geo}, let $\cs{L}^i_m$ be a geometrization of the linear character $\varphi^i_m: G_m^i(k) \to {\mathbb{C}}^\times$; so
\[
\trFrob{\cs{L}^i_m} = \varphi^i_m.
\]
By \cite{lusztig:disconnected1}, there is a rational virtual Weil character sheaf $A = ({\bar A},\phi)$ on $(\underline{G}^0)_k^{\operatorname{red}}$ such that ${\bar A}$ is a rational virtual character sheaf on $(\underline{G}^0)_{\bar{k}}^{\operatorname{red}}$ and
\[
\trFrob{A} = \trace \varrho_0^{\operatorname{red}}.
\]
(This uses the hypothesis that $\pi_0((\underline{G}^0)_k^{\operatorname{red}})$ is cyclic.)
Let $A^0$ be the Weil sheaf on $(\underline{G}^0)_k$ obtained by pullback along the quotient $(\underline{G}^0)_k \to (\underline{G}^0)_k^{\operatorname{red}}$.
Then
\[
\trFrob{A^0} = \trace \varrho_0.
\]
The special fibre $(\underline{G}^0)_k$ of the smooth group scheme $\underline{G}^0$ is itself a smooth group scheme, and may be identified with the Greenberg transform $Q^0 = \Gr^{R}_0(\underline{G}^0)$ \cite{cunningham-roe:13a}*{\S 4.3}.
With $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$ as above, let ${A}_m^0$ be the Weil sheaf on the algebraic group $G_m^i$ obtained by pull-back from $A^0$ along the affine morphism $G_m^i \to Q^0$.
Factor
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:tracerho}
\begin{tikzcd}
G^0(k) \arrow{rr}{\trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0)} \arrow{rd} && \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell \\
& G_m^0(k) \arrow{ru}[swap]{\trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0)_m}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Observe that $\trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0)_m$ may be recovered from ${A}_m^0$:
\[
\trFrob{{A}^0_m} = \trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0)_m
\]
Consider the Jacobi group ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1})\ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp$ and the Heisenberg-Weil representation $W_{i+1}$ appearing in Section~\ref{ssec:review}.
Let $\cs{K}^{i+1}$ be the Weil sheaf on the Jacobi group, recalled in Section~\ref{ssec:Jacobi}, such that
\[
\trFrob{\cs{K}^{i+1}} = \trace(W_{i+1}).
\]
Recall from Section~\ref{ssec:review} that ${\operatorname{Sp}}(V_{i+1})\ltimes V_{i+1}^\sharp$ is a quotient of the special fibre of the smooth group scheme $\underline{G}^{i} \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1}$.
Let $\cs{K}_0^{i+1}$ be the Weil sheaf on the special fibre of $\underline{G}^{i} \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1}$ obtained from $W_{i+1}$ by pullback.
Let $\cs{K}_m^{i+1}$ be the Weil sheaf on $\Gr^{R}_m(\underline{G}^{i} \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})$ obtained from $\cs{K}_0^{i+1}$ by pullback along the affine morphism
$\Gr^{R}_m(\underline{G}^{i} \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1}) \to \Gr^{R}_0(\underline{G}^{i} \ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})$.
We now define Weil sheaves $\cs{A}^i_m$ on $G_m^i {\, :=\, } \Gr^{R}_m(\underline{G}^{i})$, for $i=0,\ldots ,d$, recursively, following the construction of the representations ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^i$, as reviewed in Section~\ref{ssec:review}.
First, set $\cs{A}_m^0 = A_m^0$ and note that \eqref{eqn:tracerho} commutes with $\trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^0)_m$ replaced by $\trFrob{\cs{A}_m^0}$.
Now, suppose $\cs{A}^i_m$ on $G_m^i$ is defined such that
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
G^i(k) \arrow{rr}{\trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^i)} \arrow{rd} && \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell\\
& G_m^i(k) \arrow{ru}[swap]{\trFrob{\cs{A}_m^i}} &
\end{tikzcd}
\]
commutes.
Applying the Greenberg functor $\Gr^{R}_m$, to \eqref{eq:pimodel} gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pi}
\begin{tikzcd}
\ && 1 \arrow{d} && \\
\ && G_m^{i}\times_{G_m} J_m^{i+1} \arrow{d} && \\
1 \arrow{r} &J_m^{i+1} \arrow{r} & G_m^i \ltimes J_m^{i+1} \arrow{d}{\pi_m^{i+1}} \arrow{r}{p_m^{i}} & G_m^i \arrow{r} & 1\\
&& G_m^{i+1} \arrow{d} && \\
&& 1 &&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where $J_m^{i+1} {\, :=\, } \Gr^{R}_m(\underline{J}^{i+1})$ and $G_m^{i} {\, :=\, } \Gr^{R}_m(\underline{G}^{i})$.
By \cite{bertapelle-gonzales:Greenberg}*{Prop 7.1}, the sequences are exact.
Consider the sheaf
\[
\cs{B}_m^{i+1} {\, :=\, } \cs{K}_m^{i+1} \otimes (p_m^{i})^*(\cs{A}_m^{i}\otimes \cs{L}_m^{i})
\]
on $G_m^{i}\ltimes J_m^{i+1}$.
Comparing with \eqref{eq:tensor}, we see that $\trFrob{\cs{B}_m^{i+1}}$ is precisely the function obtained by factoring the character of ${\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1}$ through $(\underline{G}^{i}\ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})(R) \to (\underline{G}^{i}\ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})(R_m)$ using the canonical identification $(G_m^{i}\times_{G_m} J_m^{i+1})(k) = (\underline{G}^{i}\ltimes \underline{J}^{i+1})(R_m)$.
In particular, $\trFrob{\cs{B}^{i+1}_m}$ is constant on $(G_m^{i}\times_{G_m} J_m^{i+1})(k)$, taking the value $\dim {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1}$.
With reference to the morphism $\pi_m^{i+1} : G_m^i \ltimes J_m^{i+1} \to G_m^{i+1}$ from \eqref{eq:pi}, define
\[
\cs{C}_m^{i+1} {\, :=\, } (\pi_m^{i+1})_! (\cs{B}_m^{i+1}).
\]
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\trFrob{\cs{C}^{i+1}_m}(x)
&=& \sum_{y\in (\pi_m^{i+1})^{-1}(x)} \trFrob{\cs{B}_m^{i+1}}(y).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\trFrob{\cs{B}^{i+1}_m}$ is constant on $(G_m^{i}\times_{G_m} J_m^{i+1})(k)$, it follows that
\[
\trFrob{\cs{C}^{i+1}_m} = n \trFrob{\cs{B}^{i+1}_m}
\]
on $G_m^{i+1}(k)$ for $n = \# (G_m^{i}\times_{G_m} J_m^{i+1})(k) \times \dim {\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1} $.
Let $\cs{A}_m^{i+1}$ be the \emph{rational virtual} Weil sheaf on $G_m^i$ given by $\cs{A}_m^{i+1} = \frac{1}{n} \cs{C}_m^{i+1}$.
This completes the inductive definition of $\cs{A}_m^i$ so that the following diagram commutes.
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
G^{i+1}(k) \arrow{rr}{\trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}^{i+1})} \arrow{rd} && \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell\\
& G_m^{i+1}(k)\arrow{ru}[swap]{{\trFrob{\cs{A}_m^{i+1}}} } &
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Now set $\cs{F}^i_m = \cs{A}_m^{i} \otimes \cs{L}_m^i$, for $i=0, \ldots ,d$.
Then $\cs{F}^i_m$ is a rational virtual Weil sheaf on $G^i_m = \Gr^{R}_m(\underline{G}^i)$ such that
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
G^i(k) \arrow{rr}{\trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i)} \arrow{rd} && \mathbb{\bar Q}_\ell\\
& G_m(k) \arrow{ru}[swap]{\trFrob{\cs{F}^i_m}} &
\end{tikzcd}
\]
commutes.
Let $\cs{F}^i$ be the rational virtual Weil sheaf on the group scheme $G^i= \Gr_{R}(\underline{G}^i)$ obtained by pulling back $\cs{F}_m^i$ along $G^i \to G^i_m$.
Then
\[
\trFrob{\cs{F}^i} = \trace({\,^\circ \hskip-1pt \rho}_i),
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{berndt-schmidt:98a}{book}{
author={Berndt, Rolf},
author={Schmidt, Ralf},
title={{Elements of the representation theory of the Jacobi group}},
publisher={{Birkh\"auser/Springer Basel AG}},
address={Basel, Switzerland},
date={2011},
}
\bib{bernstein-lunts:equivariant}{book}{
author={Bernstein, Joseph},
author={Lunts, Valery},
title={Equivariant sheaves and functors},
series={Lecture Notes in Mathematics},
volume={1578},
publisher={Springer-Verlag, Berlin},
date={1994},
pages={iv+139},
isbn={3-540-58071-9},
}
\bib{bertapelle-gonzales:Greenberg}{unpublished}{
author={Bertapelle, Alessandra},
author={{Gonz\'ales-Avil\'es}, Cristian~D.},
title={{The Greenberg functor revisited}},
date={2014},
url={http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0051},
note={\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0051}{arXiv:1311.0051
[math.NT]}},
}
\bib{bushnell-kutzko:98a}{article}{
author={Bushnell, Colin},
author={Kutzko, Phil},
title={{Smooth representations of reductive $p$-adic groups: structure
theory via types}},
date={1998},
journal={Proc. London Math. Soc.},
volume={77},
number={3},
pages={{582\ndash 634}},
}
\bib{cunningham-roe:13a}{article}{
author={Cunningham, Clifton},
author={Roe, David},
title={From the function-sheaf dictionary to quasicharacters of $p$-adic tori},
journal = {Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu},
volume = {FirstView},
number = {6},
year = {2016},
issn = {1475-3030},
pages = {1--37},
doi = {10.1017/S1474748015000286},
URL = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S1474748015000286},
}
\bib{deligne:SGA4.5}{book}{
address = {Berlin},
author = {Pierre Deligne},
publisher = {{Springer-Verlag}},
series = {Lecture Notes in Mathematics},
title = {{Cohomologie \'etale}},
volume = {569},
year = {1977},
}
\bib{demazure:SGA3-VIA}{inproceedings}{
author={Gabriel, Pierre},
title={{Expos\'e VI$_\mathrm{A}$: G\'en\'eralit\'es sur les groupes
alg\'ebriques}},
date={1970},
booktitle={{Sch\'emas en groupes I: Proprietes generales des schemas en
groupes}},
editor={Demazure, Michel},
editor={Grothendieck, Alexander},
series={Lecture Notes in Math},
volume={151},
publisher={Springer-Verlag},
address={Berlin},
}
\bib{EGAIV4}{article}{
author={Grothendieck, Alexandre},
title={{\'El\'ements de g\'eom\'etrie alg\'ebrique IV. \'Etude locale
des sch\'emas et des morphismes de sch\'emas. IV}},
date={1967},
journal={Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math.},
number={32},
}
\bib{gurevich-hadani:07a}{article}{
author={Gurevich, Shamgar},
author={Hadani, Ronny},
title={The geometric Weil representation},
journal={Selecta Math. (N.S.)},
volume={13},
date={2007},
number={3},
pages={465--481},
}
\bib{gurevich-hadani:11a}{unpublished}{
author={Gurevich, Shamgar},
author={Hadani, Ronny},
title={The categorical Weil representation},
date={2011},
note={\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0351}{arXiv:1108.0351 [math.RT]}}
}
\bib{howe:73a}{article}{
author={Howe, Roger E.},
title={On the character of Weil's representation},
journal={Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.},
volume={177},
date={1973},
pages={287--298},
}
\bib{kamgarpour:09a}{article}{
author={Kamgarpour, Masoud},
title={{Stacky abelianization of algebraic groups}},
date={2009},
journal={{Transform. Groups}},
volume={14},
number={4},
pages={825\ndash 846},
}
\bib{kim:07a}{article}{
author={Kim, Ju-Lee},
title={Supercuspidal representations: an exhaustion theorem},
date={2007},
journal={J. Amer. Math. Soc.},
volume={20},
number={2},
pages={273\ndash 320},
}
\bib{lusztig:85a}{article}{
author={Lusztig, George},
title={{Character sheaves I}},
date={1985},
journal={Advances in Math.},
volume={56},
pages={193\ndash 237},
}
\bib{lusztig:disconnected1}{article}{
author={Lusztig, George},
title={{Character sheaves on disconnected groups I}},
date={2003},
journal={Representation Theory},
volume={7},
pages={374\ndash 403},
}
\bib{Vistoli:notes}{article}{
author={Vistoli, Angelo},
title={Grothendieck topologies, fibered categories and descent theory},
conference={
title={Fundamental algebraic geometry},
},
book={
series={Math. Surveys Monogr.},
volume={123},
publisher={Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI},
},
date={2005},
pages={1--104},
}
\bib{yu:01a}{article}{
author={Yu, Jiu-Kang},
title={Construction of tame supercuspidal representations},
date={2001},
journal={J. Amer. Math. Soc.},
volume={14},
number={3},
pages={{579\ndash 622}},
}
\bib{Yu:models}{inproceedings}{
author={Yu, Jiu-Kang},
title={{Smooth models associated to concave functions in Bruhat-Tits theory}},
booktitle={{Autour des sch\'emas en groupes - \'Ecole d'\'et\'e franco-asiatique de g\'eom\'etrie alg\'ebrique et de th\'eorie des nombres. Volume III}},
series={Panoramas et synth\`eses},
volume={47},
publisher={Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France},
issn={1272-3835},
note={\href{http://smf4.emath.fr/Publications/PanoramasSyntheses/2016/47/html/smf_pano-synth_47_227-258.php}{Panoramas et synth\`eses \textbf{47} (2015), 227--258}}
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Fractional differential equations have recently been studied by a lot of number of researchers due to the fact that they are valuable tools in the mathematical modelling of many phenomena appearing in the fields of physics, chemistry, aerodynamics, economics, control theory, signal and image processing, etc... For details, see, for example, [1-4] and the references therein.
In the literature, differential equations with proportional delays are usually referred to as pantograph equations. The name pantograph originated from the work [5] on the collection of current by the pantograph head of an electric locomotive. There are a great number of papers devoted to the qualitative properties and numerical solutions of these equations (see, for example, [6-10]).
The pantograph equation has the form
$$
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&y'(t)=ay(t)+by(\lambda t),\,\,0\leq t\leq T\\
&y(0)=y_0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
where $0<\lambda<1$.
Recently, in [11], the authors considered the fractional version of the pantograph equation, namely
$$
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^\alpha u(t)=g(t,u(t),y(\lambda t)),\,\,0\leq t\leq T\\
&u(0)=u_0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
where $\alpha, \lambda\in (0,1)$ and $D_{0+}^\alpha$ denotes the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative. The main tool used in this study was the Banach contraction principle.
On the other hand, the following hybrid differential equation of first order
$$
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d}{dt} \left[\frac{x(t)}{f(t,x(t))}\right]=g(t,x(t)),\,\,0\leq t<T,\\
&x(t_0)=x_0
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
was studied in [12] under the assumptions $f\in C\left([0,T)\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\setminus\left\{0\right\}\right)$ and
$g\in C\left([0,T)\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\right)$.
In [13], the authors discussed the fractional version of the last equation, i.e.,
$$
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^\alpha \left[\frac{x(t)}{f(t,x(t))}\right]=g(t,x(t)),\,\,0\leq t\leq T\\
&x(0)=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
where $\alpha\in (0,1)$, $f\in C\left([0,T]\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\setminus\left\{0\right\}\right)$ and
$g\in C\left([0,T]\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\right)$, being a fixed point theorem in Banach algebras the main tool used by the authors.
Recently, in [14] the authors studied the following hybrid fractional pantograph equation
$$
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^\alpha \left[\frac{x(t)}{f(t,x(t),x(\mu t))}\right]=g(t,x(t),x(\sigma t)),\,\,0<t<1\\
&x(0)=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
where $\alpha, \mu, \sigma \in (0,1)$, $f\in C\left([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\setminus\left\{0\right\}\right)$ and
$g\in C\left([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\right)$, being a generalization of Darbo's fixed point theorem by using comparison functions the main tool used in the paper.
We also note work [15], where using a measure of non-compactness argument combined with the generalized version of Darbo's theorem, authors provide sufficient conditions for the existence of at least one solution to the functional equation
$$
x(t)=F\left(t,x(a(t)), \frac{f(t,x(b(t)))}{\Gamma_q(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t (t-qs)^{(\alpha-1)u(s,x(s))d_qs}\right),\,\,t\in I,
$$
where $\alpha>1, \,q\in (0,1), \,I=[0,1],\,f,u:\,[0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R},\,a,b:\, I\rightarrow I$ and $F:\, I\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
In this paper, we study the following hybrid generalized fractional pantograph equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^\alpha \left[\frac{x(t)}{f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))}\right]=g(t,x(t),x(\rho(t))),\,\,0<t<1\\
&x(0)=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\alpha\in (0,1)$, $\varphi,\,\rho:\, [0,1]\rightarrow [0,1]$ are given functions.
The main tools in our study are a fixed point theorem for the product of two operators and a generalization of Darbo's fixed point theorem.
\section{Basic facts about fractional calculus}
In this section, we recall some definitions and basic results about fractional calculus. These results appear in [1].
\textbf{Definition 1.} The Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of order $\alpha>0$ of a continuous function $f: (0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is given by
$$
D_{0+}^\alpha f(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(n-\alpha)} \left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)^{(n)}\int\limits_0^t \frac{f(s)}{(t-s)^{\alpha-n+1}}ds ,
$$
where $n=[\alpha]+1$, $[\alpha]$ denotes the integer part of $\alpha$ and $\Gamma$ denotes the classical gamma function, provided that the right side is point-wise defined on $(0,\infty))$.
\textbf{Definition 2.} The Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of order $\alpha>0$ of a continuous function $f: (0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined by
$$
I_{0+}^\alpha f(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \int\limits_0^t {(t-s)^{\alpha-1}}{f(s)}ds ,
$$
provided that the right side is point-wise defined on $(0,\infty))$.
\textbf{Lemma 1.} Suppose that $f\in L^1(0,1)$ and $0<\alpha<1$. Then
(i) $D_{0+}^\alpha I_{0+}^\alpha f(t)=f(t)$.
(ii) $I_{0+}^\alpha D_{0+}^\alpha f(t)=f(t)- \frac{I_{0+}^\alpha f(t)|_{t=0}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}t^{\alpha-1}$ a.e. in $(0,1)$.
\bigskip
Following the same argument which appears in the proof of Lema 2.4 of [14], the following lemma can be proved.
\textbf{Lemma 2.} Let $0<\alpha<1$ and suppose that $f\in C\left([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}\right)$ and $h\in C[0,1]$. Then the unique solution of the fractional hybrid initial value problem
$$
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^\alpha \left[\frac{x(t)}{f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))}\right]=h(t),\,\,0<t<1\\
&x(0)=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
where $\varphi:\, [0,1]\rightarrow [0,1]$ is a continuous function, is given by
$$
x(t)=\frac{f\left(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t))\right)}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t \frac{h(s)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds,\,\,t\in [0,1].
$$
\section{Background about measures of non-compactness}
In this section we present some facts and basic results about measures of non-compactness which will be used later.
Assume that $E$ is a real Banach space with nor $||\cdot||$ and the zero element $0$. By $B(x,r)$ we denote the closed ball in $E$ centered at $x$ with the radius $r$. By $B_r$ we denote the ball $B(0,r)$. If $X$ is non-empty subset of $E$, then $\overline{X}$ and $Conv X$ denote the closure and the closed convex closure of $X$, respectively. When $X$ is a bounded subset, $diam X$ denotes the diameter of $X$ and $||X||$ the quantity given by $||X||=sup\{||x||:\, x\in X\}$. Further, by $\mathfrak{M}_E$ we denote the family of the non-empty and bounded subsets of $E$ and by $\mathfrak{N}_E$ its subfamily consisting of the relatively compact subsets.
In the paper, we accept the following definition of measure of non-compactness which appears in [16].
\textbf{Definition 3.} A mapping $\mu:\, \mathfrak{M}_E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}=[0,\infty)$ will be called a measure of non-compactness in $E$ if it satisfies the following conditions:
$1^\circ.\,\,$ The family $Ker \mu =\{X\in \mathfrak{M}_E;\,\mu(X)=0\}$ is non-empty and $Ker \mu\in \mathfrak{N}_E$.
$2^\circ.\,\,$ $X\subset Y \Rightarrow \mu(X)\leq \mu(Y)$.
$3^\circ.\,\,$ $\mu(\overline{X})=\mu (Conv X)=\mu(X)$.
$4^\circ.\,\,$ $\mu (\lambda X+(1-\lambda)Y)\leq \lambda\mu(X)+(1-\lambda)\mu(Y)$ for $\lambda\in[0,1]$.
$5^\circ.\,\,$ If $(X_n)$ is a sequence of closed subsets of $\mathfrak{M}_E$ such that $X_{n+1}\subset X_n$ for $n=1,2,3,...,$ and $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\mu(X_n)=0$ then $X_\infty=\bigcap\limits_{n=1}^\infty X_n\neq \emptyset$.
The family $Ker \mu$ appearing in $1^\circ$ is called the kernel of the measure of non-compactness $\mu$. Notice that the set $X_\infty$ appearing in $5^\circ$ belongs to $Ker \mu$. Indeed, since $\mu(X_\infty)\subset \mu(X_n)$ for any $n=1,2,3,...,$ it follows that $\mu(X_\infty)\leq\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \mu(X_n)=0$.
In connection with measures of non-compactness, in [17] Darbo proved the following fixed point theorem.
\textbf{Theorem 1.} Let $\Omega$ be a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex subset of a Banach space $E$ and let $T:\,\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ be a continuous mapping. Suppose that there exists $k\in [0,1)$ such that
$$
\mu(TX)\leq k \mu(X),
$$
for any non-empty subset $X$ of $\Omega$, where $\mu$ is a measure of non-compactness in $E$. Then $T$ has a fixed point in $\Omega$.
Recently, some generalizations of Theorem 1 have appeared in the literature (see [18-21], for example). The following generalization of Darbo's fixed point theorem appears in [21] and it is the version in the context of measures of non-compactness of a recent result about fixed point theorem which appears in [22]. For the paper is self-contained, we present this result. Previously, we need to introduce the class $\mathfrak{F}$ of functions. By $\mathfrak{F}$ we denote the class of functions $\varphi:\, (0,\infty)\rightarrow (1,\infty)$ satisfying the following condition:
For any sequence $(t_n)\subset (0,\infty)$
$$
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\varphi(t_n)=1 \Leftrightarrow \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}t_n=0.
$$
Examples of functions belonging to the class of $\mathfrak{F}$ are $\varphi (t)=e^{\sqrt{t}}$, $\varphi(t)=2-\frac{2}{\pi}\arctan(\frac{1}{t^\alpha})$ with $0<\alpha<1$ [21] and $\varphi(t)=(1+t^2)^\beta$ with $\beta>0$.
\textbf{Theorem 2.} Let $\Omega$ be a nonempty, bounded, closed and convex subset of a Banach space $E$ and let $T:\,\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ be a continuous mapping. Suppose that there exist $\varphi\in \mathbb{F}$ and $k\in (0,1)$ such that, for any nonempty subset $X$ of $\Omega$ with $\mu(TX)>0$,
$$
\varphi\left(\mu(TX)\right)\leq \left(\varphi\left(\mu(X)\right)\right)^k,
$$
where $\mu$ is a measure of non-compactness in $E$. Then $T$ has a fixed point in $\Omega$.
Next, we introduce the following concept which appears in [23] which will be important for our purposes.
\textbf{Definition 4.} Let $E$ be a Banach algebra. A measure of non-compactness $\mu$ in $E$ said to satisfy condition (m) if it satisfies the following condition:
$$
\mu(XY)\leq ||X||\mu(Y)+||Y||\mu(X)
$$
for any $X, Y\in \mathfrak{M}_E$, where $XY=\{xy:\, x\in X, y\in Y\}$.
In the paper we work in the space $C[0,1]$ of the real functions defined and continuous on $[0,1]$, with the usual supremum norm given by
$||x||=\sup \{|x(t)|:\, t\in [0,1]\}$ for $x\in C[0,1]$. Notice that $\left(C[0,1], ||\cdot||\right)$ is a Banach algebra, where the multiplication is defined as the usual product of real functions.
Next, we present measure of non-compactness in $C[0,1]$ which will be used in our study. Fix a set $X\in \mathfrak{M}_{C[0,1]}$ and $\varepsilon>0$. For $x\in X$, by $w(x,\varepsilon)$ we denote the modulus of continuity of $x$, i.e.,
$$
w(x,\varepsilon)=\sup \{|x(t)-x(s)|:\, t,s\in[0,1], |t-s|\leq \varepsilon\}.
$$
Further, put
$$
w(X,\varepsilon)=\sup \{w(x,\varepsilon):\, x\in X\}
$$
and
$$
w_0(X)=\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}w(X,\varepsilon).
$$
In [16], it is proved that $w_0$ is a measure of non-compactness in $C[0,1]$.
\section{Main result}
Problem (\ref{eq1}) will be studied under the following assumptions:
\textbf{(H1):} $f\in C\left([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}\right)$ and $g\in C\left([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\right)$.
\textbf{(H2):} $\varphi,\rho: [0,1]\rightarrow [0,1]$ are continuous function.
\textbf{(H3):} The functions $f$ and $g$ satisfy
$$
\left|f(t,x_1,y_1)-f(t,x_2,y_2)\right|\leq \left(max (|x_1-x_2|, |y_1-y_2|)+1\right)^k-1
$$
and
$$
\left|g(t,x_1,y_1)-g(t,x_2,y_2)\right|\leq \left(max (|x_1-x_2|, |y_1-y_2|)+1\right)^r-1,
$$
respectively, for any $t\in [0,1]$ and $x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2\in \mathbb{R}$, where $k,r\in (0,1)$.
Notice that assumption (H1) gives us the existence of two nonnegative constants $K_1$ and $K_2$ such that
$$
K_1=sup\left\{|f(t,0,0)|: t\in [0,1]\right\},\,\,\,K_2=sup\left\{|g(t,0,0)|: t\in [0,1]\right\}.
$$
\textbf{(H4):} There exists $r_0>0$ such that
$$
\left((r_0+1)^k-1+K_1\right)\left((r_0+1)^r-1+K_2\right)\leq r_0\Gamma(\alpha+1)
$$
and
$$
(r_0+1)^r-1+K_2\leq \Gamma(\alpha+1).
$$
\textbf{Theorem 3.}
Under assumptions (H1)-(H4), Problem (\ref{eq1}) has at least one solution in $C[0,1]$.
\textbf{Proof:}
Consider the operator $\mathbb{T}$ defined on $C[0,1]$ by
$$
(\mathbb{T}x)(t)=\frac{f\left(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t))\right)}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds,
$$
for $x\in C[0,1]$ and $t\in [0,1]$
In virtue of Lemma 2.4, a fixed point of $\mathbb{T}$ gives us the desired result.
Let $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ be the operators defined on $C[0,1]$ by
$$
(\mathbb{F}x)(t)=f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))
$$
and
$$
(\mathbb{G}x)(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds,
$$
for any $x\in C[0,1]$ and $t\in [0,1]$.
Then $\mathbb{T}x=(\mathbb{F}x)\cdot(\mathbb{G}x)$ for any $x\in C[0,1]$.
For a better readability, we divide the proof in several steps.
\textbf{Step 1:} $\mathbb{T}$ applies $C[0,1]$ into itself.
In fact, since the product of continuous functions is a continuous function, it is sufficient to prove that $\mathbb{F}x, \mathbb{G}x\in C[0,1]$ for any $x\in C[0,1]$.
It is clear , by (H1) and (H2), that if $x\in C[0,1]$ then $\mathbb{F}x\in C[0,1]$. Next, we will prove that if
$x\in C[0,1]$ then $\mathbb{G}x\in C[0,1]$.
To do this, we fix $t_0\in [0,1]$ and let $(t_n)$ be a sequence in $[0,1]$ such that $t_n\rightarrow t_0$.
In fact, without loss of generality, we can suppose that $t_n>t_0$. Then,
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\left|(\mathbb{G}x)(t_n)-(\mathbb{G}x)(t_0)\right|=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left|\int\limits_0^{t_n}\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t_n-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds-\int\limits_0^{t_0}\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t_0-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\right|\leq\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left|\int\limits_0^{t_n}\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t_n-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds-\int\limits_0^{t_n}\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t_0-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\right|\\
&+\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left|\int\limits_0^{t_n}\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t_0-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds-\int\limits_0^{t_0}\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho (s)))}{(t_0-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^{t_n}\left|(t_n-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_0-s)^{\alpha-1}\right|\left|g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))\right|ds\\
&+\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_n}\left|t_0-s\right|^{\alpha-1}\left|g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))\right|ds.\\
\end{aligned}
$$
Since $g\in C\left([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}\right)$, $g$ will be bounded on the compact $[0,1]\times[-||x||, ||x||]\times [-||x||, \left\|x\right\|]$ and we put
$$
L=sup\left\{|g(s,x,y)|:\, s\in[0,1],\, x,y\in [-||x||, \left\|x\right\|]\right\}.
$$
From the last estimate, we get
$$
\left|(\mathbb{G}x)(t_n)-(\mathbb{G}x)(t_0)\right|\leq \frac{L}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^{t_n}\left|(t_n-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_0-s)^{\alpha-1}\right|ds+\frac{L}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_n}|t_0-s|^{\alpha-1}ds.
$$
Taking into account that $0<\alpha<1$ and $t_n>t_0$, we infer
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\left|(\mathbb{G}x)(t_n)-(\mathbb{G}x)(t_0)\right|\leq \\ &\frac{L}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left[\int\limits_0^{t_0}\left|(t_n-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_0-s)^{\alpha-1}\right|ds+\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_n}\left|(t_n-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_0-s)^{\alpha-1}\right|ds\right]+
\frac{L}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_n}|s-t_0|^{\alpha-1}ds\\
&=\frac{L}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left[\int\limits_0^{t_0}\left[(t_0-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_n-s)^{\alpha-1}\right]ds+
\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_n}\frac{ds}{(t_n-s)^{1-\alpha}}+\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_n}\frac{ds}{(s-t_0)^{1-\alpha}}\right]\\
&+\frac{L}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_n}\frac{ds}{(s-t_0)^{1-\alpha}}
<\frac{4L}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}(t_n-t_0)^\alpha,
\end{aligned}
$$
where we have used the fact that $t_0^\alpha-t_n^\alpha<0$.
From the last estimate, we deduce that $(\mathbb{G}x)(t_n)\rightarrow (\mathbb{G}x)(t_0)$ when $n\rightarrow \infty$. This proves that if $x\in C[0,1]$.
\textbf{Step 2:} An estimate of $||\mathbb{T}x||$ for $x\in C[0,1]$.
Fix $x\in C[0,1]$ and $t\in C[0,1]$. In view of assumptions, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|(\mathbb{T}x)(t)|=|(\mathbb{F}x)(t)|\cdot (\mathbb{G}x)(t)=|f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))|\cdot\left|\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\right|\\
&\leq \left[|f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))-f(t,0,0)|+|f(t,0,0)|\right]\times\\ &\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left|\int\limits_0^t\frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))-g(s,0,0)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds+\int\limits_0^t\frac{g(s,0,0)}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left[(max(|x(t)|,|x(\rho(t))|)+1)^k-1+K_1\right]\times\\
&\left[\int\limits_0^t\frac{(max(|x(s)|, |x(\varphi(s))|)+1)^r-1}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds+K_2\int\limits_0^t\frac{ds}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}\right]\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left[(max(||x||, ||x||)+1)^k-1+K_1\right]\left[(max(||x||, ||x||)+1)^r+K_2\right]\int\limits_0^t\frac{ds}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left[(||x||+1)^k-1+K_1\right]\left[(||x||+1)^r-1+K_2\right]\frac{t^\alpha}{\alpha}
\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\left[(||x||+1)^k-1+K_1\right]\left[(||x||+1)^r-1+K_2\right].
\end{aligned}
$$
Therefore,
$$
||\mathbb{T}x||\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\left[(||x||+1)^k-1+K_1\right]\left[(||x||+1)^r-1+K_2\right].
$$
By assumption (H4), we infer that the operator $\mathbb{T}$ applies $B_{r_0}$ into itself. Moreover, from the last estimates, it follows that
$$
||\mathbb{F} B_{r_0}||\leq (r_0+1)^k-1+K_1
$$
and
$$
||\mathbb{G} B_{r_0}||\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\left[(r_0+1)^r-1+K_2\right].
$$
\textbf{Step 3:} The operators $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ are continuous on the ball $B_{r_0}$.
In fact, firstly we prove that $\mathbb{F}$ is continuous on $B_{r_0}$. To do this, we fix $\varepsilon>0$ and we take $x,y\in B_{r_0}$ with $||x-y||\leq \varepsilon$. Then, for $t\in [0,1]$, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|(\mathbb{F}x)(t)-(\mathbb{F}y)(t)|=|f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))-f(t,y(t),y(\varphi(t)))|\\
&\leq (max(|x(t)-y(t)|, |x(\varphi(t))-y(\varphi(t))|)+1)^k-1\\
&\leq (max(||x-y||, ||x-y||+1)+1)^k-1=(||x-y||+1)^k-1\leq (\varepsilon+1)^k-1\\
\end{aligned}
$$
and, since $(\varepsilon+1)^k-1\rightarrow 0$ when $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, we have proved that $\mathbb{F}$ is continuous in $B_{r_0}$.
Next, we prove that $\mathbb{G}$ is continuous in $B_{r_0}$. In order to do this, we fix $\varepsilon>0$ and we take $x,y\in B_{r_0}$ with $||x-y||\leq \varepsilon$. Then, for $t\in [0,1]$, we get
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|(\mathbb{G}x)(t)-(\mathbb{G}y)(t)|=\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha)}\left|\int\limits_0^t \frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds-
\int\limits_0^t \frac{g(s,y(s),y(\rho(s)))}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t \frac{|g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))-g(s,y(s),y(\rho(s)))|}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t \frac{(max(|x(s)-y(s)|, |x(\rho(s))-y(\rho(s))|)+1)^r-1}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\\
&=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t \frac{(max(||x-y||, ||x-y||)+1)^r-1}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds
=\frac{\left[(||x-y||+1)^r-1\right]}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t(t-s)^{\alpha-1}ds\\
&=\frac{\left[(||x-y||+1)^r-1\right]}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\cdot\frac{t^\alpha}{\alpha}\leq \frac{(\varepsilon+1)^r-1}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}
\end{aligned}
$$
and, as $\frac{(\varepsilon+1)^r-1}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\rightarrow 0$ when $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, we have proved that $\mathbb{G}$ is continuous on $B_{r_0}$. Consequently, since $\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{F}\cdot \mathbb{G}$, it follows that $\mathbb{T}$ is continuous on $B_{r_0}$.
\textbf{Step 4:} Estimates of $\omega_0(\mathbb{F}X)$ and $\omega_0(\mathbb{G}X)$ for $\emptyset\neq X\subset B_{r_0}$.
Firstly, we estimate $\omega_0(\mathbb{F}X)$. For $\varepsilon>0$ given, since $\varphi:\, [0,1]\rightarrow [0,1]$ is uniformly continuous, we can find $\delta>0$ (which can be taken with $\delta<\varepsilon$) such that, for $|t_1-t_2|<\delta$ we have $|\varphi(t_1)-\varphi(t_2)|<\varepsilon$.
Now, we take $x\in X$ and $t_1, t_2\in [0,1]$ with $|t_1-t_2|\leq \delta<\varepsilon$. Then
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|(\mathbb{F}x)(t_1)-(\mathbb{F}x)(t_2)|=|f(t_1,x(t_1),x(\varphi(t_1)))-f(t_2,x(t_2),x(\varphi(t_2)))|\\
&\leq |f(t_1,x(t_1),x(\varphi(t_1)))-f(t_1,x(t_2),x(\varphi(t_2)))|+|f(t_1,x(t_2),x(\varphi(t_2)))-f(t_2,x(t_2),x(\varphi(t_2)))|\\
&\leq \left[(max(|x(t_1)-x(t_2)|, |x(\varphi(t_1))-x(\varphi(t_2))|)+1)^k-1\right]+w(f,\varepsilon)\\
&\leq \left[(w(X,\varepsilon)+1)^k-1\right]+w(f,\varepsilon),
\end{aligned}
$$
where $w(f,\varepsilon)$ denotes the quantity
$$
w(f,\varepsilon)=sup\left\{|f(t_1,x,y)-f(t_2,x,y)|:\, t_1,t_2\in [0,1],\, |t_1-t_2|\leq \delta,\, x,y\in [-r_0, r_0]\right\}.
$$
Therefore,
$$
w(\mathbb{F}X,\delta)\leq \left[(w(X,\varepsilon)+1)^k-1\right]+w(f,\varepsilon).
$$
Since $f(t,x,y)$ is uniformly continuous on the compact $[0,1]\times [-r_0, r_0]\times [-r_0, r_0]$, $w(f,\varepsilon)\rightarrow 0$ when $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, and, consequently, from the last inequality, we infer
$$
\omega_0(\mathbb{F}X)\leq \left[(\omega_0(X)+1)^k-1\right]
$$
Next, we estimate $\omega_0(\mathbb{G}X)$. Fix $\varepsilon>0$, and we take $x\in X$ and $t_1, t_2\in [0,1]$ with $|t_1-t_2|\leq \varepsilon$. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that $t_1<t_2$. Then, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|(\mathbb{G}x)(t_2)-(\mathbb{G}x)(t_1)|=\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha)}\left|\int\limits_0^{t_2} \frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t_2-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds-
-\int\limits_0^{t_1} \frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t_1-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha)}\left[\int\limits_0^{t_1}|(t_2-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_1-s)^{\alpha-1}||g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))|ds\right.\\
&\left.+\int\limits_{t_1}^{t_2}(t_2-s)^{\alpha-1}|g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))|ds\right]\\
&=\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha)}\left[\int\limits_0^{t_1}\left[(t_1-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_2-s)^{\alpha-1}\right]|g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))|ds\right.\\
&\left.+\int\limits_{t_1}^{t_2}(t_2-s)^{\alpha-1}|g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))|ds\right].
\end{aligned}
$$
Since $g(t,x,y)$ is continuous on $[0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$, it is bounded on the compact subset $[0,1]\times [-r_0, r_0]\times [-r_0, r_0]$. Put $M=sup\left\{|g(t,x,y):\, t\in [0,1],\, x,y\in [-r_0, r_0]\right\}$. then, from the last estimate, we infer that
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\left|(\mathbb{G}x)(t_2)-(\mathbb{G}x)(t_1)\right|=\frac{M}{\Gamma (\alpha)}\left[\int\limits_0^{t_1}\left[(t_1-s)^{\alpha-1}-(t_2-s)^{\alpha-1}\right]ds+
\int\limits_{t_1}^{t_2}(t_2-s)^{\alpha-1}ds\right]\\
&\leq \frac{M}{\Gamma (\alpha+1)}\left[(t_2-t_1)^\alpha+t_1^\alpha-t_2^\alpha+(t_2-t_1)^\alpha\right]\leq \frac{2M}{\Gamma (\alpha+1)}(t_2-t_1)^\alpha\leq \frac{2M}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\varepsilon^\alpha,
\end{aligned}
$$
where we have used the fact that $t_1^\alpha-t_2^\alpha\leq 0$. Therefore,
$$
w(\mathbb{G}x,\varepsilon)\leq \frac{2M}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\varepsilon^\alpha
$$
and this gives us $\omega_0(\mathbb{G}X)=0$.
\textbf{Step 5:} An estimate of $\omega_0(\mathbb{T}X)$ for $\emptyset\neq X\subset B_{r_0}$.
Taking into account that
$$
\omega_0(XY)\leq ||X||\omega_0(Y)+||Y||\omega_0(X)
$$
from the estimates obtained in steps 2 and 4, we deduce
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\omega_0(\mathbb{T}X)=\omega_0(\mathbb{F}X\cdot\mathbb{G}X)\leq ||\mathbb{F}X||\omega_0(\mathbb{G}X)+||\mathbb{G}X||\omega_0(\mathbb{F}X)\\
&\leq ||\mathbb{F}B_{r_0}||\omega_0(\mathbb{G}X)+||\mathbb{G}B_{r_0}||\omega_0(\mathbb{F}X)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\left[(r_0+1)^r-1+K_2\right]\left[(\omega_0(X)+1)^k-1\right].
\end{aligned}
$$
By assumption (H4), $\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}[(r_0+1)^r-1+K_2]\leq 1$ and, from the last estimate, we infer that
$$
\omega_0(\mathbb{T}X)\leq (\omega_0(X)+1)^k-1
$$
or, equivalently,
$$
\omega_0(\mathbb{T}X)+1\leq (\omega_0(X)+1)^k.
$$
Therefore, the contractive condition appearing in Theorem 1 is satisfied with $\varphi(t)=t+1$, where $\varphi\in \mathfrak{F}$. By Theorem 2, the operator $\mathbb{T}$ has at least one fixed point in $B_{r_0}$.
This completes the proof.
\section{Examples and comparison with other results}
In this section we present an example illustrating our results. Previously, we will need the following lemma:
\textbf{Lemma 3.} Let $\varphi:\, [0,\infty)\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ be the function defined by $\varphi(t)=(t+1)^k-1$ for $t\in [0,\infty)$, where $k\in (0,1)$. then, we have
(a) $\varphi$ is nondecreasing;
(b) $|\varphi(t)-\varphi(t')|\leq \varphi(|t-t'|)$ for any $t,t'\in [0,\infty)$.
\textbf{Proof:}
(a) It is clear since $\varphi'(t)=k(t+1)^{k-1}>0$ for $t\in [0,\infty)$.
(b) Since $\varphi''(t)=k(k-1)(t+1)^{k-2}<0$ for $t\in [0,\infty)$, $\varphi$ is a concave function. Moreover, $\varphi(0)=0$.
It is a well known fact that the concavity of $\varphi$ and $\varphi(0)=0$ imply the subadditivity of the function $\varphi$, i.e.
$\varphi(t+t')\leq \varphi(t)+\varphi(t')$ for any $t,t'\in [0,\infty)$.
In order to prove (b), we can suppose without loss of generality that $t<t'$. Then
$$
\varphi(t')=\varphi(t'-t+t)\leq \varphi(t'-t)+\varphi(t)
$$
and, consequently, $\varphi(t')-\varphi(t)\leq \varphi(t'-t)$ and this proves (b).
\textbf{Example 1.} Consider the following fractional hybrid problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^{1/2} \left[\frac{x(t)}{\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|x(t)|}+\sqrt[4]{1+\left|x\left(\frac{t}{1+t}\right)\right|}\right)}\right]\\
&=\frac{1}{\beta}
\left[\sqrt[3]{1+|x(t)|}+\sqrt[3]{1+\left|x\left(arctg t\right)\right|}\right],\,0<t<1\\
&x(0)=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\alpha,\beta>0$.
Notice that Problem (2) is a particular case of Problem (1), with $\alpha=1/2, \varphi(t)=\frac{t}{1+t}$, $\rho(t)=arctg t,$ $f(t,x,y)=\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|x|}+\sqrt[4]{1+|y|}\right)$ and $g(t,x,y)=\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\sqrt[3]{1+|x|}+\sqrt[3]{1+|y|}\right)$.
It is clear that assumptions (H1) and (H2) of the Theorem 3 are satisfied. On the other hand, for any $t\in [0,1]$ and $x,y,x_1,y_1\in \mathbb{R}$, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|f(t,x,y)-f(t,x_1,y_1)|=\left|\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|x|}+\sqrt[4]{1+|y|}\right)-\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|x_1|}+\sqrt[4]{1+|y_1|}\right)\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\alpha}\left|\sqrt[4]{1+|x|}-\sqrt[4]{1+|x_1|}\right|+\frac{1}{\alpha}\left|\sqrt[4]{1+|y|}-\sqrt[4]{1+|y_1|}\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|x|}-1\right)-\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|x_1|}-1\right)+\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|y|}-1\right)-\left(\sqrt[4]{1+|y_1|}-1\right)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\sqrt[4]{||x|-|x_1||+1}-1\right)+\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\sqrt[4]{||y|-|y_1||+1}-1\right)\\
&\leq \frac{2}{\alpha}
\left(\sqrt[4]{max(|x-x_1|, |y-y_1|)+1}-1\right),
\end{aligned}
$$
where we have used Lemma 3.
By using a similar argument, we can prove
$$
|g(t,x,y)-g(t,x_1,y_1)|\leq \frac{2}{\beta}
\left(\sqrt[3]{max(|x-x_1|, |y-y_1|)+1}-1\right)
$$
for any $t\in [0,1]$ and $x,y,x_1,y_1\in \mathbb{R}$.
Therefore, assumption (H3) of the Theorem 3 is satisfied when $\alpha,\beta\geq 2$ with $k=1/4$ and $r=1/3$.
In our case, $K_1=sup\{|f(t,0,0)|:\, t\in[0,1]\}=\frac{2}{\alpha}$ and $K_2=sup\{|g(t,0,0)|:\, t\in[0,1]\}=\frac{2}{\beta}$.
The inequality appearing in (H4) of Theorem 3 has the expression
$$
\left((r_0+1)^{1/4}-1+\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)\left((r_0+1)^{1/3}-1+\frac{2}{\beta}\right)\leq r_0\Gamma(3/2).
$$
For $\alpha=4$ and $\beta=3$, we have
$$
\left((r_0+1)^{1/4}-\frac{1}{2}\right)\left((r_0+1)^{1/3}-\frac{12}{3}\right)\leq r_0\Gamma(3/2).
$$
This inequality is satisfied for $r_0=0.8$. Moreover,
$$
\left((r_0+1)^{1/3}-\frac{1}{3}\right)=\sqrt[3]{1.8}-1/3\cong 0.8832\leq \Gamma(3/2)=0.8862.
$$
Therefore, Problem (2) has at least one solution $x(t)\in C[0,1]$ for $\alpha=4$ and $\beta=3$ with $||x||\leq 0.8$.
\bigskip
An interesting question is the non-oscillatory character of the solutions of Problem (\ref{eq1}), i.e., that the solutions of Problem (\ref{eq1}) have a constant sign. Notice that if $f(t,x,y)$ and $g(t,x,y)$ have the same sign (this means that $f(t,x,y)>0$ and $g(t,x,y)\geq 0$ or $f(t,x,y)$ and $g(t,x,y)\leq 0$ for any $t\in [0,1]$ and $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$) and assumptions of Theorem 3 are satisfied, then the solutions $x(t)$ of Problem (1) are nonnegative due to the fact that these solutions satisfy the integral equation
$$
x(t)=\frac{f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t \frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds,\, 0\leq t\leq 1.
$$
In connection with the above-mentioned question, we have the following result.
\textbf{Proposition 1.} Under assumptions of Theorem 3 and suppose that $g(t,x,y)$ has constant sign and $g(t,x,y)\neq 0$ for $t\in[0,1]$ and $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$, we have that the solution $x(t)$ of Problem (1) obtained in Theorem 3 satisfies that $x(t)\neq 0$ for $0<t<1$.
\textbf{Proof:} Suppose the contrary case. Then we can find $t^*\in (0,1)$ with $x(t^*)=0$. Since $x(t)$ satisfies the last integral equation, we have
$$
0=x(t^*)=\frac{f(t^*,x(t^*),x(\varphi(t^*)))}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int\limits_0^{t^*} \frac{g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))}{(t^*-s)^{1-\alpha}}ds.
$$
Taking into account that $f(t,x,y)\neq 0$ for any $t\in [0,1]$ and $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ we infer that
$$
\int\limits_0^{t^*} (t^*-s)^{1-\alpha}g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))ds=0.
$$
Since $g(t,x,y)$ has constant sign and $(t^*-s)^{1-\alpha}>0$ for $s\in [0,t^*)$ it follows that
$$
g(s,x(s),x(\rho(s)))=0\,\,\,\,a.e. \, s\in [0,t^*).
$$
This contradicts the fact that $g(t,x,y)\neq 0$ for any $(t,x,y)\in [0,1]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}$. Therefore, $x(t)\neq 0$ for $t\in (0,1)$.
As an application of Bolzano's theorem, we have the following corollary.
\textbf{Corollary 1.} Under assumptions of Proposition 2, the solution $x(t)$ of Problem (1) obtained in Theorem 3 satisfies that $x(t)>0$ for $t\in (0,1)$ or $x(t)<0$ for $t\in (0,1)$.
\bigskip
On the other hand, if we perturb the data function in Problem (1) of the following way
$$
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^\alpha \left[\frac{x(t)}{f(t,x(t),x(\varphi(t)))}\right]=g(t,x(t), x(\rho(t)))+\eta(t),\,0<t<1\\
&x(0)=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
where $\eta\in C[0,1]$, $\alpha\in (0,1),\varphi,\rho\in C[0,1]$, $f\in C\left([0,1]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}\right)$, and
$g\in C\left([0,1]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$. In this case, assumptions (H1), (H2) and (H3) of Theorem 3 if $f(t,x,y)$ and $g(t,x,y)$ satisfy (H3) of Theorem 3 and, only, we would have to check assumption (H4). This fact makes that Theorem 2 is applicable to a great number of cases.
In the sequel, we compare our results with ones appearing in the literature. In [13], the authors studied the fractional hybrid differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&D_{0+}^\alpha \left[\frac{x(t)}{f(t,x(t))}\right]=g(t,x(t)),\,\,a.e.\, t\in [0,1]\\
&x(0)=0
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
under the following conditions:
\textbf{(i)} $\alpha\in(0,1),\,f\in C\left([0,1]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}\right)$ and $g\in C\left([0,1]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$.
\textbf{(ii)} The function $x\rightarrow\frac{x}{f(t,x)}$ is increasing in $\mathbb{R}$ almost everywhere for $t\in [0,1]$.
\textbf{(iii)} There exists a constant $L>0$ such that
$$
|f(t,x)-f(t,y)|\leq L|x-y|,
$$
for any $t\in [0,1]$ and $x,y,\in \mathbb{R}$.
\textbf{(iv)} There exists a function $h\in L^1\left([0,1],\mathbb{R}_+\right)$ such that
$|g(t,x)|\leq h(t)$ a.e. $t\in [0,1]$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$.
\textbf{(v)}
$$
\frac{L ||h||_{L^1}}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}<1.
$$
In the above-mentioned paper, the authors proved the following theorem.
\textbf{Theorem 4.} Under assumptions (i)-(v), Problem (3) has a solution in $C[0,1]$.
\bigskip
It is clear that Problem (3) is a particular case of Problem (1) where the functions $f(t,x,y)$ and $g(t,x,y)$ are independent of $y$.
Notice that if in Example 1 we consider as $f(t,x,y)=\frac{1}{\alpha}\sqrt[4]{1+|x|}$ and $g(t,x,y)=\frac{1}{\beta}\sqrt[3]{1+|x|}$, then this variant of Example 1 can be studied by Theorem 3 while it cannot be treated by Theorem 4 since the function $g(t,x)=\frac{1}{\beta}\sqrt[3]{1+|x|}$ does not satisfy assumption (iv) of Theorem 4.
\section{Acknowledgement}
This joint work was done during the visit of the second author (Karimov E.T.) at ULPGC, supported by ERASMUSMUNDUS TIMUR project (Academic Staff mobility). The third author was partially supported by the project MTM2013-44357-P.
\textit{Bibliography.}
|
\section{Introduction}
Fault-tolerant quantum computing requires that the fidelities of elementary quantum logic gates exceed certain thresholds~\cite{Nielsen:2011:QCQ:1972505}. These fidelity thresholds depend on the architecture. However, even for the most forgiving cases the threshold is high; therefore, reaching and exceeding it is an extraordinarily difficult task. The implementation of high-fidelity quantum operations is also relevant, although to a lesser extent, in other quantum technologies, including quantum communication and sensing. Qualitatively speaking, the fidelity of a gate depends on the ratio between the quantum coherence time and the gate time, implying two approaches to increase gate fidelities: increasing coherence times and reducing gate times.
In most qubit architectures, single-qubit gates are implemented by applying an oscillating field that is resonant with the qubit transition frequency. Most of the experiments and theoretical studies on such gates were performed with a driving strength that is significantly smaller than the qubit transition frequency. In this weak-driving regime, the qubit undergoes Rabi oscillations between the two energy eigenstates at a rate that is proportional to the driving strength. This situation is described rather accurately using the rotating wave approximation~\cite{Rabi} (RWA), which predicts sinusoidal oscillations between the energy eigenstates.
With strong driving, the RWA breaks down and the dynamics becomes very complex.
Despite the increased complexity in controlling dynamics, the strong driving regime is interesting because it brings the opportunity to implement advanced quantum control~\cite{Warren1581, Alessandro, Khaneja2001, BrumerShapiro200303, vandersypen_2004_revNMR} and achieve faster quantum operations than in the weak driving regime.
A two-level quantum system (or a qubit) driven by strong resonant pulses has been studied experimentally using NV centers in diamond~\cite{Fuchs:2009ca, scheuer_precise_2014}, semiconductor quantum dots~\cite{Petta669, gaudreau2012coherent, Stehlik2012} and superconducting circuits~\cite{Nakamura:2001cr, Chiorescu2004, saito_2004_multiphoton,Oliver:2005rK, Sillanpaeae_2006_LZCPB, Saito2006, Wilson:2007dd, izmalkov_2008_coupledqubits, sun_2009_LZ, Tuorila2010, Silveri:2014t_, Yoshihara:2014db, Deng2015, shytov_2003_interferometry, Ashhab:2007ep, Shevchenko:2010hf}. In a few experiments~\cite{Fuchs:2009ca, Chiorescu2004, Deng2015}, the qubit population exhibits complex dynamics containing a few frequency components, as the driving strength approaches or exceeds the qubit transition frequency, a signature of the breakdown of the RWA. Therefore, for the proper design of quantum gates in this regime, different theoretical methods are required. Floquet theory~\cite{Shirley:1965sI}, which provides a general framework for treating periodically driven quantum systems with any driving strength, is the natural method for analyzing strong-driving dynamics. In Ref.~\onlinecite{Deng2015}, the quasienergies and quasienergy states (hereafter referred to as Floquet states), as predicted by Floquet theory, were observed in a strongly driven superconducting qubit. Moreover, the observed dynamics pointed to the important role that the pulse shape plays in the qubit evolution, as determined by adiabaticity conditions in the Floquet picture.
In this paper, we perform a comprehensive theoretical analysis of qubit dynamics under strong resonant pulses using Floquet theory. We derive approximate analytical expressions for the quasienergies and Floquet states as functions of the driving amplitude for the practically important case where the qubit is biased at its symmetry point. We then analyze the qubit dynamics induced by a driving pulse, obtained by modulating the amplitude of a periodic signal. The quantum state of the qubit is naturally expressed as a superposition of Floquet states. The occupation probabilities of the Floquet states remain fixed as long as the driving strength is fixed, but they can change when the pulse envelope varies in time. We analyze the qubit dynamics using a representation of its state in the Floquet picture~\cite{Drese:1999tq, Guerin2003}. When the change in the driving strength is slow, the occupation probabilities of the Floquet states remain almost constant, although the Floquet states themselves change in accordance with the instantaneous driving strength. The quantum superposition of the Floquet states acquires a phase that depends on the evolution of the quasienergies over time. This acquired phase corresponds to a qubit state rotation, generalizing the notion of Rabi oscillations to the case of large driving amplitudes. However, a pulse with slowly varying amplitude corresponds to relatively slow quantum gates. We therefore analyze the dynamics with short pulses, when in general nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet states cannot be neglected. We find that with suitable pulse parameters the nonadiabatic transitions can be largely suppressed. This effect provides the basis of Floquet Interference Efficient Suppression of Transitions in the Adiabatic basis (FIESTA), a method to optimize quantum gates with strong driving. Finally, we show that FIESTA can be used to implement high-fidelity single-qubit operations in very short times, significantly alleviating the effect of decoherence.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec:Floquet}, we derive expressions for the quasienergies and Floquet states of a qubit biased at the symmetry point under harmonic driving with arbitrary strength. In Sec.~\ref{sec:adiabatic_theory}, we describe the adiabatic theory in the Floquet picture and derive the adiabatic condition. In Sec.~\ref{sec:adiabatic}, we use the adiabatic theory in the Floquet picture to describe the quantum state evolution effected by pulses with slowly varying amplitude. In Sec.~\ref{sec:nonadiabatic}, we present a quantitative analysis of the nonadiabatic transitions between the Floquet states when the amplitude of the pulse changes rapidly. In Sec.~\ref{sec:gates}, we calculate the fidelities of single-qubit gates optimized so as to suppress nonadiabatic transitions. In Sec.~\ref{sec:OQC}, we discuss the connections between FIESTA and other optimal quantum control methods. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} contains concluding remarks.
\section{Floquet theory for a driven qubit} \label{sec:Floquet}
In this section we discuss the quasienergies and Floquet states of a qubit driven with a single-frequency tone. Some of the results in this section have been presented in our previous paper~\cite{Deng2015} and are included here for completeness. We start with a general model in which a qubit is driven by a harmonic field. The Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Hamstart}
H = - \frac{\Delta}{2} \sigma_z + A \cos \left( \omega t +\phi \right) \sigma_x,
\end{equation}
with $\sigma_\alpha$ ($\alpha= x,y,z$) the Pauli matrices. The ground ($\ket{0}$) and excited ($\ket{1}$) states are ordered such that $\sigma_z\ket{0}=\ket{0}$ and $\sigma_z\ket{1}=-\ket{1}$. The Hamiltonian in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hamstart}) is written under the standard convention where in the absence of driving the energy eigenstates are the ground and excited states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$. In a frame rotating about the $z$ axis with frequency $\omega$, the Hamiltonian is:
\ba \label{eq:HamRF}
H_{\text{RF}} = &-\frac{\Delta-\omega}{2}\sigma_z \nonumber \\
&+ A \cos(\omega t + \phi) \left(\cos(\omega t)\sigma_x + \sin(\omega t)\sigma_y \right).
\ea
In the weak driving limit ($A\ll\omega$), the terms in Eq.~\eq{HamRF} oscillating at frequencies $2\omega$ can be ignored under RWA. With this approximation the Hamiltonian is given by
\be \label{eq:HRWA}
H_{\text{RWA}} = -\frac{\Delta-\omega}{2}\sigma_z + \frac{A}{2}(\cos\phi\,\sigma_x + \sin\phi\,\sigma_y).
\ee
This is a well-known time-independent Hamiltonian representing a spin-1/2 particle precessing in a magnetic field. In this paper, we will analyze the dynamics under the more general Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eq{Hamstart}, for large driving amplitude. We will refer to Eq.~\eq{HRWA} while connecting the general driven dynamics to the special cases in the well-known weak driving regime. For simplicity, we will treat Eq.~\eq{Hamstart} under $\phi = 0$ in the remainder of this section. Our derivation can be easily generalized to arbitrary $\phi$.
Another alternative form of Eq.~\eq{Hamstart}, which is related to it by a $\pi/2$ rotation about the $y$ axis, is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Hamrotated}
H_{\rm rot} = - \frac{\Delta}{2} \sigma_x - A \cos \left( \omega t \right) \sigma_z.
\end{equation}
This form is convenient for our analytical derivations for the quasienergies and Floquet states (in which we will closely follow Ref.~\onlinecite{Son:2009eg}), and we shall therefore use this form of the Hamiltonian in the remainder of this section.
According to Floquet theory, for a periodic Hamiltonian there exist solutions to the Schr\"odinger equation of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:generalfloquet}
\ket{\psi_{F,j}(t)} = e^{-i\epsilon_jt} \ket{u_j(t)},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_j$ are the quasienergies and $\ket{u_j(t)}$, to which we shall refer as Floquet modes, are periodic with the periodicity of the Hamiltonian. Because of the periodicity, we can write
\begin{equation}
\ket{u_j(t)} = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{in\omega t} \ket{u_{j,n}},
\label{eq:BasicFormOfFloquetStates}
\end{equation}
with $\omega=2\pi/T$, where $T$ is the period of the Hamiltonian, and the state Fourier components $\ket{u_{j,n}}$ are vectors in the Hilbert space of the system. Each Fourier coefficient $\ket{u_{j,n}}$ contains two complex numbers corresponding to the states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$: $ \ket{u_{j,n}} = \left( u_{j,n,0} \ket{0} + u_{j,n,1} \ket{1} \right)$. The index $j$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:generalfloquet}) takes a number of values equal to the dimension of the Hilbert space. Importantly, the Floquet states form a complete basis, such that any quantum state can be expressed as a superposition of Floquet states. With a fixed driving strength, the solution of the Schr\"odinger~ equation is a superposition of Floquet states with fixed coefficients.
Substituting Eqs.~\eq{generalfloquet} and \eq{BasicFormOfFloquetStates} in the time-dependent Schr\"odinger~ equation for a qubit with the Hamiltonian given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hamrotated}), we find the relation
\ba
\epsilon_j \ket{u_{j,n}} = &\left( - \frac{\Delta}{2} \sigma_x + n\omega \right) \ket{u_{j,n}} \nonumber \\
&- \frac{A}{2} \sigma_z \left( \ket{u_{j,n-1}} + \ket{u_{j,n+1}} \right).
\ea
The above set of equations can be expressed as a single equation:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_j \ket{U_j} = H_F \ket{U_j}
\end{equation}
where $U_j$ is the vector $\{\dots , u_{j,n-1,0} , u_{j,n-1,1} , u_{j,n,0} , u_{j,n,1} , u_{j,n+1,0} , u_{j,n+1,1} , \dots \}$, and
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
H_F = \left(
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\ddots & & & & & & & \\
& (n-1) \omega & -\frac{\Delta}{2} & -\frac{A}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \\
& {-\frac{\Delta}{2}} & (n-1) \omega & 0 & {\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & 0 & \\
& {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & n \omega & {-\frac{\Delta}{2}} & {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & \\
& 0 & {\frac{A}{2}} & {-\frac{\Delta}{2}} & n \omega & 0 & {\frac{A}{2}} & \\
& 0 & 0 & {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & (n+1) \omega & {-\frac{\Delta}{2}} & \\
& 0 & 0 & 0 & {\frac{A}{2}} & {-\frac{\Delta}{2}} & (n+1) \omega & \\
& & & & & & & \ddots
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq:FloquetHamiltonian}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
is known as the Floquet Hamiltonian.
To solve for the eigenvalues and eigenstates of $H_F$, we perform a basis transformation to a rotating frame with a time-dependent rotation frequency and truncate the transformed Floquet Hamiltonian to a $2\times 2$ matrix. The detailed derivation can be found in Appendix~\ref{appendix}. We obtain the eigenvalues (i.e. the quasienergies):
\ba
\epsilon_0 & = \frac{1}{2} \left( - \omega - \sqrt{ \left[ \omega - \Delta J_0\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) \right]^2 + \Delta^2 J_1^2\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) } \right), \nonumber \\
\epsilon_1 & = \frac{1}{2} \left( - \omega + \sqrt{ \left[ \omega - \Delta J_0\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) \right]^2 + \Delta^2 J_1^2\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) } \right). \label{eq:QuasienergiesAnalytical}
\ea
In the basis of Eq.~\eq{Hamrotated}, the eigenvectors are given by:
\ba
\ket{u_{0,n}} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{array}{c} {\cos\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n+1}\left(\frac{A}{\omega}\right) + \sin\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n}\left(\frac{A}{\omega}\right)} \\ \\ {-\cos\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n+1}\left(-\frac{A}{\omega}\right) + \sin\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n}\left(-\frac{A}{\omega}\right)} \end{array} \right), \nonumber \\
\ket{u_{1,n}} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{array}{c} {-\sin\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n+1}\left(\frac{A}{\omega}\right) + \cos\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n}\left(\frac{A}{\omega}\right)} \\ \\ {\sin\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n+1}\left(-\frac{A}{\omega}\right) + \cos\frac{\theta}{2}J_{n}\left(-\frac{A}{\omega}\right)} \end{array} \right), \label{eq:PeriodicPartsOfFloquetStatesOriginalBasis}
\ea
with
\begin{equation}
\tan\theta = \frac{\Delta J_1\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right)}{\omega - \Delta J_0\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right)}. \label{eq:theta}
\end{equation}
The Rabi frequency is given by the difference between the two quasienergies (see Eq.~\eq{QuasienergiesAnalytical}):
\begin{equation}
\Omega_R = \sqrt{ \left[ \omega - \Delta J_0\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) \right]^2 + \Delta^2 J_1^2\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) }.
\label{eq:RabiFrequencyAnalyticalFormula}
\end{equation}
In the case of exact resonance (i.e.~$\omega=\Delta$), we obtain the expression
\begin{equation}
\Omega_R = \omega \sqrt{ \left[ 1 - J_0\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) \right]^2 + J_1^2\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) }.
\label{eq:RabiFrequencyAnalyticalFormulaResonantCase}
\end{equation}
This expression reduces to the well-known expressions in the weak- and strong-driving limits: when $A/\omega\rightarrow 0$ we obtain $\Omega_R = A$, and when $A/\omega\rightarrow\infty$ we obtain $\Omega_R=\omega \left| 1 - J_0\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right) \right|$, which upon shifting by $\omega$ gives $\Omega_R=-J_0\left(\frac{2A}{\omega}\right)$ (and the minus sign here is physically insignificant because it is the absolute value of this expression that gives the meaningful frequency).
It is worth noting that Ref.~\onlinecite{Lue2012} has an expression for the Rabi frequency that resembles Eq.~(\ref{eq:RabiFrequencyAnalyticalFormulaResonantCase}). The approach used there, however, is designed to extend the regime of validity from the weak-coupling limit to somewhat large driving strengths, and it breaks down in the strong-driving limit. In contrast, our results are most accurate in the weak- and strong-driving limits, with some deviation from the exact results at intermediate values of $A$. Furthermore, the approach of Ref.~\onlinecite{Lue2012} relies on a numerical evaluation of one of the parameters in the argument of the Bessel functions, while our approach is purely analytical.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{fig1}
\caption{(a) The quasienergies as functions of driving amplitude $A$. The black and red lines are quasienergies which correspond to the two inequivalent quasienergies, $\epsilon_{0}$ and $\epsilon_{1}$ respectively. The solid lines are obtained from numerically solving the Schr\"odinger~ equation and is essentially exact. The dashed lines are the approximate analytical expressions given by Eq.~\eq{QuasienergiesAnalytical}. (b) The fidelity of the analytical expression for the Floquet modes given by Eq.~\eq{PeriodicPartsOfFloquetStatesOriginalBasis} with respect to the exact Floquet states, which are evaluated by a numerical integration of the Schr\"odinger~ equation, as a function of $A$. Away from the first two zeros of $J_0(2A/\omega)$, and in particular for both the weak and the strong driving limits, the analytical formulae give good approximations for the quasienergies and the Floquet modes. The vertical dotted line in (b) marks the point of maximum deviation between the analytical and the exact Floquet modes.}
\label{fig:ComparisonBetweenAnalyticalFormulaAndExactResults}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ComparisonBetweenAnalyticalFormulaAndExactResults}, we plot the quasienergies obtained from Eq.~\eq{QuasienergiesAnalytical} and compare them with those obtained from diagonalizing a $100\times 100$ truncated version of the Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eq{FloquetHamiltonian}. We also plot the fidelity $F$ of the Floquet modes obtained from Eq.~\eq{PeriodicPartsOfFloquetStatesOriginalBasis} with the exact Floquet modes:
\begin{equation}
F = \left| \langle\langle u_{0,\rm analytical}(t) | u_{0,\rm exact}(t) \rangle\rangle \right|^2,
\label{eq:FloquetModeFidelity}
\end{equation}
where we have used the definition
\begin{equation}
\langle\langle \cdot \rangle\rangle = \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} dt \langle \cdot \rangle.
\label{eq:TimeIntegratedInnerProduct}
\end{equation}
The analytical formula for the quasienergies agrees very well with the numerical (and essentially exact) results, except for small errors around the locations of the Floquet-state degeneracy points. The Floquet modes agree reasonably well with the exact results for most values of the driving strength. It should be noted here that a fidelity of 0.93 is not very high when dealing with qubit states: in the time-independent case, this value of the fidelity corresponds to an angle of 30 degrees in the Bloch sphere representation. This difference in the quality of the approximation for the quasienergies and Floquet modes can be understood by considering (non-degenerate) perturbation theory. Perturbations that appear as off-diagonal matrix elements in the Hamiltonian modify the quantum states at the first order but modify the energies only at the second order. In our case these perturbations are the matrix elements that we ignored when we truncated the Floquet Hamiltonian to a $4\times 4$ matrix. For example, taking into consideration the fact that $|J_1(2A/\omega)|$ has maxima of magnitude $\sim 0.5$, we can estimate that an off-diagonal perturbation of magnitude $\delta H \sim\omega J_1(2A/\omega)/2$ coupling a quantum state to another one that is $\sim\omega$ in energy away should give a fidelity between the perturbed and unperturbed states of about $1-\delta F$ where $\delta F\sim\left(\delta H/\omega\right)^2\sim 0.06$, which agrees with the values plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:ComparisonBetweenAnalyticalFormulaAndExactResults}.
As one can see in Fig.~\ref{fig:ComparisonBetweenAnalyticalFormulaAndExactResults}, there are points where the quasienergies are degenerate, including the point $A=0$. Any superposition of two Floquet states that have the same quasienergy is also a Floquet state, meaning that at these degeneracy points there is ambiguity (and freedom) in how to define the Floquet modes. Since in this paper we are interested in the dynamics under the influence of short pulses with a varying amplitude $A$, the natural definition of the Floquet modes is obtained by considering the path that the pulse takes in parameter space approaching or moving away from any of the degeneracy points. In particular, for a resonant pulse (i.e.~with $\omega=\Delta$) starting from $A=0$ the Floquet states at the initial time should be defined by taking the limit $A\rightarrow 0$. The degeneracy of Floquet states at finite values of $A$ is a result of the symmetry $\cos(\omega(t+T/2))=-\cos(\omega t)$ in the sinusoidal driving waveform that we consider here~\cite{Creffield_2003_FloquetCrossings}. If we modify the waveform and the symmetry is lifted, the quasienergy crossings will turn into avoided crossings.
Before concluding this section, we address a rather surprising aspect in our analysis. Obtaining the expression for the Rabi frequency that is valid in the weak-driving limit was more difficult than obtaining the expression that is valid in the strong-driving limit, although the former limit is generally considered to be the simpler of the two limits. The reason is that we followed a derivation that is well suited for the strong-driving limit and modified it in order to extend its validity to the weak-driving limit. If we were interested in the weak-driving limit only, we could have started the derivation differently and written $H_F$ in Eq.~\eq{FloquetHamiltonian} in the basis $\{\dots , u_{j,n-1,+} , u_{j,n-1,-} , u_{j,n,+} , u_{j,n,-} , u_{j,n+1,+} , \dots \}$ with $\ket{+}=\left(\ket{0}+\ket{1}\right)/\sqrt{2}$ and $\ket{-}=\left(\ket{0}-\ket{1}\right)/\sqrt{2}$:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
H_F = \left(
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\ddots & & & & & & & \\
& {(n-1) \omega - \frac{\Delta}{2}} & 0 & 0 & {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & 0 & \\
& 0 & {(n-1) \omega + \frac{\Delta}{2}} & {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & 0 & 0& \\
& 0 & {-\frac{A}{2}} & {n \omega - \frac{\Delta}{2}} & 0 & 0 & {-\frac{A}{2}} & \\
& {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & 0 & {n \omega + \frac{\Delta}{2}} & {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & \\
& 0 & 0 & 0 & {-\frac{A}{2}} & {(n+1) \omega - \frac{\Delta}{2}} & 0 & \\
& 0 & 0 & {-\frac{A}{2}} & 0 & 0 & {(n+1) \omega + \frac{\Delta}{2}} & \\
& & & & & & & \ddots
\end{array}
\right).
\label{eq:FloquetHamiltonianInSigmaXBasis}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
Near resonance (i.e.~when $\omega=\Delta+\delta$ with $\delta\ll\Delta$) one can obtain a good approximation of the quasienergies and Floquet modes by truncating $H_F$ to the $ 2\times 2$ matrix
\begin{equation}
H_F = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\frac{\Delta}{2}} & {-\frac{A}{2}} \\
{-\frac{A}{2}} & {\frac{\Delta}{2} + \delta} \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
which gives the well known expression for the Rabi frequency $\Omega_R=\sqrt{A^2+\delta^2}$. This derivation is indeed simpler than the one that we have followed above. It is not obvious, however, how one could modify this derivation and extend its validity to the strong-driving limit.
\section{Schr\"odinger~ Equation and nonadiabatic transitions in the Floquet picture} \label{sec:adiabatic_theory}
We start this section by giving a derivation of the Schr\"odinger equation in the Floquet basis. Before any manipulation, the equation reads
\begin{equation}
i \frac{d}{dt} \ket{\psi(t)} = H \ket{\psi(t)}.
\label{eq:SchroedingerEquation}
\end{equation}
Inspired by the fact that when $A$ is independent of time the probability amplitudes of the Floquet states are also time independent, we express the quantum state $\ket{\psi(t)}$ as a superposition in the instantaneous Floquet basis:
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi(t)} = \sum_j c_j(t) \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)}, \label{eq:evolution}
\end{equation}
where $\ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)}$ is the Floquet state with index $j$ taken at time $t$ and $A$ is assumed to implicitly depend on time. Differentiating this expression with respect to time, we find an alternative expression for the derivative on the left-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:SchroedingerEquation}):
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} \ket{\psi(t)} = \sum_j \left\{ \frac{dc_j(t)}{dt} \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)} + c_j(t) \frac{dA}{dt} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)} + c_j(t) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)} \right\}.
\label{eq:ExpansionOfPsiDot}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
We now note that the partial derivative in the last term corresponds to the full derivative of the Floquet states with respect to time assuming that $A$ remains constant in time. With this point in mind, we know that the Floquet states are solutions of the Schr\"odinger~ equation:
\begin{equation}
i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)} = H \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)}.
\end{equation}
The last term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ExpansionOfPsiDot}) therefore cancels the right-hand side in Eq.~(\ref{eq:SchroedingerEquation}), and the Schr\"odinger~ equation in the Floquet basis reduces to
\begin{equation}
\sum_j \left\{ \frac{dc_j(t)}{dt} \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)} + c_j(t) \frac{dA}{dt} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)} \right\} = 0.
\end{equation}
Multiplying this equation on the left by $\bra{\psi_{F,k}(A,t)}$, we find that
\begin{equation}
\frac{dc_k(t)}{dt} = - \sum_j c_j(t) \frac{dA}{dt} \bra{\psi_{F,k}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{\psi_{F,j}(A,t)},
\end{equation}
which can alternatively be expressed as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dc_k(t)}{dt} & = & - \sum_j c_j(t) \frac{dA}{dt} \left( -it \frac{d\epsilon_j}{d A} \delta_{kj} + e^{i(\epsilon_k-\epsilon_j)t} \bra{u_{k}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{j}(A,t)} \right) \nonumber \\
& = & it \frac{d\epsilon_k}{dt} c_k(t) - \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j c_j(t) e^{i(\epsilon_k-\epsilon_j)t} \bra{u_{k}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{j}(A,t)}.
\label{eq:SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasis}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
The two terms in the above equation have clear meanings. The first term describes the fact that as $A$ changes (and $\epsilon$ changes with it) the coefficients $c_k$ acquire phase shifts in order to correct for the difference between the actually accumulated phase (from the initial time until time $t$) and the phase that would have accumulated assuming that the instantaneous quasienergy had been in effect from $t=0$ until time $t$. The second term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasis}) describes geometric phase accumulation, as well as nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet states.
The first term in Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasis} has the undesirable property that its coefficient contains the factor $t$, which grows without bounds, a feature that looks rather unnatural and could complicate calculations for long pulses. This term can be eliminated by defining the coefficients
\begin{equation}
\tilde{c}_k(t)= e^{-i[t\epsilon_k(t)-\int_0^t\epsilon_k(t')dt']} c_k(t). \label{eq:c2ctilde}
\end{equation}
In terms of the coefficients $\tilde c_j(t)$, the quantum state in Eq.~\eq{evolution} takes the form
\be
\ket{\psi(t)} = \sum_j \tilde c_j(t) \ket{u_j(A,t)}e^{-i\int_0^t\epsilon_j(t')dt'}. \label{eq:evolution_tildec}
\ee
This equation exhibits a clear analogy with quantum state evolution in standard adiabatic theory: the Floquet modes $\ket{u_j(A,t)}$ are the eigenstates of the instantaneous Floquet Hamiltonian, the dynamical phases $\int_0^t\epsilon_j(t')dt'$ are the time integrals of the quasienergies, and the evolution of the coefficients $\tilde c_j(t)$ incorporates geometric phases and nonadiabatic transitions.
With the definition of $\tilde c_j(t)$, Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasis} is transformed into
\begin{widetext}
\be
\frac{d\tilde{c}_k(t)}{dt} = - \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_j(t')-\epsilon_k(t')]dt'} \bra{u_{k}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{j}(A,t)} \tilde{c}_j(t). \label{eq:SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes}
\ee
\end{widetext}
Note that although we have eliminated the indefinitely growing coefficient with this last transformation we now have a new undesirable feature in the equation of motion, namely the fact that the time derivative of the state now depends on the entire history of the system, as opposed to just the system parameters and state at time $t$.
Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes} is the Schr\"odinger~ equation that describes the transition dynamics between the Floquet modes. If the driving strength $A$ changes very slowly over time $t$, we are in the adiabatic limit of the Floquet picture. Using Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes} together with $d A/d t \rightarrow 0$, we conclude that all the coefficient $\tilde c_{k}(t)$ are constants. In this case, there is no population transition between the Floquet modes. From Eq.~\eq{evolution_tildec}, we find that the state dynamics are fully described by applying a time-dependent dynamical phase $-\int_0^t\epsilon_j(t')dt'$ to each of the two Floquet modes $\ket{u_j(A,t)}$. The constant coefficients $\tilde c_j$ can be obtained by decomposing the initial state $\ket{\psi(0)}$ in the Floquet state basis at the initial time, e.g.~the basis states $\ket{u_j(0,0)}$ if we are considering a pulse whose amplitude $A$ starts from zero at the initial time $t=0$ (and we remind the reader here that setting $A=0$ in $\ket{u_j(0,0)}$ should be understood as taking the limit $A\rightarrow 0$).
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{fig2}
\caption{The dimensionless quantity $\omega|\bra{u_{0}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{1}(A,t)}|$ (upper panel) and the quasienergy spectrum (lower panel) for the case of a qubit under resonant driving, $\omega = \Delta$. The quasienergies and Floquet modes are calculated by numerically diagonalizing the Floquet Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eq{FloquetHamiltonian}. The positions of the avoided crossings (labeled with dashed lines in the lower panel) align well with the local maxima of $|\bra{u_{0}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{1}(A,t)}|$.}
\label{fig:InnerProduct}
\end{figure}
If the driving strength $A$ varies fast over time, nonadiabatic transitions between the Floquet modes can be excited. According to Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes}, the nonadiabatic transition rate, given by the change of the coefficient $d\tilde c_k/dt$, depends on the inner product $\bra{u_{k}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{j}(A,t)}$. In the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:InnerProduct}, we plot the amplitude of the inner product $|\bra{u_{0}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{1}(A,t)}|$ for the case of a qubit under resonant driving, $\omega = \Delta$. This quantity exhibits multiple local maxima at driving amplitudes which correspond to the positions of the avoided crossings of the quasienergies spectrum (labeled with dashed lines in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:InnerProduct}). In a pulse where the driving strength changes and the system traverses such an avoided crossing, Landau-Zener transitions can occur between Floquet states following the usual formula for Landau-Zener transitions, just modified from the language of energies to that of quasienergies.
\subsection*{An alternative form of the Schr\"odinger~ equation}
The time dependence of the Floquet modes $\ket{u_{j}(A,t)}$ appears explicitly in Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes}. It is possible to rewrite the equation using the Fourier decomposition of these modes, similarly to what is done for example when transforming the time-dependent Floquet Hamiltonian into its time-independent infinite matrix form. As we shall see shortly, this change makes it possible to evaluate the necessary inner products directly from the eigenstates of the Floquet Hamiltonian in its time-independent large-matrix form. In order to perform this transformation, we take the inner product on the right-hand side of Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes} and express it as a Fourier series:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\bra{u_{k}(A,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{j}(A,t)} & = & \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{in\omega t} \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} dt' e^{-in\omega t'} \bra{u_{k}(A,t')} \frac{\partial}{\partial A} \ket{u_{j}(A,t')} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{in\omega t} \langle\langle u_{k}(A,t') | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t') \rangle\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where the double-bracket notation is defined in Eq.~\eq{TimeIntegratedInnerProduct}, and we have also used the definition
\begin{equation}
\ket{u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t)} = e^{-in\omega t} \ket{u_{j}(A,t)}.
\end{equation}
Note that $\ket{u_j^{(n)}(A,t)}$ is different from $\ket{u_{j,n}(A)}$, which was introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:Floquet} and is the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of $\ket{u_j(A,t)}$. Apart from the differentiation with respect to $A$, the inner products in Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes} can be evaluated by taking the simple inner products between two vectors that are obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian $H_F$. Because of the ambiguity in defining $\epsilon_j$ and $\ket{u_j(t)}$ (more specifically the fact that one can freely move integer multiples of $\omega$ between the two), the above definition of $\ket{u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t)}$ naturally suggests the accompanying definition
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{j}^{(n)} = \epsilon_j - n\omega,
\end{equation}
which leads to the relation
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\epsilon_{j}^{(n)}t} \ket{u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t)} = e^{-i\epsilon_{j}t} \ket{u_{j}(A,t)},
\end{equation}
for all values of $n$. In other words, the different values of $n$ give identical copies of the Floquet states, although the quasienergies and Floquet modes for the different values of $n$ are different by integer multiples of $\omega$ and a factor of $e^{-in\omega t}$. Equation \eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes} now becomes
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\tilde{c}_k(t)}{dt} & = & - \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_j(t')-\epsilon_k(t')]dt'} e^{in\omega t} \langle\langle u_{k}(A,t) | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t) \rangle\rangle \tilde{c}_j(t) \nonumber \\
& = & - \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_{j}^{(n)}(t')-\epsilon_k(t')]dt'} \langle\langle u_{k}(A,t) | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t) \rangle\rangle \tilde{c}_j(t).
\end{eqnarray}
This equation is asymmetric in that it uses the quasienergies and Floquet modes both with and without the additional index $n$. It can be made symmetric by first rewriting it in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\tilde{c}_{k}^{(0)}(t)}{dt} & = & - \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_{j}^{(n)}(t')-\epsilon_{k}^{(0)}(t')]dt'} \langle\langle u_{k}^{(0)}(A,t) | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t) \rangle\rangle \tilde{c}_{j}^{(0)}(t)
\label{eq:SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildesAndSpaceExpansionUnsymmetrized}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
and observing that the equation would still be valid if we replaced the index 0 by $m$ throughout the equation. We can therefore replace the single equation by an infinite number of equivalent and independent equations. Because these equations are linear in the coefficients $\tilde{c}$, one can distribute the two probability amplitudes $\tilde{c}_j$ at the initial time (with complete freedom) among the different identical copies of the Floquet states (and hence use the coefficients $\tilde{c}_j^{(n)}$ with $n=-\infty,\dots,\infty$) and solve all the equations in order to find the probability amplitudes at the final time, keeping in mind that after obtaining the probability amplitudes at the final time all the coefficients with the same value of $j$ must be summed before calculating the occupation probabilities for the two Floquet states, i.e. $\tilde{c}_j(t) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde{c}_j^{(n)}(t)$. Noting once more the linearity in the Schr\"odinger~ equations and the equivalence between the different copies of Floquet state, we can rearrange the terms on the right-hand side among the different equations. One possible rearrangement gives the set of equations
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\tilde{c}_{k}^{(m)}(t)}{dt} & = & - \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_{j}^{(n)}(t')-\epsilon_{k}^{(m)}(t')]dt'} \langle\langle u_{k}^{(m)}(A,t) | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t) \rangle\rangle \tilde{c}_{j}^{(n)}(t).
\label{eq:SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildesAndSpaceExpansion}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
We remark that the above equation can also be derived using the ($t, t'$) formalism~\cite{Peskin} as described in Ref.~\onlinecite{Drese:1999tq}.
\section{Qubit final state after pulses with slowly varying amplitude} \label{sec:adiabatic}
In applications to quantum control of a single qubit, one often focuses on the qubit's final state at the end of a control pulse or pulse sequence, which is then followed by state readout. In this section, we discuss the final state of the qubit after a resonant pulse whose amplitude varies slowly. In this case, the adiabatic limit in the Floquet picture applies. The pulse amplitude $A=0$ at the beginning and the end of the pulse. As a result, we would like to express the initial and final states of the qubit using Floquet modes $\ket{u_j(0,t)}$. From Eqs.~\eq{BasicFormOfFloquetStates}, \eq{theta} and \eq{PeriodicPartsOfFloquetStatesOriginalBasis}, we obtain the Floquet modes expressions
\ba
\ket{u_0(0,t)} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
e^{i\omega t} \\
\end{array}
\right), \nonumber \\
\ket{u_1(0,t)} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
-e^{i\omega t} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\ea
in the original qubit basis using the Bessel functions at value 0, $J_n(0) = \delta_{0n}$, and $\theta = \pi/2$ for $\omega = \Delta$ and $A\rightarrow 0$. We notice from the above equations that the Floquet modes $\ket{u_j(0,t)}$ are the time-independent states $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\tilde 0}+\ket{\tilde 1})$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\tilde 0}-\ket{\tilde 1})$, if we define $\ket{\tilde 0}$ and $\ket{\tilde 1}$ as the qubit eigenstates in a rotating frame which rotates at an angular frequency $\omega$. In this rotating frame, the Floquet modes at the beginning and at the end of the pulse correspond to the same set of states. The state evolution from the beginning ($t=0$) to the end ($t=t_f$) of the pulse is simply described by the accumulation of a dynamical phase $\phi_d =\int_0^{t_f}\Delta \epsilon(t')dt'$, where $\Delta\epsilon(t) = \epsilon_2(t) - \epsilon_1(t)$. In the Bloch sphere, the above evolution can be seen as a rotation of the state vector by an angle $\phi_d$ around the x axis, which points towards $\ket{u_0(0,t)}$. The rotation angle $\phi_d$, which is the time integral of the quasienergy difference, does not depend on any other details of the pulse shape. Considering the case where the rise and fall parts of the pulse are slow and we vary only the duration of the middle part of the pulse with fixed amplitude $A_m$, the qubit state undergoes Rabi oscillations as $\phi_d$ changes at a constant rate $\Omega_R = \Delta \epsilon(A_m)$, i.e.~the Rabi frequency as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Floquet}.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{fig3}
\caption{Bloch sphere representation of the adiabatic evolution in the Floquet picture. The state vector evolution (red thin arrows) is a rotation around a fictitious field (red thick arrows) pointing towards the direction of $\ket{u_0(0,t)}$ in the equatorial plane. The direction of the fictitious field in the equatorial plane is determined by the phase $\phi$ of the driving and the amplitude of the fictitious field has an amplitude given by the quasienergy difference $\Delta\epsilon$.}
\label{fig:AdaibaticPulseBlochRepresentation}
\end{figure}
It is worth noting here that although we have only discussed the case where the driving term of the qubit is $A(t)\cos(\omega t)$ above, we can easily generalize our results to the driving waveform $A(t)\cos(\omega t + \phi)$ with an arbitrary constant phase $\phi$. In this more general case, we obtain the same form of the quasienergies of the system and Floquet modes with a phase shift compared to the $\phi=0$ case. In particular, the Floquet modes at $A\rightarrow 0$ are given by $\ket{u_{0}(0,t)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\tilde 0}+e^{i\phi}\ket{\tilde 1})$ and $\ket{u_{1}(0,t)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\tilde 0}-e^{i\phi}\ket{\tilde 1})$. By choosing a specific value of $\phi$ in the driving signal, one can control the rotation axis of the Rabi oscillation in the equatorial plane of the Bloch sphere (see Figure~\ref{fig:AdaibaticPulseBlochRepresentation}). This point appears naturally in the RWA for weak driving, and our analysis shows that it holds for pulses with arbitrary driving amplitude, as long as the pulse amplitude varies slowly. In Sec.~\ref{sec:nonadiabatic}, we will examine more closely the breakdown of the adiabatic approximation.
\section{Nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet states of a qubit} \label{sec:nonadiabatic}
\subsection*{Dynamics with adiabatic perturbation theory}
When the driving strength changes rapidly, e.g.~in a short pulse, nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet states will be reflected in the evolution of the coefficients $\tilde c_j(t)$ in Eq.~\eq{evolution_tildec}. This evolution can be calculated using Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildesAndSpaceExpansion} or equivalently Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildes}. These two equations are exact. To proceed further analytically, we will employ adiabatic perturbation theory (APT)~\cite{Rigolin2008} and then we will compare the solutions given by APT with the exact numerical solutions. In the first order of APT~\cite{Drese:1999tq, Rigolin2008}, we solve Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildesAndSpaceExpansion} iteratively keeping terms up to first order in $dA/dt$. This is equivalent to replacing $\tilde c_{j,n}(t) \rightarrow \tilde c_{j,n}(0)$ on the right-hand side of Eq.~\eq{SchroedingerEquationInFloquetBasisWithTildesAndSpaceExpansion}. This way we obtain the approximate expression
\begin{widetext}
\be
\tilde{c}_{k}^{(m)}(t) = \tilde{c}_{k}^{(m)}(0) - \int_0^{t} dt \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_{j}^{(n)}(t')-\epsilon_{k}^{(m)}(t')]dt'} \langle\langle u_{k}^{(m)}(A,t) | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(n)}(A,t) \rangle\rangle \tilde{c}_{j}^{(n)}(0).
\label{eq:SchrodingerEquation1stOrderAPT}
\ee
Setting $\tilde{c}_{j}^{(n)}(0)=\tilde{c}_{j}(0) \delta_{n,0}$ at the initial time and summing the equation over $m$, we obtain
\be
\tilde{c}_{k}(t) = \tilde{c}_{k}(0) - \int_0^{t} dt \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_j \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_{j}^{(0)}(t')-\epsilon_{k}^{(m)}(t')]dt'} \langle\langle u_{k}^{(m)}(A,t) | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(0)}(A,t) \rangle\rangle \tilde{c}_{j}(0).
\label{eq:1stOrderAPT}
\ee
If we quantify the nonadiabatic transition as the change of each coefficient $\delta \tilde c_j(t) = \tilde c_j(t) - \tilde c_j(0)$, we can see from the above equation that this quantity is proportional to
\be
N_{j\rightarrow k}(t) = \int_0^{t} dt \frac{dA}{dt} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\int_0^t[\epsilon_{j}^{(0)}(t')-\epsilon_{k}^{(m)}(t')]dt'} \langle\langle u_{k}^{(m)}(A,t) | \frac{\partial}{\partial A} | u_{j}^{(0)}(A,t) \rangle\rangle. \label{eq:NonadAmp}
\ee
The above quantity, $N_{j\rightarrow k}(t)$, denotes the nonadiabatic transition matrix element from the $j$-th to the $k$-th Floquet mode. It can be defined as the complex coefficient $\tilde c_k$ of the $k$-th Floquet mode after a driven evolution with the initial state prepared in the $j$-th Floquet mode, i.e. $\tilde c_l(0) = \delta_{lj}$. $N_{j\rightarrow k}$ is the sum of complex, oscillating terms that will occasionally give a very small value for the sum, as we shall see below. We also note that the coefficient $\tilde c_k$ can be calculated essentially exactly by numerically solving the time-dependent Schr\"odinger~ equation.
Next, we calculate the nonadiabatic transition matrix elements for a representative pulse shape that has the simple form:
\be
A(t) = \begin{cases}
\frac{A_{m}}{2}(1-\cos(\pi t/t_{r})) & t \le t_{r} \\
A_{m} & t_{r} < t \le t_{r} + t_{p} \\
\frac{A_{m}}{2}(1+\cos(\frac{\pi (t-t_{p}-t_{r})}{t_{f}})) & t_{r} + t_{p} < t \le t_{r}+t_{p}+t_{f}
\end{cases}, \label{eq:pulseshape}
\ee
\end{widetext}
where $t_{p}$ is the duration of the middle part of the pulse, $t_{r}$ ($t_f$) is the rise (fall) time of the pulse, and $A_{m}$ is the maximum amplitude of the pulse. We choose to analyze pulses with the rising and falling edge being cosine functions because it is a pulse shape that requires a small bandwidth, minimizing required experimental resources. Nonadiabatic transitions occur in both the rising and falling edges of the pulse. We will deal with these two cases separately in the remainder of this section. We will consider the case of resonant driving ($\omega=\Delta$) and $\phi=0$ here but our treatment can be generalized to arbitrary values of $\omega$ and $\phi$.
\subsection*{Rising edge}
\begin{figure*}[]
\includegraphics[width=180mm]{fig4}
\caption{Nonadiabatic transition amplitude between the two Floquet modes of a qubit induced by ramping the pulse amplitude on the rising (a-c) and falling (d-f) edges of the pulse. The qubit is driven on resonance ($\omega = \Delta$) with $\phi = 0$ and pulse shapes given by Eq.~\eq{pulseshape}. (a,d) The nonadiabatic transition amplitude calculated by setting $\tilde c_0(0) = 1$ and numerically solving the time-dependent Schr\"odinger~ equation for $\tilde c_1(t)$ plotted as a function the maximum driving amplitude $A_{m}$ and the pulse rise/fall time $t_{r/f}$. (b,e) The nonadiabatic transition amplitude $|N_{0\rightarrow 1}|$ calculated using adiabatic perturbation theory (APT), Eq.~\eq{NonadAmp}. (c,f) Comparison between the exact solutions (solid) and the APT solutions (dashed) at $A_m = \Delta/4$, $\Delta/2$, and $\Delta$. All the curves in panels c and f have a clear minimum in the nonadiabatic transition amplitude at $\omega t_{r/f}\approx 1$.} \label{fig:nonadiabatic}
\end{figure*}
For the pulse shape given by Eq.~\eq{pulseshape}, the rising edge is in the time interval between 0 and $t_r$. For performing the exact numerics to simulate the nonadiabatic transitions, we assume the initial state of the system to be $\ket{\psi(0)} = (\ket{0} + \ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$ which coincides with the Floquet mode $\ket{u_0(0,0)}$. Thus $\tilde c_0(0) = 1$ and $\tilde c_1(0) = 0$. We then use a numerical solver to determine the system evolution under the time-dependent Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eq{Hamstart} with the specified pulse shape. The final state $\ket{\psi(t_r)}$ is written as a superposition of the Floquet modes $\ket{u_j(A_m, t_r)}$, yielding the Floquet mode coefficients $\tilde c_0(t_r)$ and $\tilde c_1(t_r)$. In this case, the quantity $\tilde c_1(t_r)$ gives an measure of the nonadiabatic transitions during the rising edge of the pulse. In Fig.~\ref{fig:nonadiabatic}(a), we show $\tilde c_1(t_r)$ as a function of the maximum amplitude $A_{m}$ and the rise time $t_{r}$. For comparison we also evaluate the nonadiabatic transition amplitudes using APT. For this purpose, we first numerically calculate all the instantaneous quasienergies and Floquet modes for values of $A$ from $t=0$ to $t=t_r$ in small steps. We then numerically evaluate $N_{0\rightarrow 1}$ according to Eq.~\eq{NonadAmp}, and we plot its absolute value in Fig.~\ref{fig:nonadiabatic}(b). In Fig.~\ref{fig:nonadiabatic}(c), we show the nonadiabatic transition amplitude calculated both by exact numerics and by APT as a function of $t_{r}$ for a few values of the strong-driving pulse amplitude $A_{m}$. We find good agreement between the APT solution and the exact results. Considering the physics of Landau-Zener transitions, and noting that the minimum gap in the first avoided crossing of quasienergies is $\sim\omega$, we find that for $A_{m}\sim\Delta$ adiabaticity is determined by the product $\omega t_{r}$. As expected, for long rise times $t_{r} \gg 1/\omega$ where the evolution should be adiabatic, we have $|N_{0\rightarrow 1}| \rightarrow 0$. For short rise times $t_{r} \sim 1/\omega$, the nonadiabatic transition amplitude oscillates as a function of $t_{r}$. This oscillatory behavior is a result of interference between different paths that correspond to the nonadiabatic transitions during the rise time. We notice that for the particular pulse shape analyzed here, $|N_{0\rightarrow 1}|$ has a local minimum around $t_{r} \approx 1/\omega$ (as well as at other higher points), which only weakly depends on the value of $A_{m}$ provided that $A_{m} \lesssim \Delta$. At this point, the net probability for a nonadiabatic transition to have occurred during the amplitude ramp is remarkably small. This suppression of nonadiabatic transitions can be understood as destructive interference of the transitions between the Floquet states at different times during the amplitude ramp. The exact values of $t_r$ at which the minima occur depend on $\phi$. For $\phi=\pi/2$ for example, the first minimum in the nonadiabatic transition probability occurs around $t_r \approx 2.6/\omega$.
\subsection*{Falling edge}
The nonadiabatic transitions in the falling edge of the pulse can be calculated in a similar way as for the rising edge. To simplify notations, we shift the times so that the beginning and end times are $0$ and $t_f$ (e.g.~by taking $t_r = t_p = 0$ in Eq.~\eq{pulseshape}). We have
\be
\frac{dA}{dt} = -\frac{\pi A_{m}}{2t_{f}}\sin\left( \arccos \left(\frac{2A(t)}{A_{m}}-1 \right)\right).
\ee
To exactly simulate the nonadiabatic transitions, we start with the initial state $\ket{\psi(0)} = \ket{u_0(A_m,0)}$ and express the final state $\ket{\psi(t_f)}$ in the basis of Floquet modes $\ket{u_j(0, t_f)} = (\ket{0}\pm e^{i\omega t_f}\ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:nonadiabatic}(d-f) we show the amplitude of nonadiabatic transitions occurring during the falling edge of the pulse as a function of the maximum pulse amplitude $A_{m}$ and the fall time $t_{f}$. In the adiabatic limit $t_{f}\gg 1/\omega$, we have $|N_{0\rightarrow 1}| \rightarrow 0$ as expected. We also notice a coherent suppression of nonadiabatic transitions at $t_{f}\approx 1/\omega$ with only a weak dependence on the value of $A_m$ as long as $A_{m} \lesssim \Delta$.
\subsection*{Efficient suppression of transitions between Floquet states}
Our results for the rising and falling edges agree in predicting that when $t_{r}, t_{f}\gg 1/\omega$, nonadiabatic transitions are negligible, which corresponds to the adiabatic limit in this driven system. The small differences between the two cases in the exact shapes of the oscillatory behavior of $|N_{0\rightarrow 1}| \rightarrow 0$ as a function of $t_{r}$ is not very surprising, given that there is an asymmetry between the two cases, both in the pulse shape and in the fact that in one case the pulse amplitude is minimum at the initial time while in the other the pulse amplitude is maximum at the initial time.
Remarkably, we find that the transitions between the Floquet states during the rise and fall edges of the control pulses are reduced for specific values of the rise and fall times, respectively. This effect provides the basis for a quantum control protocol, which we name Floquet Interference Efficient Suppression of Transitions in the Adiabatic basis (FIESTA). In the next section we discuss the application of FIESTA to optimization of single qubit gates.
\section{Application to single-qubit gates} \label{sec:gates}
As we have discussed in Secs.~\ref{sec:adiabatic} and \ref{sec:nonadiabatic}, the absence of nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet modes results in smooth and simple Rabi oscillations between energy eigenstates of the qubit. This is a desirable property for implementing high-fidelity single-qubit gates. Nonadiabatic transitions can be suppressed either by turning the pulse on and off adiabatically or by using the destructive interference of the nonadiabatic transitions discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:nonadiabatic}. In any realistic setup, the gate fidelity is further reduced by the decoherence that the qubit experiences during the implementation of the gate, and the reduction increases with increasing gate time. For an adiabatic pulse in the strong driving regime, we require $t_{r}, t_{f} \gg 1/\Delta$, which means that the total pulse duration must satisfy $t_{\text{total}} \gg 1/\Delta$. This condition is the same one obtained for the implementation of a typical single-qubit gate in the weak driving regime, because the pulse duration in that case is given by $t_{\text{total}} A_{m} \sim 1$ and $A_{m} \ll \Delta$. Therefore, adiabatic pulses in the strong driving regime do not necessarily yield higher operation speeds than weak-driving pulses. However, with the coherent suppression of the nonadiabatic transitions, which requires careful control of the pulse shapes, one could realize high-fidelity single-qubit gates with gate times on the order of $t_{\text{total}} A_{m} \sim 1/\Delta$. In this section, we discuss the optimization of the fidelity of single-qubit operations by zeroing the nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet modes in fast pulses.
Universal single-qubit operations require unitary operations corresponding to rotations around two axes in the Bloch sphere with arbitrary angles. Here, we consider implementing operations which are rotations around axes in the equatorial plane of the Bloch sphere since these can be realized with the Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eq{HamRF} in the absence of nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet modes. The rotation axis is controlled by the phase of the pulse $\phi$ and the rotation angle $\theta$ is determined by the time integral of the quasienergy difference, i.e. $\theta = \int_0^tdt' \Delta\epsilon(t')$. Following the discussions in the previous section, we consider the pulse shape defined in Eq.~\eq{pulseshape}. To achieve the above rotations, we choose the optimal rise time $t_r$ and fall time $t_f$ on the rising and falling edges respectively for the coherent suppression of nonadiabatic transitions and we choose the duration $t_p$ of the middle part of the pulse correspondingly according to the target rotation angle $\theta$.
\begin{figure*}[]
\includegraphics[width=160mm]{fig5}
\caption{Nonadiabatic transitions between Floquet modes on the falling edge and gate fidelities of the pulses for $R_x(\theta)$ with $\phi=0$ (a,c) and $R_y(\theta)$ with $\phi=-\pi/2$ (b,d). The maximum amplitude of the pulses are assumed to be $A_m = \Delta/4$. The falling edge for the nonadiabatic transition calculation are assumed to be in the time interval between $t_r + t_p$ and $t_r + t_p + t_f$. (a,b) Nonadiabatic transitions on the falling edge of the pulses versus $t_p$ and $t_f$. (c,d) Simulated gate fidelity of $R_x(\theta)$ (c) and $R_y(\theta)$ (d) operations versus $t_p$ with different values of $t_f$. The rise times $t_r$ are chosen to be $1/\omega$ and $2.6/\omega$ for $R_x(\theta)$ and $R_y(\theta)$ respectively in order to achieve optimal suppressions of the nonadiabatic transitions on the rising edge. The optimal pulse parameters that lead to maximum gate fidelities correspond to where the nonadiabatic transitions on the both the rising and falling edge are coherently suppressed.} \label{fig:pulsefidelity}
\end{figure*}
For finding the optimal rise time $t_r$ for a given operation, we calculate and minimize the nonadiabatic transitions on the rising edge in its time interval between 0 and $t_r$ for pulses with a initial phase $\phi$ which sets the desirable rotation axis. This is essentially the same calculation we did in Sec.~\ref{sec:nonadiabatic}. For operations $R_x(\theta)$ and $R_y(\theta)$ which are rotations around the $x$ and $y$ axes of the Bloch sphere, the optimal rise times $t_r$ are approximately $1/\omega$ and $2.6/\omega$ respectively. For finding the optimal fall time $t_f$, the procedure is more complicated as the nonadiabatic transitions on the falling edge depend on $t_f$ as well as the phase of the pulse at the beginning of the falling edge $\phi_f$. This phase depends on the initial phase of the pulse as well as the pulse duration by $\phi_f = \phi + \omega (t_r + t_p)$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:pulsefidelity}(a) and (b), we plot the nonadiabatic transition amplitude $|N_{0\rightarrow 1}|$ on the falling edge versus the fall time $t_f$ and the phase $\phi_f$ with the maximum amplitude $A_m = \Delta/4$. We find that the $t_f$ minimizing $|N_{0\rightarrow 1}|$ changes with $\phi_f$ periodically.
Next, we perform simulation on the qubit dynamics under pulses with different parameters and compute the their fidelities with respect to the ideal operations $R_x(\theta)$ and $R_y(\theta)$. With the shape of the pulse in Eq.~\eq{pulseshape}, the pulse is fully determined by the parameters $A_{m}$, $\phi$, $t_{r}$, $t_{f}$, and $t_{p}$. With energy relaxation time $T_1$ taken into account, we can express the resulting operation as a quantum process matrix $\chi(A_{m}, \phi, t_{r}, t_{f}, t_{p}, T_1)$ characterized by quantum process tomography (QPT)~\cite{Chuang1997, Poyatos1997}. To obtain the process matrix corresponding to a given pulse, we simulate the final state after the pulse with respect to initial states $\ket{0}$, $\ket{1}$, $(\ket{0}+i\ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$, and $(\ket{0}-\ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$. The simulations are done by numerically solving the master equation in the Lindblad form~\cite{gardiner2004quantum}:
\be
\dot \rho(t) = -i[H(t), \rho(t)]+\sum_n\frac{\kappa_n}{2} (2\hat{L}_n\rho\hat{L}_n^\dagger - \hat{L}_n^\dagger\hat{L}_n\rho -\rho\hat{L}_n^\dagger\hat{L}_n), \label{eq:gates:mastereq}
\ee
where $\hat{L}_n$ and $\kappa_n$ are the Lindblad operator and the decoherence rate for a certain decoherence source respectively. Here we consider only one decoherence mechanism, energy relaxation thus we only have one term in Eq.~\eq{gates:mastereq}, with $\hat{L} = \sigma_-$ and $\kappa = 1/T_1$. The actual values of the qubit parameters are chosen to be the same as those characterized in the experiments discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{Deng2015}, where $\Delta = 2\pi \times 2.288$~GHz and $T_1 = 2$~$\mu$s. We note that the value of $T_1$ here is shorter than those obtained in other experiments with flux qubits, and therefore the fidelities we obtain are conservative estimates. Once we have the final states with respect to the four initial states, we can reconstruct the process matrix $\chi$ using standard QPT. From the process matrix $\chi$ obtained by QPT and its ideal counterpart $\chi_\text{ideal}$, we can directly calculate the process fidelity, defined as $F_p = \text{Tr}[\chi_\text{ideal} \chi]$. The gate fidelity $F_g$, defined as the state fidelity of the process output state with respect to the ideal output state averaged over all possible input states, can be related to the process fidelity $F_p$ by $F_g = (dF_p + 1)/(1 + d)$ with $d$ the dimension of the system~\cite{Nielsen2002249}. We simulate the gate fidelity of operations $R_x(\theta)$ and $R_y(\theta)$ implemented by pulses with $\phi = 0$ and $-\pi/2$ at $A_m = \Delta/4$. In these simulations, we choose the rise times of the pulses $t_r = 1/\omega$ and $2.6/\omega$ for $R_x(\theta)$ and $R_y(\theta)$ respectively for the maximum suppression of the nonadiabatic transitions on the rising edge. In Fig.~\ref{fig:pulsefidelity}(c) and (d), we plot the gate fidelities versus the maximum amplitude duration $t_p$ with different fall times. For short fall times ($t_f \sim 1/\omega$), the gate fidelity oscillates as a function of $t_p$. This is a signature of coherent nonadiabatic transitions between the Floquet modes. The highest-fidelities are attained when the combinations of $t_p$ and $t_f$ lead to small nonadiabatic transitions (minima in Fig.~\ref{fig:pulsefidelity}(a) and (b)). For longer fall times ($t_f \gtrsim 5/\omega$), the ramping of the falling edge is approximately adiabatic thus the gate fidelity has suppressed oscillations and is limited by $T_1$.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{fig6}
\caption{Simulated gate fidelities of the implemented $R_x(\theta)$ versus the maximum amplitude duration $t_p$ (a) or the rotation angle $\theta$ given by $\theta = \int_0^tdt' \Delta\epsilon(t')$ (b). The pulses are defined with $\phi = 0$, $t_r = 1/\omega$ and $t_f = 1/\omega$ and various values of $t_p$ and $A_m$. While the optimal $t_p$ for the coherent suppression of nonadiabatic transitions is independent of $A_m$, different pulses with the same $t_r$, $t_f$, and $t_p$ can have different rotation angles $\theta$ depending on $A_m$.} \label{fig:fidelity_vs_A}
\end{figure}
So far, we have shown that high-fidelity operations $R_x(\theta)$ and $R_y(\theta)$ can be achieved for some specific rotation angle $\theta$ which depends on the optimal combination of $t_r$, $t_p$, and $t_f$. Performing univeral quantum computation, however, requires engineering pulses that correspond to arbitrary rotation angles. This goal is easy to achieve in our optimization method. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:nonadiabatic}, the optimal $t_r$ and $t_f$ are almost independent of the maximum driving amplitude $A_m$ as long as $A_m \lesssim \Delta$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:fidelity_vs_A}(a), we plot the gate fidelity of $R_x(\theta)$ versus $t_p$ and $A_m$ with the optimal $t_r = 1/\omega$ and a short $t_f = 1/\omega$. We show that the optimal $t_p$, which minimizes nonadiabatic transitions and leads to high-fidelity operations, is also independent of $A_m$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:fidelity_vs_A}(b), we plot the gate fidelity of $R_x(\theta)$ versus $\theta$ at several values of $A_m$. We show that by fixing $t_r$, $t_p$, and $t_f$ to their the optimal values and sweeping $A_m$, high-fidelity rotations for any rotation angles $\theta$ can be achieved. Therefore, to fully optimize a pulse for a given rotation operation, one can first determine $t_r$, $t_p$, and $t_f$ based on the rotation axis and a rough range of $A_m$ and then fine-tune $A_m$ by targeting a precise rotation angle given by $\theta = \int_0^tdt' \Delta\epsilon(t')$. As an example, we optimize pulses for the operations $R_x(\pi/2)$ and $R_y(\pi/2)$ in the single-qubit Clifford group~\cite{Calderbank1997} using qubit parameters detailed in Ref.~\onlinecite{Deng2015}. For $R_x(\pi/2)$, the optimized pulse with $t_r = 1/\omega$, $t_f = 1/\omega$, $t_p = 5.30/\omega$, and $A_m = 0.249\omega$ has a gate fidelity of $0.99983$. For $R_y(\pi/2)$, the optimized pulse has a fidelity of $0.99986$ with $t_r = 2.6/\omega$, $t_f = 1/\omega$, $t_p = 4.27/\omega$, and $A_m = 0.270\omega$. The above fidelities are limited by $T_1$, where we assumed $\omega = \Delta = 2\pi\times 2.288$~GHz and $T_1 = 2$~$\mu s$.
Next, we consider optimization with an experimental limitation, as introduced by the time resolution and bandwidth of the ultrafast arbitrary waveform generator used in Ref.~\onlinecite{Deng2015}. We perform pulse optimization by first rounding the calculated optimal $t_r$, $t_f$, and $t_p$ to the 40~ps time resolution of the waveform and limiting the shortest $t_{r}$ and $t_{f}$ to 80~ps. We then optimize $A_m$ to obtain the highest possible gate fidelity. We obtain a fidelity of $0.99962$ for $R_x(\pi/2)$ with the pulse parameters: $t_r = 80$~ps, $t_f = 80$~ps, $t_p = 360$~ps, and $A_m = 2\pi\times 0.5674$~GHz. For $R_y(\pi/2)$, we obtain a fidelity of $0.99972$ with $t_r = 200$~ps, $t_f = 80$~ps, $t_p = 280$~ps, and $A_m = 2\pi\times 0.6223$~GHz. Enforcing a finite time resolution reduces the effectiveness of the suppression of nonadiabatic transitions; however, the resulting fidelities are only slightly lower than those with unconstrained time resolution.
In practice, the achievable pulses are limited by electronics and experimental setup, and the actual pulse times therefore deviate from the designed values. For moderate timing constraints corresponding to a realistic superconducting qubit setup, the suppression of nonadiabatic transitions is still acceptable and the rotation angle error can be compensated by further optimizing the pulse amplitude $A_m$ which can be set with high resolution using standard equipment. Combined with quantum process characterization techniques such as randomized benchmarking~\cite{Kelly2014}, our optimization procedure can be potentially carried out in-situ and therefore is robust against timing uncertainties in practical applications. We note that, thanks to the cosine-function shape of the pulse envelope during the rising and falling edges, this pulse scheme requires a bandwidth of only $2\omega$. For superconducting qubits, which usually have a transition frequency of a few gigahertz, such pulses can be readily generated by a high-bandwidth arbitrary waveform generator.
\section{Comparison with other pulse optimization methods} \label{sec:OQC}
In this section, we discuss the connection between FIESTA and other methods in optimal quantum control (OQC). For an in depth discussion of quantum control, we refer the reader to the review articles~\cite{Brif2010, glaser_training_2015,koch_controlling_2016}. The objective in OQC is maximizing the fidelity of a quantum state or of a quantum operation, given a Hamiltonian with controllable parameters. Constraints on the parameters can be applied, including amplitude constraints and time-domain constraints. Time-domain constraints are of two types: frequency bandwidth constraints or parametrization in terms of analytical functions. A research topic that is closely related to OQC is the quantum speed limit, addressing operations implemented with high fidelity in the minimum possible amount of time~\cite{caneva_optimal_2009,ashhab_speed_2012,Hegerfeldt2013}.
Gradient ascent pulse engineering (GRAPE)~\cite{khaneja_optimal_2005} and Krotov~\cite{somloi_controlled_1993} optimal quantum control rely on assuming a piecewise-constant form of the control parameters. In these methods, an iterative algorithm is used to steadily increase the fidelity and eventually converge to optimal values of the control parameters in all the time intervals. With sufficient discretization, continuously varying control parameters can be approximated with good accuracy. Other control methods, including chopped random-basis quantum optimization (CRAB)~\cite{caneva_chopped_2011} and Gradient Optimization of Analytic conTrols (GOAT)~\cite{machnes2015gradient} assume the Hamiltonian to be expressed in terms of analytic functions, with a set of parameters entering these functions to be optimized. Derivative Removal by Adiabatic Gate (DRAG)~\cite{motzoi2009simple} is concerned with the reduction of state leakage in a weakly anharmonic system, providing an approximate analytical solution to this problem.
A problem discussed extensively in literature is the control of a qubit with a transverse driving term limited in absolute value. It was shown that the optimal solutions for single-qubit rotations consist of sudden switching of the control between its extreme values, and the optimal time is related to the inverse qubit transition frequency (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Boscain2006}, \onlinecite{Garon2013}, and also \onlinecite{hirose_time-optimal_2015} and references therein).
In contrast to these approaches, closed-loop optimal control is a method in which control is optimized in a system with imperfect knowledge of the system Hamiltonian or control transfer functions, based on feedback from a fidelity measurement performed on the physical system~\cite{egger_adaptive_2014}.
FIESTA is used to perform optimization of quantum gates with resonant driving and a simple pulse shape characterized by three times (pulse rise, top, and fall) and an amplitude (the maximum pulse amplitude). This particular optimization problem has elements related to amplitude constraints and bandwidth constraints explored with other methods. One important characteristic of this pulse shape is that it is motivated by experimental implementation constraints, where using a frequency band around the qubit transition frequency can be conveniently implemented using analog quadrature modulation. Optimization with amplitude constraints can be done using GRAPE or analytically in some cases. Bandwidth constraints can be implemented in GOAT~\cite{machnes2015gradient} or approximately, using filtered optimal pulses~\cite{hirose_time-optimal_2015}. Our approach is physically motivated by the observation that even in the strong driving regime the dynamics can be simply described in terms of three unitaries, for the rise, central, and fall parts of the pulses. We showed that optimizing only the four involved parameters ($t_{r}$, $t_{p}$, $t_{f}$, and $A_{m}$) extremely high fidelities can be attained, with a total pulse duration of the order of $2\pi/\Delta$, thus approaching the quantum speed limit~\cite{Hegerfeldt2013}. We expect that the optimization of these parameters is also suitable for a closed-loop approach, and that high fidelities can be attained with moderate levels of errors arising from the transfer function frequency dependence and qubit detuning.
We note that Bartels and Mintert~\cite{bartels_smooth_2013} discussed a numerical optimization method for control with short pulses based on Floquet theory. The discussion in Ref.~\onlinecite{bartels_smooth_2013} focuses on the implementation of single-qubit gates, the method is applicable straightforwardly to optimizing single-qubit gates. Nevertheless, we expect in general that optimized pulses obtained using their method will have rather complicated envelopes, possibly complicating experimental implementations.
We find that in the strong driving regime the optimal times for $x$ and $y$ rotations obtained with FIESTA are different from each other, and these optimal times depend on the maximum amplitude $A_{m}$. These results bear an interesting connection with the discussion presented in Ref.~\onlinecite{hirose_time-optimal_2015} (see also references therein) of optimized pulses with amplitude constraints and no bandwidth constraints.
We finally comment on the relevance of our work for physical implementations of optimal quantum control. Superconducting flux qubits, for which we have recently observed Floquet dynamics~\cite{Deng2015}, are an ideal two-level system to apply these results, because higher energy levels are well separated from the lowest two levels, even when driving field amplitudes are larger than $\Delta$. NV centers have also been used in strong driving time domain experiments by Fuchs et al.~\cite{Fuchs:2009ca}. In a recent experiment Scheuer et al.~\cite{scheuer_precise_2014} demonstrated the implementation of optimal control in the strong driving regime using optimization based on CRAB. We also expect our theoretical framework to be extendible to optimization of strong driving control for multi-level systems, with superconducting qubits being a case of particular interest.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
We have analyzed the dynamics of a two-level system under strong resonant pulses from the perspective of (non)adiabatic evolutions in the Floquet picture. We presented derivations of the approximate analytical expressions for the quasienergies and Floquet states of the system under consideration. We analyzed the effects of pulse shaping using the adiabatic theory in the Floquet picture. We have shown that when the driving amplitude of a pulse varies slowly, the system remains in its initial superposition of the Floquet states and the dynamics are governed by a dynamic phase that depends on the evolution of the quasienergies over time. This phase corresponds to a qubit state rotation, generalizing the notion of Rabi oscillations to the case of large driving amplitudes. We have also analyzed and quantified the nonadiabatic transitions between the Floquet states by employing the adiabatic perturbation theory as well as exact numerical simulations. We found that the first order adiabatic perturbation theory agrees very well with the exact numerics when the driving amplitude is comparable with the qubit frequency and breaks down at very high driving amplitude. In addition, we found that with suitable pulse shaping the nonadiabatic transitions can be coherently suppressed. Finally, we presented FIESTA, an optimization scheme for the pulse shapes that minimize the nonadiabatic transitions. We shown that high-fidelity single-qubit operations can be achieved in very short times, significantly alleviating the effect of decoherence. Furthermore, our optimized control scheme requires pulses with very simple shapes and is robust against experimental limitations and parameter uncertainties. These pulses can be achieved with presently available arbitrary-waveform generators and is therefore ready to be implemented in experiments using superconducting qubits. Our method is an addition to the toolset of quantum control, providing a simple recipe for high fidelity control of a single qubit in the strong driving regime. We expect that the theoretical framework established here can be generalized to optimize the control of multi-level quantum systems.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Frank Wilhelm for useful discussions. We acknowledge support from NSERC, Canada Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, Industry Canada. During this work, AL was supported by an Early Research Award.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Humans find it very easy to determine various traits of other people, simply by looking at them. Without almost any conscious effort, a glimpse at another person's face is sufficient for us to ascertain their gender, age or ethnicity. We can easily decide whether they are attractive, look funny or are approachable, or determine the emotion they are displaying (for example, whether they appear sad, happy or surprised). As social creatures, making such inference is clearly important to us. Imparting commensurate capabilities to machines is bound to enable very interesting applications \cite{parikh2012relative}. However, in contrast to the relative ease with which humans infer such personal traits of an individual from their facial image, training a machine to do the same is a challenging task.
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)~\cite{lecun1998gradient,behnke2003hierarchical,simard2003best} are prominent statistical learning models, which have recently been shown to be very effective for image classification tasks
~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet,bengio2007greedy,deng2009imagenet,szegedy2014going}.
These networks employ several layers of neuron collections in a feed-forward manner, where the individual neurons are tiled in a way so that they respond to overlapping regions in the visual field. As opposed to hand crafted convolution kernel methods~\cite{maini2009study}, the elements of each convolution kernel in CNNs are trained by backpropagation, applied in conjunction with an optimization technique such as Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) \cite{lecun1998gradient}.
Analyzing facial images has been a key research area in computer vision and artificial intelligence for quite a long time.
Researchers have proposed automated methods for inferring personal traits of individuals from facial images~\cite{lyons1999automatic}, including gender
~\cite{moghaddam2002learning},
age
~\cite{horng2001classification} and ethnicity~\cite{lu2004ethnicity,hosoi2004ethnicity}.
Earlier work has even uncovered methods for predicting more subjective or social traits from facial images~\cite{vinciarelli2009social}, such as the expressed emotion~\cite{padgett1997representing,fasel2003automatic} or attractiveness
\cite{kagian2006humanlike,datta2008algorithmic}.
Very recently, \citenp{MSRGuessMyAge} released mobile and web applications, which were aimed at guessing the age of humans by just looking at their facial images.
In addition to specific methods for predicting personal attributes, earlier works have also examined reusable building blocks for facial image processing, for tasks such as detecting faces, pose estimation, face segmentation and facial landmark localization~\cite{huang2007labeled,segundo2010automatic,zhu2012face,uvrivcavr2012detector,zhang2014facial}. Such methods provide additional information about the face of a person, improving the accuracy of many facial classification tasks~\cite{lu2005multimodal,uvrivcavr2012detector}.
\textbf{Drawbacks in prior methods for face analysis:} Despite the success of previously proposed methods in inferring various personal traits from facial images, most solutions are based upon hand-designed features, and typically suffer from one or more of the following problems:
(a) They are specifically tailored to a single task at hand \cite{su2013ica,tian2003automatic,tjahyadi2007face,hasan2014experiments}; (b) They are not well scalable to real-world variations in data such as multiple view-points~\cite{dhall2011emotion}; (c) They make use of unautomated pre-processing methods such as hand-labeling of key facial regions \cite{attribute_classifiers}.
\textbf{Major advantages of deep learning:} Since deep learning based procedures can \textit{automatically} learn a diverse set of low and high-level representations for the input data, they circumvent the need for building hand-crafted features. Also, since deep nets work directly on input images, there is seldom any need to do unautomated or esoteric preprocessing.
\textbf{Applying Deep Learning to a range of facial attributes:} Given the promise of deep learning and the nature of our problem where we aim to predict attributes ranging from objective to subjective ones, from a diverse set of facial images, CNNs are an excellent fit for our needs. We thus apply CNNs for predicting the facial attributes. Previous papers on personal attribute prediction with deep nets have either not focused on facial attributes \cite{Shankar_2015_CVPR}, or have only considered a very restricted set of facial attributes such as emotions \cite{lisetti1998facial,liu2014facial}. Also, where researchers have tried to rank facial attributes for better classification \cite{parikh2012relative,shankar2013semantic}, relative attributes and plausibly subjective supervision are required.
\textbf{Augmenting CNNs with face alignment information:}
While training, a CNN is inherently expected to learn features in a way which can correctly tell us about the spatial regions in the images most salient for the prediction of a class. For maximum robustness, these spatial regions should be consistent across all the training images of a given class. For instance, the personal traits exhibited in faces generally correspond to specific facial regions or a combination of them - hair color is mostly captured in the hair region of the face; happiness is specific to the region around lips; while old age can be seen as a combination of features around the forehead, under-eyes and cheeks. Thus, for all training images belonging to the class of hair-color, we would like that the CNN learns features that correspond to the hair regions of the image for prediction. If the CNN predicts white / blonde hair-color by considering the white skin color of a person, we would term that as erroneous. While a human can innately and consistently figure out such structural accordances in an image for a given class, the task is rather difficult for CNNs, more so when the classes are attributes (as against the objects). Noticing that the faces have a well-defined structure (forehead, eyes, noses, mouth, etc) which can be robustly captured using state-of-the-art techniques like \cite{zhang2014facial}, we augment the input data with this structural information to train a CNN. We thus expect it to learn more robust attribute-specific features, thereby ameliorating the prediction accuracy.\footnote{This can also be seen as a knowledge-transfer approach with deep learning. (Though in a different sense from transfer learning and multi-task learning methods employed with some deep nets \cite{zhou2014hybrid,oquab2014learning,zhanglearning}.)}
\subsection{Our Contribution:}
We contribute a new Face Attributes Dataset (FAD), comprising of roughly 200,000 attribute labels for over 10,000 facial images. Our dataset covers many traits of individuals, and has labels regarding both objective and subjective personal attributes. The dataset has been carefully crowd-sourced from Amazon Mechanical Turk, establishing the veracity of the labels obtained.
We apply deep learning for predicting a wide range of facial attributes. We corroborate that using a CNN architecture for determining facial attributes provides an impressive baseline performance. To further improve performance, we propose an augmentation approach that incorporates facial landmark information for input images as an additional channel, helping the CNN learn better attribute-specific features so that the landmarks across various training images hold correspondence. We empirically show consistent improvement with our proposed approach over the aforementioned baseline across traits.
\section{Face Attributes Dataset (FAD)}
\label{l_sect_data_fad}
Our dataset consists of 10,000 facial images of celebrities (public figures), where each image is tagged with various traits of the individual. The images we used are a subset of the PubFig dataset~\cite{attribute_classifiers}.
The original PubFig dataset consisted of 60,000 images of celebrities, where each celebrity is covered by multiple images under different poses, at different times, and with a different expression. Due to copyright issues, original images were never provided for the PubFig Dataset, and only the respective internet addresses (URLs) were given. Since the release of PubFig, many of those URLs have become invalid, so we focused on the subset of images of the original data which are still available online.
The resolution of the 10,000 images downloaded was not constant. Since typically all the input images to a CNN are of the same size, we scaled each image to a fixed resolution of 150 $\times$ 150 pixels. We chose this resolution since most images posted on social media sites do not contain faces bigger than that (typically people pose with their torsos as well, if not the full body). Our dataset has thus been curated keeping practical applications in mind; so algorithms performing well on our dataset should also perform well on other real-world data.
\subsection{Ground-Truth Annotations}
As our target variables, we focused on multiple objective and subjective traits; the objective traits include: gender, ethnicity, age, make-up and hair color; the subjective traits include emotional expression, attractiveness, humorousness and chubbiness. The classes considered for each of these traits / attributes are listed in Table~\ref{l_tab_traits} along with their level of skewness. We emphasize that in this paper we consider the prediction of classes for each trait to be a discrete classification problem. (E.g. we only aim to know whether a person's gender is male or female and not the degree to which they appear to be masculine or feminine.)
In order to get the images labelled for various traits, we used Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). This is a crowdsourcing platform, which allows people to post micro-tasks, and lets participants fulfill these tasks for a fee. We sourced a total of 1,500 raters from MTurk. All the participants were sourced from the US and Canada. We let each of the participants examine several images and provide labels for each image for each of the traits listed in Table~\ref{l_tab_traits}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | }
\hline
Trait & Data distribution \\
\hline
\hline
Gender & Male (50.8\%), Female (49.2\%) \\
\hline
Ethnicity & White (79.5\%), Other (20.5\%) \\
\hline
Hair Color & Dark (60\%), Bright (40.0\%) \\
\hline
Makeup & Wears (39.4\%), Does not wear (60.6\%) \\
\hline
Age & Young (67.8\%), Elder (32.2\%) \\
\hline
\hline
Emotions & Joy (64.2\%), Other (35.8\%) \\
\hline
Attractive & Yes (65.9\%), No (34.1\%) \\
\hline
Humorous & Yes (55.6\%), No (44.4\%) \\
\hline
Chubby & Yes (57.3\%), No (42.7\%) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ \textbf{Attributes / Traits in FAD: } Personal traits in FAD along with the corresponding classes are listed. For each trait, the distribution of images across the corresponding classes is given. As is evident, some traits have more skewness across their classes as compared to others. For all our experiments, our training and test sets contain a similar distribution. }
\label{l_tab_traits}
\end{table}
We offered each MTurk participant a payment of \$6 for filling in all the trait labels for 10 of our images. To account for the fact that all participants on MTurk might not exert enough effort (or be satisfactorily sincere) in the annotation task, we made sure we have enough non-redundant labels, by having each image labelled 3 times.
To further ensure the quality of the labels, we included some very simple questions designed to identify participants who could be randomly clicking answers or not paying enough attention to the task.\footnote{For example, we asked simple mathematical questions for which every participant is expected to know the answer, such as ``how much is 6+8?''}
We removed the responses of participants who failed to correctly answer these questions. Also, we excluded the responses of participants who disagreed with their peers on over a third of the labels for the objective traits (e.g. participants who did not agree with their peers on the gender or ethnicity labels for a third of their images).
Our goal is to use the annotations of the images in FAD to train an automated system to infer personal traits from facial images.
However, some traits are clearly more difficult than others.
When people find it easy to infer a certain property from an image, we expect a high degree of agreement between the raters. In contrast, when inferring a target variable is difficult, we expect our annotators to often disagree regarding the correct label for an image.
In cases where a trait exhibits a low degree of inter-rater agreement in the dataset, even an excellent learning method would find it difficult to achieve a high degree of accuracy in the task. Table~\ref{l_tab_interrater_agreement} presents the inter-rater agreement, as measured by Fleiss' Kappa~\cite{fleiss2013statistical}, for each of the traits, evaluated on our dataset.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | }
\hline
Trait & Data distribution \\
\hline
\hline
Gender & 0.9601 (APA)\\
\hline
Ethnicity & 0.913 (APA) \\
\hline
Hair Color & 0.719 (SA)\\
\hline
Makeup & 0.697 (SA) \\
\hline
Age & 0.563 (MA)\\
\hline
\hline
Emotions &0.688 (SA) \\
\hline
Attractive & 0.29 (FA)\\
\hline
Humorous & 0.171 (SLA)\\
\hline
Chubby & 0.153 (SLA)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Inter-rater agreement (Fleiss' Kappa) measured for each of the traits in FAD.} A value of $1$ indicates perfect agreement, while a value of $0$ indicates no agreement. APA stands for \emph{Almost perfect agreement}; MA for \emph{Moderate agreement}; SA for \emph{Substantial agreement}; FA for \emph{Fair agreement}; and SLA for \emph{Slight agreement}.
}
\label{l_tab_interrater_agreement}
\end{table}
\section{Prediction Algorithm}
\label{l_sec_prediction_algorithm}
Our goal is to predict the various traits of a person from their facial images. We consider FAD for all our experiments, and use the traits and the corresponding classes as listed in Table~\ref{l_tab_traits}. Due to the various advantages offered by deep nets, we begin by applying one of the most famous CNN architectures \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} for our prediction task, widely known as AlexNet. The block-level architecture of AlexNet is shown in Figure~\ref{fig_alexnet}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{net}
\end{center}
\caption{
\textbf{Block Illustration of AlexNet \protect \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}: }
a deep CNN architecture.
The deep convolutional neural net has eight layers (denoted as $L1,\ldots,L8$) after the input. The last fully connected layer is conventionally followed by a softmax loss layer, but can also be replaced by the likes of Sigmoid Cross Entropy Loss Layer
\protect \cite{jia2014caffe}. We use this CNN architecture for all our experiments.
}
\label{fig_alexnet}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Brief Overview of AlexNet:} The fully-connected layers have $4096$ neurons each. Max-pooling is done to facilitate local translation-invariance and dimension reduction. For the fully connected layers, a drop-out \cite{srivastava2014dropout} probability of $0.5$ is used to avoid overfitting. The final fully connected layer takes the outputs of $L7$ as its input, produces outputs equal to the number of classes through a fully connected architecture, then passes these outputs through a softmax function, and finally applies the negative log likelihood loss. With softmax loss layer, each input image is expected to have only one label. When the softmax loss layer is replaced by a sigmoid cross-entropy loss layer, the outputs of $L8$ are applied to a sigmoid function to produce predicted probabilities, using which a cross-entropy loss is computed. Here each input can have multiple label probabilities. We refer the reader to \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} for complete details of AlexNet.
\textbf{Choice of the Loss Function:} Softmax Loss and Sigmoid Cross-Entropy Loss are the two most widely used loss functions for classification tasks in deep learning. With the softmax loss layer, the training of the AlexNet is typically accomplished by minimizing the following cost or error function (negative log-likelihood):
\small
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_s = -\dfrac{1}{N} \sum_{r=1}^{N}\, \log (\hat{p}_{r,y_r}) + \mathcal{L}_R
\end{equation}
\normalsize
where $r$ indexes $N$ training images across all traits ($r \in \{1, \ldots, N\}$), $\mathcal{L}_R = \lambda || \boldsymbol{W} ||_2$ is the L2 regularization on weights $\boldsymbol{W}$ of the deep net, $\lambda$ is a regularization parameter, and the probability $\hat{p}_{r,y_r}$ is obtained by applying the softmax function to the $M$ outputs of layer $L8$, $M$ being the number of classes we wish to predict labels for. Letting $l_{r,m}$ denote the $m^{th}$ output for $r^{th}$ image, we have
\small
\begin{equation}
\hat{p}_{r,m} = \dfrac{\mathrm{e}^{l_{r,m}}}{\sum_{m'} \mathrm{e}^{l_{r,m'}}}, \qquad ~~m,m' \in \{1, \dots, M\}.
\end{equation}
\normalsize
In case one applies the sigmoid cross entropy loss, each image is expected to be annotated with a vector of ground-truth label probabilities $\boldsymbol{p}_r$, having length $M$, and the network is trained by minimizing the following loss objective:
\small
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_e = -\dfrac{1}{NM} \sum_{r=1}^{N} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \left[\boldsymbol{p_r} \log (\boldsymbol{\hat{p}_r}) + (1 - \boldsymbol{p_r}) \log (1 -\boldsymbol{\hat{p}_r})\right] + \mathcal{L}_R
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\noindent where the probability vector $\boldsymbol{\hat{p}_r}$ is obtained by applying the sigmoid function to each of the $M$ outputs of layer $L8$.
A natural choice to approach our prediction task is to train a single CNN for all our traits / attributes. Since an image can have multiple traits, the sigmoid cross-entropy loss function is best suited for our scenario. However, we find that for our prediction task where for every given trait, we have mutually exclusive attribute classes, training one net for each given trait provides a higher accuracy. We thus establish our baseline and perform all our experiments with the latter choice. For a greater number of facial traits, one can combine the features from these independently trained CNNs, to train some fully connected layers.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{rot.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Rotation of images in the training set:} In order to make the deep net training more robust to facial pose variation, for each training image (left most), we create 4 new training images as its rotated versions (last four). The original training image is rotated by $\{-40,-20,20,40\}$ degrees.}
\label{fig:rot}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Rotating images in the training set:} In order to make the deep net training more robust to facial pose variation, for each training image, we create 4 new training images as its rotated versions. Each training image is rotated by $\{-40,-20,20,40\}$ degrees. This also increases the size of our training set by a factor of 5. Example of the rotated versions of an input image is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rot}.
\subsection{Incorporating Facial Landmark Information}
\label{l_sec_incorporating_facial_landmark}
For each of the traits, we train the network on FAD using labels for the classes of that trait, and evaluate its performance as a baseline. The input to the network is a color image, in a resolution of $D_x \times D_y$ (we used $D_x = D_y = 150$ pixels); each pixel is represented as a three ``channel'' RGB encoding. Thus the input layer has $3$ neurons, each neuron representing a 2-D matrix of size $D_x \times D_y$.
We propose an improvement to the basic deep convolutional neural network, by
incorporating facial landmark information in the input data.
Localizing facial landmarks, sometimes referred to as ``face alignment'' is a key step in many facial image analysis approaches.
Various recognition algorithms, including those dealing with facial figures, require exact positioning of an object into a canonical pose, to allow examining the position of features relative to a fixed coordinate system. Inspired by such methods, we embed landmark information in deep nets for predicting a wide range of facial attributes.
Facial landmark localization algorithms are designed to find the location of several key ``landmarks'' in an image, such as the location of the center of the eyes, parts of the nose or the sides of the mouth. Consider a list $L = (l_1, \ldots, l_k)$ of facial landmarks. Facial landmark localization algorithms receive a facial image $I$ as an input, and output the coordinates in the image for each of the landmarks $C^I = (c^I_1, \ldots, c^I_k)$ where $c^I_j = (x^I_j,y^I_j)$ are the coordinates of landmark $l_j$ in the image $I$.
An example of an image and the corresponding facial landmarks is given in Figure~\ref{fig:flm}.
Our improved approach uses a facial landmark localization algorithm as a subroutine, so any such algorithm could be used by our approach. It operates by associating each pixel in the facial image with the {\em closest} facial landmark for that image. We then add this association as an additional channel to each input image.
We now formally describe our approach. In our baseline approach, the pixel in coordinate $(x,y)$ in the input image $I$ is encoded as three RGB channels $(R^{(x,y)}, G^{(x,y)}, B^{(x,y)})$. We add an additional channel, relating to the closest facial landmark, denoted as $A^{(x,y)}$, thus increasing the number of neurons in the input layer from $3$ to $4$. $A^{(x,y)}$ encodes the identity of the nearest facial landmark to the pixel in coordinates $(x,y)$.
To compute $A^{(x,y)}$, we call the facial landmark localization algorithm (FLL) as a subroutine, to obtain a list of landmark coordinates, $C^I = (c^I_1, \ldots, c^I_k)$ where $c^I_j = (x^I_j,y^I_j)$, and compute the distance between pixel $(x,y)$ to each of these coordinates, to obtain $d^I_j(x,y) = || (x^I_j,y^I_j), (x,y) ||_2$.
We select the index of the facial landmark nearest to the pixel as the value of the pixel in the additional channel. Finally, we train the CNN on the set of augmented images, consisting of the original RGB channels and the new channel encoding the nearest landmark associated with each pixel. We refer to our approach as the \textbf{L}andmark \textbf{A}ugmented \textbf{C}onvolutional \textbf{N}eural \textbf{N}etwork (LACNN) method.
The algorithm for generating the additional channel is given in Figure~\ref{algo:vor}. For facial landmark detection, we have used the state-of-the-art TCDCN face alignment tool~\cite{zhang2014facial}, which returns the locations of $k=68$ key facial landmarks. In AUGMENT-FLL, TCDCN is thus used for FLL. We find that TCDCN is fairly robust to facial viewpoint variation. Instead of TCDCN, any other facial landmark detection tool could also be used. An illustration of the augmented input channel $A^{(x,y)}$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:flm}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Procedure{AUGMENT-FLL\\}{$I = (R^{(x,y)}, G^{(x,y)}, B^{(x,y)})$}
\State $(c^I_1, \ldots, c^I_k)$ = $FLL(I)$ \textcolor{gray}{// Get facial landmarks}
\For{$x=1$ {\bf to} $D_x$}
\For{$y=1$ {\bf to} $D_y$}
\For{$j=1$ {\bf to} $k$}
\State $d^I_j(x,y) = || (x^I_j,y^I_j), (x,y) ||_2$
\State \textcolor{gray}{// pixel-landmark distances}
\EndFor
\State $A^{(x,y)} = \arg \min_{j \in \{1, \ldots, k\}} d^I_j(x,y)$
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State \textbf{return} $I' = (R^{(x,y)}, G^{(x,y)}, B^{(x,y)}, A^{(x,y)})$
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{ \textbf{Creating $A^{(x,y)}$:} Algorithm for encoding the identity of the nearest facial landmark to every pixel. This algorithm is used to create the additional channel $A^{(x,y)}$ which augments the input images. \label{algo:vor}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
{\includegraphics[width=0.2\columnwidth]{barack_obama_181.jpg}}
{\includegraphics[width=0.2\columnwidth]{barak_flm.png}} \\
{\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{netFinalVor.pdf}}
\caption{
\textbf{Using facial landmarks for an input image:} \textbf{(\textit{Top})} Example of an input image and the corresponding facial landmarks detected using TCDCN \protect \cite{zhang2014facial}. \textbf{(\textit{Bottom})} An illustration of the augmented input channel $A^{(x,y)}$ computed using AUGMENT-FLL. Each region in $A^{(x,y)}$ is coded with a different value as per the index of the associated landmark. The figure shows the additional input channel being fed into the subsequent parts of convolutional neural network, along with the RGB image. \label{fig:flm}
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\label{l_sect_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | }
\hline
Trait & Baseline & LACNN \\
\hline
\hline
Gender & \bf{98.46\%} & 98.33\% \\
\hline
Ethnicity & 82.7\% & \bf{83.35\%} \\
\hline
Hair Color & 91\% & \bf{91.69\%} \\
\hline
Makeup & 92.5\% & \bf{92.87\%} \\
\hline
Age & 88.42\% & \bf{88.83\%} \\
\hline
\hline
Emotions & \bf{88.93\%} & 88.33\% \\
\hline
Attractive & 78.44\% & \bf{78.85\%} \\
\hline
Humorous & 66.8\% & \bf{69.06\%} \\
\hline
Chubby & 60.6\% & \bf{61.38\%} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of prediction accuracy:} The accuracy of the baseline CNN method and LACNN on FAD. For most of the objective and subjective traits, LACNN improves the prediction accuracy. }
\label{tab:res}
\end{table}
We now discuss the performance of the baseline CNN approach and LACNN. As mentioned before, we use FAD for all our experiments.
For training and inference with CNNs, we have used the Caffe Library~\cite{jia2014caffe}. For doing inference on a considerable amount of test images, we create a 80/20 train/test split with FAD, maintaining the same data distribution across the training and test sets for all traits as given in Table~\ref{l_tab_traits}. Such a split evaluates our method on roughly 36,000 labels.
Table~\ref{tab:res} shows the accuracy of the baseline CNN method and LACNN on FAD. It is clear that CNN provides an overall impressive baseline performance.
Even for highly subjective traits, where human raters tend to disagree regarding the correct label of an image (see Table~\ref{l_tab_interrater_agreement}), CNNs give a reasonable performance. This indicates that CNN based approaches are indeed flexible, and can handle many traits without resorting to building ad-hoc systems relying on hand-crafted features.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.1\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{barack_obama_181.jpg}
\caption{Input}
\label{fig:graph1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.39\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bo_181_base.png}
\caption{Responses using baseline CNN}
\label{fig:graph2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.39\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bo_181_vor.png}
\caption{Responses using LACNN }
\label{fig:graph4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Visualizing output of the first convolutional layer of AlexNet trained with baseline CNN and LACNN:} For an input image, figure shows the outputs responses of the first convolutional layer of AlexNet trained using the baseline CNN method and our proposed LACNN. Both visualizations have been generated from nets trained on the same trait. The first convolutional layer of AlexNet contains 96 neurons, whose outputs are shown here on a 10 $\times$ 10 grid. A careful observation reveals that the responses generated using LACNN contain more detailed information as compared to the ones generated with baseline CNN: neurons in LACNN contain more discernible information about key facial parts. Also, more neurons exhibit valuable information in LACNN.
\label{fig:lacnn}}
\end{figure*}
The proposed LACNN shows consistent improvement across most of the traits as compared to the CNN baseline. Note that LACNN has the capability to improve performance for both the objective as well as the subjective traits. This substantiates our intuition that face alignment information can be useful in predicting facial attributes using deep nets.
To further validate our intuition that facial landmarks should help the CNN learn more robust attribute-specific features in a more consustent manner, we depict the visualizations of the output responses of the first convolutional layer of AlexNet, trained with both baseline CNN and LACNN in Figure~\ref{fig:lacnn}.
Observing the filter activations of the first convolutional layer shows that the responses generated using LACNN have more detailed information as compared to the ones generated with the baseline of a non-augmented CNN.
The output responses generated with LACNN have many variations of prominent facial parts including the nose, eyes, hairline, etc. Further, there is a higher number of neurons exhibiting such valuable information in the case of LACNN.
The outputs with better discernible information can be attributed to the fact that landmark augmentation helps the CNN to learn filters in a way such that similar regions across a range of facial images hold correspondence to exhibit similar responses. This is clearly important for facial attribute prediction, since a given trait in any face is always associated with the same combination of facial sub-parts.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{l_conc}
We have proposed a method for predicting personal attributes from facial images, based on a CNN architecture augmented with face alignment information. We have empirically evaluated our approach by building a tagged facial images dataset called FAD, showing that improved classification performance can be achieved for a very wide range of traits using our approach.
Observing the filter activations of the first convolutional layer (Figure~\ref{fig:lacnn}) shows that the responses generated using LACNN have more detailed,
which suggests our technique would be more robust to image noise.future work could test this hypothesis.
Several questions remain open for further research. First, could one devise a method using facial landmarks to better detect facial attributes, such that attribute-specific regions are explicitly learned for faces? Could such a method be used for {\em ranking} facial images according to attributes?
Further, could one detect more subjective attributes such as more detailed emotions or traits such as being in shape (muscle tone) or other health related traits or friendliness? Could such an analysis be based on the information contained in the nets trained for the basic objective attributes?
Finally, could one exploit graph-structured compositions within the deep nets to better interpret facial traits? More generally, a key disadvantage of CNN based methods is that the learned model is not ``human interpretable'' in the sense that it is difficult to understand which sub-parts of the network drive the prediction. Would it be possible to train multiple nets or a single net for many traits and examine the correlation, so that it would be possible to explain the predictions made by the system in a way understandable by humans?
\small
\bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section{Introduction}
Layered transition metal dichalcogenides (LTMDs) have attracted
intensive attentions in recent years due to their intrinsic
non-zero bandgap, which gives them a superior advantage over
graphene for use in nanoelectronic and optoelectronic applications
such as field-effect transistors and electroluminescent devices
\cite{Wang,Ataca}. This class of layered materials with chemical
composition of MX$_2$, where M and X correspond to the transition
metal and the chalcogen elements, respectively, crystallizes in a
hexagonal structure like graphene in which the M-atom layer is
covalently bonded and sandwiched between the two X-atom layers.
Among LTMD materials, MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ monolayers with a direct
bandgap configuration have been extensively investigated because
of many intriguing physical and chemical properties
\cite{Radisavljevic,Braga,ZhenZhou}. These compounds can be
synthesized through various methods, such as mechanical
exfoliation \cite{Novoselov}, chemical vapor deposition
\cite{Zhang}, and intercalation techniques \cite{Eda}. In
addition, they have quite similar lattice constants which also
enable the synthesis of MoS$_2$-WS$_2$ heterostructures with
minimum interfacial defects \cite{Kang,Kosmider,Chen,Yoo,Gong}.
Point defects such as atomic vacancies may cause a large variation
in the electronic and optical properties of LTMDs. Vacancy
defects, which can be created by thermal annealing and $\alpha$
particles \cite{Tongay} or electron beam irradiation \cite{Zhou},
form localized trap states in the bandgap region, leading to light
emission at energies lower than the interband optical transition
energy \cite{Tongay}. On the other hand, the observed charge
mobility in single-layer MoS$_2$ is surprisingly low compared to
bulk sample \cite{Novoselov,Radisavljevic}, indicating that the
charge carrier scattering by structural defects, such as vacancies
and grain boundaries, may be a primary source for such a low
mobility \cite{Tongay,Enyashin,Asl}. Hong \textit{et al.}
\cite{Hong} have studied point defects and their concentrations
for several samples of MoS$_2$ by means of different preparation
methods. They found that the dominant type of point defects in
each sample is strongly dependent on the chosen sample preparation
method. Nevertheless, the sulphur vacancy is the predominant point
defect compared to Mo vacancy, regardless of the type of
preparation method. \cite{Hong}
The effects of point defects on the electronic structure of LTMDs
have also been theoretically studied by several groups using first
principles calculations
\cite{Enyashin,Asl,Ataca2,Ma,Komsa,Wei,Liu,Zhou2,BHuang} and
6-band tight-binding (TB) model \cite{Yuan}. Although, \textit{ab
initio} methods based on density functional theory (DFT) can
achieve a good degree of accuracy to describe the electronic
structure of pristine LTMD materials, they are limited in their
application by the presence of defects in the samples. For
instance, simulation of vacancy-doped MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$
monolayers with a random distribution of vacancies requires a very
large supercell in the calculations which is computationally
expensive for DFT methods. With TB approach which is a simpler and
less computationally demanding method, however, it is possible to
deal with such large systems. The use of large supercells within
TB model makes it also possible to eliminate the vacancy-vacancy
interactions from the calculations.
After the two-band ${\bf k}\cdot{\bf p}$ model describing the
conduction and valence bands around the two valleys (K and
K$^\prime$ points) in the hexagonal Brillouin zone of LTMD
\cite{Xiao}, several TB models in various approximations have been
proposed to reproduce the first-principles band structure of
pristine LTMD \cite{Rostami,Zahid,Cappelluti,Roldan,Liu}. Among
them, the TB model of Zahid \textit{et al.} \cite{Zahid},
including nonorthogonal $sp^3d^5$ orbitals of M and X atoms and
spin-orbit coupling, is able to accurately reproduce the
first-principles bands for a wide range of energies in the
Brillouin zone. The model considers nearest-neighbor Slater-Koster
hopping matrix elements of M-M, M-X, and X-X, which can be applied
to monolayers, bilayers and bulk MX$_2$ \cite{Zahid}.
In this work, based on the parameterized TB model of Zahid
\textit{et al.} \cite{Zahid}, we explore the influence of vacancy
defects on the electric properties of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$
monolayers to see how the missing atoms at different
concentrations evolve the intrinsic bandgap and electronic states
of the monolayers. Since the model presents an accurate
description for the band structure of LTMDs, the application of
this model to defective MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ provides a more
realistic understanding of the electronic states contributing to
the process of vacancy formation and the accurate location of
defect states within the bandgap. Moreover, the optimized
geometries of the monolayers obtained by \textit{ab initio}
calculations have demonstrated that atomic vacancies do not cause
a considerable geometry deformation and the neighboring atoms
around the vacancies do not show any visible displacement
\cite{Wei,Ataca}. Therefore, the defect-induced deformation is
ignored. We show that the vacancy defects mainly induce localized
states within the bandgap of pristine MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$, leading
to a shift of the Fermi level toward valance or conduction band,
depending on the type of vacancy. The rest of this paper is as
follows. In section II we introduce our model and formalism for
calculation of band structure and electronic states of the
defective monolayers. Numerical results and discussion for
electronic properties of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ with different types
and concentrations of vacancy defects are presented in Sec. III. A
brief conclusion is given in Sec. IV.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig1.eps}}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Top view of MoS$_2$ (WS$_2$) monolayer
with 3$\times$3 supercells containing Mo (W) vacancy (blue dotted
circles). Numbers 1-6 represent the supercells for which the
reference supercell, shown by $\mathbf{0}$, has any overlap. (b)
Top view of the region around a single S vacancy shown by red
dotted circle. (c) Hexagonal (solid) and rhombic (dotted)
Brillouin zones of the monolayer with the red lines along which
the band structures are calculated.}
\end{figure}
\section{Model and formalism}
The band structure of defective MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ is carried out
within the non-orthogonal Slater-Koster scheme \cite{Slater}. From
DFT calculations \cite{Zahid}, we know that the bands of both
structures are made up of the $s$, $p$, and $d$ valence orbitals
of Mo, W, and S atoms. Therefore, a basis set consisting of $s$,
$p_x$, $p_y$, $p_z$, $d_{xy}$, $d_{xz}$, $d_{yz}$, $d_{x^2-y^2}$,
$d_{3z^2-r^2}$ orbitals is used as a starting point for
constructing the TB Hamiltonian. This means that for a monolayer
MX$_2$ with one M atom and two X atoms per unit cell, we should
consider a 27-band TB spinless model. Moreover, a Bloch sum is
taken into account for each atomic orbital on each atomic site in
the unit cell due to the periodicity of the monolayer. On the
other hand, in order to model a defective MX$_2$ monolayer with
different vacancy concentrations the system is partitioned into
$n\times n$ supercells each containing $n^2$ unit cells where $n$
is an integer number. Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) show such a monolayer
with 3$\times$3 supercells each containing a single vacancy
defect. Since all the valence orbitals of the atoms belonging to
the supercell are included in the atomic orbitals basis set, the
number of bands increases with the size of the supercell. The
total Hamiltonian of MX$_2$ monolayer can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{H}
\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{SK}}\otimes\dblone+\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{SO}}\
,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{SK}}$ represents the Slater-Koster
tight-binding Hamiltonian for non-orthogonal $sp^3d^5$ orbitals,
$\dblone$ is the $2\times2$ identity matrix, and
$\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{SO}}$ is an atomiclike spin-orbit coupling.
$\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{SK}}$ has the same form for both spin-up and
spin-down states and can be expressed in the real space as
\begin{equation}\label{HSK}
\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{SK}}=\sum_{i,j}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}(\epsilon_{i\alpha}\delta_{ij}
\delta_{\alpha\beta}+t_{i\alpha,j\beta})d^\dag_{i\alpha}d_{j\beta}\
,
\end{equation}
where $d^\dag_{i\alpha}$ is the creation operator for an electron
in an atomic valence orbital $\alpha$ at $i$-th atom,
$\psi_{i\alpha}$, with on-site energy $\epsilon_{i\alpha}$. The
hopping parameters,
$t_{i\alpha,j\beta}=\langle\psi_{i\alpha}|\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{SK}}|\psi_{j\beta}\rangle$,
between atomic orbitals $\psi_{i\alpha}$ and $\psi_{j\beta}$ are
real Slater-Koster integrals that depend for each orbital pair on
the directional cosines of the vector connecting nearest neighbors
and on the Slater-Koster TB parameters $V_{ss\sigma}$,
$V_{sp\sigma}$, $V_{ps\sigma}$, $V_{pp\sigma}$, $V_{pp\pi}$,
$V_{sd\sigma}$, $V_{ds\sigma}$, $V_{pd\sigma}$, $V_{dp\sigma}$,
$V_{pd\pi}$, $V_{dp\pi}$, $V_{dd\sigma}$, $V_{dd\pi}$, and
$V_{dd\delta}$ for MoS$_2$ \cite{Zahid} and WS$_2$ \cite{Private}.
These parameters are related to hopping processes between
nearest-neighbor Mo-S (W-S), between the nearest-neighbor in-plane
Mo-Mo (W-W), and between the nearest-neighbor in-plane and
out-of-plane S-S atoms in MoS$_2$ (WS$_2$) monolayer. The hopping
terms between next nearest neighbors are ignored in this model.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{Fig2.eps}}
\caption{(Color online) (a) The calculated band structure with the
projection of spin operator and corresponding partial DOS of
pristine (a) MoS$_2$ and (b) WS$_2$ monolayers. The blue and red
colors in the band structure indicate the spin-up and spin-down
states, respectively. The hollow circles correspond to DFT
calculations \cite{Feng,Gibertini,Wickramaratne}. The intersection
of white and yellow regions shows the Fermi energy.}
\end{figure}
The intra-atomic spin-orbit interaction acting on both the
transition metal and the chalcogen atoms is incorporated in the
Hamiltonian via the second term in Eq. (\ref{H}) which is written
as \cite{Roldan},
\begin{equation}\label{HSO}
\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{SO}=\sum_{i}\sum_{\sigma\sigma'}\frac{\lambda_i}
{2\hbar}\mathbf{L}_{i}\cdot\bm{\tau}_{\sigma\sigma'}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\bm{\tau}$ are the Pauli spin matrices, $\mathbf{L}_{i}$ is
the atomic angular momentum operator, and $\lambda_i$ is the
intra-atomic spin-orbit coupling constant which depends on the
type of atom $i$. In the presence of such a spin-orbit coupling,
inversion symmetry breaking in the LTMD materials lifts the spin
degeneracy of the energy bands, leading to a strong spin-splitting
in the valence-band maximum (VBM) \cite{Xiao}.
Within the non-orthogonal scheme, the orbital overlap
$\mathcal{S}_{i\alpha,j\beta}=\langle
\psi_{i\alpha}|\psi_{j\beta}\rangle$ obtained from Slater-Koster
parameters, can be non-zero. Therefore, the band structure of the
system is calculated by solving the generalized eigenvalue
problem:
\begin{equation}\label{HSK}
\mathcal{H}({\bf k})\mathcal{C}_\alpha({\bf
k})=E_\alpha\mathcal{S}({\bf k})\mathcal{C}_\alpha({\bf k})\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}_\alpha({\bf k})$ denotes the eigenvector of the
band $\alpha$ and ${\bf k}$ is an allowed wave vector in the
two-dimensional Brillouin zone, shown in Fig. 1(c). Note that the
size of Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}({\bf k})$ and overlap,
$\mathcal{S}({\bf k})$, matrices (including spin), which is the
same as the size of $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ in the real
space, is equal to $2N\times 2N$, where $N$ is the number of basis
orbitals per supercell and 2 is for spin. In the absence of
vacancy defects, the size of these matrices, including the
spin-orbit interaction for a monolayer with $3\times 3$
supercells, is $486\times 486$. To introduce a single vacancy
defect, we remove one atom from the supercell while the symmetry
of the lattice remains intact \cite{Papa}. This reduces the number
of atomic orbitals in each supercell and hence the size of
matrices.
The Hamiltonian and overlap matrices in the discrete version of
Bloch's theorem \cite{Datta} can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{HK}
\mathcal{H}({\bf k})=\sum_{m=0}^6\mathcal{H}_{0m}\mathrm{e}^{i{\bf
k}\cdot({\bf r}_m-{\bf r}_0)}\ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{HK}
\mathcal{S}({\bf k})=\sum_{m=0}^6\mathcal{S}_{0m}\mathrm{e}^{i{\bf
k}\cdot({\bf r}_m-{\bf r}_0)}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the supercell index and the summation runs over all
neighboring supercells including the reference supercell, as shown
by $\mathbf{0}$ in Fig. 1(a). Because of the periodicity of the
lattice in Fig. 1(a), the result is independent of the reference
unit cell that we choose. The Green's function of MX$_2$ monolayer
is defined by
$G(\epsilon,\mathbf{k})=[(\epsilon+i\delta)\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{k})-\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{k})]^{-1}$
where $\delta$ is a positive infinitesimal. Accordingly, the local
density of states (DOS), $\rho^{\sigma}_{i\alpha}(\epsilon)$, for
an electron with spin $\sigma$ in an atomic orbital $\alpha$ at
site $i$ in the supercell can be obtained directly from the
Green's function of the MX$_2$ monolayer through \cite{Lopez}
\begin{equation}\label{rho}
\rho^{\sigma}_{i\alpha}(\epsilon)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\mathrm{Im}\sum_{\bf
k}[G(\epsilon,{\bf k})\mathcal{S}({\bf
k})]_{i\alpha,i\alpha}^{\sigma,\sigma}\ .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the partial DOS of an atomic orbital $\alpha$ in the
unit cell is simply given as
$\rho_{\alpha}(\epsilon)=\sum_{i,\sigma}\rho^{\sigma}_{i\alpha}(\epsilon)$.
\section{results and discussion}
We now use the method described above to study the influence of
single vacancy defects on electronic properties of MoS$_2$ and
WS$_2$ monolayers. First, we discuss the TB band structure and
partial DOS of the pristine monolayers in the presence of
spin-orbit interaction and their consistency with DFT
calculations. It should be mentioned that for more quantitative
agreement between our TB results and fully-relativistic ab-initio
DFT calculations \cite{Xiao}, we include the spin-orbit coupling
between Mo $d$ orbitals, instead of $p$ orbitals and only between
W $d$ orbitals, instead of $p$ and $d$ orbitals used in Ref.
\onlinecite{Zahid}. The fitted spin-orbit parameters, the
valence-band spin-splitting values, and the band gaps obtained in
this way are presented in Table I. The bandgap values of 1.80 eV
for MoS$_2$ and 1.98 eV for WS$_2$ and the valence band spin-orbit
splittings, obtained using this method, are in good agreement with
DFT \cite{Zahid,Feng,Kang} and experimental values \cite{Mak}.
Note that the single-layer WS$_2$ has a larger bandgap because the
crystal field splitting of the metal $d$ states, which is larger
in W compared to Mo, is responsible for a large part of the
bandgap \cite{Mattheiss}. In addition, the valence band
spin-splitting in WS$_2$ is almost three times larger than that in
MoS$_2$, which makes the observation of valley and spin Hall
effect easier in WS$_2$ \cite{Xiao}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The fitted values of spin-orbit parameters,
$\lambda_{i}$, for Mo, W, and S atoms; the spin-splitting of the
VBM, $\Delta_{\mathrm{SO}}$; and the values of bandgap,
$E_\mathrm{g}$. All quantities are in units of eV.} \centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline\hline &~~~~~$\lambda_{i,\mathrm{Mo/W}~~~~~}$ &
~~~~~$\lambda_{i,\mathrm{S}}$~~~~~ & ~~~~~
$\Delta_{\mathrm{SO}}$~~~~~ & ~~~$E_\mathrm{g}~~$\\[0.5ex]\hline
MoS$_2$ & 0.130 & 0.057 & 0.154 & 1.80 \\
WS$_2$ & 0.422 & 0.057 & 0.449 & 1.98 \\[1ex]
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:1}
\end{table}
Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) show the electronic structure with the
projection of spin operator and the corresponding partial DOS of
MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ monolayers, respectively. We see that both
monolayers have a direct bandgap at the two inequivalent corners K
and K$^\prime$ of the Brillouin zone (Fig. 1(c)). The spin
splittings in the band structures along $\Gamma$-K-M and
$\Gamma$-K$^\prime$-M lines are opposite which lead to
valley-selective optical absorption and may cause optically
induced valley and spin Hall effects \cite{Xiao}. Comparing the
band structures with that given in Refs. \onlinecite{Feng},
\onlinecite{Wickramaratne}, and \onlinecite{Gibertini} clearly
shows the quantitative agreement between TB and DFT results (see
hollow circles in Fig. 2). From the partial DOS of pristine
monolayers one can see the contribution of each type of atomic
orbitals to the formation of energy bands. The conduction-band
minimum (CBM) and the VBM of MoS$_2$ (WS$_2$) are mostly dominated
by Mo (W) $d$ orbitals and S $p$ orbitals, in agreement with DFT
\cite{Feng}. Moreover, the inclusion of S $3d$ orbitals in our
model leads to a nonzero contribution to the electronic states
which is comparable to S $3p$ orbitals in the conduction band.
To study atomic vacancy defects, the monolayer is partitioned into
supercells and one atom from each supercell is removed without any
change in the symmetry of the lattice (see Fig. 1(a)). We have
examined several supercell sizes (3$\times$3, 4$\times$4 and
5$\times$5) to reveal the strength of vacancy-vacancy interaction
on the localized midgap states. Note that in the supercell
calculations, as the supercell grows in size, the corresponding
Brillouin zone in the ${\bf k}$-space shrinks and the bands in the
original (normal) Brillouin zone get folded into the supercell
Brillouin zone. In other words, if the supercell is $n$ times
larger than the normal cell, the Brilouin zone of the supercell
will be $n$ times smaller and will contain $n$ times more bands.
Now, let us consider metal vacancies at different concentrations
in MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ monolayers. In Fig. 3, we show the band
structure and the corresponding partial DOS of MoS$_2$ when a Mo
vacancy is introduced. Since each supercell contains only one
atomic vacancy defect, the size of supercell manifests itself as a
measure of defect concentration. Accordingly, the Mo defect
concentration per supercell in Fig. 3(a)-3(c) is $\frac{1}{27}$,
$\frac{1}{48}$, and $\frac{1}{75}$, respectively. The defect
concentrations represent the ratio of number of vacancies to the
number of atomic sites per supercell which correspond to vacancy
densities of $\sim 12.8\times 10^{13}$, $7.2\times 10^{13}$, and
$4.6\times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$, respectively. We see that at high
vacancy concentration, i.e., $\frac{1}{27}$, the defect states
form a band in the middle of the gap, whose width is $\sim$ 0.73
eV (see Fig. 3(a)). The midgap band creates defect states with
three peaks in the DOS spectrum arising from neighboring Mo $4d$
orbitals and S $3p$ and $3d$ orbitals around the defect. In
addition, the vacancy defect induces a sharp peak at the top of
the valence band (Fig. 3(a)), corresponding to S $3p$ orbitals,
which shifts toward lower energies as the concentration decreases.
The midgap band splits into two bands centered around Fermi level
of pristine MoS$_2$ as shown in Fig. 3(b). These bands become more
localized at concentration $\frac{1}{75}$ (Fig. 3(c)) indicating
that gap states generated by Mo vacancies are mainly localized
around atomic defects, in agreement with Ref. \onlinecite{Yuan}.
It is important to point out that the position of Fermi energy is
determined by counting the number of electrons that the atoms in
the supercell provide. These electrons fill up the lowest energy
bands and hence, the Fermi level lies between the highest occupied
band and the lowest unoccupied band.
\begin{figure}
\center\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{Calculated band structure and corresponding partial DOS
of MoS$_2$ monolayer with (a) 3$\times$3, (b) 4$\times$4, and (c)
5$\times$5 supercells each containing a single Mo vacancy. The
intersection of white and yellow regions shows the Fermi energy.}
\end{figure}
We now consider the effect of metal vacancies on electronic
structure of WS$_2$ monolayer at different defect concentrations,
as shown in Figs. 4(a)-4(c). The band structure of Fig. 4(a) shows
two midgap bands in their close proximity, located below the Fermi
energy of the pristine monolayer. These bands form a single narrow
band with three peaks in the partial DOS, associated with
localized states around the defects as the concentration decreases
(see Fig. 4(b) and 4(c)). We see that the midgap states originate
mainly from W $5d$ orbitals and S $3p$ and $3d$ orbitals,
indicating that the contribution of S $3d$ orbitals could be
considerable in the electronic structure of LTMD when metal
vacancies are introduced in the system. Moreover, contrary to the
electronic structure of defective MoS$_2$ with Mo vacancies, the
induced sharp peak at the top of the valence band, corresponding
to the S $3p$ orbitals, is not shifted down in energy as the
distance between point defects in WS$_2$ monolayer increases. This
reveals a strong hybridization between sulphur atoms, and hence,
localization of S $3p$ states around W defects.
\begin{figure}
\center\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{The calculated band structure and corresponding partial
DOS of WS$_2$ monolayer with (a) 3$\times$3, (b) 4$\times$4, and
(c) 5$\times$5 supercells each containing a single W vacancy. The
intersection of white and yellow regions shows the Fermi energy.}
\end{figure}
Comparing Fig. 3 with Fig. 4, we find that the Fermi energy in
both MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ monolayers is shifted down in energy by
the presence of metal vacancies. This suggests that the Mo/W point
defects can make the system a p-type semiconductor, in agreement
with DFT results \cite{Lu}. Moreover, the defect states of WS$_2$
are closer to VBM than that of MoS$_2$ monolayer, indicating that
the WS$_2$ monolayer may act as a more efficient p-type
semiconductor than MoS$_2$, when the metal vacancies are induced.
\begin{figure}
\center\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{The calculated band structure and corresponding partial
DOS of MoS$_2$ monolayer with (a) 3$\times$3, (b) 4$\times$4, and
(c) 5$\times$5 supercells each containing a single S vacancy. The
intersection of white and yellow regions shows the Fermi energy.}
\end{figure}
Let us study the influence of chalcogen defect on the electronic
structure of the monolayers. Figs. 5 and 6 show the band
structures and the partial DOS of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ monolayers,
respectively, when a single sulphur vacancy (Fig. 1(b)) is created
per supercell. From Fig. 5(a) it is evident that at high defect
concentration, the sulphur vacancies induce a midgap band with
bandwidth $\sim 0.6$ eV in the vicinity of the VBM, indicating
that the defect states tend to be more delocalized due to the
interaction between S vacancies. The midgap band manifests itself
as defect states with three peaks in partial DOS which become more
localized as the concentration decreases (Figs. 5(b) and 5(c)). In
addition, there is a flat band just below the MoS$_2$ CBM which
does not change notably with the concentration changes. The Mo
$4d$ orbitals around the vacancies play the main role in creation
of midgap states, while the S $3p$ and $3d$ orbitals do not
contribute considerably to the defect states of gap region. The
presence of sulphur vacancy shifts the Fermi level to the bottom
of the conduction band due to unsaturated electrons in the Mo
orbitals around the vacancy defect. This property suggests that
sulphur vacancies can turn the MoS$_2$ monolayers into a n-type
semiconductor in agreement with theory and experiment
\cite{Radisavljevic,Liu2,Lu,Qiu}.
On the other hand, the electronic band structure of WS$_2$
monolayer in the presence of sulphur vacancies with concentration
$\frac{1}{27}$ shows a narrow band with bandwidth $\sim 0.15$ eV
in the gap region (Fig. 6(a)). In this case the contribution of W
$5d$ orbitals and S $3p$ and $3d$ orbitals in generation of midgap
states are almost the same, as shown in the partial DOS of Fig.
6(a). As the size of the supercell increases, the defect state in
the bandgap becomes more localized around the vacancy region and
the contribution of W $5d$ states dominates in the localized state
as can be seen in the DOS of Figs. 6(b) and 6(c). The defect state
which acts as a donor level, lies about 0.6 eV below the CBM, in
agreement with the DFT result \cite{Wei}, indicating that at a
high enough temperature some of the localized charges can be
transferred to the CBM and therefore increase the system
conductivity. Accordingly, we conclude that the sulphur vacancies
act as electron donors and make the both MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$
monolayers electron rich. Besides the monosulphur vacancies, the
effect of two neighboring sulphur (disulphur) vacancies on the
same side of the monolayers, and also on different sides of the
monolayer, but on top of each other per supercell on the
electronic properties of the layers was also examined (not shown
here). Our TB calculations showed an additional shift of Fermi
level toward conduction band with an increase in the number of
localized states in the bandgap. The experimental observations
have demonstrated that these disulphur vacancies are less probable
to create, due to their formation energy which is roughly twice of
that of the monosulphur defect \cite{Zhou,Hong}.
\begin{figure}
\center\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{The calculated band structure and corresponding partial
DOS of WS$_2$ monolayer with (a) 3$\times$3, (b) 4$\times$4, and
(c) 5$\times$5 supercells each containing a single S vacancy. The
intersection of white and yellow regions shows the Fermi energy.}
\end{figure}
Comparing the localized donor states and the Fermi energy in Figs.
5 and 6, it is clear that the n-type semiconducting behavior in
MoS$_2$ is more dominant than that in WS$_2$, when the sulphur
vacancies are introduced. This feature is in agreement with the
recent experimental observation of electronic properties of
MoS$_2$-WS$_2$ heterostructures, indicating that both MoS$_2$ and
WS$_2$ act as n-type semiconductors with relatively high Fermi
level in MoS$_2$ as compared to WS$_2$ \cite{Chen}.
To show the advantage of our tight-binding method over
first-principles calculations, we have also studied the vacancy
defects in the 11$\times$11 supercells which correspond to vacancy
concentration of $\sim 9.5\times10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$. The electronic
structure of both MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ monolayers with such a low
concentration of sulphur and metal defects are shown in Fig. 7.
Due to this low density of defects, the vacancy-vacancy
interaction is quite negligible and hence the midgap states are
strongly localized. Comparing Fig. 7 with Figs. 3-6, we see that
the p-type and n-type semiconducting behaviors in these defective
monolayers are not affected by the value of defect concentration.
Therefore, it is evident that this size of supercell is
computationally trivial for our tight-binding scheme, but
extremely expensive for DFT methods.
It is important to point out that the calculation of
spin-dependent density of states in the close proximity of sulphur
and metal defects did not show any spin polarization, indicating
that in the present approximation, the single S, Mo, and W
vacancies do not induce any magnetic moments.
Finally, we would like to emphasize that the agreement between the
results of our Slater-Koster tight-binding model and the
first-principles calculations in predicting p-type and n-type
semiconducting behaviors is related to the accuracy and
reliability of fitted parameters which provide us a more accurate
description of the band structures, as shown in Fig. 2.
Accordingly, our method is not only able to clearly demonstrate
the electronic band structure of defective MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$
monolayers, but also is very computationally affordable and can be
easily generalized to study very large systems with a random
distribution of single defects and other types of vacancies such
as MoS double vacancies, MoS$_2$ triple vacancies and antisite
defects \cite{Hong,Ataca}.
\begin{figure}
\center\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig7.eps}
\caption{The calculated band structure of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$
monolayers with 11$\times$11 supercells each containing a single
atomic defect. (a) MoS$_2$ with Mo vacancies, (b) WS$_2$ with W
vacancies, (c) MoS$_2$ and (d) WS$_2$ with S vacancies. The
intersection of white and yellow regions shows the Fermi energy.}
\end{figure}
\section{conclusion}
Using Slater-Koster tight-binding model with non-orthogonal
$sp^3d^5$ orbitals and including the spin-orbit coupling, we have
explored the effect of atomic vacancies on electronic structure of
MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ monolayers. The vacancy defects mainly create
localized states within the bandgap of pristine MoS$_2$ and
WS$_2$, along with a shift in the Fermi energy toward VBM or CBM.
As a result, the electronic properties of these monolayers are
strongly affected by the introduction of atomic defects. Our
results show that metal vacancies have potential to make the
monolayers p-type semiconductors, while the sulphur vacancies turn
the system as a n-type semiconductor.
Localization of midgap states by decreasing the defect
concentration in both metal and chalcogen vacancies suggests that
point defects in MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ can act as resonant scatterers
\cite{Chen2,Saffar1}. Moreover, the vacancy-induced localized
states have the potential to activate new optical transitions with
energies less than energy gap in their optical spectrum,
suggesting a potential application of LTMDs for optoelectronic
devices.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We are very grateful to F. Zahid and L. Liu for providing us the
WS$_2$ parameters and for valuable comments. This work is
partially supported by Iran Science Elites Federation.
|
\section{Introduction}
There are a number of theorems about the structure of sparse graphs that assert a duality between the existence of a highly connected substructure and a tree-like overall structure. For example, if a connected graph $G$ has no 2-connected subgraph or minor, it is a tree. Less trivially, the graph minor structure theorem of Robertson and Seymour says that if $G$ has no $K_n$-minor then it has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ into parts that are `almost' embeddable in a surface of bounded genus; see~\cite{DiestelBook16}.
Another example of a highly connected substructure is that of a \emph{$k$-block}, introduced by Mader~\cite{mader78} in 1978 and studied more recently in~\cite{ForcingBlocks, confing, CG14:isolatingblocks}. This is a maximal set of at least $k$ vertices in a graph~$G$ such that no two of them can be separated in~$G$ by fewer than $k$ vertices.
One of our main results is that the non-existence of a $k$-block, too, is always witnessed by a tree structure (Theorem~\ref{t:block}). This problem was raised in~\cite[Sec.~7]{ForcingBlocks}.%
\COMMENT{}
In~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract}, Diestel and Oum used a new theory of `abstract separation systems'~\cite{AbstractSepSys} in pursuit of this problem, but were unable to find the tree structures needed: the simplest witnesses to the nonexistence of $k$-blocks they could find are described in~\cite{DiestelOumDualityII}, but they are more complicated than trees. Our proof of Theorem~\ref{t:block}, and the rest of this paper, are still based on the theory developed in \cite{AbstractSepSys} and~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract}, and we show that there are tree-like obstructions to the existence of $k$-blocks after all.\looseness=-1
Tangles, introduced by Robertson and Seymour in~\cite{GMX}, are substructures of graphs that also signify high local connectivity, but of a less tangible kind than subgraphs, minors, or blocks. Basically, a tangle does not tell us `what' that substructure is, but only `where' it is: by orienting all the low-order separations of the graph in some consistent way, which we then think of as pointing `towards the tangle'. See Section~\ref{s:dual} below, or~\cite{DiestelBook16}, for a formal introduction to tangles.
Tangles come with dual tree structures called {\em branch decompositions\/}. Although defined differently, they can be thought of as tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion s of a particular kind. In~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract, TangleTreeGraphsMatroids}, Diestel and Oum generalised the notion of tangles to ways of consistently orienting the low-order separations of a graph so as to describe other known types of highly connected substructures too, such as those dual to tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion s of low width. We shall build on~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract} to find dual tree structures for various types of tangles, for blocks, and for `profiles': a common generalisation of blocks and tangles introduced in~\cite{ProfilesNew} and defined formally in Section~\ref{s:prof}.
Let us describe our results more precisely. A~classical $k$-tangle, as in~\cite{GMX}, is an orientation of all the separations $\{A,B\}$ of order~${<k}$ in a graph~$G$, say as~$(A,B)$ rather than as~$(B,A)$, so that no three of these cover~$G$ by the subgraphs that $G$ induces on their `small sides'~$A$. Let $\mathcal T$ denote the set of all such forbidden triples of oriented separations of~$G$, irrespective of their order. The tangle duality theorem of Robertson and Seymour then asserts that, given~$k$, either the set $S_k$ of all the separations of~$G$ of order~$<k$ can be oriented in such a way as to induce no triple from~$\mathcal T$~-- an orientation of~$S_k$ we shall call a $\mathcal T$-tangle~-- or $G$ has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ of a particular type: one from which it is clear that $G$ cannot have a $k$-tangle, i.e., a $\mathcal T$-tangle of~$S_k$.
Now consider any superset $\mathcal F$ of~$\mathcal T$. Given~$k$, the orientations of~$S_k$ with no subset in~$\mathcal F$ will then be particular types of tangles. Our $\mathcal F$-tangle duality theorem yields duality theorems for all these: if $G$ contains no such `special' tangle, it will have a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ that witnesses this. Formally, to every such~$\mathcal F$ and~$k$ there will correspond a class $\mathcal T_\mathcal F(k)$ of tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion s that witness the non-existence of an $\mathcal F$-tangle of~$S_k$, and which are shown to exist whenever a graph has no $\mathcal F$-tangle of~$S_k$:
\begin{theorem}\label{t:Ftangle}
For every finite graph $G$, every set $\mathcal F\supseteq\mathcal T$ of sets of separations of~$G$, and every integer $k > 2$, exactly one of the following statements holds:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt\vskip-\smallskipamount\vskip0pt
\item $G$ admits an $\mathcal F$-tangle of~$S_k$;
\item $G$ has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ in~$\mathcal T_\mathcal F(k)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Every $k$-block also defines an orientation of~$S_k$: as no separation ${\{A,B\}\in S_k}$ separates it, it lies entirely in~$A$ or entirely in~$B$. These orientations of~$S_k$ need not be $k$-tangles, so we cannot apply Theorem~\ref{t:Ftangle} to obtain a duality theorem for $k$-blocks. But still, we shall be able to define classes $\mathcal T_\mathcal B(k)$ of tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion s that witness the non-existence of a $k$-block, in the sense that graphs with such a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ cannot contain one, and which always exist for graphs without a $k$-block:
\begin{theorem}\label{t:block}
For every finite graph $G$ and every integer $k > 0$ exactly one of the following statements holds:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt\vskip-\smallskipamount\vskip0pt
\item $G$ contains a $k$-block;
\item $G$ has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ in~$\mathcal T_\mathcal B(k)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Finally, we define classes $\mathcal T_\P(k)$ of tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion s which graphs with a $k$-profile cannot have, and prove the following duality theorem for profiles:
\begin{theorem}\label{t:prof}
For every finite graph $G$ and every integer $k > 2$ exactly one of the following statements holds:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt\vskip-\smallskipamount\vskip0pt
\item $G$ has a $k$-profile;
\item $G$ has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ in~$\mathcal T_\P(k)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
For readers already familiar with profiles~\cite{ProfilesNew} we remark that, in fact, we shall obtain a more general result than Theorem~\ref{t:prof}: our Theorem~\ref{t:main} is a duality theorem for all regular profiles in abitrary submodular%
\COMMENT{}
abstract separation systems, including the standard ones in graphs and matroids but many others too~\cite{MonaLisa}.
Like Theorem~\ref{t:Ftangle}, Theorems \ref{t:block} and~\ref{t:prof} are `structural' duality theorems in that they identify a structure that a graph~$G$ cannot have if it contains a $k$-block or $k$-profile, and must have if it does not. Alternatively, we can express the same duality more compactly in terms of graph invariants, as follows. Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta(G) &:=& \max\,\{\,k\mid G\text{ has a $k$-block }\}\\
\pi(G) &:=&\max\,\{\,k\mid G\text{ has a $k$-profile }\}
\end{eqnarray*}
be the {\em block number\/} and the {\em profile number\/} of~$G$, respectively, and let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bw(G) &:=& \min\,\{\,k\mid G\text{ has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ in }\mathcal T_\mathcal B(k+1)\,\}\\
\pw(G) &:=& \min\,\{\,k\mid G\text{ has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ in }\mathcal T_\P(k+1)\,\}
\end{eqnarray*}%
\COMMENT{}
be its {\em block-width\/} and {\em profile-width\/}. Theorems~\ref{t:block} and~\ref{t:prof} can now be rephrased as
\begin{corollary}\label{invariants}
As invariants of finite graphs, the block and profile numbers agree with the block- and profile-widths:
$$\beta = \bw\quad\text{and}\quad\pi = \pw.\eqno\qed$$
\end{corollary}
In Section \ref{s:background} we introduce just enough about abstract separation systems~\cite{AbstractSepSys} to state the fundamental duality theorem of~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract}, on which all our proofs will be based. In Section \ref{s:proof} we give a proof of our main result, a duality theorem for regular profiles in submodular abstract separation systems. In Section~\ref{s:apply} we apply this to obtain structural duality theorems for $k$-blocks and $k$-profiles, and deduce Theorems \ref{t:Ftangle}--\ref{t:prof} as corollaries.
In Section~\ref{sec:width} we derive some bounds for the above width-parameters in terms of tree-width and branch-width.%
\COMMENT{}
Any terms or notation left undefined in this paper are explained in~\cite{DiestelBook16}.
\section{Background Material}\label{s:background}
\subsection{Separation systems}
A \emph{separation} of a graph $G$ is a set $\{A,B\}$ of subsets of $V(G)$ such that $A \cup B = V$, and there is no edge of $G$ between $A \setminus B$ and $B \setminus A$. There are two \emph{oriented separations} associated with a separation, $(A,B)$ and $(B,A)$. Informally we think of $(A,B)$ as \emph{pointing towards} $B$ and \emph{away from} $A$. We can define a partial ordering on the set of oriented separations of $G$ by
\[
(A,B) \leq (C,D) \text{ if and only if } A \subseteq C \text{ and } B \supseteq D.
\]
The \emph{inverse} of an oriented separation $(A,B)$ is the separation $(B,A)$, and we note that mapping every oriented separation to its inverse is an involution which reverses the partial ordering.
In~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract} Diestel and Oum generalised these properties of separations of graphs and worked in a more abstract setting. They defined a \emph{separation system} ${(\ra{S},\leq,{}^*)}$ to be a partially ordered set $\ra{S}$ with an order-reversing involution~${}^*$. The elements of $\ra{S}$ are called \emph{oriented separations}. Often a given element of~$\ra{S}$ is denoted by $\ra{s}$, in which case its inverse $\ra{s}^*$ will be denoted by $\la{s}$, and vice versa. Since ${}^*$ is ordering reversing we have that, for all $\ra{r},\ra{s} \in S$,
\[
\ra{r} \leq \ra{s} \text{ if and only if } \la{r} \geq \la{s}.\label{invcomp}
\]
A \emph{separation} is a set of the form $\{\ra{s},\la{s}\}$, and will be denoted by simply $s$. The two elements $\ra{s}$ and $\la{s}$ are the \emph{orientations} of $s$. The set of all such pairs $\{\ra{s},\la{s}\} \subseteq \ra{S}$ will be denoted by $S$. If $\ra{s}=\la{s}$ we say $s$ is \emph{degenerate}. Conversely, given a set $S' \subseteq S$ of separations we write $\ra{S'} := \bigcup S'$ for the set of all orientations of its elements. With the ordering and involution induced from~$\ra{S}$, this will form a separation system.
Given a separation of a graph $\{A,B\}$ we can identify it with the pair $\{(A,B),(B,A)\}$ and in this way any set of oriented separations in a graph which is closed under taking inverses forms a separation system. When we refer to an oriented separation in a context where the notation explicitly indicates orientation, such as $\ra{s}$ or $(A,B)$, we will usually suppress the prefix ``oriented" to improve the flow of the narrative.
The \emph{separator} of a separation $s=\{A,B\}$ in a graph, and of its orientations~$\ra{s}$, is the set $A \cap B$. The \emph{order} of $s$ and $\ra{s}$, denoted as $|s|$ or as $|\ra{s}|$, is the cardinality of the separator, $|A \cap B|$. Note that if $\ra{r}=(A,B)$ and $\ra{s}=(C,D)$ are separations then so are their \emph{corner separations} $\ra{r} \vee \ra{s} := (A \cup C, B \cap D)$ and $\ra{r} \wedge \ra{s} := (A \cap C , B \cup D)$. Our function $\ra{s}\mapsto|\ra{s}|$ is clearly {\em symmetric\/} in that $|\ra{s}| = |\la{s}|$, and {\em submodular\/} in that
\[
|\ra{r} \vee \ra{s}| + |\ra{r} \wedge \ra{s}| \le |\ra{r}| + |\ra{s}|
\]
(in fact, with equality).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{corner.pdf}
\caption{The corner separation $\ra{r}\vee\ra{s} = (A \cup C, B \cap D)$}
\end{figure}
If an abstract separation system $(\ra{S},\le,{}^*)$ forms a lattice, i.e., if there exist binary operations $\vee$ and $\wedge$ on $\ra{S}$ such that $\ra{r} \vee \ra{s}$ is the supremum and $\ra{r} \wedge \ra{s}$ is the infimum of $\ra{r}$ and~$\ra{s}$, then we call $(\ra{S},\leq,{}^*,\vee,\wedge)$ a \emph{universe} of (oriented) separations. By~\eqref{invcomp}, it satisfies De~Mor\-gan's law:
%
\begin{equation}\label{deMorgan}
(\ra{r}\vee\ra{s})^* =\> \la{r}\wedge\la{s}.
\end{equation}%
\COMMENT{}
Any real, non-negative, symmetric and submodular function on a universe of separations, usually denoted as $\ra{s}\mapsto |\ra{s}|$, will be called an \emph{order function}.
Two separations $r$ and $s$ are \emph{nested} if they have $\leq$-comparable orientations. Two oriented separations $\ra{r}$ and $\ra{s}$ are \emph{nested} if $r$ and $s$ are nested.%
\footnote{In general we will use terms defined for separations informally for oriented separations when the meaning is clear, and vice versa.}
We say that $\ra{r}$ \emph{points towards $s$} (and $\la{r}$ \emph{points away from $s$}) if $\ra{r} \leq \ra{s}$ or $\ra{r} \leq \la{s}$. So two nested oriented separations are either $\leq$-comparable, or they point towards each other, or they point away from each other. If $\ra{r}$ and $\ra{s}$ are not nested we say that they \emph{cross}. A set of separations $S$ is \emph{nested} if every pair of separations in $S$ is nested, and a separation $s$ is \emph{nested} with a nested set of separations $S$ if $S \cup \{s\}$ is nested.
A separation $\ra{r} \in \ra{S}$ is \emph{trivial in $\ra{S}$}, and $\la{r}$ is \emph{co-trivial}, if there exist an $s \in S$ such that $\ra{r} < \ra{s}$ and $\ra{r} < \la{s}$. Note that if $\ra{r}$ is trivial, witnessed by some $s$, then, since the involution on~$\ra{S}$ is order-reversing, we have $\ra{r} < \ra{s} < \la{r}$. So, in particular, $\la{r}$ cannot also be trivial. Separations $\ra{s}$ such that $\ra{s} \leq \la{s}$, trivial or not, will be called \emph{small}.
In the case of separations of a graph $(V,E)$, the small separations are precisely those of the form $(A,V)$. The trivial separations are those of the form $(A,V)$ with $A \subseteq C \cap D$ for some separation $\{C,D\} \neq \{A,B\}$. Finally we note that there is only one degenerate separation in a graph, $(V,V)$.
\subsection{Tangle-tree duality in separation systems}\label{s:dual}
Let $\ra{S}$ be a separation system. An \emph{orientation} of $S$ is a subset $O \subseteq \ra{S}$ which for each $s \in S$ contains exactly one of its orientations $\ra{s}$ or~$\la{s}$. Given a universe $\ra{U}$ of separations with an order function, such as all the oriented separations of a given graph, we denote by
\[
\ra{S_k} = \{ \ra{s} \in \ra{U} \colon |\ra{s}| < k\}
\]
the set of all its separations of order less than~$k$. Note that $\ra{S_k}$ is again a separation system. But it is not necessarily a universe, since it may fail to be closed under the operations $\lor$ and~$\land$.
If we have some structure $\cc{C}$ in a graph that is `highly connected' in some sense, we should expect that no low order separation will divide it: that is, for every separation $s$ of sufficiently low order, $\cc{C}$ should lie on one side of~$s$ but not the other. Then $\cc{C}$ will {\em orient\/} $s$ as $\ra{s}$ or~$\la{s}$, choosing the orientation that `points to where it lies' according to some convention. For graphs, our convention is that the orientated separation $(A,B)$ points towards~$B$. And that if $\cc{C}$ is a $K_n$-minor of~$G$ with $n \geq k$, say, then $\cc{C}$ `lies on the side~$B$' if it has a branch set in~$B\setminus A$. (Note that it cannot have a branch set in $A\setminus B$ then.) Then $\cc{C}$ orients $\{A,B\}$ towards~$B$ by choosing $(A,B)$ rather than~$(B,A)$. In this way, $\cc{C}$ induces an orientation of all of~$S_k$.
The idea of~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract}, now, following the idea of tangles, was to \emph{define} `highly connected substructures' in this way: as orientations of a given set $S$ of separations.
Any concrete example of `highly-connected substructures' in a graph, such as a $K_n$-minor or a $k$-block, will not induce arbitrary orientations of $S_k$: these orientations will satisfy some consistency rules. For example, consider two separations $(A,B) < (C,D)$. If our `highly connected' structure $\cc{C}$ orients $\{C,D\}$ towards $D$ then, since $B \supseteq D$ it should not orient $\{A,B\}$ towards~$A$.
We call an orientation $O$ of a set $S$ of separations in some universe~$\ra{U}$ \emph{consistent} if whenever we have distinct $r$ and $s$ such that $\ra{r} < \ra{s}$, the set $O$ does not contain both $\la{r}$ and $\ra{s}$. Note that a consistent orientation of~$S$ must contain all separations $\ra{r}$ that are trivial in~$S$ since, if $\ra{r} < \ra{s}$ and $\ra{r} < \la{s}$, then $\la{r}$ would be inconsistent with whichever orientation of $s$ lies in~$O$.
Given a set $\cc{F}$, we say that an orientation $O$ of $S$ \emph{avoids} $\cc{F}$ if there is no $F \in \cc{F}$ such that $F \subseteq O$. So for example an orientation of $S$ is consistent if it avoids $\cc{F} = \{ \{\la{r},\ra{s}\} \subseteq \ra{S} \colon r \neq s, \ra{r} < \ra{s} \}$. In general we will define the highly connected structures we consider by the collection $\cc{F}$ of subsets they avoid. For example a \emph{tangle of order $k$}, or $k${\em -tangle}, in a graph $G$ is an orientation of $S_k$ which avoids the set of triples
\begin{equation}\label{tangleaxiom}
\cc{T} = \{\{(A_1,B_1),(A_2,B_2),(A_3,B_3)\} \subseteq \ra{U} \,: \, \bigcup_{i=1}^3 G[A_i] = G\}.
\end{equation}
Here, the three separations need not be distinct, so any $\cc{T}$-avoiding orientation of~$S_k$ will be consistent. More generally, we say that a consistent orientation of a set $S$ of separations which avoids some given set $\cc{F}$ is an \emph{$\cc{F}$-tangle (of~$S$)}.
Given a set $S$ of separations, an \emph{$S$-tree} is a pair $(T,\alpha)$, of a tree $T$ and a function $\alpha : \overrightarrow{E(T)} \rightarrow \ra{S}$ from the set $\overrightarrow{E(T)}$ of directed edges of $T$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item For each edge $(t_1,t_2) \in \overrightarrow{E(T)} $, if $\alpha(t_1,t_2) = \ra{s}$ then $\alpha(t_2,t_1) = \la{s}$.
\end{itemize}
The $S$-tree is said to be {\em over\/} a set~$\cc{F}$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item For each vertex $t \in T$, the set $\{\alpha(t',t) \, :\, (t',t) \in \overrightarrow{E(T)} \}$ is in $\cc{F}$.
\end{itemize}
Particularly interesting classes of $S$-trees are those over sets~$\cc{F}$ of `stars'. A~set $\sigma$ of nondegenerate oriented separations is a \emph{star} if $\ra{r} \leq \la{s}$ for all distinct ${\ra{r},\ra{s} \in \sigma}$. We say that a set $\cc{F}$ \emph{forces} a separation $\ra{r}$ if $\{ \la{r} \} \in \cc{F}$. And $\cc{F}$ is \emph{standard} if it forces every trivial separation in $\ra{S}$.
The main result of~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract} asserts a duality between $S$-trees over~$\cc{F}$ and $\cc{F}$-tangles when $\cc{F}$ is a standard set of stars satisfying a certain closure condition. Let us describe this next.
Suppose we have a separation $\ra{r}$ which is neither trivial nor degenerate. Let $S_{\geq \ra{r}}$ be the set of separations $x \in S$ that have an orientation $\ra{x} \geq \ra{r}$. Given $x \in S_{\geq \ra{r}} \setminus \{r\}$ we have, since $\ra{r}$ is nontrivial, that only one of the two orientations of $x$, say $\ra{x}$, is such that $\ra{x} \geq \ra{r}$ and $x$ is not degenerate. For every $\ra{s}\geq \ra{r}$ we can define a function $f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}$ on $\ra{S}_{\geq \ra{r}} \setminus \{\la{r}\}$ by%
\footnote{The exclusion of $\la{r}$ here is for a technical reason: if $\ra{r} < \la{r}$, we do not want to define $f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}(\la{r})$ explicitly, but implicitly as the inverse of $f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}(\ra{r})$. }
\[
f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}(\ra{x}) := \ra{x} \vee \ra{s} \text{ and } f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}(\la{x}) := (\ra{x} \vee \ra{s})^*.
\]
In general, the image in~$\ra{U}$ of this function need not lie in~$\ra{S}$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{shifting.pdf}
\caption{Shifting a separation $\ra{x} \geq \ra{r}$ to $f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}(\ra{x}) = \ra{x}\lor \ra{s}$. }
\end{figure}
We say that $\ra{s}\in\ra{S}$ \emph{emulates $\ra{r}\in\ra{S}$ in~$\ra{S}$} if $\ra{r} \leq \ra{s}$ and the image of $f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}$ is contained in $\ra{S}$. Given a standard set $\cc{F}$ of stars, we say further that $\ra{s}$ \emph{emulates}~$\ra{r}$ in~$\ra{S}$ {\em for}~$\cc{F}$ if $\ra{s}$ emulates~$\ra{r}$ in~$\ra{S}$ and the image under $f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}$ of every star $\sigma \subseteq \ra{S}_{\geq \ra{r}} \setminus \{\la{r}\}$ that contains some separation $\ra{x}$ with $\ra{x} \geq \ra{r}$ is again in $\cc{F}$.
We say that a separation system $\ra{S}$ is \emph{separable} if for any two nontrivial and nondegenerate separations $\ra{r},\la{r'} \in \ra{S}$ such that $\ra{r} \leq \ra{r'}$ there exists a separation $s \in S$ such that $\ra{s}$ emulates~$\ra{r}$ in~$\ra{S}$ and $\la{s}$ emulates~$\la{r'}$ in~$\ra{S}$. We say that $\ra{S}$ is \emph{$\cc{F}$-separable} if for all nontrivial and nondegenerate $\ra{r},\la{r'} \in \ra{S}$ that are not forced by $\cc{F}$ and such that $\ra{r} \leq \ra{r'}$ there exists a separation $s \in S$ with an orientation $\ra{s}$ that emulates~$\ra{r}$ in~$\ra{S}$ for~$\cc{F}$ and such that $\la{s}$ emulates~$\la{r'}$ in~$\ra{S}$ for~$\cc{F}$. Often one proves that $\ra{S}$ is $\cc{F}$-separable in two steps, by first showing that it is separable, and then showing that $\cc{F}$ is \emph{closed under shifting}: that whenever $\ra{s}$ emulates (in~$\ra{S}$) some nontrivial and nondegenerate $\ra{r}$ not forced by~$\cc{F}$, then it does so for~$\cc{F}$.
We are now in a position to state the Strong Duality Theorem from~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract}.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:dual}
Let $\ra{S}$ be a separation system in some universe of separations, and $\cc{F}$ a standard set of stars. If $\ra{S}$ is $\cc{F}$-separable, exactly one of the following assertions holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item There exists an $S$-tree over $\cc{F}$;
\item There exists an $\cc{F}$-tangle of $S$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The property of being $\cc{F}$-separable may seem a rather strong condition. However in~\cite{TangleTreeGraphsMatroids} it is shown that for every graph the set $\ra{S_k}$ is separable, and all the sets $\cc{F}$ of stars whose exclusion describes classical notions of highly connected substructures are closed under shifting. Hence in all these cases $\ra{S_k}$ is $\cc{F}$-separable, and Theorem~\ref{t:dual} applies.
One of our main tasks will be to extend the applicability of Theorem~\ref{t:dual} to sets $\cc{F}$ of separations that are not stars, by constructing a related set $\cc{F}^*$ of stars whose exclusion is tantamount to excluding~$\cc{F}$.
\subsection{Blocks, tangles, and profiles}\label{s:prof}
Suppose we have a graph $G=(V,E)$ and are considering the set $U$ of its separations. As mentioned before, it is easy to see that the tangles of order~$k$ in~$G$, as defined by Robertson and Seymour~\cite{GMX}, are precisely the $\cc{T}$-tangles of $S_k = \{ s \in U \colon |s|<k\}$. In this case, if we just consider the set of stars in $\cc{T}$,
\medskip
$\cc{T}^* := \big\{\,\{(A_1,B_1),(A_2,B_2),(A_3,B_3)\} \subseteq \ra{S} :$
\smallskip\indent\indent\indent\indent\indent\indent
$(A_i,B_i) \leq (B_j,A_j) \text{ for all } i,j \text{ and } \bigcup_{i=1}^3 G[A_i] = G\,\big\},$
\medskip\noindent
then the $\cc{T}^*$-tangles of $S_k$ are precisely its $\cc{T}$-tangles~\cite{TangleTreeGraphsMatroids}. That is, a consistent orientation of $S_k$ avoids $\cc{T}$ if and only if it avoids $\cc{T}^*$. It is a simple check that $\cc{T}^*$ is a standard set of stars which is closed under shifting, and hence Theorem~\ref{t:dual} tells us that every graph either has a tangle of order $k$ or an $S_k$-tree over $\cc{T}^*$, but not both.%
\COMMENT{}
Another highly connected substructure that has been considered recently in the literature are $k$-blocks. Given $k \in \bb{N}$ we say a set $I$ of at least $k$ vertices in a graph $G$ is \emph{$(<\!\!k)$-inseparable} if no set $Z$ of fewer than $k$ vertices separates any two vertices of $I \setminus Z$ in $G$. A maximal $(<\!\!k)$-inseparable set of vertices is called a \emph{$k$-block}. These objects were first considered by Mader~\cite{mader78}, but have been the subject of recent research~\cite{ForcingBlocks, confing, CG14:isolatingblocks}.
As indicated earlier, every $k$-block $b$ of $G$ defines an orientation $O(b)$ of~$S_k$:
$$O(b) := \{ (A,B) \in {\ra{S_k}} \colon b \subseteq B\}.$$
Indeed, for each separation $\{A,B\} \in S_k$ exactly one of $(A,B)$ and $(B,A)$ will be in $O(b)$, since $A \cap B$ is too small to contain~$b$ and does not separate any two of its vertices. Hence, $O(b)$ is indeed an orientation of~$S_k$. Note also that $O(b)\ne O(b')$ for distinct $k$-blocks $b\ne b'$: by their maximality as $k$-indivisible sets of vertices there exists a separation $\{A,B\}\in S_k$ such that $A\setminus B$ contains a vertex of~$b$ and $B\setminus A$ contains a vertex of~$b'$, which implies that $(A,B)\in O(b')$ and $(B,A)\in O(b)$.
The orientations $O(b)$ of $S_k$ defined by a $k$-block $b$ clearly avoid
\[
\cc{B}_k := \big\{ \{ (A_i,B_i) \colon i \in I\} \subseteq \ra{U} \colon | \bigcap_{i \in I} B_i | < k\big\},
\]
since $b \subseteq B_i$ for every $(A_i,B_i) \in O(b)$ and $|b|\geq k$. Also, it is easily seen that every $O(b)$ is consistent. Thus, every such orientation $O(b)$ is an $\cc{F}$-tangle of $S_k$ for $\cc{F} = \cc{B}_k$. Conversely, if $O \subseteq S_k$ is a $\cc{B}_k$-tangle of $S_k$, then $b := \bigcap {\{ B \,|\, (A,B) \in O \}}$ is easily seen to be a $k$-block, and $O = O(b)$. The orientations of $S_k$ that are defined by a $k$-block, therefore, are precisely its $\cc{B}_k$-tangles.
The $\cc{B}_k$-tangles of $S_k$ and its $\cc{T}$-tangles (i.e., the ordinary $k$-tangles of~$G$) share the property that if they contain separations $(A,B)$ and $(C,D)$, then they cannot contain the separation $(B \cap D, A \cup C)$. Indeed, clearly this condition is satisfied by $O(b)$ for any $k$-block $b$, since if $b \subseteq B$ and $b \subseteq D$ then $b \subseteq B \cap D$ and hence $b \not\subseteq A \cup C$ if $\{B\cap D, A\cup C\}\in S_k$. For tangles, suppose that some tangle contains such a triple $\{ (A,B),(C,D),(B \cap D, A \cup C) \}$. Since $\{A,B\}$ and $\{C,D\}$ are separations of~$G$, every edge not contained in $G[A]$ or $G[C]$ must be in $G[B]$ and $G[D]$, and hence in $G[B \cap D]$. Therefore $G[A] \cup G[C] \cup G[B \cap D] = G$, contradicting the fact that the tangle avoids~$\cc{T}$.
Informally, if we think of the side of an oriented separation to which it points as `large', then the orientations of~$S_k$ that form a tangle or are induced by a $k$-block have the natural property that if $B$ is the large side of $\{A,B\}$ and $D$ is the large side of $\{C,D\}$ then $B \cap D$ should be the large side of $\{A \cup C, B \cap D\}$~-- if this separation is also in~$S_k$, and therefore oriented by~$O$. That is, the largeness of separation sides containing blocks or tangles is preserved by taking intersections.
Consistent orientations with this property are known as `profiles'. Formally, a \emph{$k$-profile in~$G$} is a $\cc{P}$-tangle of $S_k$ where
\[
\cc{P} := \big\{ \sigma \subseteq \ra{U} \mid\exists\, A,B,C,D \subseteq V\colon \sigma= \{ (A,B),(C,D),(B \cap D, A \cup C) \}\big\}.
\]
As we have seen,
\begin{lemma}
All orientations of $S_k$ that are tangles, or of the form~$O(b)$ for some $k$-block $b$ in~$G$, are $k$-profiles in~$G$.\qed
\end{lemma}
We remark that, unlike in the case of $\cc{T}$, the subset $\cc{P}'$ consisting of just the stars in~$\cc{P}$ yields a wider class of tangles: there are $\cc{P}'$-tangles of $S_k$ that are not $\cc{P}$-tangles, i.e., which are not $k$-profiles.
More generally, if $\ra{S}$ is any separation system contained in some universe~$\ra{U}$, we can define a {\em profile of $S$} to be any $\cc{P}$-tangle of $S$ where
\[
\cc{P} := \big\{ \sigma \subseteq \ra{U} \mid \exists\, \ra{r}, \ra{s} \in \ra{U} \colon\sigma= \{ \ra{r},\ra{s}, \la{r} \wedge \la{s} \} \big\}.
\]
In particular, all $\cc{F}$-tangles with $\cc{F}\supseteq\cc{P}$ will be profiles.
The initial aim of Diestel and Oum in developing their duality theory~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract} had been to find a duality theorem broad enough to imply duality theorems for $k$-blocks and $k$-profiles. Although their theory gave rise to a number of unexpected results~\cite{TangleTreeGraphsMatroids}, a~duality theorem for blocks and profiles was not among these; see~\cite{DiestelOumDualityII} for a summary of their findings on this problem.
Our next goal is to show that their Strong Duality Theorem does implies duality theorems for blocks and profiles after all.
\section{A duality theorem for abstract profiles}\label{s:proof}
In this section we will show that Theorem \ref{t:dual} can be applied to many more types of profiles than originally thought. These will include both $k$-profiles and $k$-blocks in graphs.
We say that a separation system in some universe%
\footnote{Although submodular separation systems $\ra{S}$ have to lie in some universe $\ra{U}$ in order for $\wedge$ and $\vee$ to be defined on $\ra{S}$ (but with images that may lie in $\ra{U} \setminus \ra{S}$), the choice of $\ra{U}$, given $\ra{S}$, will not matter to us. We shall therefore usually introduce submodular separation systems $\ra{S}$ without formally introducing such a universe $\ra{U} \supseteq \ra{S}$.}
is \emph{submodular} if for every two of its elements $\ra{r},\ra{s}$ it also contains at least one of $\ra{r} \wedge \ra{s}$ and $\ra{r} \vee \ra{s}$. Given any (submodular) order function on a universe, the separation system
\[
{\ra{S_k}} = \{\ra{r} \in \ra{U} \colon |\ra{r}| <k \}
\]
is submodular for each $k$. In particular, for any graph $G$, its universe $\ra{U}$ of separations and, for any integer $k \geq 1$, the separation system ${\ra{S_k}}$, is submodular.
We say that a subset $O$ of $U$ is \emph{strongly consistent} if it does not contain both $\la{r}$ and~$\ra{s}$ for any $\ra{r},\ra{s}\in\ra{S}$ with $\ra{r} < \ra{s}$ (but not necessarily $r\ne s$, as in the definition of `consistent'). An orientation $O$ of~$S$, therefore, is strongly consistent if and only if for every $\ra{s}\in O$ it also contains every $\ra{r}\le\ra{s}$ with $r\in S$. In particular, then, $O$~cannot contain any $\ra{s}$ such that $\la{s}\le\ra{s}$ (i.e., with $\la{s}$ is small).
Let us call an orientation $O$ of~$S$ {\em regular\/} if it contains all the small separations in~$\ra{S}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:small}
An orientation $O$ of a separation system~$\ra{S}$ is strongly consistent if and only if it is consistent and regular.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly every strongly consistent orientation $O$ is also consistent. Suppose some small $\ra{s}\in\ra{S}$ is not in~$O$. Then $\la{s}\in O$, since $O$ is an orientation of~$S$. Thus, $\ra{s} < \la{s}\in O$. But this implies $\ra{s}\in O$, since $O$ is strongly consistent, contradicting the choice of~$\ra{s}$. Hence $O$ contains every small separation.
Conversely, suppose $O$ is a consistent orientation of $S$ that is not strongly consistent. Then $O$ contains two distinct oriented separations $\la{r}$ and $\ra{s}$ such that $\ra{r} < \ra{s}$ and $r=s$.%
\COMMENT{}
Thus, $\la{s} = \ra{r} < \ra{s}$ is small but not in~$O$, as $\ra{s}\in O$. Hence $O$~does not contain all small separations in~$\ra{S}$.
\end{proof}
For example, the $\cc{B}_k$-tangles of~$S_k$ in a graph, as well as its ordinary tangles of order~$k$, are regular by Lemma~\ref{l:small}: they clearly contain all small separations in ${\ra{S_k}}$, those of the form $(A,V)$ with $|A|<k$, since they cannot contain their inverses~$(V,A)$. More generally:
\begin{lemma}\label{l:strong}
For $k > 2$, every $k$-profile in a graph $G=(V,E)$ is regular.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have to show that every $k$-profile $O$ in $G$ contains every small separation in ${\ra{S_k}}$. Recall that these are precisely the separations $(A,V)$ of $G$ such that $|A| < k$.
Suppose first that $|A| < k-1$. Let $A'$ be any set such that $|A'|=k-1$ and $A \subset A'$. Then $\{A',V\} \in S_k$, and $(A,V) < (A',V)$ as well as ${(A,V) < (V,A')}$. Since $O$ contains $(A',V)$ or~$(V,A')$, its consistency implies that it also contains~$(A,V)$.
If $|A|=k-1$ then, since $k > 2$, we can pick two non-empty sets $A', A'' \subsetneq A$ such that $A' \cup A'' = A$. Since $|A'|,|A''|<k-1$, by the preceding discussion both $(A',V)$ and $(A'',V)$ lie in $O$. As $(V,A) \wedge (V,A'') = (V \cap V,A' \cup A'') = (V,A)$ and $\{ (A',V),(A'',V),(V,A)\} \in \cc{P}$, the fact that $O$ is a profile implies that $(V,A)\notin O$, so again $(A,V)\in O$ as desired.
\end{proof}
There can be exactly one irregular 1-profile in a graph $G = (V,E)$, and only if $G$ is connected: the set $\{(V,\emptyset)\}$.
Graphs can also have irregular $2$-profiles, but they are easy to characterise. Indeed, consider a $2$-profile $O$ and small separation $(\{x\},V)$. Suppose first that $x$ is a cutvertex of~$G$, in the sense that there exists some $\{A,B\} \in S_2$ such that $A \cap B = \{x\}$ and neither $A$ nor~$B$ equals~$V$.%
\COMMENT{}
Then $(\{x\},V) < (A,B)$ and $(\{x\},V) < (B,A)$, so the consistency of $O$ implies that $(\{x\},V) \in O$.
Therefore, if $(V,\{x\}) \in O$ then $x$ is not a cutvertex of $G$. Then, for every other separation $\{A,B\}$, either $x \in A \setminus B$ or $x \in B \setminus A$, and so either $(B,A) < (V,\{x\})$ or $(A,B) < (V,\{x\})$. The consistency of $O$ then determines that
\[
O = O_x := \{(A,B)\in \ra{S_2} \colon x \in B \text{ and } (A,B) \neq (\{x\},V) \},
\]
which is indeed a profile.
We have shown that every graph contains, for each of its vertices $x$ that is not a cutvertex, a unique $2$-profile $O_x$ that is not strongly consistent. However, the orientation
\[
O'_x := \{(A,B)\in \ra{S_2} \colon x \in B \text{ and } (A,B) \neq (V,\{x\}) \}
\]
of $S_2$ is also a $2$-profile which does contain every small separation in $\ra{S}_{\!2}$.%
\COMMENT{}
(Indeed, $O'_x = O(b)$ for the unique block~$b$ containing $x$.) Since every graph contains a vertex which is not a cutvertex, it follows that
\begin{lemma}\label{l:two}
Every graph $G$ contains a regular $2$-profile.\qed
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{l:two} means that our goal to find a duality theorem for $k$-profiles in graphs has substance only for~$k > 2$, for which Lemma~\ref{l:strong} tells that all $k$-profiles are regular. In our pursuit of Theorems \ref{t:block} and~\ref{t:prof} it will therefore suffice to study regular $\mathcal F$-tangles of submodular separation systems~$\ra{S}$, such as $\ra{S_k}$ for $\mathcal F=\P$.
So, until further notice:
%
\begin{equation*}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.75\textwidth}\em
Let $\ra{S}$ be any submodular separation system in some universe~$\ra{U}$, and let $\mathcal F$ be a subset of~$2^{\ra{S}}$ containing $\cc{P} \cap 2^{\ra{S}}$.
\end{minipage}
\end{equation*}
%
Our aim will be to prove a duality theorem for the regular $\cc{F}$-tangles of~$S$.
It will be instructive to keep in mind, as an example, the case of $k$-blocks, where $\cc{F} = \cc{B}_k$. In this case any triple $\{(A,B),(C,D),(D \cap B, A \cup C)\} \in \cc{P}\cap 2^{\ra{S_k}}$ is contained in~$\cc{B}_k$, as $|B \cap D \cap (A \cup C)| < k$ since $(D \cap B, A \cup C) \in S_k$.
For ease of notation, let us write $\cc{P}_S := \cc{P} \cap 2^{\ra{S}}$, and put $\P_k := \P_{S_k}$ when $U$ is the set of separations of a given graph. Note that an orientation of $S$ avoids $\cc{P}$ if and only if it avoids~$\cc{P}_S$, and an $S$-tree is over $\cc{P}$ if and only if it is over $\cc{P}_S$.
Our first problem is that, in order to apply Theorem \ref{t:dual}, we need $\cc{F}$ to be a set of stars. Since our assumptions about $\cc{F}$ do not require this, our first aim is to turn $\cc{F}$ into a set $\cc{F}^*$ of stars such that the regular $\cc{F}$-tangles of $S$ are precisely its regular $\cc{F}^*$-tangles.
Suppose we have some pair of separations $\ra{x_1}$ and $\ra{x_2}$ which are both contained in some set $\sigma \subseteq \ra{S}$. Since $S$, by assumption, is submodular, at least one of $\ra{x_1} \wedge \la{x_2}$ and $\ra{x_2} \wedge \la{x_1}$ must also be in $\ra{S}$. To \emph{uncross $\ra{x_1}$ and $\ra{x_2}$ in $\sigma$} we replace $\{\ra{x_1},\ra{x_2}\}$ with the pair $\{\ra{x_1} \wedge \la{x_2},\ra{x_2}\}$ in the first case and $\{\ra{x_1},\ra{x_2} \wedge \la{x_1}\}$ in the second case. We note that, in both cases the new pair forms a star and is pointwise $\leq$ the old pair $\{ \ra{x_1}, \ra{x_2}\}$. Uncrossing every pair of separations in $\sigma$ in turn, we can thus turn $\sigma$ into a star $\sigma^*$ of separations in at most ${ |\sigma| \choose 2}$ steps, since any star of two separations remains a star if one of its elements is replaced by a smaller separation, and a set of oriented separations is a star as soon as all its $2$-subsets are stars. Note, however, that $\sigma^*$ will not in general be unique, but will depend on the order in which we uncross the pair of separations in $\sigma$. Let us say that $\cc{F}^*$ is an \emph{uncrossing} of a set $\cc{F}$ of sets $\sigma \subseteq \ra{S}$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item Every $\tau \in \cc{F}^*$ can be obtained by uncrossing a set $\sigma \in \cc{F}$;
\item For every $\sigma \in \cc{F}$ there is some $\tau \in \cc{F}^*$ that can be obtained by uncrossing~$\sigma$\rlap.
\end{itemize}
Note that~$\mathcal F^*$, like $\mathcal F$, is a subset of~$2^{\ra{S}}$. Also, $\mathcal F^*$~contains all the stars from~$\cc{F}$, since these have no uncrossings other than themselves. In particular, if $\cc{F}$ is standard, i.e. contains all the singleton stars $\{ \la{r}\}$ with $\ra{r}$ trivial in $\ra{S}$, then so is $\cc{F}^*$.
We have shown the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{l:uncross}
$\cc{F}$ has an uncrossing $\cc{F}^*$. If $\cc{F}$ is standard, then so is $\cc{F}^*$.
\end{lemma}
The smaller we can take $\cc{F}^*$ to be, the smaller will be the class of $S$-trees over $\cc{F}^*$. However, to make $\cc{F}^*$ as small as possible we would have to give it exactly one star $\tau$ for each $\sigma \in \cc{F}$, which would involve making a non-canonical choice with regards to the order in which we uncross $\sigma$, and possibly which of the two potential uncrossings of a given pair of separations we select.
If we wish for a more canonical choice of family, we can take $\cc{F}^*$ to consist of every star that can be obtained by uncrossing a set in $\cc{F}$ in any order. Obviously, this will come at the expense of increasing the class of $S$-trees over $\cc{F}$, i.e. the class of dual objects in our desired duality theorem.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:*tangle}
Let $\cc{F}^*$ be an uncrossing of~$\cc{F}$. Then an orientation $O$ of $S$ is a regular $\cc{F}$-tangle if and only if it is a regular $\cc{F}^*$-tangle.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us first show that if $O$ is a regular $\cc{F}^*$-tangle then it is a regular $\cc{F}$-tangle. It is sufficient to show that $O$ avoids $\cc{F}$. Suppose for a contradiction that there is some $\sigma = \{\ra{x_1},\ra{ x_2}, \ldots, \ra{x_n}\} \in \cc{F}$ such that $\sigma \subseteq O$. Since $\cc{F}^*$ is an uncrossing of $\cc{F}$ there is some $\tau = \{\ra{u_1},\ra{u_2}, \ldots, \ra{u_n}\} \in \cc{F}^*$ that is an uncrossing of $\sigma$. Then, $\ra{u_i} \leq \ra{x_i} \in O$ for all $i$. Since $O$ is strongly consistent, by Lemma~\ref{l:small}, this implies $\ra{u_i} \in O$ for each $i$. Therefore $\tau \subseteq O$, contradicting the fact that $O$ avoids $\cc{F}^*$.
Conversely suppose $O$ is a regular $\cc{F}$-tangle. We would like to show that $O$ avoids $\cc{F}^*$. To do so, we will show that, if $O$ avoids some set $\sigma = \{\ra{x_1},\ra{x_2}, \ldots , \ra{x_n}\}$ then it also avoids the set $\sigma' = \{\ra{x_1} \wedge \la{x_2},\ra{x_2} \ldots , \ra{x_n}\}$ obtained by uncrossing the pair $\ra{x_1},\ra{x_2}$. Then by induction $O$ must also avoid every star obtained by uncrossing a set in $\cc{F}$, and thus will avoid $\cc{F}^*$.
Suppose then that $O$ avoids $\sigma$ but $\sigma' \subseteq O$. Since $x_1 \in S$ either $\ra{x_1}$ or $\la{x_1}$ lies in $O$. As $\sigma\setminus \{\ra{x_1}\} = \{ \ra{x_2}, \ra{x_3}, \ldots , \ra{x_n}\} \subseteq \sigma' \subseteq O$, but $O$ avoids $\sigma$, we have $\ra{x_1} \not\in O$ and hence $\la{x_1} \in O$. But then $O$ contains the triple $\{\la{x_1}, \ra{x_2}, \ra{x_1} \wedge \la{x_2} \} \in \cc{P}_S \subseteq \cc{F}$. This contradicts the fact that $O$ avoids $\cc{F}$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{l:*tangle} has an interesting corollary. Suppose, that, in a graph, every star of separations in some given consistent orientation~$O$ of ${S_k}$ points to some $k$-block. Is there {\em one\/} $k$-block to which all these stars~-- and hence every separation in~$O$~-- point?%
\COMMENT{}
This is indeed the case:
\begin{corollary}
If every star of separations in some strongly consistent orientation of~$S$ is contained in some profile of~$S$, then there exists one profile of~$S$ that contains all these stars.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
In Lemma~\ref{l:*tangle}, take $\mathcal F:= \P_S$. An orientation $O$ of~$S$ whose stars each lie in a profile of~$S$ cannot contain a star from~$\P^*_S$. But if $O$ is regular, consistent, and avoids~$\P^*_S$, then by Lemma~\ref{l:*tangle} it also avoids~$\P_S$ and hence is a $\P_S$-tangle.%
\COMMENT{}
\end{proof}
Before we can apply Theorem \ref{t:dual} to our newly found set $\cc{F}^*$ of stars, we have to overcome another problem: $\ra{S}$ may fail to be $\cc{F}^*$-separable. To address this problem, let us briefly recall what it means for a family to be closed under shifting. Suppose we have a a pair of separations $\ra{r} \leq \ra{s}$ such that $\ra{r}$ is nontrivial, nondegenerate, and not forced by~$\mathcal F$. Suppose further that $\ra{s}$ emulates~$\ra{r}$ in~$\ra{S}$, and that we have a star $\tau = \{\ra{x_1}, \ra{x_2}, \ldots , \ra{x_n} \} \subseteq \ra{S}_{\geq \ra{r}} \setminus \{\la{r}\}$ that contains some separation $\ra{x_1} \geq \ra{r}$. Then the image $\tau'$ of $\tau$ under $f\!\!\downarrow^{\ra{r}}_{\ra{s}}$ is
\[
\tau' = \{ \ra{x_1} \vee \ra{s}, \ra{x_2} \wedge \la{s}, \ldots, \ra{x_n} \wedge \la{s}\},
\]
where the fact that $\ra{s}$ emulates~$\ra{r}$ guarantees that $\tau' \subseteq \ra{S}$. Let us call $\tau'$ a \emph{shift of $\tau$}, and more specifically the \emph{shift of $\tau$ from $\ra{r}$ to $\ra{s}$}. (See~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract} for why this is well defined.)
For a family $\cc{F}$ to be closed under shifting it is sufficient that it contains all shifts of its elements: that for every $\tau \in \cc{F}$, every $\ra{x_1} \in \tau$, every nontrivial and nondegenerate $\ra{r} \leq \ra{x_1}$ not forced by~$\mathcal F$, and every $\ra{s}$ emulating~$\ra{r}$, the shift of $\tau$ from $\ra{r}$ to $\ra{s}$ is in $\cc{F}$.
The idea for making Theorem \ref{t:dual} applicable to $\cc{F}^*$ will be to close $\cc{F}^*$ by adding any missing shifts. Let us define a family $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$ as follows: Let $\cc{G}_0 = \cc{F}^*$, define $\cc{G}_{n+1}$ inductively as the set of shifts of elements of $\cc{G}_n$, and put $\hat{\cc{F}^*} := \bigcup_n \cc{G}_n$. Clearly $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$ is closed under shifting.
Next, let us show that a strongly consistent orientation of~$S$ avoids $\cc{F}^*$ if and only if it avoids $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$. We first note the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:shift}
Let $O$ be a regular $\cc{P}$-tangle of $S$.%
\COMMENT{}
Let $\sigma \subseteq \ra{S}$ be a star, and let $\sigma'$ be a shift of $\sigma$ from some $\ra{r}$ to some $\ra{s} \in \ra{S}$. Then $\sigma' \subseteq O$ implies that $\sigma \subseteq O$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\sigma = \{\ra{x_1},\ra{x_2}, \ldots, \ra{x_n}\}$, with $\ra{r} \leq \ra{x_1}$. Then $\ra{x_1} \vee \ra{s} \in \sigma' \subseteq O$. Since $O$ is strongly consistent, this implies that $\ra{x_1}$ and $\ra{s}$ lie in $O$. Also, for any $i \geq 2$, as $x_i \in S$, either $\ra{x_i}$ or $\la{x_i}$ lies in $O$. However, since $\ra{s} \in O$ and $\ra{x_i} \wedge \la{s} \in \sigma' \subseteq O$, and $O$ avoids $\cc{P}$, it cannot be the case that $\la{x_i} \in O$. Hence $\ra{x_i} \in O$ for all $i \geq 2$, and so $\sigma \subseteq O$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:close}
Let $\cc{F}^*$ be an uncrossing of~$\cc{F}$. Then an orientation $O$ of $S$ is a regular $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$-tangle if and only if it is a regular $\cc{F}$-tangle.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $O$ is a regular $\cc{F}$-tangle if and only if it is a regular $\cc{F}^*$ tangle (Lemma \ref{l:*tangle}). Clearly every regular $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$-tangle also avoids $\cc{F}^*$, and hence is also a regular $\cc{F}^*$-tangle, and $\cc{F}$-tangle.
Conversely, every regular $\cc{F}$-tangle avoids both $\cc{F}^* = \cc{G}_0$ (Lemma~\ref{l:*tangle}) and hence, by Lemma \ref{l:shift} and $\cc{F} \supseteq \cc{P}_S$, also $\cc{G}_1$. Proceeding inductively we see that $O$ avoids $\cc{G}_n$ for each $n$, and so avoids $\bigcup_n \cc{G}_n = \hat{\cc{F}^*}$. Hence $O$ is a regular $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$-tangle.
\end{proof}
Before we can, at last, apply Theorem \ref{t:dual} to our set $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$, we have to make one final adjustment: Theorem \ref{t:dual} requires its set $\cc{F}$ of stars to be standard, i.e., to contain all singletons stars $\{\ra{r}\}$ with $\la{r}$ trivial in $\ra{S}$. Since trivial separations are small, it will suffice to add to $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$ all singleton stars $\{\ra{x}\}$ such that $\la{x}$ is small; we denote the resulting superset of $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$ by $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$. Then $\overline{\mathcal F^*}$-tangles contain all small separations, so they are precisely the regular $\hat\mathcal F^*$-tangles.%
\COMMENT{}
Clearly, $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$ is a standard set of stars. Also, the shift of any singleton star $\{\ra{x}\}$ is again a singleton star $\{\ra{y}\}$ such that $\ra{x} \leq \ra{y}$. Moreover, if $\la{x}$ is small then so is $\la{y} \leq \la{x}$, so if $\{\ra{x}\}$ lies in $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$ then so does $\{\ra{y}\}$. Therefore, since $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$ is closed under shifting, $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$ too is closed under shifting. Hence, we get the following duality theorem for abstract profiles:
\begin{theorem}\label{t:main}
Let $\ra{S}$ be a separable%
\footnote{Whilst the assumption that $\ra{S}$ is separable is necessary to apply Theorem \ref{t:dual}, in a forthcoming paper \cite{AbstractTangles} the authors and Wei{\ss}auer show that every submodular separation system is in fact separable, and so this asssumption can be removed from Theorem \ref{t:main}.}
submodular separation system in some universe of separations, let $\cc{F}\subseteq 2^{\ra{S}}$ contain~$\cc{P}_S$, and let $\cc{F}^*$ be any uncrossing of~$\cc{F}$. Then the following are equivalent:
\goodbreak
\begin{itemize}
\item There is no regular $\cc{F}$-tangle of $S$;
\item There is no $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$-tangle of $S$;
\item There is an $S$-tree over $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemmas \ref{l:*tangle} to \ref{l:close} the regular $\cc{F}$-tangles of $S$ are precisely its regular $\hat{\cc{F}^*}$-tangles, and by Lemma \ref{l:small} these are precisely its $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$-tangles. Hence the first two statements are equivalent. Since $\overline{\cc{F}^*}$ is a standard set of stars which is closed under shifting, Theorem \ref{t:dual} implies that the second two statements are equivalent.
\end{proof}
\section{Duality for special tangles, blocks, and profile\rlap s}\label{s:apply}
Let us now apply Theorem~\ref{t:main} to prove Theorems~\ref{t:Ftangle}--\ref{t:prof} from the Introduction.
We shall first state the latter two results by specifying~$\mathcal F$, and then deduce their tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ formulations as in Theorems~\ref{t:block} and~\ref{t:prof}, along with Theorem~\ref{t:Ftangle}. Recall that for any graph the set $\ra{S_k}$ of separations of order $<k$ is a separable submodular separation system (see \cite{TangleTreeGraphsMatroids}).
\begin{theorem}\label{t:blocks}
For every finite graph $G$ and every integer $k > 0$ exactly one of the following statements holds:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt
\item $G$ contains a $k$-block;
\item $G$ has an $S_k$-tree over~$\overline{\mathcal B_k^*}$, where $\mathcal B_k^*$ is any uncrossing of~$\mathcal B_k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In Theorem~\ref{t:main}, let $S = S_k$ be the set of separations of order~$<k$ in~$G$, and let $\cc{F} := \cc{B}_k \cap 2^{\ra{S_k}}$. Then $\ra{S_k}$ is a separable submodular separation system in the universe of all separations of~$G$, and the regular $\mathcal F$-tangles in $G$ are precisely the orientations~$O(b)$ of~$S_k$ for $k$-blocks $b$ in~$G$. Hence $G$ has a $k$-block if and only if it has a regular $\mathcal F$-tangle for this~$\mathcal F$. The assertion now follows from Theorem~\ref{t:main}.
\end{proof}
As for profiles, every graph $G$ has a regular 1-profile~-- just orient every 0-separation towards some fixed component~--%
\COMMENT{}
and a regular 2-profile (Lemma~\ref{l:two}). So we need a duality theorem only for $k > 2$. Recall that, for $k>2$, all $k$-profiles of graphs are regular (Lemma~\ref{l:strong}).
\begin{theorem}\label{t:profs}
For every finite graph $G$ and every integer $k > 2$ exactly one of the following statements holds:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt\vskip-\smallskipamount\vskip0pt
\item $G$ has a $k$-profile;
\item $G$ has an $S_k$-tree over~$\overline{\P_k^*}$, where $\P^*_k$ is any uncrossing of~$\P_k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In Theorem~\ref{t:main}, let $S = S_k$ be the set of separations of order~$<k$ in~$G$, and let $\cc{F} := \cc{P}_k $. Then $\ra{S_k}$ is a separable submodular separation system in the universe of all separations of~$G$, and the regular $\mathcal F$-tangles in $G$ are precisely its $k$-profiles.%
\COMMENT{}
The assertion now follows from Theorem~\ref{t:main}, as before.
\end{proof}
Theorems \ref{t:Ftangle}--\ref{t:prof} now follow easily: we just have to translate $S$-trees into tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion s.
\medbreak
\noindent {\bf Proof of Theorems \ref{t:Ftangle}--\ref{t:prof}.}
Given a set $S$ of separations of~$G$ and an $S$-tree $(T,\alpha)$, with $\alpha(\ra{e}) =: (A_\alpha (\ra{e}), B_\alpha (\ra{e}))$ say, we obtain a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ $(T,\mathcal V_\alpha)$ of~$G$ with $\mathcal V_\alpha = (V_t)_{t\in T}$ by letting
$$V_t := \bigcap\, \{\, B_\alpha (\ra{e})\mid \ra{e} = (s,t)\in\ra{E(T)}\,\}.$$
Note that $(T,\alpha)$ can be recovered%
\COMMENT{}
from this tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion: given just $T$ and~$\mathcal V = (V_t)_{t\in T}$, we let $\alpha$ map each oriented edge $\ra{e} = (t_1,t_2)$ of~$T$ to the oriented separation of~$G$ it induces: the separation
$\big(\bigcup_{t \in T_1} V_t \,,\, \bigcup_{t \in T_2} V_t\big)$
where $T_i$ is the component of $T-e$ containing~$t_i$.
Recall that the set $\mathcal T$ defined in~\eqref{tangleaxiom} contains~$\P$. Hence so does any $\mathcal F\supseteq\mathcal T$. For such~$\mathcal F$, therefore, every $\mathcal F$-tangle of~$S_k$ is a $k$-profile, and hence is regular by Lemma~\ref{l:strong} if $k>2$. For $\mathcal F_k := \mathcal F\cap 2^{\ra{S_k}}$ and
$$\mathcal T_\mathcal F (k) := \{\,(T,\mathcal V_\alpha)\mid (T,\alpha)\text{ is an $S_k$-tree over } \overline{\mathcal F_k^*}\,\}$$
we thus obtain Theorem~\ref{t:Ftangle} directly from Theorem~\ref{t:main}. Similarly, letting
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal T_\mathcal B (k) &:=& \{\,(T,\mathcal V_\alpha)\mid (T,\alpha)\text{ is an $S_k$-tree over } \overline{\mathcal B_k^*}\,\}\\
\mathcal T_\P (k) &:=& \{\,(T,\mathcal V_\alpha)\mid (T,\alpha)\text{ is an $S_k$-tree over } \overline{\P_k^*}\,\}
\end{eqnarray*}
yields Theorems \ref{t:block} and~\ref{t:prof} as corollaries of Theorems \ref{t:blocks} and~\ref{t:profs}.\qed
\section{Width parameters}\label{sec:width}
In this section we derive some bounds for the block and profile width of a graph that follow easily from our main results combined with those of~\cite{TangleTreeAbstract, TangleTreeGraphsMatroids} and~\cite{GMX}.
Given a star $\sigma$ of separations in a graph, let us call the set $\bigcap \{\,B\mid (A,B)\in\sigma\}$ the {\em interior\/} of~$\sigma$ in~$G$. For example, every star in $\cc{P}_k^*$ is of the form
\[
\{ (A,B), (B \cap C, A \cup D), (B \cap D, A \cup C) \} \subseteq S_k,
\]
and hence every vertex of its interior lies in at least two of the separators $A \cap B$, $(B \cap C) \cap (A \cup D)$ and $(B \cap D) \cap (A \cup C)$. Since all these separations are in~$S_k$, the interior of any star in $\cc{P}_k^*$ thus has size at most $3(k-1) /2$.
We can apply this observation to obtain the following upper bound on the profile-width $\pw(G)$ of a graph~$G$ in terms of its tree-width~$\tw(G)$:
\begin{theorem}\label{t:profwidth}
For every graph $G$,
\begin{equation}\label{twbound}\textstyle
\pw(G) \leq \tw{}(G) + 1 \leq \frac{3}{2}\pw{}(G) .
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the first inequality, note that $\tw(G)+1$ is the largest integer~$k$ such that $G$ has no tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ into parts of order~$<k$. By the duality theorem for tree-width from~\cite{TangleTreeGraphsMatroids}, having no such tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ is equivalent to admitting an $\S^k$-tangle of~$S_k$, where
$$\cc{S}^n = \big\{\, \tau\subseteq\ra{U} : \tau\text{ is a star and } \big| \bigcap\{\,B: (A,B)\in\tau\,\} \big| < n\,\big\}$$
and $\ra{U}$ is the universe of all separations of~$G$. But among the $\S^k$-tangles of~$S_k$ are all the $k$-profiles of~$G$. (An easy induction on~$|\tau|$ shows that a regular%
\COMMENT{}
$k$-profile has no subset $\tau\in\S^k$; cf.\ Lemma~\ref{l:strong} and \cite[Prop.\,3.4]{ProfilesNew}.)%
\COMMENT{}
Therefore $G$ has no $k$-profile for $k > \tw{}(G)+1$, which Corollary~\ref{invariants} translates into $\pw(G) \leq \tw{}(G) +1$.%
\COMMENT{}
For the second inequality, recall that if $k := \pw(G)$ then $G$ has a tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ in~$\mathcal T_\P(k+1)$. The parts of this tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion\ are interiors of stars in~$\overline{\P_{k+1}^*}$, so they have size at most~$3k/2$.%
\COMMENT{}
This tree-decom\-po\-si\-tion, therefore, has width at most $(3k/2)-1$, which thus is an upper bound for~$\tw(G)$.
\end{proof}
We can also relate the profile-width of a graph to its branch-width, as follows. In order to avoid tedious exceptions for small~$k$, let us define the {\em adjusted branch-width\/} of a graph~$G$ as
$$\brw(G) := \min \{\,k\mid G\text{ has no } S_{k+1}\text{-tree over }\mathcal T^*\}. $$
By~\cite[Theorem 4.4]{TangleTreeGraphsMatroids}, this is equivalent to the {\em tangle number\/} of~$G$, the greatest~$k$ such that $G$ has a $k$-tangle. For $k\ge 3$ it coincides with the original branch-width of~$G$ as defined by Robertson and Seymour~\cite{GMX}.%
\footnote{Our {\em adjusted branch-width\/} is the dual parameter to the tangle number for all~$k$, while the original branch-width from~\cite{GMX} achieves this only for $k\ge 3$: it deviates from the tangle number for some graphs and $k\le 2$. See~\cite[end of Section~4]{TangleTreeGraphsMatroids} for a discussion.}
Robertson and Seymour \cite{GMX} showed that the adjusted branch-width of a graph is related to its tree-width in the same way as we found that the profile-width is:
\begin{equation}\label{brwbound}\textstyle
\brw{}(G) \leq \tw{}(G) + 1 \leq \frac{3}{2}\brw{}(G) .
\end{equation}
Together, these inequalities imply the following relationship between branch-width and profile-width:
\begin{corollary}\label{c:branchwidth}
For every graph $G$,
\begin{equation}\textstyle
\brw{}(G) \leq \pw{}(G) \leq \frac{3}{2}\brw{}(G).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The first inequality follows from the fact that $k$-tangles are $k$-profiles, and that the largest $k$ for which $G$ has a $k$-tangle equals the adjusted branch-width: thus,
$$\brw(G) = k\le\pi(G) = \pw(G)$$
by Corollary~\ref{invariants}.
For the second inequality, notice that $\pw{}(G) \specrel\leq{\eqref{twbound}} \tw{}(G) + 1 \specrel\leq{\eqref{brwbound}} \frac{3}{2}\brw{}(G)$.
\end{proof}
Since every $k$-block defines a $k$-profile, Corollary~\ref{invariants} implies%
\COMMENT{}
that the block-width of a graph is a lower bound for its profile-width, and hence by~\eqref{twbound} also for it tree-width (plus~1). Conversely, however, no function of the tree-width of a graph can be a lower bound for its block-width. Indeed, the tree-width of the $k \times k$-grid $H_k$ is at least~$k$ (see \cite{DiestelBook16}) but $H_k$~contains no $5$-block: in every set of $\geq 5$ vertices there are two non-adjacent vertices, and the neighbourhood of either vertex is then a set of size~$4$ which separates the two vertices. Therefore there exist graphs with bounded block-width and arbitrarily high tree-width.
Since large enough tree-width forces both large profile-width~\eqref{twbound} and large branch-width~\eqref{brwbound}, the grid example shows further that making these latter parameters large cannot force the block-width of a graph above~4.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\F$ be a field (either the real field $\re$ or the complex one $\cpx$).
Let $\F^{n_1 \times \cdots \times n_m}$ be the space of tensors
of order $m$ and dimension $(n_1, \ldots, n_m)$.
Each tensor in $\F^{n_1 \times \cdots \times n_m}$
can be represented by a $m$-dimensional hypermatrix (or array)
\[
\mA = ( \mA_{i_1 \ldots i_m} )
\]
with each entry $\mA_{i_1 \ldots i_m} \in \F$ and
$1 \leq i_1 \leq n_1, \ldots, 1 \leq i_m \leq n_m$.
For two tensors $\mA, \mB \in \F^{n_1 \times \cdots \times n_m}$,
their {\it hermitian inner product} is defined as
\be \label{inn:<A,B>}
\mA \bullet \mB :=
\sum_{1 \leq i_j \leq n_j, j=1,\ldots,m }
\mA_{i_1 \ldots i_m} \bar{\mB}_{i_1 \ldots i_m}.
\ee
(The bar $\bar{\empty}$ denotes the complex conjugate.)
This induces the {\it Hilbert-Schmidt norm}
\be \label{HSnm:||A||}
\| \mA \| \, := \, \sqrt{ \mA \bullet \mA }.
\ee
For vectors $x^{(1)} \in \F^{n_1}$, $\ldots$, $x^{(m)} \in \F^{n_m}$,
$x^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes x^{(m)}$
denotes their standard tensor product, i.e.,
\[
(x^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes x^{(m)})_{i_1 \ldots i_m} =
(x^{(1)})_{i_1} \cdots (x^{(m)})_{i_m}.
\]
The {\it spectral norm} of $\mA$, depending on the field $\F$,
is defined as
\be \label{spc||A||:nsm}
\| \mA \|_{\sig,\F} := \max \{
| \mA \bullet x^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes x^{(m)} | : \,
\| x^{(j)} \| =1, x^{(j)} \in \F^{n_j} \}.
\ee
In the above, $\| \cdot \|$ denotes the standard Euclidean vector norm.
The {\it nuclear norm} of $\mA$, also depending on $\F$, is defined as
\be \label{nuc||A||:nsy}
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\F} := \min \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^r |\lmd_i|
\left| \baray{c}
\mA = \Sig_{i=1}^r \lmd_i v^{(i,1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes v^{(i,m)}, \\
\| v^{(i,j)} \| = 1, v^{(i,j)} \in \F^{n_j}
\earay\right.
\right \}.
\ee
The spectral norm $\| \cdot \|_{\sig,\F}$
is dual to the nuclear norm $\| \cdot \|_{\ast,\F}$ (cf.~\cite{FriLim14b}):
\[
\| \mA \|_{\sig,\F} = \max \{
| \mA \bullet \mc{X} |: \, \| \mc{X} \|_{\ast,\F} = 1 \},
\]
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\F} = \max \{
| \mA \bullet \mc{Y} |: \, \| \mc{Y} \|_{\sig,\F} = 1 \}.
\]
Spectral and nuclear tensor norms have important applications,
e.g., signal processing and blind identification (\cite{LimCom10,LimCom14}),
tensor completion and recovery (\cite{MHWG,YuaZha15}),
low rank tensor approximations (\cite{FriOtt13,NW14,ZLQ12}).
When the order $m>2$, the computation of spectral and nuclear norms is NP-hard
(\cite{FriLim14b,FriLim16a,HL13}).
In \cite{Der13}, the nuclear norms of several interesting tensors
were studied. We refer to \cite{Land12,Lim13} for tensor theory and applications.
This paper focuses on nuclear norms of symmetric tensors.
Recall that a tensor $\mA \in \F^{n_1 \times \cdots \times n_m}$
is symmetric if $n_1 = \cdots = n_m$ and
\[
\mA_{i_1 \ldots i_m} = \mA_{j_1 \ldots j_m}
\]
whenever $(i_1, \ldots, i_m)$ is a permutation of $(j_1, \ldots, j_m)$.
Let $\mt{S}^m( \F^n)$ be the space of all $n$-dimensional symmetric tensors
of order $m$ and over the field $\F$.
For convenience, denote the symmetric tensor power
\[
x^{\otimes m} \, := \, x \otimes \cdots \otimes x \quad
(\mbox{$x$ is repeated $m$ times}).
\]
For a symmetric tensor $\A \in \mt{S}^m( \F^n)$,
its spectral and nuclear norms can be simplified as
(for $\F=\re$ or $\cpx$)
\be \label{||A||sig:sym}
\| \mA \|_{\sig,\F} = \max \{
| \mA \bullet x^{\otimes m} | : \,
\| x \| =1, x \in \F^n \},
\ee
\be \label{ast||A||:sym}
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\F} = \min \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^r |\lmd_i| : \,
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i (v_i)^{\otimes m},
\| v_i \| = 1, v_i \in \F^n, \lmd_i \in \F \right \}.
\ee
The equality \reff{||A||sig:sym} can be found in
Banach \cite{banach}, Friedland \cite{Fri13},
Friedland and Ottaviani \cite{FriOtt13}, and Zhang et al. \cite{ZLQ12}.
The equality~\reff{ast||A||:sym} was recently proved
by Friedland and Lim \cite{FriLim14b}.
In \reff{ast||A||:sym}, the decomposition of $\mA$, for which
the minimum is achieved, is called a
{\it nuclear decomposition} as in \cite{FriLim14b}.
When $\mA$ is a real tensor,
\[
\| \mA \|_{\sig,\re} \leq \| \mA \|_{\sig,\cpx}, \qquad
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} \geq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}.
\]
The strict inequalities are possible in the above.
Explicit examples can be found in \cite{FriLim14b}
and in \S\ref{sc:num} of this paper.
The computation of tensor nuclear norms can be formulated
as a moment optimization problem.
When $\mA$ is a real cubic symmetric tensor (i.e., $m=3$),
Tang and Shah \cite{TanSha15} pointed out that
the real nuclear norm $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ is equal to
the optimal value of the moment optimization problem
\be \label{muopt:A:m=3}
\min \quad \int_S 1 \mt{d} \mu \quad
s.t. \quad \mc{A} = \int_S x \otimes x \otimes x \mt{d} \mu
\ee
where $\mu$ is a Borel measure variable whose support is contained in the unit sphere
\be \label{usph:S}
S \, := \, \{ x\in \re^n \mid \, \| x \| = 1 \}.
\ee
The equality constraint in \reff{muopt:A:m=3} gives cubic moments of $\mu$,
while the objective is the total mass of $\mu$.
Lasserre's hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations \cite{Lasserre01,Lasserre08}
can be applied to solve \reff{muopt:A:m=3}, as proposed in \cite{TanSha15}.
This gives a sequence of lower bounds, say, $\{ \rho_k \}$,
for the real nuclear norm $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$.
It can be shown that
$\rho_k \to \| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$ as $k \to \infty$.
However, in computational practice, it is very difficult to check the convergence,
i.e., how do we detect if $\rho_k$ is equal to, or close to, $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$?
When the convergence occurs, how can we get a nuclear decomposition?
To the best of the author's knowledge,
there was few prior work on these two questions.
The major difficulty is that the flat extension condition
(cf.~\cite{CurtoF,Fialkow,Helton}),
which is often used for solving moment problems,
is usually not satisfied for solving \reff{muopt:A:m=3}.
This causes the embarrassing fact that the nuclear norm
is often not known, although it can be approximated as close as possible in theory.
Moreover, when the order $m$ is even, or the field $\F=\cpx$,
the nuclear norm $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \F}$ is no longer equal to
the optimal value of \reff{muopt:A:m=3}.
In this paper, we propose methods for computing
nuclear norms of symmetric tensors, for both odd and even orders,
over both the real and complex fields.
We give detailed theoretical analysis and computational implementation.
\bit
\item When the order $m$ is odd and $\F = \re$,
the nuclear norm $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$ equals the optimal value of \reff{muopt:A:m=3},
as shown in \cite{TanSha15}.
\item When the order $m$ is even and $\F = \re$, the nuclear norm
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$ is no longer equal to the optimal value of
\reff{muopt:A:m=3}. We construct a new moment optimization problem
whose optimal value equals $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$.
\item When $\F = \cpx$, we construct a new moment optimization problem
whose optimal value equals $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx}$,
for both even and odd orders.
\eit
Lasserre relaxations in \cite{Lasserre01,Lasserre08}
are efficient for solving these moment optimization problems.
We can get a sequence of lower bounds for the nuclear norm $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \F}$,
which is deonoted as $\{ \| \mA \|_{k\ast, \F} \}_{k=1}^{\infty}$.
(The integer $k$ is called the relaxation order.)
We prove the asymptotic convergence
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast, \F} \to \| \mA \|_{\ast, \F}$
as the relaxation order $k \to \infty$.
In computational practice, the finite convergence often occurs,
i.e., $\| \mA \|_{k\ast, \F} = \| \mA \|_{\ast, \F}$ for some $k$.
We show how to detect $\| \mA \|_{k\ast, \F} = \| \mA \|_{\ast, \F}$
and how to compute nuclear decompositions.
This can be done by solving a truncated moment problem.
We also prove conditions that guarantee finite convergence.
The paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sc:Real:oddm} discusses nuclear norms
when the order $m$ is odd and $\F = \re$.
Section~\ref{sc:Real:meven} discusses nuclear norms
when $m$ is even and $\F = \re$.
Section~\ref{sc:cpx} discusses nuclear norms
when the field $\F = \cpx$.
The numerical experiments are given in Section~\ref{sc:num}.
Some preliminary results are given in
Section~\ref{sc:prelim}.
The extensions to nonsymmetric tensors
are given in Section~\ref{sc:exten}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sc:prelim}
\subsection*{Notation}\,
The symbol $\N$ (resp., $\re$, $\cpx$) denotes the set of
nonnegative integers (resp., real, complex numbers).
For $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ and $\af = (\af_1, \ldots, \af_n) \in \N^n$,
denote
\[
x^\af := x_1^{\af_1}\cdots x_n^{\af_n}, \quad
|\af| := |\af_1| + \cdots + |\af_n|.
\]
For a degree $d>0$, denote the set of monomial powers
\be \label{N[0d]}
\left\{\baray{rcl}
\N^n_{[0,d]} &:=& \{ \af \in \N^n:\, 0\leq |\af| \leq d \}, \\
\N^n_{\{d\}} &:=& \{ \af \in \N^n:\, |\af| = d \}, \quad
\N^n_{\{0,d\}} := \N^n_{\{d\}} \cup \{ 0 \}.
\earay \right.
\ee
Denote the vector of monomials:
\[
[x]_{0,m} := ( x^\af )_{ |\af| = 0, m }.
\]
The symbol $\re[x] := \re[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$
denotes the ring of polynomials in $x:=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$
and with real coefficients,
while $\mathbb{R}[x]_d$ denotes the set of polynomials
in $\re[x]$ with degrees up to $d$.
We use $\mathbb{R}[x]_d^{hom}$ to denote the set of
homogeneous polynomials in $\re[x]$ with degree $d$.
For the complex field $\cpx$,
the $\cpx[x]$ and $\cpx[x]_d$ are similarly defined.
The $deg(p)$ denotes the total degree of a polynomial $p$.
For $t\in \re$, $\lceil t\rceil$ (resp., $\lfloor t\rfloor$)
denotes the smallest integer not smaller
(resp., the largest integer not bigger) than $t$.
For a matrix $A$, $A^T$ denotes its transpose.
For a symmetric matrix $X$, $X\succeq 0$ (resp., $X\succ 0$) means
$X$ is positive semidefinite (resp., positive definite).
The $e_i$ denotes the standard $i$th unit vector,
and $e$ is the vector of all ones.
\bigskip
In the following, we review some basics in polynomial optimization
and moment problems.
We refer to \cite{Lasserre09,Lasserre15,Laurent} for details.
A polynomial $p \in \re[x]$ is said to be a sum of squares (SOS)
if $p = p_1^2+\cdots+ p_k^2$ for some $p_1,\ldots, p_k \in \re[x]$.
The set of all SOS polynomials in $x$ is denoted as $\Sig[x]$.
For a degree $m$, denote the truncation
\[
\Sig[x]_m := \Sig[x] \cap \re[x]_m.
\]
For a tuple $g=(g_1,\ldots,g_t)$ of polynomials,
its {\it quadratic module} is the set
\[
\mbox{Qmod}(g):= \Sig[x] + g_1 \cdot \Sig[x] + \cdots + g_t \cdot \Sig[x].
\]
The $k$th truncation of $\mbox{Qmod}(g)$ is the set
\be \label{Qk(g)}
\mbox{Qmod}(g)_k :=
\Sig[x]_{k} + g_1 \cdot \Sig[x]_{d_1} + \cdots + g_t \cdot \Sig[x]_{d_t}
\ee
where each $d_i = k - \deg(g_i)$. Note that
\[
\mbox{Qmod}(g)= \bigcup_{k\in \mathbb{N}} \mbox{Qmod}(g)_k.
\]
For a tuple $h=(h_1,\ldots,h_s)$ of polynomials,
the ideal it generates is the set
\[
\mbox{Ideal}(h) :=
h_1 \cdot \re[x] + \cdots + h_m \cdot \re[x].
\]
The $k$th {\it truncation} of $\mbox{Ideal}(h)$ is the set
\be \label{Ik(h)}
\mbox{Ideal}(h)_{k} \, := \,
h_1 \cdot \re[x]_{k-\deg(h_1)} + \cdots + h_m \cdot \re[x]_{k-\deg(h_m)}.
\ee
Clearly, $\mbox{Ideal}(h)=\bigcup_{k\in \mathbb{N}} \mbox{Ideal}(h)_{k}$.
Let $g,h$ be as above. Consider the set
\[
K = \{ x \in \re^n:\, h(x) = 0, \, g(x) \geq 0 \}.
\]
Clearly, if $f \in \mbox{Ideal}(h)+\mbox{Qmod}(g)$, then $f\geq 0$ on the set $K$.
The reverse is also true under certain conditions.
The set $\mbox{Ideal}(h)+\mbox{Qmod}(g)$ is said to be {\it archimedean} if
$N-\|x\|^2\in I(h)+Q(g)$ for some scalar $N>0$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:Put}
(\cite{Putinar})
Let $h,g,K$ be as above.
Assume $\mbox{Ideal}(h)+\mbox{Qmod}(g)$ is archimedean.
If a polynomial $f > 0$ on $K$, then
$f \in \mbox{Ideal}(h)+\mbox{Qmod}(g)$.
\end{theorem}
The above theorem is called Putinar's Positivstellensatz in the literature.
Interestingly, when $f \geq 0$ on $K$,
we also have $f \in \mbox{Ideal}(h)+\mbox{Qmod}(g)$,
under general optimality conditions (cf.~\cite{opcd}).
\iffalse
\begin{lemma} \label{agi:sos}
(i) When $m=2m_0$ is even, we have
\[
\left( \frac{1}{ \sqrt{m} } \right)^{m} - t_1 t_2 \cdots t_m
\in \mbox{Ideal}(1-t_1^2-\cdots-t_m^2)_{2m_0} + \Sig[t_1, \ldots, t_m]_{2m_0}.
\]
(ii) When $m=2m_0-1$ is odd, we have
\[
\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \right)^{ m } - t_1 t_2 \cdots t_{m}
\in \mbox{Ideal}(1-t_1^2-\cdots-t_m^2)_{2m_0} + \Sig[t_1, \ldots, t_m]_{2m_0}.
\]
(iii) For all $\af$ with $| \af | \leq 2m_0$, it holds that
\[
1 - x^\af \in \mbox{Ideal}(1-\|x\|^2)_{2m_0} + \Sig[x]_{2m_0}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) When $m = 2m_0$ is even, it is known that
\[
\frac{1}{m}( t_1^m + \cdots + t_m^m) - t_1 \cdots t_m
\in \Sig[t]_m
\]
\[
\frac{1}{m}( (t_1^2+\cdots+t_m^2)^{m_0} - t_1^m - \cdots - t_m^m)
\in \Sig[t]_m
\]
\[
1 - t = \half (1-t)^2 + \half ( 1 - t^2 ),
\]
\[
1- t_1t_2 = \half (1-t_1^2-t_2^2) + \frac{1}{4}
( (1-t_1+t_2)^2 + (1 + t_1 - t_2)^2 )
\]
For every even $m = 2m_0$,
\[
AGD(t):=
\left( \frac{t_1^2+ \cdots + t_m^2}{m} \right)^{m_0} - t_1 t_2 \cdots t_m \in
\Sig[t_1,\ldots,t_m]_m.
\]
\[
AGD(t) \equiv \left( \frac{1}{m} \right)^{m_0} - t_1 t_2 \cdots t_m
\mbox { on } \, S.
\]
\[
\left( \frac{1}{ 2m_0 } \right)^{m_0} - t_1 t_2 \cdots t_m
\quad \equiv \quad SOS \mbox{ mod }
1-t_1^2 - \cdots - t_m^2.
\]
Choose $\gamma$ satisfying
\[
\left( \frac{1}{ 2m_0 } \right)^{m_0} \cdot
\frac{ \sqrt{1-\gamma^2}^{2m_0-1} }{ \gamma } =
\left( \frac{1}{ 2m_0 -1 } \right)^{(2m_0-1)/2}
\]
If we do the replacing
\[
(t_1, \ldots, t_{2m_0-1}, t_{2m_0} ) \rightarrow
(\sqrt{1-\gamma^2} t_1, \ldots, \sqrt{1-\gamma^2} t_{2m_0-1}, \gamma)
\]
then we can get
\[
\left( \frac{1}{ 2m_0-1} \right)^{ (2m_0-1)/2 } - t_1 t_2 \cdots t_{2m_0-1}
\quad \equiv \quad SOS \mbox{ mod }
1-t_1^2 - \cdots - t_{2m_0-1}^2.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
If the vanishing ideal of $K$ is still $\mbox{Ideal}(h)$
and $h$ is a singleton, then
$\mbox{Ideal}(h)_{2k} + \mbox{Qmod}(g)_{2k}$
is closed, for each $k \in \N$.
\end{prop}
\fi
\bigskip
Let $\re^{\N_{[0,d]}^n}$ be the space of multi-sequences indexed by
$\af \in \N^n_{[0,d]}$ (see the notation \reff{N[0d]}).
A vector in $\re^{\N_{[0,d]}^n}$ is called a
{\it truncated multi-sequence} (tms) of degree $d$.
Every $z \in \re^{\N_{[0,d]}^n}$ can be labelled as
\[
z \, = \, (z_\af)_{ \af \in \N_{[0,d]}^n }.
\]
For $t\leq d$ and $z\in \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}^{n}_{d}}$,
denote the truncation:
\be \label{trun:z|0,m}
z|_{ \{0,m\} } \, := \, (z_{\alpha})_{ \af \in \N^n_{ \{0,m\} } }.
\ee
For $ p = \Sig_{ \af \in \N_{[0,d]}^n } p_\af x^\af \in \re[x]_d$
and $z \in \re^{\N_{[0,d]}^n}$, define the product
\be \label{df:<p,y>}
\langle p, z \rangle \, := \,
\sum_{\af \in \N_{[0,d]}^n } p_\af z_\af.
\ee
In the above, each $p_\af$ is a coefficient.
For a polynomial $q \in \re[x]_{2k}$ and a tms
$z \in \re^{ \N^n_{[0,2k]} }$,
the product $\langle q p_1p_2, z \rangle$
is a quadratic form in the coefficients of $p_1, p_2$.
The $k$th {\it localizing matrix} of $q$,
generated by a tms $z \in \re^{\N^n_{[0,2k]}}$,
is the symmetric matrix $L_q^{(k)}(z)$ such that
\be \label{locM:q}
\langle q p_1p_2, z \rangle \, = \,
vec(p_1)^T \Big( L_q^{(k)}(z) \Big) vec(p_2)
\ee
for all $p_1,p_2 \in \re[x]$ with
$\deg(p_1), \deg(p_2) \leq 2k - \lceil \deg(q)/2 \rceil$.
In the above, $vec(p_i)$ denotes the coefficient vector of $p_i$.
When $q = 1$ (the constant one polynomial),
$L_q^{(k)}(z)$ is reduced to the so-called
{\it moment matrix} and is denoted as
\be \label{moment:mat}
M_k(z):= L_{1}^{(k)}(z).
\ee
We refer to \cite{CurtoF,Helton} for localizing and moment matrices.
\iffalse
When $q=(q_1,\ldots,q_r)$ is a tuple of polynomials, then we denote
\be \label{mat:locliz}
L_q^{(k)} (y) \, := \, \mbf{diag}
\left(L_{q_1}^{(k)} (y),\ldots, L_{q_r}^{(k)} (y)\right).
\ee
(The $\mbf{diag} $ denotes the corresponding block diagonal matrix.)
Let $h = (h_1, \ldots, h_s)$ and
$g=(g_1,\ldots, g_t)$ be two polynomial tuples in the above.
For each $k$, the dual cone of
$\mbox{Ideal}(h)_{2k} + \mbox{Qmod}(g)_{2k}$ is
\[
\mbox{Mom}(K)_{2k} \, := \,
\left\{ z \in \re^{ \N^n_{2k} } :
L_{h}^{(k)}(z) = 0, \, M_k(z) \succeq 0,
L_{g}^{(k)}(z) \succeq 0
\right\}.
\]
That is, for every $f \in \mbox{Ideal}(h)_{2k} + \mbox{Qmod}(g)_{2k}$
and $ z \in \mbox{Mom}(K)_{2k}$, we always have
\[
\langle f, z \rangle \geq 0.
\]
\fi
\section{Odd order tensors with $\F = \re$}
\label{sc:Real:oddm}
Assume the field $\F = \re$ and the order $m$ is odd.
We discuss how to computate the real nuclear norm
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ of a tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$.
Note that $\lmd_i (v_i)^{\otimes m} = (-\lmd_i) (-v_i)^{\otimes m}$,
when $m$ is odd. In the decomposition of $\mA$ as in \reff{ast||A||:sym},
one can generally assume $\lmd_i \geq 0$, so
\be \label{nun:As*:odd}
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} = \min \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i : \,
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i (v_i)^{\otimes m}, \, \lmd_i \geq 0,
\| v_i \| = 1, v_i \in \re^n \right \}.
\ee
\iffalse
Let $\dt_v$ denote the Dirac measure at $v$ and $S$ be the unit sphere
\[
S = \{ x \in \re^n: \, \| x \| = 1 \}.
\]
For the decomposition of $\mA$ as in \reff{nun:As*:odd}, let
\[
\mu = \lmd_1 \dt_{v_1} + \cdots + \lmd_r \dt_{v_r}.
\]
Then, $\mu$ is a Borel measure supported on $S$ and satisfies
\[
\mA = \int x^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu, \quad
\sum_{i=1}^m \lmd_i = \int 1 \mt{d} \mu.
\]
For every $\nu \in \mathscr{B}(S)$
satisfying $\mA = \int x^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \nu$,
there always exist $c_1, \ldots, c_N>0$
and $u_1, \ldots, u_N \in S$ such that
\[
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^N c_i (u_i)^{\otimes m}, \quad
\sum_{i=1}^N c_i = \int 1 \mt{d} \mu.
\]
The above is implied by Proposition~3.3 of \cite{ATKMP}.
\fi
Let $\mathscr{B}(S)$ be the set
of Borel measures supported on the unit sphere $S$ as in \reff{usph:S}.
As pointed out in \cite{TanSha15},
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ equals the optimal value of
\be \label{BorOpt:R:oddm}
\left\{\baray{rl}
\min & \int 1 \mt{d} \mu \\
s.t. & \mA = \int x^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu, \,\,
\mu \in \mathscr{B}(S).
\earay \right.
\ee
Let $\mbf{a} \in \re^{ \N^n_{ \{m\} } }$ be the vector of tensor entries of
$\mA$ such that
\be \label{a=A:af}
\mbf{a}_\af = \mA_{i_1\ldots i_m} \quad \mbox{ if } \quad
x^\af = x_{i_1} \cdots x_{i_m}.
\ee
The equality constraint in \reff{BorOpt:R:oddm} is equivalent to that
\[
\mbf{a}_\af = \int x^\af \mt{d} \mu \quad
(\af \in \N^n_{ \{m\} }).
\]
Define the cone of moments
\be \label{df:scrR:0+m}
\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} } := \left\{
y \in \re^{ \N^n_{ \{0,m\} } }
\left| \baray{c}
\exists \mu \in \mathscr{B}(S) \quad s.t. \\
\, y_\af = \int x^\af \mt{d} \mu
\,\, \forall \,\, \af \in \N^n_{ \{0,m\} }
\earay \right.
\right\}.
\ee
The cone $\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ is closed, convex,
and has nonempty interior \cite[Prop.~3.2]{LMOPT}.
The optimization problem \reff{BorOpt:R:oddm} is equivalent to
\be \label{miny0:Rm(S):odd}
\left\{\baray{rl}
\min & (y)_0 \\
s.t. & (y)_\af = \mbf{a}_\af \,\, \big( \af \in \N^n_{ \{m\} } \big), \\
& y \in \mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }.
\earay \right.
\ee
\subsection{An algorithm}
The cone $\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ can be approximated
by semidefinite relaxations. Denote the cones
\begin{align}
\label{scr(S):2k}
\mathscr{S}^{2k} & := \left\{
z \in \left. \re^{ \N^n_{ [0,2k] } } \right|
M_k(z) \succeq 0, \, L^{(k)}_{1-\|x\|^2}(z) = 0
\right\}, \\
\label{scr(S):2k:0+m}
\mathscr{S}^{2k}_{ \{0,m\} } & := \left\{
y \in \left. \re^{ \N^n_{ \{0,m\} } } \right|
\exists \, z \in \mathscr{S}^{2k}, \, \, y = z|_{ \{0,m \} }
\right\}.
\end{align}
It can be shown that (cf.~\cite[Prop.~3.3]{LMOPT})
\be \label{SDr:R0,m:odd}
\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} } = \bigcap_{k \geq m/2 }
\mathscr{S}^{2k}_{ \{0,m\} }.
\ee
This leads to the hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations
\be \label{min(y)0:mom:k}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \, := \, \min\limits_{ z } & (z)_0 \\
s.t. & (z)_\af = \mbf{a}_\af \,\,(\af \in \N^n_{ \{m\} } ), \\
& z \in \mathscr{S}^{2k},
\earay \right.
\ee
for the relaxation orders
$k = m_0, m_0 +1, \ldots$, where $m_0:=\lceil m/2 \rceil$.
Since $\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} } \subseteq \mathscr{S}^{2k+2}
\subseteq \mathscr{S}^{2k}$ for all $k$,
we have the monotonicity relationship
\be \label{mrel:rhok:om}
\| \mA \|_{m_0\ast,\re}
\leq \cdots \leq \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \leq \cdots \leq
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}.
\ee
\bigskip
\begin{alg} \label{alg:R:odd}
Given a tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$ with odd $m$,
let $k = m_0$ and do:
\bit
\item [Step 1] Solve the semidefinite relaxation \reff{min(y)0:mom:k},
for an optimizer $z^k$.
\item [Step 2] Let $y^k := z^k|_{ \{0,m\} }$
(see \reff{trun:z|0,m} for the truncation).
Check whether $y^k \in \mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ or not.
If yes, then $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} $ and go to Step~3;
otherwise, let $k :=k+1$ and go to Step~1.
\item [Step 3] Compute the decomposition of $y^k$ as
\[
y^k = \lmd_1 [v_1]_{0,m} + \cdots + \lmd_r [v_r]_{0,m}
\]
with all $\lmd_i >0, v_i \in S$. This gives the nuclear decomposition
\[
\mA = \lmd_1 (v_1)^{\otimes m} + \cdots + \lmd_r (v_r)^{\otimes m}
\]
such that $\lmd_1 + \cdots + \lmd_r = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$.
\eit
\end{alg}
In the above, the method in \cite{ATKMP} can be applied to
check whether $y^k \in \mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ or not.
If yes, a nuclear decomposition can also be obtained.
It requires to solve a moment optimization problem
whose objective is randomly generated.
\subsection{Convergence properties}
The dual cone of the set $\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ is
\be
\mathscr{P}(S)_{0,m} := \{
t + q \mid \, t \in \re, \, q \in \re[x]_m^{hom}, \,
t + q \geq 0 \, \mbox{ on } S
\}.
\ee
So, the dual optimization problem of \reff{miny0:Rm(S):odd} is
\be \label{max<p,A>:1-p>=0}
\max \limits_{p \in \re[x]_m^{hom} } \quad
\langle p, \mbf{a} \rangle \quad
s.t. \quad 1 - p \in \mathscr{P}(S)_{0,m}.
\ee
\begin{lemma} \label{nng:opval:odm}
Let $\mbf{a}$ be the vector as in \reff{a=A:af}.
Then, both \reff{miny0:Rm(S):odd} and \reff{max<p,A>:1-p>=0}
achieve the same optimal value, which equals the nuclear norm
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, $p=0$ (the zero polynomial) is an interior point
of \reff{max<p,A>:1-p>=0}.
By the linear conic duality theory~\cite[\S2.4]{BTN},
\reff{miny0:Rm(S):odd} and \reff{max<p,A>:1-p>=0}
have the same optimal value which is $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$,
and \reff{miny0:Rm(S):odd} achieves it.
The feasible set of \reff{max<p,A>:1-p>=0} is compact.
This is because $|p| \leq 1$ on the unit sphere
and $p$ is a form of degree $m$.
So, \reff{max<p,A>:1-p>=0} also achieves its optimal value,
which equals $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$.
\end{proof}
Denote the nonnegative polynomial cones:
\be \label{Qk:oddm}
Q_k \, := \, \mbox{Ideal}_{2k}(1-\|x\|^2) + \Sig[x]_{2k}, \quad
Q := \bigcup_{k\geq 1} Q_k.
\ee
The cones $Q_k$ and $\mathscr{S}^{2k}$
are dual to each other (cf.~\cite{LMOPT}).
So, the dual optimization problem of \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} is
\be \label{m<pf>:Qk:oddm}
\max \limits_{p \in \re[x]_m^{hom} } \quad
\langle p, \mbf{a} \rangle \quad s.t. \quad 1 - p \in Q_k.
\ee
Some properties of Lasserre relaxations
were mentioned in \cite{TanSha15}. For completeness of the paper,
we give the properties with more details and rigorous proofs.
\begin{lemma} \label{ach:opv:k:om}
Let $\mbf{a}$ be the vector as in \reff{a=A:af}.
Then, both \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} and \reff{m<pf>:Qk:oddm}
achieve the same optimal value, which equals
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$.
Moreover, for each $k\geq m_0$,
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ is a norm function in
$\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each $k \geq m_0$, $p=0$ is an interior point of \reff{m<pf>:Qk:oddm}.
So, \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} and \reff{m<pf>:Qk:oddm}
have the same optimal value $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} $,
and \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} achieves it (cf.~\cite[\S2.4]{BTN}).
The set $Q_k$ is closed, which can be implied by
Theorem~3.1 of \cite{Marsh03}(
aslo see Theorem~3.35 of \cite{Laurent}).
When $1-p \in Q_k$, $|p| \leq 1$ on the unit sphere $S$.
Hence, the feasible set of \reff{m<pf>:Qk:oddm} is compact,
and it also achieves its optimal value.
In the following, we prove that
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ is a norm function in $\mA$.
\bit
\item [1)] Because $M_k(z) \succeq 0$, $(z)_0 \geq 0$.
So $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \geq 0$ for all $\mA$.
\item [2)] Let $z^*$ be an optimizer such that
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = (z^*)_0$.
If $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = 0$, then $(z^*)_0=0$
and $z^*=0$, because $M_k(z^*)\succeq 0$ and
$L_{1-\|x\|^2}^{(k)}(z^*)=0$.
So, $\mbf{a}=0$ and $\mA$ must be the zero tensor.
\item [3)] First, we show that
$\| -\mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$.
For $z \in \re^{ \N^n_{[0,2k]}}$,
define $s(z) \in \re^{ \N^n_{[0,2k]}}$ be such that
\[
( s(z) )_\af = (-1)^{|\af|} (z)_\af, \quad
\forall \, \af \in \N^n_{[0,2k]}.
\]
One can verify that ($\mbf{1}$ denotes the vector of all ones)
\[
M_k( s(z) ) = \mbox{diag}( [-\mbf{1}]_k ) M_k( z )
\mbox{diag}( [-\mbf{1}]_k ),
\]
\[
L_{1-\|x\|^2}^{(k)}( s(z) ) =
\mbox{diag}( [-\mbf{1}]_{k-1} ) L_{1-\|x\|^2}^{(k)}( z )
\mbox{diag}( [-\mbf{1}]_{k-1} ).
\]
Thus, $z$ is feasible for \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} with tensor $\mA$
if and only if $s(z)$ is feasible
for \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} with tensor $-\mA$.
Since $(z)_0 = (s(z))_0$, we get
$\| -\mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$.
Second, we show that
$\| t\mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = t \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ for all $t>0$.
For $t>0$, $z$ is feasible
for \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} with tensor $\mA$
if and only if $tz$ is feasible
for \reff{min(y)0:mom:k} with tensor $t\mA$.
Note that $t (z)_0 = (tz)_0$ for $t>0$.
So, $\| t\mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = t \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ for $t>0$.
The above two cases imply that
\[
\| t \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} =|t| \cdot \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \, \quad
\forall \, \mA \in \mt{S}^m( \re^n), \, \, \forall \, t \in \re.
\]
\item [4)] The feasible set of \reff{min(y)0:mom:k}
is a convex set in $(z,\mA)$. Its objective is a linear function in $z$.
By the result in \cite[\S3.2.5]{BVbook},
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ is a convex function in $\mA$, so
$
\| \mA + \mB \|_{k\ast,\re} \leq \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} +
\| \mB \|_{k\ast,\re}
$
for all $\mA,\mB$.
\eit
\end{proof}
The convergence of Algorithm~\ref{alg:R:odd} is summarized as follows.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:cvg:oddm}
Let $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ be the optimal value of \reff{min(y)0:mom:k}.
For all $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$,
Algorithm~\ref{alg:R:odd} has the following properties:
\bit
\item [(i)]
$\lim\limits_{k\to\infty} \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$.
\item [(ii)] Let $p^*$ be an optimizer of \reff{max<p,A>:1-p>=0}.
If $1-p^* \in Q$, then
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ for all $k$ sufficiently big.
\item [(iii)] If $y^k \in \mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ for some order $k$,
then $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$.
\item [(iv)] The sequence $\{ y^k \}_{k=m_0}^{\infty}$
converges to a point in $\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$.
\eit
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(i) By Lemma~\ref{nng:opval:odm},
for every $\eps>0$, there exists $p_1 \in \re[x]_m^{hom}$ such that
\[
1 - p_1 >0 \mbox{ on } S, \qquad
\langle p_1, \mbf{a} \rangle \geq \| \A \|_{\ast,\re} - \eps.
\]
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Put}, there exists $k_1$ such that
$
1 - p_1 \in Q_{k_1}.
$
By Lemma~\ref{ach:opv:k:om}, we get
\[
\| \mA \|_{k_1\ast,\re} \geq \| \A \|_{\ast,\re} - \eps.
\]
The monotonicity relation \reff{mrel:rhok:om} and the above imply that
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} \geq \lim\limits_{k\to\infty} \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}
\geq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} - \eps.
\]
Since $\eps>0$ can be arbitrarily small,
the item (i) follows directly.
(ii) If $1-p^* \in Q$, then
$1-p^* \in Q_{k_2}$ for some $k_2$.
By Lemma~\ref{nng:opval:odm}, we know
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} = \langle p^*, \mbf{a} \rangle
\leq \| \mA \|_{k_2\ast,\re} .
\]
Then, \reff{mrel:rhok:om} implies that
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$
for all $k \geq k_2$.
(iii) If $y^k \in \mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ for some $k$,
then $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \geq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$,
by Lemmas~\ref{nng:opval:odm} and \ref{ach:opv:k:om}.
Then, the equality $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$
follows from \reff{mrel:rhok:om}.
(iv) Note the relations
\[
(y^k)_0 = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}, \quad
(y^k)_\af = \mbf{a}_{ \af } \quad
(\forall \, \af \in \N^n_{ \{ m \} } ).
\]
Since $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \to \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$,
we know the limit $y^*$ of the sequence $\{ y^k \}$ must exist.
For all $k\geq m/2$, we have
$y^k \in \mathscr{S}^{2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$.
The distance between $\mathscr{S}^{2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$ and
$\mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$ tends to zero as $k\to \infty$
(cf.~\cite[Prop.~3.4]{LMOPT}),
so $y^* \in \mathscr{R}_{ \{0,m\} }$.
It can also be implied by the equality \reff{SDr:R0,m:odd}.
\end{proof}
In Theorem~\ref{thm:cvg:oddm}(ii), we always have $1-p^*\geq 0$ on $S$.
Under some general conditions,
we further have $1-p^* \in Q$, as shown in \cite{opcd}.
Thus, Algorithm~\ref{alg:R:odd} usually has finite convergence,
which is confirmed by numerical experiments in \S\ref{sc:num}.
\section{Even order tensors with $\F = \re$}
\label{sc:Real:meven}
Assume the order $m$ is even and the field $\F = \re$.
For a symmetric tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$,
the sign of $\lmd_i$ in \reff{ast||A||:sym}
cannot be generally assumed to be positive.
However, we can always decompose $\mA$ as
($\mbf{1}$ is the vector of all ones)
\be \label{dcF:v+v-:lmd>=0}
\left\{ \baray{c}
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^{r_1} \lmd_i^+ (v_i^+)^{\otimes m} -
\sum_{i=1}^{r_2} \lmd_i^- (v_i^-)^{\otimes m}, \\
\lmd_i^+ \geq 0, \, \| v_i^+ \| = 1, \,
\mathbf{1}^Tv_i^+ \geq 0, \, v_i^+ \in \re^n,\\
\lmd_i^- \geq 0, \, \| v_i^- \| = 1, \,
\mathbf{1}^Tv_i^- \geq 0, \, v_i^- \in \re^n.
\earay \right.
\ee
Let $\mathscr{B}(S^+)$ be the set of Borel measures
supported in the half unit sphere
\be \label{set:S+}
S^+ := \{ x\in \re^n \, \mid \, \|x\|=1, \mathbf{1}^Tx \geq 0 \}.
\ee
Clearly, the weighted Dirac measures
\[
\mu^+ := \sum_{i=1}^{r_1} \lmd_i^+ \dt_{v_i^+}, \quad
\mu^- := \sum_{i=1}^{r_2} \lmd_i^- \dt_{v_i^-}
\]
belong to $\mathscr{B}(S^+)$.
The decomposition \reff{dcF:v+v-:lmd>=0} is equivalent to
\be \label{dcpA:mu+mu-}
\mA = \int x^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu^+
- \int x^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu^-.
\ee
Reversely, if there exist $\mu^+, \mu^- \in \mathscr{B}(S^+)$
satisfying \reff{dcpA:mu+mu-}, then $\mA$ has a decomposition
as in \reff{dcF:v+v-:lmd>=0} (cf.~\cite[Prop.~3.3]{ATKMP}).
Therefore, the nuclear norm
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ equals the optimal value of the problem
\be \label{nnF:opt:mu+-}
\left\{\baray{rl}
\min & \int 1 \mt{d} \mu^+ + \int 1 \mt{d} \mu^-\\
s.t. & \mA = \int x^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu^+
- \int x^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu^-, \\
& \mu^+, \mu^- \in \mathscr{B}(S^+).
\earay\right.
\ee
Let $\mbf{a} \in \re^{ \N^n_{ \{m\} } }$ be the vector such that
\be \label{mbf(a):evm}
\mbf{a}_\af \, = \, \mA_{i_1\cdots i_m}
\quad \mbox{ if } \quad x^\af = x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_m}.
\ee
Denote the cone of moments
\be \label{scr(R)+:0+m}
\mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} } := \left\{
y \in \re^{ \N^n_{ \{0, m\} } }
\left| \baray{c}
\exists \mu \in \mathscr{B}(S^+) \, \mbox{ such that } \\
y_\af = \int x^\af \mt{d} \mu \, \mbox{ for } \, \af \in \N^n_{ \{0, m\} }
\earay \right.
\right\}.
\ee
Then, \reff{nnF:opt:mu+-} is equivalent to
\be \label{miny0:Rm(S)}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\min & (y^+)_0 + (y^-)_0 \\
s.t. & (y^+)_\af - (y^-)_\af = \mbf{a}_\af \,\, ( \af \in \N^n_{\{m\} } ), \\
& y^+, y^- \in \mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }.
\earay \right.
\ee
\subsection{An algorithm}
The cone $\mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$ can be approximated
by semidefinite relaxations.
Denote the cones
\begin{align}
\mathscr{S}^{+,2k} & := \left\{
z \in \left. \re^{ \N^n_{ [0, 2k] } } \right|
M_k(z) \succeq 0, \, L^{(k)}_{\mbf{1}^Tx}(z) \succeq 0,
\, L^{(k)}_{1-\|x\|^2}(z)=0
\right\}, \\
\mathscr{S}^{+,2k}_{ \{0,m\} } & := \left\{
y \in \left. \re^{ \N^n_{ \{0, m\} } } \right|
\exists \, z \in \mathscr{S}^{+,2k}, \, \, y = z|_{ \{0,m \} }
\right\}.
\end{align}
Note that $\mathscr{S}^{+,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$ is a projection of
$\mathscr{S}^{+,2k}$ and
$
\mathscr{R}^{+}_{ \{0,m\} } \subseteq \mathscr{S}^{+,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }
$
for all $k$. As shown in \cite{LMOPT}, it holds that
\be \label{SDr:R0,m:S+}
\mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} } = \bigcap_{k \geq m/2 }
\mathscr{S}^{+,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }.
\ee
So, we get the hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations
for solving \reff{miny0:Rm(S)}:
\be \label{rho(k):m:even}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \, := \, \min\limits_{z^+, z^-} & (z^+)_0 + (z^-)_0 \\
s.t. & (z^+)_\af - (z^-)_\af = \mbf{a}_\af \, ( \af \in \N^n_{\{m\} } ), \\
& z^+, z^- \in \mathscr{S}^{+,2k},
\earay \right.
\ee
for $k= m_0, m_0+1, \ldots$ ($m_0 = \lceil m/2 \rceil$).
Similar to \reff{mrel:rhok:om},
we also have the monotonicity relationship
\be \label{rhok:mcr:evm}
\| \mA \|_{m_0\ast,\re} \leq \cdots
\leq \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \leq \cdots \leq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}.
\ee
\begin{alg} \label{alg:even:m}
For a given tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$,
let $k = m_0$ and do:
\bit
\item [Step 1] Solve the semidefinite relaxation \reff{rho(k):m:even},
for an optimizer $(z^{+,k}, z^{-,k})$.
\item [Step 2] Let $y^{+,k} := z^{+,k}\big|_{ \{0,m\} }$,
$y^{-,k} := z^{-,k}\big|_{ \{0,m\} }$
(see \reff{trun:z|0,m} for the truncation).
Check whether $y^{+,k}, y^{-,k} \in \mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$ or not.
If they both belong, then
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ and go to Step~3;
otherwise, let $k :=k+1$ and go to Step~1.
\item [Step 3] Compute the decompositions of
$y^{+,k}, y^{-,k}$ as
\[
y^{+,k} = \sum_{i=1}^{r_1} \lmd_i^+ [v_i^+]_{0,m}, \quad
y^{-,k} = \sum_{i=1}^{r_2} \lmd_i^- [v_i^-]_{0,m},
\]
with all $\lmd^+_i >0, \lmd_i^->0$ and $v_i^+, v_i^- \in S^+$.
The above gives the nuclear decomposition:
\[
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^{r_1} \lmd_i^+ (v_i^+)^{\otimes m} -
\sum_{i=1}^{r_2} \lmd_i^- (v_i^-)^{\otimes m}
\]
such that
$\sum_{i=1}^{r_1} \lmd_i^+ + \sum_{i=1}^{r_2} \lmd_i^- = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$.
\eit
\end{alg}
In the above, the method in \cite{ATKMP}
can be applied to check if
$y^{+,k}, y^{-,k} \in \mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$ or not.
If yes, a nuclear decomposition can also be obtained.
In Step~3, it is possible that $r_1=0$ or $r_2 = 0$,
for which case the corresponding $y^{+,k}$ or $y^{-,k}$
is the vector of all zeros.
Note that Algorithm~\ref{alg:even:m} can also be applied
to compute $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$
even if the order $m$ is odd.
\subsection{Convergence properties}
The dual cone of the set $\mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$ is
\[
\mathscr{P}(S^+)_{0,m} \,:= \, \{ t + p \mid
t \in \re, \, p \in \re[x]_m^{hom}, \, t + p \geq 0 \mbox{ on } S^+ \}.
\]
So, the dual optimization problem of \reff{miny0:Rm(S)} is
\be \label{max<p,f>:1>=|p|}
\max \limits_{ p \in \re[x]_m^{hom} } \quad \langle p, \mbf{a} \rangle
\quad s.t. \quad 1 \pm p \in \mathscr{P}(S^+)_{0,m}.
\ee
\begin{lemma} \label{mnng:val=:evm}
Let $\mbf{a}$ be the vector as in \reff{mbf(a):evm}.
Then, both \reff{miny0:Rm(S)} and \reff{max<p,f>:1>=|p|}
achieve the same optimal value which equals $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The feasible set of \reff{miny0:Rm(S)} is always nonempty,
say, $(\hat{y}^+, \hat{y}^-)$ is a feasible pair.
Let $\xi$ be an interior point of $\mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$.
Then $\hat{y}^+ +\xi, \hat{y}^- + \xi$ are both interior points of
$\mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$.
The zero polynomial $p=0$ is an interior point of \reff{max<p,f>:1>=|p|}.
By the linear conic duality theory \cite[\S2.4]{BTN},
the optimal values of \reff{miny0:Rm(S)} and \reff{max<p,f>:1>=|p|}
are equal, and they both achieve it.
The optimal value of \reff{miny0:Rm(S)}
is $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$,
so it is also the optimal value of \reff{max<p,f>:1>=|p|}.
\end{proof}
Next, we study the properties of the relaxation~\reff{rhok:mcr:evm}.
Denote the cones of nonnegative polynomials:
\be \label{Qk+:evm}
Q_k^+ \, := \, \mbox{Ideal}_{2k}(1-\| x \|^2)
+ \mbox{Qmod}_{2k}(\mathbf{1}^Tx), \quad
Q^+ \, := \, \bigcup_{ k \geq 1 } Q_k^+.
\ee
The cones $Q_k^+$ and $\mathscr{S}^{+,2k}$
are dual to each other (cf.~\cite{LMOPT}),
so the dual optimization problem of \reff{rho(k):m:even} is
\be \label{mx<p,f>:1+-p:Qk}
\max \limits_{ p \in \re[x]_m^{hom} }
\quad \langle p, \mbf{a} \rangle \quad
s.t. \quad 1 \pm p \in Q_k^+.
\ee
\begin{lemma} \label{achval:Qk:evm}
Let $\mbf{a}$ be the vector of entries of $\mA$ as in \reff{mbf(a):evm}.
For each $k \geq m_0$, both \reff{rho(k):m:even} and \reff{mx<p,f>:1+-p:Qk}
achieve the same optimal value $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$.
Moreover, $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ is a norm function in
$\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The zero form $p=0$ is an interior point
of \reff{mx<p,f>:1+-p:Qk}, for all $k \geq m_0$.
By the linear conic duality theory \cite[\S2.4]{BTN},
\reff{rho(k):m:even} and \reff{mx<p,f>:1+-p:Qk}
have the same optimal value and
\reff{rho(k):m:even} achieves it.
The vanishing ideal of $S^+$ is $\mbox{Ideal}(1-\|x\|^2)$,
so the set $Q_k^+$ is closed
(cf.~\cite[Theorem~3.35]{Laurent} or \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Marsh03}).
When $p$ is feasible for \reff{mx<p,f>:1+-p:Qk},
$|p| \leq 1$ on the unit sphere $S$.
So, the feasible set of \reff{mx<p,f>:1+-p:Qk}
is compact, and it also achieves its optimal value.
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{ach:opv:k:om},
we can similarly prove that
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ is a norm function in $\mA$, as follows:
\bit
\item [1)] Because $(z^+)_0 \geq 0$, $(z^-)_0 \geq 0$,
we must have $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \geq 0$ for all $\mA$.
\item [2)] Let $(z^{+*}, z^{-*})$ be such that
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = (z^{+*})_0 + (z^{-*})_0$.
If $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = 0$, then
$(z^{+*})_0 = (z^{-*})_0=0$, and hence
and $z^{+*}=z^{-*}=0$.
So, $\mA$ must be the zero tensor.
\item [3)] Let $s(z)$ be the function
as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{ach:opv:k:om}.
One can similarly prove that
$(z^+,z^-)$ is feasible for \reff{rho(k):m:even} with tensor $\mA$
if and only if $(s(z^+), s(z^-))$ is feasible
\reff{rho(k):m:even} with tensor $-\mA$.
This implies that $\| -\mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$.
Similarly, one can show that
$\| t\mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = t \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ for $t>0$.
Therefore,
$\| t \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} =|t| \cdot \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$
for all $\mA$ and for all $t \in \re$.
\item [4)] For all tensors $\mA, \mB$, the triangular inequality
$
\| \mA + \mB \|_{k\ast,\re} \leq \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} +
\| \mB \|_{k\ast,\re}
$
follows from the fact that
the feasible set of \reff{rho(k):m:even}
is a convex set in $(z,\mA)$ and its objective is linear in $z$.
\eit
\end{proof}
The convergence properties of Algorithm~\ref{alg:even:m} are as follows.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:cvg:evm}
Let $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}$ be the optimal value of \reff{rho(k):m:even}.
For all $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$,
Algorithm~\ref{alg:even:m} has the following properties:
\bit
\item [(i)]
$\lim\limits_{k\to\infty} \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$.
\item [(ii)] Let $p^*$ be an optimizer of \reff{max<p,f>:1>=|p|}.
If $1 \pm p^* \in Q^+$, then
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ for all $k$ sufficiently big.
\item [(iii)] If $y^{+,k}, y^{-,k} \in \mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$ for some order $k$,
then $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$.
\item [(iv)] The sequence
$\{ (y^{+,k}, y^{-,k}) \}_{k=m_0}^\infty$
is bounded, and for its each accumulation point
$(\hat{y}^+, \hat{y}^-)$, we must have
\[
\hat{y}^+, \hat{y}^- \in \mathscr{R}^{+}_{ \{0,m\} }, \quad
( \hat{y}^+)_0 + ( \hat{y}^- )_0 = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}.
\]
Moreover, if the nuclear decomposition of $\mA$ over $\re$ is unique,
then $(y^{+,k}, y^{-,k})$ converges to the pair
$(\hat{y}^+, \hat{y}^-)$ as above.
\eit
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(i)
By Lemma~\ref{mnng:val=:evm},
for every $\eps>0$, there exists $p_1 \in \re[x]_m^{hom}$ such that
\[
1 \pm p_1 >0 \mbox{ on } S, \qquad
\langle p_1, \mbf{a} \rangle \geq \| \A \|_{\ast,\re} - \eps.
\]
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Put}, there exists $k_1$ such that
$
1 \pm p_1 \in Q_{k_1}^+ .
$
By Lemma~\ref{achval:Qk:evm}, we can get
\[
\| \mA \|_{k_1\ast,\re} \geq \| \A \|_{\ast,\re} - \eps.
\]
The relation \reff{rhok:mcr:evm} and the above imply that
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} \geq \lim\limits_{k\to\infty} \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re}
\geq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} - \eps.
\]
The item (i) follows from that
$\eps>0$ can be arbitrarily small.
(ii)-(iii): The proof is the same
as for Theorem~\ref{thm:cvg:oddm} (ii)-(iii),
by using Lemmas~\ref{mnng:val=:evm} and \ref{achval:Qk:evm}.
(iv) Note that $y^{+,k} = z^{+,k}\big|_{ \{0,m\} }$,
$y^{-,k} = z^{-,k}\big|_{ \{0,m\} }$,
\[
M_k( z^{+,k} ) \succeq 0, \quad M_k( z^{-,k} ) \succeq 0,
\]
and $(y^{+,k})_0 + (y^{-,k})_0 = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\re} \leq
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ for all $k$. From the condition
\[
L^{(k)}_{1-\|x\|^2} ( z^{+,k} ) =
L^{(k)}_{1-\|x\|^2} ( z^{-,k} ) = 0,
\]
one can see that the sequence of diagonal entries of
$M_k( z^{+,k} ),\, M_k( z^{-,k} )$
is bounded. Then, we can show that the sequence
$\{ (z^{+,k}, z^{-,k} ) \}$ is bounded. This implies that
$\{ (y^{+,k}, y^{-,k}) \}_{k=m_0}^\infty$
is also bounded. When $(\hat{y}^+, \hat{y}^-)$ is one of
its accumulation points, we can get
$
( \hat{y}^+)_0 + ( \hat{y}^- )_0 = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}
$
by evaluating the limit. Note that
$y^{+,k}, y^{-,k} \in \mathscr{S}^{+,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$
for all $k$. The distance between $\mathscr{S}^{+,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$ and
$\mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$ tends to zero as $k\to \infty$
(cf.~\cite[Prop.~3.4]{LMOPT}),
so we have $\hat{y}^+, \hat{y}^- \in \mathscr{R}^+_{ \{0,m\} }$.
It can also be implied by \reff{SDr:R0,m:S+}.
Next, write down the decompositions:
\[
\hat{y}^+ = \sum_{i=1}^{r_1} \lmd_i^+ [v_i^+]_{0,m}, \quad
\hat{y}^- = \sum_{i=1}^{r_2} \lmd_i^- [v_i^-]_{0,m},
\]
with all $\lmd_i^+ \geq 0$, $\lmd_i^- \geq 0$,
and $v_i^+, v_i^- \in S^+$. They give the real nuclear
decomposition $\mA = \mA_1 - \mA_2$, with
\[
\mA_1 = \sum_{i=1}^{r_1} \lmd_i^+ (v_i^+)^{\otimes m}, \quad
\mA_2 = \sum_{i=1}^{r_2} \lmd_i^- (v_i^-)^{\otimes m}.
\]
When the nuclear decomposition of $\mA$ is unique,
the decompositions of $\mA_1, \mA_2$ are also unique.
So, the accumulation point $(\hat{y}^+, \hat{y}^-)$ is unique
and $(y^{+,k}, y^{-,k})$ must converge to it as $k \to \infty$.
\end{proof}
In Theorem~\ref{thm:cvg:evm}(ii), we always have
$1 \pm p^* \geq 0$ on $S^+$.
Under some general optimality conditions,
it holds that $1 \pm p^* \in Q^+$.
So, Algorithm~\ref{alg:even:m} generally has finite convergence.
This is confirmed by numerical experiments in \S\ref{sc:num}.
\section{Nuclear norms with $\F = \cpx$}
\label{sc:cpx}
When the ground field $\F = \cpx$, the nuclear norm of
$\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\cpx^n)$ is
\be \label{A:s*:C}
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx} = \min \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^r |\lmd_i| : \,
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i (w_i)^{\otimes m},
\| w_i \| = 1, w_i \in \cpx^n \right \}.
\ee
First, we formulate an optimization problem
for computing $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lm:opt:cnuc}
For all $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\cpx^n)$, $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$
equals the optimal value of
\be \label{cnn:F=ui+vi}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\min & \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i \\
s.t. & \mA = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i (u_i+\sqrt{-1}v_i)^{\otimes m}, \\
& \lmd_i \geq 0, \, \| u_i \|^2 + \| v_i \|^2 =1, \, u_i, v_i \in \re^n, \\
& \mbf{1}^T v_i \geq 0, \,
\sin(\frac{2\pi}{m})\mbf{1}^T u_i - \cos(\frac{2\pi}{m}) \mbf{1}^T v_i \geq 0.
\earay \right.
\ee
In the above, $\mbf{1}$ is the vector of all ones.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The decomposition of $\mA$ as in \reff{A:s*:C} is equivalent to
\[
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i (\tau_i w_i)^{\otimes m},
\]
for all unitary $\tau_i \in \cpx$ with $\tau_i^m = 1$. Write
\[
w_i = u_i + \sqrt{-1} v_i, \quad u_i, v_i \in \re^n,
\]
then
\[
\baray{rcl}
\mbf{1}^T w_i &=& (\mbf{1}^T u_i) + \sqrt{-1} (\mbf{1}^T v_i), \\
\mbf{1}^T (\tau_i w_i ) &=& \tau_i
\Big( (\mbf{1}^T u_i) + \sqrt{-1} (\mbf{1}^T v_i) \Big).
\earay
\]
Write $\mbf{1}^T w_i = r e^{\sqrt{-1} \theta }$ with $r\geq 0$,
$0 \leq \theta < 2\pi$. There always exists $k\in \{0,1,\ldots,m-1\}$ such that
\[
0 \leq \theta - 2k\pi/ m < 2\pi/m.
\]
If we choose $\tau_i = e^{ - 2k\pi \sqrt{-1} / m }$, then
\[
\mbf{1}^T (\tau_i w_i) = r e^{\sqrt{-1} \theta_1 }, \quad
0 \leq \theta_1 < 2\pi/m.
\]
Therefore, without loss of generality, we can assume
$\mbf{1}^T w_i = r e^{\sqrt{-1} \theta }$, with
$0 \leq \theta < 2\pi/m$, in \reff{A:s*:C}. This means that
($\mbf{Im}$ denotes the imaginary part)
\[
\mbf{Im}( \mbf{1}^T w_i ) \geq 0, \quad
\mbf{Im}( e^{ \frac{- 2\pi}{m} \sqrt{-1} } \mbf{1}^T w_i ) \leq 0,
\]
which are equivalent to the conditions
\[
\mbf{1}^T v_i \geq 0, \quad
\sin(2\pi/m)\mbf{1}^T u_i - \cos(2\pi/m) \mbf{1}^T v_i \geq 0.
\]
Then, the lemma follows from \reff{A:s*:C}.
\end{proof}
A complex vector in $\cpx^n$ can be represented by a
$2n$-dimensional real vector. Let $x = ( x^{re}, x^{im} )$ with
\[
x^{re} =(x_1,\ldots, x_n), \quad x^{im} = (x_{n+1}, \ldots, x_{2n}).
\]
Denote the set
\be \label{set:Sc}
S^c := \left\{ x=(x^{re}, x^{im})
\left|
\baray{c}
\| x^{re} \|^2 + \| x^{im} \|^2 =1, \,
\, x^{re}, x^{im} \in \re^n, \\
\mbf{1}^T x^{im} \geq 0, \,
\sin( \frac{2\pi}{m} )\mbf{1}^T x^{re}
-\cos(\frac{2\pi}{m}) \mbf{1}^T x^{im} \geq 0
\earay
\right. \right\}.
\ee
For the decomposition of $\mA$ as in \reff{cnn:F=ui+vi},
the weighted Dirac masure
\[
\mu := \lmd_1 \dt_{(u_1,v_1)} + \cdots + \lmd_r \dt_{(u_r,v_r)}
\]
belongs to $\mathscr{B}(S^c)$, the set of Borel measures supported on $S^c$.
It satisfies
\be \label{F=int:dmu:C}
\mA = \int (x^{re} + \sqrt{-1} x^{im} )^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu.
\ee
Note that
$
\lmd_1 + \cdots + \lmd_r = \int 1 \mt{d} \mu.
$
Conversely, for every $\mu \in \mathscr{B}(S^c)$ satisfying \reff{F=int:dmu:C},
we can always get a decomposition of $\mA$ as in \reff{cnn:F=ui+vi}.
This can be implied by \cite[Prop.~3.3]{ATKMP}.
By Lemma~\ref{lm:opt:cnuc}, $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$
equals the optimal value of
\be \label{cnn:F=int:xom:C}
\left\{\baray{rl}
\min & \int 1 \mt{d} \mu \\
s.t. & \mA = \int (x^{re} + \sqrt{-1} x^{im} )^{\otimes m} \mt{d} \mu, \\
& \mu \in \mathscr{B}(S^c).
\earay\right.
\ee
Note that $S^c = \{ x \in \re^{2n}: \,
h(x) = 0, g_1(x) \geq 0, g_2(x) \geq 0 \}$
where
\be \label{df:h:g:C}
h := x^Tx -1, \,\, g_1: = \mbf{1}^T x^{im}, \,\,
g_2 :=\sin( \frac{2\pi}{m} )\mbf{1}^T x^{im} - \cos( \frac{2\pi}{m} ) \mbf{1}^T x^{re}.
\ee
Let $\mbf{a}^{re}, \mbf{a}^{im} \in \re^{ \N^n_{ \{m\} } }$ be the real vectors such that
\be \label{F=fre+fim}
\mbf{a}^{re}_\af + \sqrt{-1} \mbf{a}^{im}_\af =
\mA_\af \quad \mbox{ if } \quad
x^\af = x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_m}.
\ee
For each $\af = (\af_1, \ldots, \af_n) \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} }$,
expand the product
\be \label{Raf:Taf}
(x_1+\sqrt{-1}\, x_{n+1})^{\af_1} \cdots (x_n + \sqrt{-1}\,x_{2n})^{\af_n}
=R_\af(x) + \sqrt{-1}\, T_\af(x),
\ee
for real polynomials
$R_\af, T_\af \in \re[x]:=\re[x_1,\ldots,x_{2n}]$. Then,
\[
\int (x_1+\sqrt{-1}\, x_{n+1})^{\af_1} \cdots (x_n + \sqrt{-1}\,x_{2n})^{\af_n}
\mt{d} \mu
\]
\[
=\int R_\af(x) \mt{d} \mu + \sqrt{-1}\int T_\af(x) \mt{d} \mu.
\]
Hence, \reff{cnn:F=int:xom:C} is equivalent to
\be \label{cnnopt:F=R+T:mu(C)}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\min & \int 1 \mt{d} \mu \\
s.t. & \mbf{a}^{re}_\af = \int R_\af(x) \mt{d} \mu \,\,
(\af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} }), \\
& \mbf{a}^{im}_\af = \int T_\af(x) \mt{d} \mu \,\,
(\af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} }), \\
& \mu \in \mathscr{B}(S^c).
\earay \right.
\ee
To solve \reff{cnnopt:F=R+T:mu(C)}, we can replace
$\mu$ by the vector of its moments. Denote the moment cone
\be \label{scrR(C):0+m}
\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} } := \left\{
y \in \re^{ \N^{2n}_{ \{0,m\} } }
\left| \baray{c}
\exists \mu \in \mathscr{B}(S^c) \, \mbox{ such that } \\
y_\bt = \int x^\bt \mt{d} \mu\,\,\mbox{ for } \, \bt \in \N^{2n}_{ \{0,m\} }
\earay \right.
\right\}.
\ee
So, \reff{cnnopt:F=R+T:mu(C)} is equivalent to the optimization problem
\be \label{cnn:F=R+T:y(C)}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\min & (y)_0 \\
s.t. & \langle R_\af, y \rangle = \mbf{a}^{re}_\af \,\,
(\af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} }), \\
& \langle T_\af, y \rangle = \mbf{a}^{im}_\af \,\,
(\af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} }), \\
& y \in \mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0, m\} }.
\earay \right.
\ee
\subsection{An algorithm}
The cone $\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0, m\} }$
can be approximated by semidefnite relaxations.
For $h, g_1, g_2$ as in \reff{df:h:g:C}, denote the cones
\begin{align}
\label{scr(S):C:2k}
\mathscr{S}^{c, 2k} & := \left\{
z \in \re^{ \N^{2n}_{ [0,2k] } }
\left| \baray{c}
M_k(z) \succeq 0, L^{(k)}_{h}(z) = 0, \\
L^{(k)}_{g_1}(z) \succeq 0, L^{(k)}_{g_2}(z) \succeq 0
\earay \right.
\right\}, \\
\label{scr(S):C:2k:0+m}
\mathscr{S}^{c,2k}_{ \{0,m\} } & := \left\{
y \in \left. \re^{ \N^{2n}_{ \{0,m\} } } \right|
\exists \, z \in \mathscr{S}^{c,2k}, \, \, y = z|_{ \{0,m \} }
\right\}.
\end{align}
Clearly, $\mathscr{S}^{c,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$ is a projection of
$\mathscr{S}^{c,2k}$. For all $k\geq m/2$, we have
\[
\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} } \subseteq
\mathscr{S}^{c,2k+2}_{ \{0,m\} } \subseteq \mathscr{S}^{c,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }.
\]
Indeed, it holds that (cf.~\cite[Prop.~3.3]{LMOPT})
\be \label{sdr:R:Sc}
\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} } = \bigcap_{k \geq m/2 }
\mathscr{S}^{c, 2k}_{ \{0,m\} }.
\ee
This produces the hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations
\be \label{cnn:mom:z(C)}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx} \, := \, \min & (z)_0 \\
s.t. & \langle R_\af, z \rangle = \mbf{a}^{re}_\af \,\,
(\af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} }), \\
& \langle T_\af, z \rangle = \mbf{a}^{im}_\af \,\,
(\af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} }), \\
& z \in \mathscr{S}^{c,2k},
\earay \right.
\ee
for $k=m_0, m_0+1, \ldots$ ($m_0=\lceil m/2 \rceil$).
Like \reff{rhok:mcr:evm}, we also have
\be \label{rl:rhok:cpx}
\| \mA \|_{m_0\ast,\cpx} \leq \cdots \leq
\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx} \leq \cdots \leq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}.
\ee
\begin{alg} \label{alg:cnn:cpx}
For a given tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\cpx^n)$,
let $k = m_0$ and do:
\bit
\item [Step 1] Solve the semidefinite relaxation \reff{cnn:mom:z(C)},
for an optimizer $z^{k}$.
\item [Step 2] Let $y^{k} := z^{k}\big|_{ \{0,m\} }$
(see \reff{trun:z|0,m} for the truncation).
Check whether or not
$y^{k} \in \mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} }$.
If yes, then
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}$ and go to Step~3;
otherwise, let $k :=k+1$ and go to Step~1.
\item [Step 3] Compute the decompositions of $y^{k}$ as
\[
y^{k} = \lmd_1 [(u_1,v_1)]_{0,m} + \cdots + \lmd_r [(u_r,v_r)]_{0,m}
\]
with all $\lmd_i >0, (u_i,v_i) \in S^c$.
This gives the nuclear decomposition
\[
\mA = \lmd_1 (u_1 + \sqrt{-1}\, v_1)^{\otimes m} + \cdots +
\lmd_r (u_r + \sqrt{-1}\, v_r)^{\otimes m}
\]
such that
$\sum_{i=1}^{r} \lmd_i = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$.
\eit
\end{alg}
In the above, the method in \cite{ATKMP}
can be used to check if $y^{k} \in \mathscr{R}^c_{ \{0,m\} }$ or not.
If yes, we can also get a nuclear decomposition.
It requires to solve a moment optimization problem
whose objective is randomly generated.
\subsection{Convergence properties}
Denote the real polynomial vectors:
\[
R(x):= (R_\af(x))_{ \af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} } }, \quad
T(x):= (T_\af(x) )_{ \af \in \N^{n}_{ \{m\} } },
\]
where $R_\af, T_\af$ are as in \reff{Raf:Taf}.
Their length $D=\binom{2n+m-1}{m}$. Denote
\be
\mathscr{P}(S^c)_{0,m} \, := \, \{ t + p \, \mid \,
t \in \re, \, p\in \re[x]_m^{hom}, \, t+p \geq 0 \mbox{ on } \, S^c
\}.
\ee
The cones $\mathscr{R}^c_{\{0,m\}}$ and
$\mathscr{P}(S^c)_{0,m}$ are dual to each other \cite{LMOPT},
so the dual optimization problem of \reff{cnn:F=R+T:y(C)} is
\be \label{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\max\limits_{ p_1, p_2 \in \re^D } &
p_1^T \mbf{a}^{re} + p_2^T \mbf{a}^{im} \\
s.t. \quad & 1 - p_1^T R(x) - p_2^T T(x) \in \mathscr{P}(S^c)_{0,m}.
\earay \right.
\ee
\begin{lemma} \label{monng:dual:Cpx}
Let $\mbf{a}^{re}, \mbf{a}^{im}$ be as in \reff{F=fre+fim}.
Then, both \reff{cnn:F=R+T:y(C)} and \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)}
achieve the same optimal value which equals
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The origin is an interior point of \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)}.
So, \reff{cnn:F=R+T:y(C)} and \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)}
have the same optimal value,
and \reff{cnn:F=R+T:y(C)} achieves it (cf.~\cite[\S2.4]{BTN}).
In the next, we prove that \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)}
also achieves its optimal value. Let
\[
w = x^{re} + \sqrt{-1} x^{im}, \quad
q_\af = (p_1)_\af - \sqrt{-1} (p_2)_\af.
\]
\[
\baray{rcl}
q(w) &=& \sum_{ |\af| =m} q_\af
\big( R_\af(x) + \sqrt{-1} T_\af(x) \big) \\
& = & \sum_{ |\af| =m} q_\af w^\af .
\earay
\]
Clearly, $q(w)$ is a form of degree $m$ and
in $w \in \cpx^n$, and
($\mbf{Re}$ denotes the real part)
\[
\mbf{Re} \,\, q(w) = p_1^T R(x) + p_2^T T(x).
\]
Let
$
B=\{ x^{re} + \sqrt{-1} x^{im}: \, (x^{re}, x^{im} ) \in S^c \},
$
which is a subset of the complex unit sphere $\| w \| =1$.
When $(p_1, p_2)$ is feasible for \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)},
the polynomial
\[
p(x) \, := \, 1 - p_1^T R(x) - p_2^T T(x)
\quad \geq 0 \quad \mbox{ on } S^c.
\]
So,
$
\mbf{Re}\,\, q(w) \leq 1
$
for all $w \in B.$
For all $w \in \cpx^n$ with $\|w\|=1$, there exist
$\tau^m=1$ and $a \in B$ such that $w=\tau a$.
This is shown in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:opt:cnuc}, so
\[
\mbf{Re}\,\, q(w) = \mbf{Re}\,\, q(\tau a)
= \mbf{Re}\,\, q( a) \leq 1.
\]
The above is true for all unit complex vectors $w$, hence
\[
\mbf{Re}\,\, q(w) \leq 1 \quad \forall w \in \cpx^n: \, \|w\|=1.
\]
Because $q(w)$ is homogeneous in $w$, the above implies that
\[
|q(w)| \leq 1 \quad \forall w \in \cpx^n: \, \|w\|=1.
\]
\iffalse
So, there exists $\eps >0$ such that
\[
1 \geq \int_{ \| w \| = 1 } |q(w)|^2 d w
= vec(q)^h \Big( \int_{ \| w \| = 1 } [w]_m[w]_m^h d w \Big) vec(q)
\geq \eps \|q\|^2
\]
\fi
So, there exists $M >0$ such that
$ \|vec(q) \| \leq M $
for all $q$ satisfying the above.
Since $\| vec(q) \|^2 = \| vec(p_1) \|^2 + \| vec(p_2) \|^2$,
the feasible set of \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)} is compact.
So, \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)} must achieve its optimal value.
\end{proof}
Next, we study the properties of the relaxation \reff{cnn:mom:z(C)}.
For $h,g:=(g_1,g_2)$ as in \reff{df:h:g:C}, denote the cones of polynomials
\be \label{Qkc:cpx}
Q_k^c \, := \, \mbox{Ideal}(h)_{2k} + \mbox{Qmod}_{2k}(g),
\quad Q^c \, := \, \bigcup_{k\geq 1} Q_k^c.
\ee
The cones $Q_k^c$ and $\mathscr{S}^{c,2k}$
are dual to each other \cite{LMOPT},
so the dual optimization problem of \reff{cnn:mom:z(C)} is
\be \label{mx<p1+p2,f>:SOS:Q(C)}
\left\{ \baray{rl}
\max\limits_{ p_1, p_2 \in \re^D } &
p_1^T \mbf{a}^{re} + p_2^T \mbf{a}^{im} \\
s.t. & 1 - p_1^T R(x) - p_2^T T(x) \in Q_k^c.
\earay \right.
\ee
\begin{lemma} \label{lm:sos-mom:QkSc}
Let $\mbf{a}^{re}, \mbf{a}^{im}$ be the real vectors as in \reff{F=fre+fim}.
Then, for each $k\geq m_0$, both \reff{cnn:mom:z(C)} and \reff{mx<p1+p2,f>:SOS:Q(C)}
achieve the same optimal value which equals $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}$.
Moreover, $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}$
is a norm function in $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\cpx^n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is almost the same as for Lemmas~\ref{ach:opv:k:om}
and \ref{achval:Qk:evm}.
For each $k\geq m_0$, the origin is an interior point of
\reff{mx<p1+p2,f>:SOS:Q(C)}.
The vanishing ideal of $S^c$ is $\mbox{Ideal}(h)$,
so the set $Q_k^c$ is closed, implied by Theorem~3.35 of \cite{Laurent}
or Theorem~3.1 of \cite{Marsh03}.
In the proof of Lemma~\ref{monng:dual:Cpx},
we showed that the feasible set of \reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)}
is compact. Since $Q_k^c \subseteq \mathscr{P}(S^c)_{\{0,m\}}$,
the feasible set of \reff{mx<p1+p2,f>:SOS:Q(C)} is also compact.
By the linear conic duality theory \cite[\S2.4]{BTN},
both \reff{cnn:mom:z(C)} and \reff{mx<p1+p2,f>:SOS:Q(C)}
achieve the same optimal value.
We can similarly prove that
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}$ is a norm function in $\mA$.
We omit the proof here, since it is almost the same as for
Lemmas~\ref{ach:opv:k:om} and \ref{achval:Qk:evm}.
\end{proof}
The convergence properties of Algorithm~\ref{alg:cnn:cpx} are as follows.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:cvg:cpx}
Let $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}$ be the optimal value of \reff{cnn:mom:z(C)}.
For all $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\cpx^n)$,
Algorithm~\ref{alg:cnn:cpx} has the following properties:
\bit
\item [(i)]
$\lim\limits_{k\to\infty} \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}
= \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$.
\item [(ii)] Let $(p_1^*, p_2^*)$ be an optimal pair for
\reff{mx<p,f>:p1p2:P(C)}. If
\[
1-(p_1^*)^TR(x) -(p_2^*)^T T(x) \in Q^c,
\]
then $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx} = \| \A \|_{\ast, \cpx}$
for all $k$ sufficiently big.
\item [(iii)] If $y^{k} \in \mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} }$ for some order $k$,
then $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx} = \| \A \|_{\ast,\cpx}$.
\item [(iv)] The sequence $\{ y^{k} \}_{k=m_0}^\infty$ is bounded,
and each of its accumulation points belongs to $\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} }$.
Moreover, if the nuclear decomposition of $\mA$ over $\cpx$ is unique,
then $y^{k}$ converges to a point in
$\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} }$ as $k \to \infty$.
\eit
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(i) By Lemma~\ref{monng:dual:Cpx},
for every $\eps>0$, there exist $s_1, s_2 \in \re^D$ such that
\[
1 - (s_1)^TR -(s_2)^T T>0 \mbox{ on } S^c, \quad
\langle s_1, \mbf{a}^{re} \rangle + \langle s_2, \mbf{a}^{im} \rangle
\geq \| \A \|_{\ast,\cpx} - \eps.
\]
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Put}, there exists $k_1$ such that
\[
1 - (s_1)^TR -(s_2)^T T \in Q_{k_1}^c.
\]
By Lemma~\ref{lm:sos-mom:QkSc}, we can get
$
\| \mA \|_{k_1\ast,\cpx} \geq \| \A \|_{\ast,\cpx} - \eps.
$
The monotonicity relation \reff{rl:rhok:cpx} and the above imply that
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx} \geq \lim\limits_{k\to\infty} \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}
\geq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx} - \eps.
\]
Since $\eps>0$ can be arbitrarily small,
the item (i) follows directly.
(ii) If $1-(p_1^*)^T R -(p_2^*)^T T \in Q^c$, then
$1-(p_1^*)^T R -(p_2^*)^T T \in Q_{k_2}^c$ for some $k_2 \in \N$.
By Lemma~\ref{monng:dual:Cpx}, we know that
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx} = \langle p_1^*, \mbf{a}^{re} \rangle +
\langle p_2^*, \mbf{a}^{im} \rangle \leq \| \mA \|_{k_2\ast,\cpx}.
\]
Then, \reff{rl:rhok:cpx} implies that
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$
for all $k \geq k_2$.
(iii) If $y^k \in \mathscr{R}^c_{ \{0,m\} }$ for some order $k$,
then $\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx} \geq \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$,
by Lemma~\ref{monng:dual:Cpx}.
The equality
$\| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx} = \| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$
follows from \reff{rl:rhok:cpx}.
(iv) Note that $ (z^k)_0 = (y^k)_0 = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\cpx}$ for all $k$.
The condition $L_{1-\|x\|^2}^{(k)}(z^k)=0$ implies that
\[
(z^k)_{2e_1 + 2\bt} + \cdots (z^k)_{2e_{2n} + 2\bt} = (z^k)_{2\bt}
\]
for all $\bt \in \N^{2n}_{[0,2k]}$.
By induction, one can easily show that
\[
(z^k)_{2\bt} \leq (z^k)_0 \quad \forall \, \bt \in \N^{2n}_{[0,2k]}.
\]
Since $y^k$ is a truncation of $z^k$
and $M_k( z^k ) \succeq 0$, we get
\[
|(y^k)_{\bt}|^2 = |(z^k)_{\bt}|^2 \leq (z^k)_{2\bt} (z^k)_{0}
\leq |(z^k)_{0} |^2 = |(y^k)_{0} |^2 = \| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx}^2.
\]
This shows that the sequence $\{ y^k \}$ is bounded.
For all $k\geq m/2$, it holds that
$y^k \in \mathscr{S}^{c,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$.
The distance between $\mathscr{S}^{c,2k}_{ \{0,m\} }$ and
$\mathscr{R}^c_{ \{0,m\} }$ tends to zero as $k\to \infty$
(cf.~\cite[Prop.~3.4]{LMOPT}).
Therefore, every accumulation point $\hat{y}$ of the sequence $\{ y^k \}$
belongs to $\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} }$.
This can also be implied by \reff{sdr:R:Sc}. So,
$
\hat{y} = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i [(u_i, v_i)]_{0,m},
$
with $\lmd_i >0$ and $(u_i, v_i) \in S^c$.
The feasibility condition in \reff{cnn:mom:z(C)}
and the relation \reff{Raf:Taf} imply that
\[
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i (u_i + \sqrt{-1} v_i)^{\otimes m}.
\]
When the nuclear decomposition of $\mA$ is unique,
$\lmd_i$ and $(u_i, v_i) \in S^c$
are also uniquely determined.
So, the accumulation point $\hat{y}$ is unique and
$y^k$ converges to a point in $\mathscr{R}^{c}_{ \{0,m\} }$
as $k \to \infty$.
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical examples}
\label{sc:num}
This section presents numerical experiments
for nuclear norms of symmetric tensors.
The computation is implemented in MATLAB R2012a,
on a Lenovo Laptop with [email protected] and RAM 16.0G.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:R:odd} is applied for
real nuclear norms of real odd order tensors,
Algorithm~\ref{alg:even:m} is for
real nuclear norms of real even order tensors,
while Algorithm~\ref{alg:cnn:cpx} is for
complex nuclear norms of all tensors.
These algorithms can be implemented in software
{\tt Gloptipoly~3} \cite{Gloptipoly}
by calling the semidefinite program package {\tt SeDuMi} \cite{sedumi}.
Since our methods are numerical, we display only
four decimal digits for the computational results.
For a nuclear decomposition
$\mA = (u_1)^{\otimes m} + \cdots + (u_r)^{\otimes m}$,
we display it by listing the vectors
$u_1, \ldots, u_r$
column by column, from the left to right.
If one row block is not enough, we continue the display
in the bottom, separated by one blank row.
Recall that $e$ is the vector of all ones,
and $e_i$ denotes the $i$th standard unit vector
(i.e., the vector whose $i$th entry is one
and all others are zeros).
We begin with some tensor examples from
Friedland and Lim~\cite{FriLim14b}.
\begin{exm}
(\cite{FriLim14b})
(i) Consider the tensor in $\mt{S}^3(\re^2)$ such that
\[
\mA = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\big(
e_1 \otimes e_1 \otimes e_2 + e_1 \otimes e_2 \otimes e_1 +
e_2 \otimes e_1 \otimes e_1
\big).
\]
We got
$ \| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} = \sqrt{3}$ and
$ \| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} = 3/2$.
It took about $1$ second.
The real nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^3 (u_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.0000 -0.7937 0.7937
-0.5774 0.4582 0.4582
\end{verbatim} \noindent}and
the complex nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^3 (w_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
-0.5873 + 0.2740i 0.4582 - 0.4583i 0.6456 - 0.0566i
0.2944 + 0.3511i -0.0002 + 0.4582i 0.4513 + 0.0797i
\end{verbatim}}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 2; m = 3;
mA = zeros(2,2,2);
mA(1,1,2) = 1/sqrt(3);
mA(1,2,1) = 1/sqrt(3);
mA(2,1,1) = 1/sqrt(3);
tstart = tic;
[rnn, rU] = realSymTNN_oddord( mA, n, 3 );
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, 3);
comptime = toc(tstart),
>> format long
>> rnn
rnn =
1.732050803942378
>> rU
rU =
0.000000555964861 -0.793700534502393 0.793700534502393
-0.577350256797167 0.458243329880489 0.458243075113373
>> cnn
cnn =
1.499999982628005
>> cU
cU =
-0.587287849546880 + 0.273982924314108i 0.458162359491522 - 0.458324026766759i 0.645577760792282 - 0.056595473893863i
0.294429225664688 + 0.351138558102111i -0.000161652232510 + 0.458243199348050i 0.451253377220938 + 0.079732286401430i
>>
\fi
\noindent
(ii) Consider the tensor in $\mt{S}^3(\re^2)$ such that
\[
\mA = \frac{1}{2}\big(
e_1 \otimes e_1 \otimes e_2 + e_1 \otimes e_2 \otimes e_1 +
e_2 \otimes e_1 \otimes e_1 - e_2 \otimes e_2 \otimes e_2
\big).
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} = 2$
and $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} = \sqrt{2}$.
It took about $1$ second.
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 2; m = 3;
mA = zeros(2,2,2);
mA(1,1,2) = 1/2;
mA(1,2,1) = 1/2;
mA(2,1,1) = 1/2;
mA(2,2,2) = -1/2;
tstart = tic;
[rnn, rU] = realSymTNN_oddord( mA, n, 3 );
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, 3);
comptime = toc(tstart),
\fi
The real nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^3 (u_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.0000 -0.7565 0.7565
-0.8736 0.4368 0.4368
\end{verbatim} \noindent}while
the complex nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^2 (w_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is{\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.5456 - 0.3150i -0.5456 + 0.3150i
0.3150 + 0.5456i 0.3150 + 0.5456i
\end{verbatim} \noindent}The
nuclear norms are the same as in \cite{FriLim14b}.
\qed
\end{exm}
Next, we see some tensors of order four.
\begin{exm}
(i) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^3)$ such that
\[
\mA = e^{\otimes 4} - e_1^{\otimes 4} - e_2^{\otimes 4} - e_3^{\otimes 4}.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} =12$
and $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{3\ast, \cpx} \approx 11.8960$.
It took about $15$ seconds.
The real nuclear decomposition is the same as above.
The complex nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^{9} (w_i)^{\otimes 4}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
-0.1152 + 0.0714i 0.0332 - 0.1001i 0.0479 - 0.1059i -0.1102 + 0.0539i -0.0845 + 0.8376i
0.5316 + 0.5596i 0.6145 + 0.5968i 0.0519 - 0.1094i -0.1068 + 0.0498i 0.0823 + 0.8373i
-0.1186 + 0.0752i 0.0288 - 0.0968i 0.5905 + 0.5684i 0.5654 + 0.5880i 0.0022 + 0.8307i
0.1285 + 0.7122i 0.0163 + 0.6866i 0.5921 + 0.6105i 0.5648 + 0.5379i
-0.0124 + 0.6932i -0.1320 + 0.7066i -0.1017 + 0.0364i 0.0674 - 0.1137i
-0.1158 + 0.7086i 0.1153 + 0.7018i -0.0984 + 0.0319i 0.0711 - 0.1172i
\end{verbatim}
}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
mA = ones(n,n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n,
mA(i1,i1,i1,i1) = 0;
end
tstart = tic;
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord(mA, n, m);
Uplus, Umius,
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
>> cnn
cnn =
11.895993912996527
>> cU
cU =
Columns 1 through 3
-0.115174600616283 + 0.071428382835663i 0.033213200110508 - 0.100060849335398i 0.047920889395148 - 0.105920978025123i
0.531636042305604 + 0.559611550252256i 0.614469244504901 + 0.596806787942288i 0.051932806175567 - 0.109387896269053i
-0.118632700128192 + 0.075202332189552i 0.028767821199554 - 0.096790846010909i 0.590491538355697 + 0.568364440024314i
Columns 4 through 6
-0.110221381121175 + 0.053869193418244i -0.084541488483467 + 0.837617307181343i 0.128483030449396 + 0.712150702088357i
-0.106788297876521 + 0.049829839204023i 0.082327436199197 + 0.837270047616982i -0.012368871169410 + 0.693236785275987i
0.565378326675049 + 0.587973800004984i 0.002195381021213 + 0.830711624216886i -0.115799708830957 + 0.708627216968966i
Columns 7 through 9
0.016270231115935 + 0.686551874449371i 0.592131718995424 + 0.610519779558299i 0.564836737037199 + 0.537911341441403i
-0.132005267871603 + 0.706550537668112i -0.101708194598306 + 0.036360718737297i 0.067392607211199 - 0.113734565458594i
0.115307440995952 + 0.701818183972137i -0.098391117644016 + 0.031915535465032i 0.071076799821348 - 0.117154420501664i
>>
\fi
\noindent
(ii) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^3)$ such that
\[
\mA = (e_1 + e_2 )^{\otimes 4} +
(e_1 + e_3)^{\otimes 4} - ( e_2 + e_3)^{\otimes 4}.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} =
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} = 12$.
It took about $12$ seconds.
The real and complex nuclear decompositions are the same as above.
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
u1 = [1 1 0]'; u2 = [1 0 1]'; u3 = [0 1 1]';
vA = kron( kron( kron(u1,u1),u1), u1) + ...
kron( kron( kron(u2,u2),u2), u2) - ...
kron( kron( kron(u3,u3),u3), u3);
mA = reshape(vA,n,n,n,n);
tstart = tic;
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord(mA, n, m);
rU = [Uplus, Umius],
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
\fi
\noindent
(iii) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^3)$ such that
\[
\mA = (e_1 + e_2 - e_3)^{\otimes 4} +
(e_1 - e_2 + e_3)^{\otimes 4} + (-e_1 + e_2 + e_3)^{\otimes 4}
- (e)^{\otimes 4}.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} =
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} = 36$.
It took about $7$ seconds.
The real and complex nuclear decompositions are the same as above.
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
u1 = [1 1 -1]'; u2 = [1 -1 1]'; u3 = [-1 1 1]'; u4 = [1 1 1]';
vA = kron( kron( kron(u1,u1),u1), u1) + ...
kron( kron( kron(u2,u2),u2), u2) +...
kron( kron( kron(u3,u3),u3), u3) - ...
kron( kron( kron(u4,u4),u4), u4) ;
mA = reshape(vA,n,n,n,n);
tstart = tic;
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord(mA, n, m);
Uplus, Umius,
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
\fi
\qed
\end{exm}
The following are some examples of complex-valued tensors.
\begin{exm}
(i) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^3(\cpx^3)$ such that
\[
\mA_{i_1 i_2 i_3} = \sqrt{-1}^{i_1 i_2 i_3 }.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} \approx 8.8759$.
It took about $1$ second.
The nuclear decomposition $\mA = \sum_{i=1}^5 (w_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.6024 + 0.3478i -0.6019 + 0.3475i 0.0000 - 0.6894i 0.6262 + 0.3615i -0.0000 + 0.7230i
0.0000 - 0.0000i 0.0000 - 0.0000i 0.0000 - 0.0000i -0.7913 + 0.6476i 0.9565 - 0.3615i
-0.6024 - 0.3478i 0.6019 - 0.3475i -0.0000 + 0.6894i 0.6262 + 0.3615i 0.0000 + 0.7230i
\end{verbatim}}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 3;
mA = ones(n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2=1:n, for i3=1:n,
mA(i1,i2,i3) = ( sqrt(-1) )^(i1*i2*i3);
end, end, end
tstart = tic;
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
>> cnn
cnn =
8.875858749110593
>> cU
cU =
Columns 1 through 3
0.602431591889852 + 0.347814245580094i -0.601924213495638 + 0.347521562236787i 0.000000221280415 - 0.689378867639660i
0.000000085086027 - 0.000000042591146i 0.000000045095532 - 0.000000094321624i 0.000000020761652 - 0.000000034291767i
-0.602431619374133 - 0.347814191431550i 0.601924322643719 - 0.347521476523454i -0.000000152091938 + 0.689378818450454i
Columns 4 through 5
0.626153710306847 + 0.361510013199741i -0.000000000000007 + 0.723020026399476i
-0.791309650846522 + 0.647568493386280i 0.956465591386194 - 0.361510013199742i
0.626153710306850 + 0.361510013199743i 0.000000000000006 + 0.723020026399492i
>>
\fi
\noindent
(ii) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\cpx^3)$ such that
\[
\mA_{i_1 i_2 i_3 i_4} = ( \sqrt{-1} )^{i_1}+
( -1 )^{i_2}+ ( -\sqrt{-1} )^{i_3}+ ( 1 )^{i_4};
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} =
\| \mA \|_{3\ast, \cpx} \approx 26.9569$.
It took about $17$ seconds.
The nuclear decomposition $\mA = \sum_{i=1}^7 (w_i)^{\otimes 4}$
is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.6274 + 0.5703i -0.7090 + 0.2840i 0.2324 - 1.0695i -0.1256 + 0.3158i
0.6275 + 0.5699i 0.5471 + 0.1352i 0.2938 + 0.5936i 0.2671 + 0.1962i
-0.5940 - 0.6378i 0.5286 + 0.1184i 0.2875 + 0.6043i 0.1922 + 0.2772i
-0.1432 + 0.8472i 0.0955 + 0.9276i 0.7074 + 0.9184i
-0.1440 + 0.8475i 0.3732 + 0.7080i -0.0292 + 0.6956i
0.9490 + 0.2131i 0.4154 + 0.7460i -0.0031 + 0.6971i
\end{verbatim}
}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
mA = ones(n,n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2=1:n, for i3=1:n, for i4=1:n,
mA(i1,i2,i3,i4) = ( sqrt(-1) )^i1+ ( -1 )^i2+ ( -sqrt(-1) )^i3+ ( 1 )^i4;
end, end, end, end,
tstart = tic;
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
>> cnn
cnn =
26.956855245362373
>> cU
cU =
Columns 1 through 2
0.627413725523020 + 0.570335764617585i -0.709005559020226 + 0.283958235693073i
0.627496018738079 + 0.569935236004923i 0.547099317874804 + 0.135200350562756i
-0.593990358453649 - 0.637797566857796i 0.528566834483104 + 0.118416377092749i
Columns 3 through 4
0.232405804810743 - 1.069457421785088i -0.125559030340978 + 0.315761888856084i
0.293758482044403 + 0.593632468839868i 0.267142784659590 + 0.196219686246286i
0.287480546792624 + 0.604327344467453i 0.192217022431981 + 0.277218545308141i
Columns 5 through 6
-0.143245990442636 + 0.847207059642828i 0.095539909891883 + 0.927624121027389i
-0.143974169192022 + 0.847526905836173i 0.373214596058091 + 0.708049267043455i
0.949022713005449 + 0.213114043618299i 0.415447700250477 + 0.745963411261063i
Column 7
0.707354017887271 + 0.918357311147553i
-0.029155948296665 + 0.695625831162718i
-0.003083053071200 + 0.697102531383811i
>>
\fi
\noindent
(iii) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^5(\cpx^3)$ such that
\[
\mA_{i_1 i_2 i_3 i_4 i_5} = (\sqrt{-1})^{ i_1 i_2 i_3 i_4 i_5} +
(-\sqrt{-1})^{ i_1 i_2 i_3 i_4 i_5} .
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} =
\| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} \approx 49.5626$.
It took about $4.7$ seconds.
The nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^6 (w_i)^{\otimes 5}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.2711 + 0.8335i 0.8651 + 0.0003i 0.6741 + 0.6909i
-0.2255 - 0.6963i -0.7224 + 0.0008i 0.7712 - 0.6030i
0.2711 + 0.8335i 0.8651 + 0.0003i 0.6741 + 0.6909i
0.5542 + 0.0006i 0.8654 + 0.4276i 0.1743 + 0.5348i
1.1499 - 0.0004i -0.3352 + 0.9198i 0.3603 + 1.1102i
0.5542 + 0.0006i 0.8654 + 0.4276i 0.1743 + 0.5348i
\end{verbatim}
}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 5;
mA = zeros(n,n,n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2=1:n, for i3=1:n, for i4=1:n, for i5=1:n,
mA(i1,i2,i3,i4,i5) = ( sqrt(-1) )^(i1*i2*i3*i4*i5) + ( -sqrt(-1) )^(i1*i2*i3*i4*i5) ;
end, end, end, end, end
tstart = tic;
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
>> cnn
cnn =
49.562556630960479
>> cU
cU =
Columns 1 through 3
0.271140337184212 + 0.833509268152705i 0.865061086850895 + 0.000314180551707i 0.674140087300118 + 0.690864488717166i
-0.225476631817319 - 0.696330456631553i -0.722373147229996 + 0.000759410285282i 0.771201706748418 - 0.602959299480600i
0.271140327120179 + 0.833509274082346i 0.865061084197509 + 0.000314168529791i 0.674140087306555 + 0.690864488702736i
Columns 4 through 6
0.554158049319640 + 0.000565494098229i 0.865373853423632 + 0.427643007843231i 0.174349233975872 + 0.534776663030805i
1.149921645508792 - 0.000438305912550i -0.335161088240215 + 0.919771502657460i 0.360272742319135 + 1.110195454815789i
0.554158051805277 + 0.000565505353600i 0.865373853417446 + 0.427643007857771i 0.174349243334416 + 0.534776657522139i
>>
\fi
\noindent
(iv) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^6(\cpx^3)$ such that
\[
\mA_{i_1 i_2 i_3 i_4 i_5 i_6} =
( 1 + \sqrt{-1} )^{i_1+\cdots+i_6-6} + (1-\sqrt{-1})^{i_1+\cdots+i_6-6}.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} =
\| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} = 686 $.
It took about $4.8$ seconds.
The nuclear decomposition is
\[
\mA = \bbm 1 \\ 1 - \sqrt{-1} \\ - 2\sqrt{-1} \ebm^{\otimes 6} +
\bbm 1 \\ 1 + \sqrt{-1} \\ 2\sqrt{-1} \ebm^{\otimes 6}.
\]
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 6;
mA = zeros(n,n,n,n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2=1:n, for i3=1:n, for i4=1:n, for i5=1:n, for i6 = 1:n
mA(i1,i2,i3,i4,i5,i6) = ( 1 + sqrt(-1) )^(i1+i2+i3+i4+i5+i6-6) + ...
( 1-sqrt(-1) )^(i1+i2+i3+i4+i5+i6-6);
end, end, end, end, end, end
tstart = tic;
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
\fi
\qed
\end{exm}
\begin{exm} \label{exm:A=i1+i2+i3}
Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^3(\re^n)$ such that
\[
\mA_{i_1 i_2 i_3} = i_1 + i_2 + i_3.
\]
For a range of values of $n$,
the real and complex nuclear norms
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}$ and $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$
are reported in Table~\ref{tab:A=i1+i2+i3}.
We list the order $k$ for which
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\F} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast,\F}$
and the length of the nuclear decomposition,
as well as the consumed time (in seconds).
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Nuclear norms of the tensor in Example~\ref{exm:A=i1+i2+i3}.}
\label{tab:A=i1+i2+i3}
\btab{|c|c|r|c|c|r|} \hline
$n$ & $\F$ & $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \F}$ & $k$ & {\tt length} & {\tt time} \\ \hline
$2$ & $\re$ & $13.4164$ & $2$ & $3$ & 0.81 \\ \hline
$2$ & $\cpx$ & $13.2114$ & $2$ & $3$ & 1.31 \\ \hline
$3$ & $\re$ & $33.6749$ & $2$ & $3$ & 0.90 \\ \hline
$3$ & $\cpx$ & $32.9505$ & $2$ & $3$ & 1.92 \\ \hline
$4$ & $\re$ & $65.7267$ & $2$ & $3$ & 0.93 \\ \hline
$4$ & $\cpx$ & $64.0886$ & $2$ & $3$ & 3.73 \\ \hline
$5$ & $\re$ & $111.2430$ & $2$ & $3$ & 0.97 \\ \hline
$6$ & $\re$ & $171.7091$ & $2$ & $3$ & 1.08 \\ \hline
$7$ & $\re$ & $248.4754$ & $2$ & $3$ & 1.23 \\ \hline
$8$ & $\re$ & $342.7886$ & $2$ & $3$ & 1.67 \\ \hline
$9$ & $\re$ & $455.8125$ & $2$ & $3$ & 2.45 \\ \hline
$10$ & $\re$ & $588.6425$ & $2$ & $3$ & 2.66 \\ \hline
\etab
\end{table}
For neatness, we only display nuclear decompositions
for $n=3$. The real nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^3 (u_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.3689 -0.8633 1.5317
-0.1899 -0.3318 1.8215
-0.7487 0.1996 2.1113
\end{verbatim} \noindent}while
the complex nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^3 (w_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
0.0851 + 0.6890i 1.4795 - 0.0001i 0.5552 + 0.4168i
-0.2504 + 0.5318i 1.7763 + 0.0001i 0.5878 + 0.0477i
-0.5858 + 0.3745i 2.0730 + 0.0004i 0.6203 - 0.3214i
\end{verbatim}}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 4; m = 3;
for i1 = 1:n, for i2 = 1: n, for i3 = 1:n
mA(i1,i2,i3) = i1 + i2 + i3;
end, end, end
tstart = tic;
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
tstart = tic;
[rnn, rU] = realSymTNN_oddord( mA, n, 3 );
comptime = toc(tstart),
>> format long
>> rnn
rnn =
33.674916504195721
>> rU
rU =
-0.863294021131362 0.368852417437287 1.531654646345411
-0.331847750011753 -0.189901971459606 1.821490590969886
0.199598521107856 -0.748656360356497 2.111326535594361
>> cnn
cnn =
32.950548256267723
>> cU
cU =
0.085065506220401 + 0.688997382205001i 1.479535389450888 - 0.000146861594190i 0.555241772691097 + 0.416809354048874i
-0.250374102419288 + 0.531766909018544i 1.776257580640192 + 0.000110443616904i 0.587763701681968 + 0.047693167658844i
-0.585813711058973 + 0.374536435832085i 2.072979771829496 + 0.000367748827999i 0.620285630672835 - 0.321423018731185i
>>
\fi
\qed
\end{exm}
\begin{exm} \label{exm:cos(1/i1+c+1/i4)}
Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^n)$ such that
\[
\mA_{i_1 i_2 i_3 i_4} =
\cos \left( \frac{1}{i_1}+\frac{1}{i_2}+\frac{1}{i_3}+\frac{1}{i_4} \right).
\]
The nuclear norms, the order $k$ for which
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \F} = \| \mA \|_{k\ast, \F}$,
the lengths of the nuclear decompositions,
and the consumed time (in seconds)
are displayed in Table~\ref{tab:cos(1/i1+c+1/i4)}
for a range of values of $n$.
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Nuclear norms of the tensor in Example~\ref{exm:cos(1/i1+c+1/i4)}.}
\label{tab:cos(1/i1+c+1/i4)}
\btab{|c|c|r|c|c|r|} \hline
$n$ & $\F$ & $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \F}$ & $k$ & {\tt length} & {\tt time} \\ \hline
$2$ & $\re$ & $4.9001$ & 2 & 4 & 0.93 \\ \hline
$2$ & $\cpx$ & $3.9911 $ & 2 & 4 & 2.04 \\ \hline
$3$ & $\re$ & $ 10.7246$ & 2 & 4 & 1.02 \\ \hline
$3$ & $\cpx$ & $ 8.1627 $ & 2 & 4 & 10.05 \\ \hline
$4$ & $\re$ & $ 18.0100 $ & 2 & 4 & 1.14 \\ \hline
$4$ & $\cpx$ & $13.1108$ & 2 & 4 & 131.13 \\ \hline
$5$ & $\re$ & $26.9770 $ & 2 & 4 & 1.33 \\ \hline
$6$ & $\re$ & $37.8395 $ & 2 & 4 & 1.86 \\ \hline
$7$ & $\re$ & $50.7373 $ & 2 & 4 & 2.78 \\ \hline
$8$ & $\re$ & $65.7485 $ & 2 & 4 & 4.75 \\ \hline
$9$ & $\re$ & $ 82.9121 $ & 2 & 4 & 9.30 \\ \hline
$10$ & $\re$ & $102.2442 $ & 2 & 4 & 21.49 \\ \hline
\etab
\end{table}
For neatness, we only display nuclear decompositions
for $n=3$. The real nuclear decomposition is
$\mA = (u_1)^{\otimes 4} + (u_2)^{\otimes 4}
-(u_3)^{\otimes 4} -(u_4)^{\otimes 4} $,
where $u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4$ are respectively given as {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
-0.0261 0.9989 -0.6615 1.0988
0.7131 0.1816 0.2850 0.9044
0.9287 -0.1114 0.5965 0.7863
\end{verbatim} \noindent}The
complex nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^4 (w_i)^{\otimes 4}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
-0.0001 - 0.1505i 0.2673 + 0.7374i 0.7395 + 0.2678i 0.6659 + 0.6676i
-0.0010 + 0.3845i 0.5967 + 0.3270i 0.3287 + 0.5959i 0.5021 + 0.5032i
-0.0013 + 0.5481i 0.6771 + 0.1666i 0.1680 + 0.6759i 0.4172 + 0.4181i
\end{verbatim}
}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 10; m = 4;
for i1 = 1:n, for i2 = 1: n, for i3 = 1:n, for i4=1:n
mA(i1,i2,i3, i4) = cos( 1/i1 + 1/i2 + 1/i3 + 1/i4 );
end, end, end, end
tstart = tic;
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord( mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
tstart = tic;
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
>> format long
>> rnn
rnn =
10.724597486963821
>> Uplus
Uplus =
-0.026107937619034 0.998934991636464
0.713057763543217 0.181642840060381
0.928746090580627 -0.111377055220947
>> Umius
Umius =
-0.661490088413522 1.098838149809734
0.285022295246667 0.904445244161288
0.596521889296131 0.786334055351988
>> cnn
cnn =
8.162693927903284
>> cU
cU =
Columns 1 through 2
-0.000075328889850 - 0.150537920519551i 0.267265257788763 + 0.737398324231674i
-0.001007443904575 + 0.384534721967229i 0.596673208961289 + 0.326986302061970i
-0.001273349181912 + 0.548069090977604i 0.677115413995324 + 0.166588799588037i
Columns 3 through 4
0.739458289446112 + 0.267829393405554i 0.665942622203394 + 0.667628467061621i
0.328666402078927 + 0.595860395371791i 0.502133456237029 + 0.503234320944953i
0.168043004251591 + 0.675871827143138i 0.417221955699565 + 0.418058511781897i
>>
\fi
\qed
\end{exm}
For a tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^m( \cpx^n )$, define
\be \label{df:A(x)}
\mA(x) := \sum_{i_1,\ldots, i_m = 1}^n
\mA_{i_1 \ldots i_m} \cdot x_{i_1} \cdots x_{i_m}.
\ee
Clearly, $\mA(x)$ is a homogeneous polynomial
in $x:=(x_1,\ldots, x_n)$ and of degree $m$.
There is a bijection between
the symmetric tensor space $\mt{S}^m( \cpx^n )$
and the space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $m$
(cf.~\cite{GPSTD,OedOtt13}). So, we can equivalently display $\mA$
by showing the polynomial $\mA(x)$.
Moreover, the decomposition $\mA = \sum_{i=1}^r \pm (u_i)^{\otimes m}$
is equivalent to $\mA(x) = \sum_{i=1}^r \pm (u_i^Tx)^m$.
Thus, we can also display a nuclear decomposition
by writing $\mA(x)$ as a sum of power of linear forms.
\begin{exm}\label{exm:poly:A(x)}
(i) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^3(\re^3)$ such that
\[
\mA(x) = x_1x_2x_3.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} =
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} = \sqrt{3}/2$.
The real nuclear decomposition of $\mA$ is given as
\[
\baray{rl}
\mA(x) = &\frac{1}{24}
\Big( (-x_1-x_2+x_3)^3 + (-x_1+x_2-x_3)^3 \\
& \qquad + (x_1-x_2-x_3)^3 + (x_1+x_2+x_3)^3 \, \Big).
\earay
\]
The above also serves as a complex nuclear decomposition.
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 3;
mA = zeros(n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2 = 1: n, for i3 = 1:n,
if (i1~=i2 & i1~=i3 & i2~=i3 )
mA(i1,i2,i3) = 1/6;
end
end, end, end,
tstart = tic;
[rnn, rU] = realSymTNN_oddord(mA, n, m);
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
syms x_1 x_2 x_3,
Ax = ( (-x_1-x_2+x_3)^3 + (-x_1+x_2-x_3)^3 + (x_1-x_2-x_3)^3 + (x_1+x_2+x_3)^3 )/24;
expand(Ax),
\fi
\noindent
(ii) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^4)$ such that
\[
\mA(x) = x_1x_2x_3x_4.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast,\re} =
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast,\cpx} = 2/3$.
The real nuclear decomposition is given as
\[
\baray{rl}
\mA(x)\,\, = & \frac{1}{192}
\Big( (-x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 + (-x_1+x_2-x_3+x_4)^4 + \\
& \qquad \,(-x_1+x_2+x_3-x_4)^4 + (+x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 - \\
& \qquad \,(-x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 -(x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 - \\
& \qquad \,(x_1+x_2-x_3+x_4)^4 -(x_1+x_2+x_3-x_4)^4 \, \Big).
\earay
\]
The above also serves as a complex nuclear decomposition.
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 4; m = 4;
tA = zeros(n,n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2 = 1: n, for i3 = 1:n, for i4=1:n
if (i1~=i2 & i1~=i3 & i1~=i4 & i2~=i3 & i2~=i4 & i3~=i4 )
mA(i1,i2,i3, i4) = 1/24;
end
end, end, end, end
tstart = tic;
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord( mA, n, m);
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
comptime = toc(tstart),
syms x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4
Ax = ( (-x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 + (-x_1+x_2-x_3+x_4)^4 + (-x_1+x_2+x_3-x_4)^4 + (+x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 ...
- (-x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 -(x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4)^4 - (x_1+x_2-x_3+x_4)^4 -(x_1+x_2+x_3-x_4)^4 )/192;
expand(Ax),
\fi
\noindent
(iii) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^2)$ such that
\[
\mA(x) = x_1^2 x_2^2.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} = 1$.
The real nuclear decomposition is
\[
\mA(x) = \frac{1}{12} (-x_1+x_2)^4 + \frac{1}{12} (x_1+x_2)^4
-\frac{1}{6} x_1^4 -\frac{1}{6} x_2^4.
\]
The complex nuclear norm
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast,\cpx} = 2/3$,
and the decomposition is
\[
\mA(x) = \frac{1}{24}
\Big( (x_1-x_2)^4 + (x_1+x_2)^4 - (x_1+\sqrt{-1}x_2)^4 - (x_1-\sqrt{-1}x_2)^4 \Big).
\]
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 2; m = 4;
mA = zeros(n,n,n,n);
i1=1; i2=2;
mA(i1,i1,i2,i2) = 1/6; mA(i1,i2,i1,i2) = 1/6; mA(i1,i2,i2,i1) = 1/6;
mA(i2,i1,i1,i2) = 1/6; mA(i2,i1,i2,i1) = 1/6; mA(i2,i2,i1,i1) = 1/6;
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord( mA, n, m);
Uplus, Umius,
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
syms x_1 x_2
Ax = ( (x_1-x_2)^4 + (x_1+x_2)^4 - (x_1+sqrt(-1)*x_2)^4 - (x_1-sqrt(-1)*x_2)^4 )/24;
expand( Ax ),
\fi
\noindent
(iv) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^3)$ such that
\[
\mA(x) = x_1^2 x_2^2 + x_2^2 x_3^2 + x_1^2 x_3^2.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} = 2$.
The real nuclear decomposition is
\[
\baray{rl}
\mA(x) = & \frac{1}{24} \Big( (x_1-x_2+x_3)^4 +
(x_1+x_2-x_3)^4 + (-x_1+x_2+x_3)^4 + \\
& \qquad + (x_1+ x_2+x_3)^4 \Big)
- \frac{1}{6} \Big( x_1^4 + x_2^4 + x_3^4 \Big).
\earay
\]
The complex nuclear norm
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast,\cpx} = 5/3$,
and the decomposition is
\[
\baray{rl}
\mA(x) \,\, = & \frac{1}{36} \Big(
(-x_1+x_2+x_3)^4+ (x_1-x_2+x_3)^4+ (x_1+x_2-x_3)^4+ (x_1+x_2+x_3)^4 \\
& \qquad - (x_1-\sqrt{-1} x_3)^4 - (x_2-\sqrt{-1} x_3)^4 - (x_1-\sqrt{-1} x_2)^4\\
& \qquad - (x_1+\sqrt{-1} x_3)^4 - (x_2+\sqrt{-1} x_3)^4 - (x_1+\sqrt{-1} x_2)^4
\Big).
\earay
\]
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
mA = zeros(n,n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2 = i1+1: n,
mA(i1,i1,i2,i2) = 1/6; mA(i1,i2,i1,i2) = 1/6; mA(i1,i2,i2,i1) = 1/6;
mA(i2,i1,i1,i2) = 1/6; mA(i2,i1,i2,i1) = 1/6; mA(i2,i2,i1,i1) = 1/6;
end, end
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord( mA, n, m);
Uplus, Umius,
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
syms x_1 x_2 x_3
Ax = ( (-x_1+x_2+x_3)^4+ (x_1-x_2+x_3)^4+(x_1+x_2-x_3)^4+ (x_1+x_2+x_3)^4 )/24 ...
- ( x_1^4 + x_2^4 + x_3^4 )/6;
expand(Ax),
syms x_1 x_2 x_3
Ax = ( (-x_1+x_2+x_3)^4+ (x_1-x_2+x_3)^4+(x_1+x_2-x_3)^4+ (x_1+x_2+x_3)^4 ...
- (x_1+sqrt(-1)*x_3)^4 - (x_2-sqrt(-1)*x_3)^4 - (x_1-sqrt(-1)*x_2)^4 ...
- (x_2+sqrt(-1)*x_3)^4 - (x_1-sqrt(-1)*x_3)^4 - (x_1+sqrt(-1)*x_2)^4 )/36;
expand(Ax),
\fi
\noindent
(v) Consider the tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^3)$ such that
\[
\mA(x) = (x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2)^2.
\]
We got $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \re} =
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| \mA \|_{2\ast, \cpx} = 5$,
with the nuclear decomposition
\[
\baray{rl}
\mA(x) = & \frac{1}{12} \Big( (x_1-x_2+x_3)^4 +
(x_1+x_2-x_3)^4 + (-x_1+x_2+x_3)^4 + \\
& \qquad + (x_1+ x_2+x_3)^4 \Big) + \frac{2}{3} \Big( x_1^4 + x_2^4 + x_3^4 \Big).
\earay
\]
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
mA = zeros(n,n,n,n);
for i1 = 1:n,
mA(i1,i1,i1,i1) = 1;
for i2 = i1+1: n,
mA(i1,i1,i2,i2) = 1/3; mA(i1,i2,i1,i2) = 1/3; mA(i1,i2,i2,i1) = 1/3;
mA(i2,i1,i1,i2) = 1/3; mA(i2,i1,i2,i1) = 1/3; mA(i2,i2,i1,i1) = 1/3;
end, end
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord( mA, n, m);
Uplus, Umius,
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
syms x_1 x_2 x_3
Ax = ( (-x_1+x_2+x_3)^4+ (x_1-x_2+x_3)^4+(x_1+x_2-x_3)^4+ (x_1+x_2+x_3)^4 )/ 12 ...
+(x_1^4+x_2^4+x_3^4)*2/3;
expand(Ax),
\fi
The above also serves as a complex nuclear decomposition.
\qed
\end{exm}
\begin{exm} \label{sym:abc}
For $a,b,c \in \re^n$, the symmetrization of the
rank-$1$ nonsymmetric tensor $a\otimes b \otimes c$ is
\[
\baray{r}
\mbf{sym}(a \otimes b \otimes c) := \frac{1}{6}
(a \otimes b \otimes c + a \otimes c \otimes b
+ b \otimes a \otimes c \quad \, \\
+ b \otimes c \otimes a +
c \otimes a \otimes b + c \otimes b \otimes a \, ).
\earay
\]
One wonders whether $\| \mbf{sym}(a \otimes b \otimes c) \|_{\ast, \re}
= \|a\| \cdot \|b\| \cdot \|c\|$ or not.
Indeed, this is usually not true. Typically, we have the inequalities
\[
\| \mbf{sym}(a \otimes b \otimes c) \|_{\ast, \cpx}
< \| \mbf{sym}(a \otimes b \otimes c) \|_{\ast, \re}
< \|a\| \cdot \|b\| \cdot \|c\|.
\]
For instance, consider the following tensor in $\mt{S}^3(\re^3)$
\[
\mA = \mbf{sym}( e_1 \otimes (e_1+e_2) \otimes (e_1+e_2+e_3) ).
\]
We can compute that
$
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} \approx 2.2276,
$
$
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} \approx 2.4190,
$
but
\[
\| e_1 \| \cdot \| e_1+e_2 \| \cdot \| e_1+e_2+e_3 \| = \sqrt{6} \approx 2.4495.
\]
The computed real nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^5 (u_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
-0.2896 0.0149 -0.4750 -0.0947 1.0423
0.1803 -0.5617 0.1042 -0.2944 0.5806
-0.2891 -0.3132 0.3114 0.1865 0.2630
\end{verbatim} \noindent}The
computed complex nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^8 (w_i)^{\otimes 3}$ is {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
-0.2795 + 0.2861i -0.2882 + 0.2378i -0.4808 + 0.8488i -0.2489 + 0.0952i
0.1094 + 0.2837i -0.0298 + 0.2075i -0.2776 + 0.4375i 0.1376 + 0.3928i
-0.2009 + 0.0696i 0.2301 + 0.1457i -0.1146 + 0.2252i 0.1359 + 0.1297i
0.1212 + 0.0018i 0.3286 - 0.1764i 0.2244 - 0.1049i 0.2196 - 0.1357i
0.0304 - 0.0450i 0.2410 + 0.1640i 0.1103 + 0.2279i 0.2235 + 0.2601i
0.0268 + 0.0974i -0.0096 + 0.2903i 0.1464 - 0.1210i 0.0750 + 0.1106i
\end{verbatim}}
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 3;
q1 = [1 0 0]';
q2 = [1 1 0]';
q3 = [1 1 1]';
qtpow1 = kron( kron(q1,q2),q3);
qtpow2 = kron( kron(q1,q3),q2);
qtpow3 = kron( kron(q2,q1),q3);
qtpow4 = kron( kron(q2,q3),q1);
qtpow5 = kron( kron(q3,q1),q2);
qtpow6 = kron( kron(q3,q2),q1);
vA = qtpow1+qtpow2+qtpow3+qtpow4+qtpow5+qtpow6;
mA = reshape(vA,n,n,n)/6;
[rnn, rU] = realSymTNN_oddord(mA, n, m);
rnn-norm(q1)*norm(q2)*norm(q3),
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
cnn-rnn,
>> rnn
rnn =
2.418982395764433
>> rU
rU =
-0.289583035109710 0.014912776264726 -0.475048352771981 -0.094695708171714 1.042297191694308
0.180323854446316 -0.561714824229171 0.104169452279075 -0.294424303150289 0.580644065854830
-0.289058295432570 -0.313158506188813 0.311379640841424 0.186476582853557 0.262983944716152
>> cnn
cnn =
2.227570862249642
>> cU
cU =
Columns 1 through 2
-0.279545192682690 + 0.286105753565567i -0.288182067639076 + 0.237775374712514i
0.109393447994599 + 0.283709936912754i -0.029787185593623 + 0.207472625658106i
-0.200946626019464 + 0.069634209213420i 0.230087412610016 + 0.145666559025095i
Columns 3 through 4
-0.480781016348366 + 0.848771410423092i -0.248909419369784 + 0.095242981544154i
-0.277575808413930 + 0.437534932663802i 0.137594553780137 + 0.392843577410099i
-0.114586046416108 + 0.225243820218457i 0.135910837919536 + 0.129716950059332i
Columns 5 through 6
0.121205668458481 + 0.001837471385231i 0.328618986574105 - 0.176382133495463i
0.030431909412909 - 0.044959173354886i 0.240979124504812 + 0.164035853878743i
0.026799324104151 + 0.097409630836931i -0.009642449509762 + 0.290308192348264i
Columns 7 through 8
0.224419728399201 - 0.104922346568722i 0.219610276969088 - 0.135685569377280i
0.110259143944795 + 0.227916400669288i 0.223454672350158 + 0.260077222386059i
0.146364208285751 - 0.120986518731285i 0.074990826125414 + 0.110610899557311i
>>
\fi
\noindent
However, if $a=b=c$, then
$\| \mbf{sym}(a\otimes b\otimes c) \|_{\ast, \F} = \| a \|^3$
for $\F = \re, \cpx$.
\qed
\end{exm}
\iffalse
\begin{exm}
Consider the tensors given as
\be \label{orth:ten}
\mA = \lmd_1 (q_1)^{\otimes m} + \cdots + \lmd_r (q_r)^{\otimes m},
\ee
where $q_1, \ldots, q_r \in \cpx^n$ are orthonormal to each other,
and $\lmd_1,\ldots, \lmd_r$ are nonzero complex scalars.
Such a tensor is called an {\it orthogonal tensor}.
For all orthogonal tensors as in \reff{orth:ten}, we have
\be \label{tnn:orth}
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = |\lmd_1| + \cdots + |\lmd_r|.
\ee
Clearly,
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} \leq \sum_{i=1}^r | \lmd_i |$.
The reverse can be seen as follows.
Let $\mB$ be the tensor such that $\mB(x) = \sum_{j=1}^r
\frac{\lmd_r}{|\lmd_r|} (q_r^Tx)^m$.
Then, $\| \mB \|_{\sig, \cpx} = 1$, and by duality relation,
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} \geq \mA \bullet \mB = \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i \left( \sum_{j=1}^r
\frac{\bar\lmd_j}{|\lmd_j|} (q_j^Hq_i)^m \right)
=\sum_{i=1}^r |\lmd_i|.
\]
(The superscript $^H$ denotes the conjugate transpose.)
So, \reff{tnn:orth} is true.
For instance, for the following orthogonal tensor
\[
\mA = \bbm \sqrt{-1} \\ -1 \\ 1 \ebm^{\otimes 3} +
\bbm 1 \\ \sqrt{-1} \\ 2 \sqrt{-1} \ebm^{\otimes 3} +
\bbm 1 \\ -\sqrt{-1} \\ 0 \ebm^{\otimes 3},
\]
Algorithm~\ref{alg:cnn:cpx} confirmed that
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = 3\sqrt{3}+6\sqrt{6}+2\sqrt{2} \approx 22.7215$.
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 3; ii = sqrt(-1);
P = [ii -1 1; 1 ii 2*ii; 1 -ii 0];
vA = zeros(n^m,1);
for k = 1 : size(P,1)
q = P(k, :).';
qtpow = kron( kron(q,q),q);
vA = vA + qtpow;
end
mA = reshape(vA, n,n,n);
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, 3);
cU,
cnn - sqrt(3)^3 - sqrt(6)^3 - sqrt(2)^3,
\fi
When all $\lmd_i$ and $q_i$ are real,
by the same argument, one can also show that
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \sum_{i=1}^r | \lmd_i |$.
The equality \reff{tnn:orth} can also be proved
by applying Lemma~4.1 of \cite{FriLim14b}.
\qed
\end{exm}
\fi
\begin{exm}
(Sum of Even Powers)
For an even order $m$, consider the tensors $\mA \in \mt{S}^m(\re^n)$
of the form such that
\be \label{SOEP}
\mA = (a_1)^{\otimes m} + \cdots + (a_r)^{\otimes m},
\ee
with $a_1, \ldots, a_r \in \re^n$.
Such a tensor is called a sum of even powers (SOEP).
Interestingly, for all SOEP tensors as in \reff{SOEP}, we have
\be \label{tnn:spow}
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = \| a_1 \|^{m} + \cdots + \| a_r \|^{m}.
\ee
Clearly,
$\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} \leq \| \mA \|_{\ast, \re}
\leq \sum_{i=1}^r \| a_i \|^{m}.$
The reverse inequalities are actually also true.
Let $\mB$ be the tensor such that $\mB(x) = (x^Tx)^{m/2}$.
Then, $\| \mB \|_{\sig, \cpx} = 1$. By the duality relation, we get
\[
\| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} \geq
\mA \bullet \mB = \sum_{i=1}^r \mB(a_i) =
\sum_{i=1}^r \| a_i \|^m.
\]
So, \reff{tnn:spow} is true. It can also be proved by
applying Lemma~4.1 of \cite{FriLim14b}.
Moreover, every real nuclear decomposition of an SOEP tensor
must also be in the SOEP form.
This can be shown as follows. Suppose $\mA = \mA_1 - \mA_2$
is a real nuclear decomposition, with $\mA_1, \mA_2$ being SOEP tensors
such that $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} =
\| \mA_1 \|_{\ast, \re} + \| \mA_2 \|_{\ast, \re}$.
Then, $\mA_1 = \mA + \mA_2$ and
$
\| \mA_1 \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} + \| \mA_2 \|_{\ast, \re}
$
by \reff{tnn:spow}.
So, we must have $\| \mA_2 \|_{\ast, \re}=0$, hence $\mA_2=0$.
This shows the real nuclear decomposition is also SOEP.
\iffalse
For instance, we consider the following SOEP tensor
\[
\mA = \frac{1}{6} \sum_{q \in \mbf{perm}([1, 2, 3])} q^{\otimes 4},
\]
where $\mbf{perm}$ denotes the set of all permutations.
By \reff{tnn:spow}, we know $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = 196$.
The computation by Algorithms~\ref{alg:even:m} and \ref{alg:cnn:cpx}
confirms this fact. Interestingly,
we get the real nuclear decomposition
$\mA = \sum_{i=1}^5 (u_i)^{\otimes 4}$ given as {\tiny
\begin{verbatim}
2.0370 1.2427 1.8646 0.5793 0.9637
0.7046 0.7212 1.5626 1.5895 2.1095
1.2708 2.0485 0.5852 1.8436 0.9392
\end{verbatim} \noindent}which
whose length is one less than six.
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
P = perms( [1:n] );
vA = zeros(n^m,1);
for k = 1 : size(P,1)
q = P(k, :)';
qtpow = kron( kron( kron(q,q),q), q);
vA = vA + qtpow;
end
vA = vA/size(P,1);
mA = reshape(vA,n,n,n,n);
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord(mA, n, m);
Uplus, Umius,
rnn-norm(q)^m,
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
cnn-norm(q)^m,
\fi
For instance, consider the following SOEP tensor $\mA \in \mt{S}^4(\re^3)$
\[
\mA = \sum_{i=1}^3 \left( (e + e_i)^{\otimes 4} + (e - e_i)^{\otimes 4} \right).
\]
Algorithms~\ref{alg:even:m} and \ref{alg:cnn:cpx}
confirmed that $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = \| \mA \|_{\ast, \cpx} = 120$.
\iffalse
clear all,
n = 3; m = 4;
P = [1 1 0; 1 0 1; 0 1 1; 2 1 1; 1 2 1; 1 1 2];
vA = zeros(n^m,1);
for k = 1 : size(P,1)
q = P(k, :)';
qtpow = kron( kron( kron(q,q),q), q);
vA = vA + qtpow;
end
mA = reshape(vA,n,n,n,n);
[rnn, Uplus, Umius] = realSymTNN_evenord(mA, n, m);
Uplus, Umius,
[cnn, cU] = complexSymTNN(mA, n, m);
cU,
\fi
\qed
\end{exm}
\section{Extensions to nonsymmetric tensors}
\label{sc:exten}
The methods in this paper can be naturally extended to nonsymmetric tensors.
A similar discussion was made in \cite{TanSha15}.
For convenience, we show how to do this for a nonsymmetric cubic tensor
$\mA \in \re^{n_1 \times n_2 \times n_3}$.
Clearly, its real nuclear norm can be computed as
\be \label{nsymA:nn3}
\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re} = \min \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^r \lmd_i
\left| \baray{c}
\mA = \Sig_{i=1}^r \lmd_i v^{(i,1)} \otimes v^{(i,2)} \otimes v^{(i,3)}, \\
\lmd_i \geq 0, \, \| v^{(i,j)} \| = 1, \, v^{(i,j)} \in \re^{n_j}
\earay\right.
\right \}.
\ee
One can similarly show that
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ is equal to the minimum value
of the optimization problem
\be \label{mOp:nsyA:m=3}
\left\{\baray{rl}
\min & \int 1 \mt{d} \mu \\
s.t. & \mA = \int x^{(1)} \otimes x^{(2)} \otimes x^{(3)} \mt{d} \mu, \,\,
\mu \in \mathscr{B}(T).
\earay \right.
\ee
In the above, the variables $x^{(j)} \in \re^{n_j}$,
and $\mathscr{B}(T)$ is the set of Borel measures supported on the set
\[
T := \big\{ (x^{(1)}, x^{(2)}, x^{(3)}):
\| x^{(1)} \| = \| x^{(2)} \| = \| x^{(3)} \| = 1 \big \}.
\]
Similarly, we can define the cone of moments
(denote $[n] :=\{1,\ldots,n\}$)
\be
\mathscr{R}_{ \{0, 3\} }^{n_1,n_2,n_3} := \left\{
y \in \re^{ 1 + n_1n_2n_3 }
\left| \baray{c}
\exists \mu \in \mathscr{B}(T) \quad s.t. \\
\, (y)_{ijk} = \int (x^{(1)})_i (x^{(2)})_j (x^{(3)})_k \mt{d} \mu \\
i \in [n_1],\, j \in [n_2],\, k \in [n_3], \\
\quad \mbox{ or } \quad i=j=k=0
\earay \right.
\right\}.
\ee
One can show that \reff{mOp:nsyA:m=3} is equivalent to
\be \label{yOpt:ns:m=3}
\left\{\baray{rl}
\min & (y)_{000} \\
s.t. & (y)_{ijk} = \mA_{ijk} \, \, (\forall i,j,k), \\
& y \in \mathscr{R}_{ \{0, 3\} }^{n_1,n_2,n_3}.
\earay \right.
\ee
A similar version of Algorithm~\ref{alg:R:odd} can be
applied to solve \reff{yOpt:ns:m=3}.
\begin{exm}
Consider the nonsymmetric tensor
$\mA \in \re^{2 \times 2 \times 2}$ such that
\[
\mA_{ijk} = i -j -k.
\]
By solving \reff{yOpt:ns:m=3},
we get $\| \mA \|_{\ast, \re} = 6.0000$.
A real nuclear decomposition of $\mA$ is given as {\tiny
\[
\left[ \baray{r} 1.4363 \\ 0.3140 \earay \right] \otimes
\left[ \baray{r} -0.9146 \\ -1.1516 \earay \right] \otimes
\left[ \baray{r} 0.9296 \\ 1.1394 \earay \right] +
\left[ \baray{r} 0.7375 \\ 1.0525 \earay \right] \otimes
\left[ \baray{r} -0.2430 \\ -1.2616 \earay \right] \otimes
\left[ \baray{r} 0.5250 \\ 1.1727 \earay \right]
\]
\[
+\left[ \baray{r} 0.5484 \\ 0.6978 \earay \right] \otimes
\left[ \baray{r} 0.8846 \\ 0.0732 \earay \right] \otimes
\left[ \baray{r} 0.6501 \\ -0.6040 \earay \right].
\]
}
\iffalse
clear all,
n=2; m=3;
mA = zeros(2,2,2);
for i1 = 1:n, for i2=1:n, for i3=1:n
mA(i1,i2,i3) = i1-i2-i3;
end, end, end
[rnn, rU] = realNonSymTNN(mA, m);
\begin{verbatim}
1.4363 0.7375 0.5484
0.3140 1.0525 0.6978
-0.9146 -0.2430 0.8846
-1.1516 -1.2616 0.0732
0.9296 0.5250 0.6501
1.1394 1.1727 -0.6040
\end{verbatim}
>>
ru =[ ...
1.4363 0.7375 0.5484; ...
0.3140 1.0525 0.6978; ...
-0.9146 -0.2430 0.8846; ...
-1.1516 -1.2616 0.0732; ...
0.9296 0.5250 0.6501; ...
1.1394 1.1727 -0.6040],
>> rnn
rnn =
5.999999975510385
>> rU
rU =
1.436316666199095 0.737521396054032 0.548358080703983
0.313978273063560 1.052477238453717 0.697752280250228
-0.914607089056276 -0.243044917690185 0.884628171632327
-1.151550033757933 -1.261626190480282 0.073241751636554
0.929641277340014 0.524989788777880 0.650065935443151
1.139401033519433 1.172714503976489 -0.604004245181176
>>
\fi
\end{exm}
\bigskip
When $\F = \cpx$, we can similarly compute the
complex nuclear norm $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$,
by considering each $x^{(j)}$ as a complex variable.
For nonsymmetric tensors,
it is usually much harder to compute the nuclear norm
$\| \mA \|_{\ast,\re}$ or $\| \mA \|_{\ast,\cpx}$.
This is because the variable $x$ has much higher dimension
than for the case of symmetric tensors,
which makes the moment optimization problem like
\reff{yOpt:ns:m=3} very difficult to solve.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgement}
The author would like to thank Shmuel Friedland
and Lek-Heng Lim for comments on tensor nuclear norms.
The research was partially supported by the NSF grant
DMS-1417985.
|
\section{Introduction}
Synchronized oscillation of active elements can be observed in various fields, including biology,
engineering, ecosystem, and chemical systems \cite{winfree01, kuramoto84, pikovsky01, glass01, kiss07}.
In many cases, synchronization of the entire system is required for
proper functioning under various types of noise and heterogeneity.
Important examples include the heart (a population of cardiac cells) \cite{tweel,glass01}, the circadian
pacemaker (a population of clock cells) \cite{reppert02,yamaguchi03}, and power grids \cite{motter2013,doerfler,rohden}.
Oscillators are often connected through a complex network, where heterogeneity
in network connectivity may critically hamper synchronization.
Such a case is actually observed in a special type of
chaotic oscillators. For the synchronization of these chaotic oscillators \cite{fujisaka}, there
exist both lower and upper thresholds of the coupling strength \cite{heagy},
and thus, global synchronization tends to fail for heterogeneous networks \cite{nishikawa03}.
However, only a few examples of such chaotic oscillators with
a similar property are known. Moreover, for periodic oscillators,
little has been reported about the potential negative effect of network heterogeneity
on synchronization.
We have recently investigated a phase oscillator that is unilaterally influenced by a pacemaker
and is also under noise \cite{koba_kori2015} and found nontrivial phase slip in the strong coupling
regime; this implies that synchronization is possible only for intermediate coupling strengths. It
has been shown that this reentrant transition is observed for general interaction
functions. Although it is not at all obvious whether dynamical behavior obtained in the phase
model with strong coupling is also reproduced in limit-cycle oscillators, it has been demonstrated
that the Brusselator model, a typical system of limit cycle oscillators, does show the reentrant transition. Such nontrivial phase slip can be another source of instability for a
population of network-coupled oscillators, and thus it is important to understand how different
networks respond to this new type of instability.
In this study, we show that heterogeneous networks are more prone to phase slip. The essence of this behavior can be understood from the phase diagram of two mutually coupled phase oscillators.
Mutually coupled oscillators fail to synchronize for too weak and too strong coupling strengths
when they are subjected to noise. Because of this property, synchronization is easily violated in
heterogeneous networks.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec:mutual}, we investigate a system of two mutually
interacting oscillators under noise and compare it with two unilaterally connected oscillators, which have been studied previously; two main
causes of frequency drop, nontrivial phase slip and oscillation death, are discussed
in Sec.~\ref{sec:slip} and Sec.~\ref{sec:death}, respectively. Then, in
Sec.~\ref{sec:network} we present the results for network-connected
oscillators.
\section{Two mutually interacting oscillators}\label{sec:mutual}
Let us first consider two mutually interacting identical phase oscillators subjected to noise. Their
dynamics are governed by the following phase equation:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\phi}_i = \omega + K Z(\phi_i)\left\{h(\phi_j)-h(\phi_i)\right\}+\xi_i,\label{eq:model}
\end{equation}
where $(i,j)=(1,2)$ or $(2,1)$, $\phi_i(t)$ and $\omega$ are the phase
and the natural frequency of the $i$-th
oscillator, respectively, $K>0$ is the coupling strength, and $\xi_{1,2}(t)$ is Gaussian white noise with
strength $D$, \textit{i.e.}, $\langle\xi_i(t)\xi_j(t') \rangle=D\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')$.
We set $\omega=1$ without loss of generality.
This model is symmetrical
under oscillator exchange, and interaction vanishes when $\phi_1=\phi_2$. The precise form
of the interaction is determined by the phase sensitivity function $Z(\phi)$ and the stimulus function
$h(\phi)$ \cite{winfree67, winfree01}, which are both $2\pi$-periodic functions. We specifically choose
\begin{equation}
Z(\phi)=\sin(\phi-\alpha), \quad h(\phi)=-\cos\phi, \label{eq:functions}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is a parameter. Throughout this work we assume $|\alpha|<\frac{\pi}{2}$, which
assures that the synchronous state is linearly stable in the absence of noise.
When $K$ is small compared to $\omega$, the averaging approximation is
applicable to Eq.~\eqref{eq:model} \cite{kuramoto84, hoppensteadt97}, resulting in
\begin{equation}
Z(\phi_i)\left\{h(\phi_j)-h(\phi_i)\right\} \approx
\frac{1}{2}\{\sin(\phi_j - \phi_i + \alpha) - \sin \alpha\},\label{eq:averaged}
\end{equation}
which is the
Sakaguchi-Kuramoto coupling function \cite{sakaguchi_kuramoto, koba_kori2015}. We refer to
Eq.~\eqref{eq:model} as the non-averaged phase model and to the same one with the approximated interaction given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:averaged} as the averaged phase model. Note that the averaged phase model is valid
as a model of coupled limit-cycle oscillators only for $K\ll \omega$. Since we are
concerned with both weak and strong coupling strengths we employ the non-averaged
phase model in this work. Although considering such non-averaged cases would normally require us to treat multiplicative
noise proportional to $Z(\phi)$, here we consider additive noise for simplicity.
In a previous study \cite{koba_kori2015} we have investigated a phase oscillator with phase $\phi$
under noise that is unilaterally coupled to a noise-free pacemaker with the same oscillation frequency $\omega$:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\phi} = \omega + K Z(\phi)\left\{h(\omega t)-h(\phi)\right\}+\xi, \label{eq:previous}
\end{equation}
where the functions $Z$ and $h$ are the same as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:functions}, and equally $\xi$ is
the same Gaussian white noise. In this unilateral model, we found the following reentrant
transition: as $K$ increases from zero with a fixed value of $D$, the oscillator undergoes the first
transition from a noise-driven to a pacemaker-driven synchronous state; and then, as $K$ increases
further the oscillator undergoes a second transition, after which phase slip occurs more frequently
with increasing $K$. Before the first transition, diffusion causes phase slip, where the effect of noise
is stronger than the effect of coupling; this type of phase slip is trivial and also occurs in the
averaged phase model, such as for Kuramoto or Sakaguchi-Kuramoto oscillators. In contrast, phase
slip after the second transition is counter-intuitive in the sense that stronger coupling yields
more frequent synchronization failure and that at each slip event the oscillator lags behind the pacemaker
(i.e., the phase difference $\phi-\omega t$ decreases by $2\pi$). It has been shown that this
nontrivial phase slip is caused by an interplay between noise and nonlinearity and that this occurs only in non-averaged phase models with noise \cite{koba_kori2015}.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Phase slip rate for Eq.~\eqref{eq:model} as a function of the coupling strength $K$ and the
noise strength $D$ for three different values of model parameter $\alpha$: (a) $\alpha=-0.3$,
(b) $\alpha=0$, and (c) $\alpha=0.3$. In (b), the slope of the right boundary between the synchronous state
and the phase slip state is theoretically given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:scaling}. Vertical dashed lines in
(a) and (b) represent $K=K_{c1}$, where $K_{c1}$ is defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:kc1}, and two vertical lines in (c) represent $K=K_{c1}$ and $K=K_{c2} > K_{c1}$, respectively, where
$K_{c2}$ is defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:kc2}. }\label{fig:phasediag_mutual}
\end{figure*}
Phase slip is also observed in the present model \eqref{eq:model} where interaction is mutual. A
phase slip event is counted every time when the phase difference $\psi\equiv\phi_1-\phi_2$ increases or decreases by
$2\pi$, and the slip rate is defined as the total number of phase slips divided by the observation
time $t_{\mathrm{max}}=10^5$.
Figure \ref{fig:phasediag_mutual} shows the slip rate as a function of the coupling strength $K$ and
the noise intensity $D$ for three different $\alpha$ values. The phase slip predicted by the
averaged model\cite{pikovsky01,koba_kori2015} is observed for all cases where $D>K$. In addition to this trivial type
of phase slip, reentrant transitions are also observed for a range of $D$ when $\alpha\ge 0$. In
particular, for $\alpha=0$, the second transition line follows a power law with an exponent close to $-0.2$. For $\alpha=0.3$, the reentrant transition line has a steeper
slope. Also, for large $K$, the phase slip region is invaded by the region of oscillation death. Figure
\ref{fig:death} plots the mean oscillation frequency of the two oscillators, averaged over
observation time $t_{\mathrm{max}}$, with the average frequency for each oscillator given by $\av{\omega_i}\equiv
\frac{1}{t_{\mathrm{max}}}\int_0^{t_{\mathrm{max}}}\dot{\phi}_idt$. The black region indicates that
oscillation completely stops. No such oscillation death is observed for $\alpha \le 0$. For
$\alpha=-0.3$, the reentrant region disappears, although nontrivial phase slip is observed for
$D<K$. We have numerically confirmed that there are no reentrant regions observed for at least $\alpha<-0.1$ and that the region of nontrivial phase slip diminishes as $\alpha$ decreases.
The overall tendency of phase slip for different $\alpha$ is similar to our previous result for
unilateral coupling [Eq.~\eqref{eq:previous}] in that the model shows reentrant transitions and the nontrivial phase slip region expands as $\alpha$ increases, although there are differences too. In the case of
unilateral coupling, no oscillation death is observed, which is obvious because of the existence of the
pacemaker. Further, the power law exponent, which also appears in the case of unilateral coupling when
$\alpha=0$, is theoretically estimated and numerically confirmed\cite{koba_kori2015} to be
$-\frac{1}{3}$, which is far from the value of $-0.2$ observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediag_mutual}(b). The difference between the exponents indicates
that the mechanism of phase slip differs from the case of unilateral interaction, which is investigated below.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Mean oscillation frequency of the two oscillators in Eq.~\eqref{eq:model}, averaged
over observation time, as a function of the coupling strength $K$ and the noise intensity $D$ for $\alpha=0.3$, corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediag_mutual}(c). The dashed vertical line represents $K=K_{c2}$ [Eq.~\eqref{eq:kc2}]. }\label{fig:death}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Nontrivial phase slip}\label{sec:slip}
Let us investigate how phase slip occurs for strong coupling. To do this, we rewrite model \eqref{eq:model} in terms of mean phase $\Phi \equiv \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2}$ and phase difference
$\psi \equiv \phi_1-\phi_2$:
\begin{align}
\dot{\Phi}&=\omega - K\sin^2\frac{\psi}{2}\{\sin(2\Phi-\alpha)+\sin\alpha\} + \xi', \label{eq:phi_model}\\
\dot{\psi}&=K\{\cos(2\Phi-\alpha)-\cos\alpha\}\sin\psi + \xi'', \label{eq:psi_model}
\end{align}
where $\xi'$ and $\xi''$ are Gaussian white noise with the noise intensity $D/2$ and $2D$,
respectively. Note that the system is $\pi$-periodic in $\Phi$ and $2\pi$-periodic in $\psi$.
In the noise-free case, there exists a synchronous solution $(\Phi, \psi) = (\omega t, 0)$.
The synchronous state $\psi=0$ is linearly stable for $K>0$, with Floquer multiplier
$e^{-\pi K\cos\alpha}$.
When a sufficiently strong noise is introduced, this synchronous state may be destabilized
according to the following scenario: if $K$ is large, phase difference $\psi$ is strongly bound to zero for most of the time during
the evolution of $\Phi$, but there are instances in which the coupling term for $\psi$ vanishes, namely
when $\Phi$ is close to $0$ and $\alpha$, which means that short time intervals exist in which $\psi$ is
driven only by noise. If, during this noise-driven period, the deviation of $\psi$ from the synchronous
state $\psi=0$ becomes large, the second term of Eq.~\eqref{eq:phi_model} becomes comparable to
the first term, leading to $\dot{\Phi}\sim 0$. Then, it is likely that $\psi$ continues to be driven by noise
with the mean phase velocity kept close to zero, until $\psi$ makes a full revolution. Hence, a
necessary condition for nontrivial phase slip is specified from the requirement that $\dot{\Phi}=0$ has a solution
in the noise-free case: since $\dot{\Phi} > \omega-K(1+\sin\alpha)$, $\dot{\Phi}=0$ is possible only if
\begin{align}
K > K_{c1} \equiv \frac{\omega}{1+\sin\alpha}. \label{eq:kc1}
\end{align}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediag_mutual}, each phase diagram in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediag_mutual} is separated by a line $K=K_{c1}$, and the region $K<K_{c1}$
shows the behavior expected from the averaged phase model.
In the case of $\alpha=0$, the following scaling analysis validates the above scenario. Let us first
estimate the range of $\Phi$ in which the dynamics of $\psi$ are governed only by noise. Below, the phase difference is considered in the range $0\le\psi<\pi$. Suppose that $\Phi=0$ at $t=0$. In this moment the
coupling term for $\psi$ vanishes. When $t$ is small, dynamics at around $t=0$ are governed at the lowest order of $\Phi$ by
\begin{align}
\dot{\Phi}&=\omega-2K \left(\sin^2\frac{\psi}{2}\right)\Phi+\xi',\\
\dot{\psi}&=-2K\Phi^2\sin\psi+\xi''.
\end{align}
When $\Phi$ is treated as a parameter, the probability distribution of $\psi$, $P(\psi,t)$, is effectively governed by the following Fokker-Planck equation:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}=2K\Phi^2\frac{\partial}{\partial \psi}(\sin\psi P) +
D\frac{\partial^2 P}{\partial \psi^2}. \label{eq:fokker}
\end{align}
A curve in $\Phi$-$\psi$ space is defined by equating the drift term and the diffusion term, while replacing the
derivative of $\psi$ by $\psi$ itself:
\begin{align}
K\Phi^2\psi\sin\psi = D. \label{eq:drift_diffusion}
\end{align}
Note that here and in the subsequent analysis, we only focus on the scaling form, disregarding numerical factors.
Hence, if $\Phi$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\Phi \lesssim \Phi_c \equiv \sqrt{\frac{D}{K}}, \label{eq:diffusion_cond}
\end{align}
then the effect of the drift term is dominated by the diffusion term for the whole
range of $\psi$. Conversely, if $\Phi>\Phi_c$, the drift term becomes effective. If $\Phi$ evolves as $\Phi=\omega t$, we can determine the critical time $t_c$ at
which $\Phi$ reaches $\Phi_c$:
\begin{align}
t_c = \frac{1}{\omega}\sqrt{\frac{D}{K}}.
\end{align}
Now consider a trajectory starting from $(\Phi,\psi)=(0,0)$ at $t=0$. The typical diffusion length
of $\psi$ at $t=t_c$ is given by
\begin{align}
\psi_1 = \sqrt{Dt_c} = \omega^{-\frac{1}{2}}D^{\frac{3}{4}}K^{-\frac{1}{4}}.
\end{align}
Moreover, $\dot{\Phi}=0$ with $D=0$ determines another curve in $\Phi$-$\psi$ space:
\begin{align}
K\Phi\sin^2\frac{\psi}{2} = \omega. \label{eq:phi0}
\end{align}
For large $K$, this curve and the other curve given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:drift_diffusion} cross each other, where $\psi=\psi_2$ at the intersection is shown to
be small. Indeed, by expanding Eqs.~\eqref{eq:drift_diffusion} and \eqref{eq:phi0} in terms of $\psi$,
$\psi_2$ is obtained as
\begin{align}
\psi_2 = \omega^{\frac{1}{2}}D^{-\frac{1}{2}}K^{-\frac{1}{2}},
\end{align}
which diminishes as $K$ increases. In order that the trajectory reaches the curve \eqref{eq:phi0} before
it gets affected by the drift term, the diffusion length $\psi_1$ must be greater than $\psi_2$. The
critical transition line is given by $\psi_1=\psi_2$, which yields the scaling form
\begin{align}
D = \omega^{\frac{4}{5}}K^{-\frac{1}{5}}, \label{eq:scaling}
\end{align}
which implies that, for a fixed $D$ value, phase slip becomes more and more frequent as $K$
increases.
This scaling relation is in good agreement with the numerically obtained reentrant transition line in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediag_mutual}(b).
As mentioned above, the unilateral coupling case shows a different scaling relation
$D=\omega^{\frac{4}{3}}K^{-\frac{1}{3}}$, which indicates that the reentrant region is narrower in
the present case than in the unilateral case.
\subsection{Oscillation death}\label{sec:death}
In the noise-free case, in addition to the synchronous solution $(\Phi,\psi)=(\omega t, 0)$, the system
may have steady state solutions, which correspond to oscillation death, depending on the parameters $K$ and $\alpha$. Here, without loss of
generality, we restrict the
range of $\Phi$ and $\psi$ to $0\le\Phi<\pi$ and $0\le\psi<2\pi$, respectively. Steady
states are given by $\dot{\Phi}=0$ and $\dot{\psi}=0$ in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:phi_model} and
\eqref{eq:psi_model} with $D=0$, which are satisfied by $(\Phi, \psi)=(\Phi^*,
\pi)$ and $(\Phi, \psi)=(\alpha, \psi^*)$, where $\Phi^*$ and $\psi^*$ are determined by
\begin{align}
\omega - K\{\sin(2\Phi^*-\alpha)+\sin\alpha\}=0, \label{eq:phi}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\omega - 2K\sin\alpha\sin^2\frac{\psi^*}{2}=0, \label{eq:psi}
\end{align}
respectively.
The solution $\Phi^*$ to Eq.~\eqref{eq:phi} exists only when inequality
\eqref{eq:kc1} is satisfied. At $K=K_{c1}$, two solutions $\Phi^*=\Phi_a$ and $\Phi^*=\Phi_b$
appear as a result of saddle-node bifurcation, where
\begin{align}
\Phi_a = \frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{\theta}{2}, \quad \Phi_b=\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{\pi-\theta}{2},
\end{align}
and $\theta=\arcsin(\frac{\omega}{K}-\sin\alpha)$. Linear stability analysis shows that at the
onset of bifurcation $\Phi^*=\Phi_a$ and $\Phi^*=\Phi_b$ correspond to a saddle and an unstable
focus, respectively. The unstable eigenvalue for the saddle is given by
$\lambda=K(\cos\alpha-\sqrt{1-(\frac{\omega}{K}-\sin\alpha)^2})$. Hence, at $K=K_{c2} > K_{c1}$, secondary bifurcation occurs, where $K_{c2}$ is determined by $\lambda=0$.
It is easy to see that if $\alpha\le 0$, then there is no such $K_{c2}$ that satisfies $\lambda=0$.
If $\alpha>0$, this yields
\begin{align}
K_{c2} = \frac{\omega}{2\sin\alpha}.\label{eq:kc2}
\end{align}
For $K>K_{c2}$ and $\alpha>0$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:psi} also has two solutions $\psi^*=\beta$ and
$\psi^*=2\pi-\beta$, where $\beta=2\arcsin\sqrt{\frac{\omega}{2K\sin\alpha}}$.
Linear stability
analysis shows that these two branches are saddles, which originate from $(\Phi,\psi)=(\Phi_a,\pi)$
at $K=K_{c2}$ by pitchfork bifurcation. Note that $\theta=\alpha$ and $\beta=\pi$ at $K=K_{c2}$, and therefore $(\Phi_a,
\pi)=(\alpha,\psi^*)$ at this point. At $K>K_{c2}$, point $(\Phi_a, \pi)$ becomes a stable
focus, which corresponds to the death state.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Schematic of the $\Phi$-$\psi$ phase portrait for Eqs.~\eqref{eq:phi} and \eqref{eq:psi}
for $\alpha>0$ and $K > K_{c2}$. Fixed
points, periodic orbits, and invariant manifolds are drawn. The points refer to: (a) $(\Phi,\psi)=(\Phi_a, \pi)$, (b) $(\Phi,\psi)=(\Phi_b,\pi)$, (b') $(\Phi,\psi)=(\Phi_b-\pi,\pi)$ (c) $(\Phi,\psi)=(\alpha,\beta)$, and
(d) $(\Phi,\psi)=(\alpha,\pi-\beta)$. Note that $b'$ is equivalent to $b$. }\label{fig:death_schematic}
\end{figure}
Thus we find that our system can undergo oscillation death if $\alpha>0$ and $K>K_{c2}$.
If $\Phi$ is stretched into the range $(-\infty, \infty)$, the death states are located on
$(\Phi,\psi)=(\Phi_a+2\pi n, \pi)$ ($n \in \mathbb{Z}$) and are separated from the synchronous
solution by separatrices, which are invariant manifolds connecting the unstable foci
$(\Phi,\psi)=(\Phi_b+2\pi(n-1),\pi)$ and $(\Phi_b+2\pi n,\pi)$ and the saddles
$(\Phi,\psi)=(\alpha+2\pi n, \beta)$ and $(\alpha+2\pi n, 2\pi-\beta)$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:death_schematic}). These separatrices can be
overcome when a sufficiently strong noise is applied to the system.
It is possible that the conditions for nontrivial phase slip and oscillation death are both satisfied. Since nontrivial phase slip occurs along $\dot{\Phi}=0$, the trajectory is likely to be
trapped during a slip event by the death state $(\Phi_a, \pi)$, which is located on the line
$\dot{\Phi}=0$. Then, the probability of trapping depends on the noise intensity, as indicated in
Fig.~\ref{fig:death}: for a fixed $K > K_{c2}$, strong noise aids escape from the death state; conversely, weak noise is not sufficient to escape from the synchronous state. Thus the boundary
of the death state moves rightward for large and small $D$ values.
\section{Network-connected system}\label{sec:network}
Now we consider $N$ coupled phase oscillators with frequency $\omega$ under noise. The $i$-th oscillator obeys
\begin{equation}
\dot{\phi}_i = \omega + K Z(\phi_i)\sum_{j=1}^N A_{ij}\left\{h(\phi_j)-h(\phi_i)\right\}+\xi_i,\label{eq:network_model}
\end{equation}
where $Z$ and $h$ are given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:functions}, and $\xi_i$ is the same as before. Their
connections are determined by adjacency matrix $A$.
We investigate synchronizability of the following networks: scale-free networks generated by the
Barab\'{a}si-Albert algorithm \cite{albert02rmp} with the minimum degree $m_0=1$ with network size
$N=100$ (average degree $\av{d}=2.0$) or
$N=10000$ ($\av{d}=2.0$), and $m_0=3$ with
$N=10000$ ($\av{d}=6.0$); all-to-all connection with $N=100$ ($\av{d}=99$); and an
Erd\H{o}s-R\'{e}nyi random network with $N=400$ ($\av{d}=5.8$).
Since we are interested in destabilization of the synchronous state, we start with a
synchronous initial condition with weak random perturbations in the range $(-0.01\pi,0.01\pi)$ given
to individual oscillators.
For a given network, a phase slip event of the $i$th node is counted when a full revolution of $\phi_i$ in
the positive or negative direction is made with respect to the mean phase of the rest of the oscillators: the phase difference for $i$ is defined as $\psi_j \equiv \phi_j - \frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i =
\frac{N}{N-1}(\phi_j - \Phi_N)$, where $\Phi_N \equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\phi_j$ is the mean
phase of all oscillators. The phase slip rate of oscillator $i$ is then the total number of
phase slip events divided by the observation time $t_{\mathrm{max}}$, which in the following simulations is $t_{\mathrm{max}}=10^4$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Average phase slip rate (top) and order parameter (bottom) for
Eq.~\eqref{eq:network_model} with $\alpha=0$ and $D=0.1$ as a function of the effective coupling strength $
K\langle d \rangle$. Different kinds of networks are employed: Barab\'{a}si-Albert scale-free
networks (BA) with different values of the minimum degree $m_0$ and network size $N$; an
all-to-all network (ALL); and an Erd\H{o}s-R\'{e}nyi random network (ER). }\label{fig:slip_a0.0}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Average phase slip rate}
The average phase slip rates over all oscillators are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:slip_a0.0} for
different networks with a nonzero value of the noise intensity $D=0.1$,
where the horizontal axis is the effective coupling strength $K\av{d}$. All networks show the same
dependency, namely that as the coupling strength increases, the slip rate first starts to drop and then
increases. However, to what extent the slip rate drops differs: the scale-free networks show higher
slip rates than all-to-all or random networks. Also, the two scale-free networks with the
minimum degree $m_0=1$ shows a higher slip rate than that with $m_0=3$. For the scale-free networks,
network size, i.e., $N=100$ or $N=10000$, does not make a noticeable difference.
In contrast to the slip rate, the order parameter $\sigma$ defined by
$\sigma=|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N e^{i\phi_i}|$ shows similar dependence on $K\av{d}$ for different
networks: the order parameter increases with $K$ and remains high even when the slip rate
is high.
A slight increase of the slip rate in the low-$K$ region is caused by incoherent input to the
high-degree nodes: if a high-degree node $i$ with degree $d_i$ receives many incoherent inputs, the
sum of all inputs in Eq.~\eqref{eq:network_model} is $\sum_i
h(\phi_i)\sim 0$, and thus its dynamics are effectively governed by
\begin{align}
\dot{\phi}_i &= \omega + Kd_i \sin(\phi_i-\alpha)\cos\phi_i + \xi_i.
\end{align}
When noise is absent, the average period $T$ is given by
\begin{align}
T&=\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d\phi}{\omega + Kd_i\sin(\phi-\alpha)\cos\phi}\nonumber\\
&= \frac{2\pi}{\omega}\left[1-\frac{Kd_i}{\omega}\sin\alpha-\frac{K^2d_i^2}{4\omega^2}\cos^2\alpha\right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}.\label{eq:period_divergence}
\end{align}
For $\alpha=0$, the oscillation period increases as $K$ increases from zero, and diverges at $K=2\omega/d_i$. If the connected nodes start to synchronize, it starts to
oscillate again. As indicated in Fig. \ref{fig:slip_a0.0}, this tends to occur in scale-free
networks: when the coupling strength is weak, the low-degree nodes are incoherent, and the
high-degree nodes receive a lot of such incoherent signals.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:slip_a0.0}, except with $\alpha=-0.3$. }\label{fig:slip_a-0.3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dependence on the model parameter}
The situation drastically changes when the model parameter is chosen to be $\alpha=-0.3$, as shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:slip_a-0.3}: in this case, there are no noticeable differences among the different
networks. No nontrivial phase slip is observed in any network, while the order parameter behaves in
the same way as in the case of $\alpha=0$, which is consistent with the analysis for the mutual coupling
case. This indicates that different behavior among the networks results from the existence of the reentrant region.
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:slip_a0.0}, except with $\alpha=0.3$. }\label{fig:slip_a0.3}
\end{figure}
Conversely, the nontrivial phase slip is more likely to occur for $\alpha=0.3$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:slip_a0.3}). The
average slip rate increases especially when the network is scale-free, where a drop in the middle
range of $K$ is no longer observed, as in the case of $\alpha=0$, and owing to frequent phase slip events,
the order parameter is also suppressed. The random and the all-to-all networks show slight
differences when the average slip rate starts to increase at $K\av{d}>1$, which is not obvious for
$\alpha=0$. The all-to-all network shows lower slip rates.
As $K$ increases further, a sudden drop of the average slip rate is observed for all networks,
indicating oscillation death. As a result of oscillation death, oscillators fall into a two-cluster
state with the phase difference between the clusters depending on the network structure, which is
reflected in the $\sigma$ values for individual oscillators in the death state.
Again, the all-to-all network is more resistant
to oscillation death, compared with the random network, indicating that the all-to-all network has
higher synchronizability.
\subsection{Dependence on the noise intensity}
We have checked in our preliminary numerical analysis that when $D=0$ the system converges to the
in-phase state and no phase slip is observed for all five networks with the
three $\alpha$ values: $\alpha=-0.3$, $0$, and $0.3$. This is in accordance with the observation in
the case of two oscillators, where a nonzero amount of noise is crucial for phase slip to occur.
Note that, if noise is absent and the averaging is valid, Eq.~\eqref{eq:network_model} with
scale-free networks reduces to the model studied in Ko and Ermentrout\cite{ko_ermentrout}, where partial
synchronization has been observed when asymmetry of the coupling ($\alpha$ in our model) is
sufficiently large. In contrast to this, we have not observed partial synchronization for $D=0$, even when we start with fully random phases. This is presumably because our $\alpha$ values are not sufficiently large.
We have also calculated the phase slip rate for a nonzero but small value of the noise intensity $D=0.01$. In this
case, for all five networks studied above and for all three values of $\alpha$, we have not observed
nontrivial phase slip except for the BA model with $m_0=1$ and $\alpha=0.3$, for which we have further
investigated the noise intensity dependence (Fig~\ref{fig:noise_dependence}). For $K\le 2$, there is
a clear dependency, namely that the average slip rate increases as the noise intensity increases. This
indicates that nontrivial phase slip is enhanced by noise, which is in accordance with
the two-oscillator case (Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediag_mutual}). On the other
hand, for $K>2$ the average slip rate does not show monotonous dependence on $D$ since partial
oscillation death occurs for smaller $D$ values, which increases slips between active and inactive
nodes.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{Noise dependence of the average slip rate of a
scale-free network with $m_0=1$, $N=10000$ and $\alpha=0.3$, as a function of $K$.}\label{fig:noise_dependence}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Average frequency of individual oscillators}
The slip rate of individual oscillators depends on their degree. Figure~\ref{fig:distrib_bamin1} plots
the time-averaged frequency of individual oscillators, $\av{\omega_i}$, for the scale-free network
with $m_0=1$ and $N=10000$, which shows that high-degree nodes have smaller frequencies. Even when $K$ is small,
the frequencies of the highest degree nodes are already small, and at $K=0.1$ nodes with degree $d> 40$ halt, indicating the period divergence
described in Eq.~\eqref{eq:period_divergence}. At $K=1.0$, high-degree nodes start to increase their
frequencies again, by synchronizing with low-degree nodes, whereas low-degree nodes in turn
decreases in frequency. Note that $K=1.0$ corresponds to the lowest average slip rate
(Fig.~\ref{fig:slip_a0.0}, $K\av{d}=2$). The frequency drops entirely as $K$ increases further. In
this way, high-degree nodes always show low frequencies, either because of incoherent inputs or nontrivial phase slip.
For $\alpha=0.3$, the frequency decreases over the entire range of degrees as $K$ increases, as shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:distrib_bamin1a0.3}. Also, at $K=1.0$, a wide distribution of frequencies is
observed in nodes with the same degrees. A complete oscillation death is observed at $K=10.0$.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig8.eps}
\caption{Average frequency distribution of a scale-free network with $m_0=1$, $N=10000$, and $\alpha=0$. }\label{fig:distrib_bamin1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig9.eps}
\caption{Average frequency distribution of a scale-free network with $m_0=1$, $N=10000$, and $\alpha=0.3$. }\label{fig:distrib_bamin1a0.3}
\end{figure}
Nontrivial phase slip of the high-degree nodes can be understood as follows: suppose that the entire network is
close to synchronization with order parameter $\sigma \sim 1$; since a high-degree node receives
coherent inputs from many other nodes, Eq.~\eqref{eq:network_model} for a high-degree node $i$ with
degree $d_i$ is
approximated by
\begin{align}
\dot{\phi}_i = \omega + Kd_iZ(\phi_i)\{h(\av{\Phi})-h(\phi_i)\}+\xi_i,
\end{align}
where $\av{\Phi}\sim \omega t$ is the mean phase of the nodes connected to $i$. Thus the
situation is almost the same as for the oscillator-pacemaker system \eqref{eq:previous}, where the coupling
strength $K$ is effectively enhanced by its degree $d_i$.
Since scale-free networks have a large
heterogeneity in degree distribution, differences of the effective coupling constant become
significant. Therefore, if $\alpha\ge 0$, that is, if the model has a reentrant
transition, then there can be a situation where low-degree nodes are located in the region of
incoherence whereas high-degree nodes are in the reentrant region. In this case synchronizability
as a whole will be considerably reduced.
\section{Conclusions}
We have studied networks of phase oscillators under the influence of noise, where the coupling can be so strong that
averaging is not necessarily valid, and found that networks show different synchronization
properties when measured by their phase slip rates. We have also observed that heterogeneous
networks suffer more strongly from nontrivial
phase slip in the strong coupling regime. This nontrivial phase slip is understood from the phase
diagram of two coupled phase oscillators, where the coupling can be unilateral or mutual. In both
cases, there is a range of model parameters in which a reentrant transition to the nontrivial phase
slip state is observed. It is this reentrant property that underlies poor synchronizability of
heterogeneous networks, where nodes with both low and high degrees are likely to be out of the synchronization
range.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
H. K. acknowledges financial support from CREST, JST.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Advances in artificial intelligence have made it possible to compare computer performance directly with human intelligence \cite{campbell2002deep,ferrucci2010building,silver2016mastering}. In most cases, a common approach to evaluating the performance of a new system is to compare it against an unseen gold-standard test dataset (GS items). Accuracy, recall, precision and F1 scores are commonly used to evaluate NLP applications. These metrics assume that GS items have equal weight for evaluating performance. However, individual items are different: some may be so hard that most/all NLP systems answer incorrectly; others may be so easy that every NLP system answers correctly. Neither item type provides meaningful information about the performance of an NLP system. Items that are answered incorrectly by some systems and correctly by others are useful for differentiating systems according to their individual characteristics.
In this paper we introduce Item Response Theory (IRT) from psychometrics and demonstrate its application to evaluating NLP systems. IRT is a theory of evaluation for characterizing test items and estimating human ability from their performance on such tests. IRT assumes that individual test questions (referred to as ``items'' in IRT) have unique characteristics such as difficulty and discriminating power. These characteristics can be identified by fitting a joint model of human ability and item characteristics to human response patterns to the test items. Items that do not fit the model are removed and the remaining items can be considered a scale to evaluate performance. IRT assumes that the probability of a correct answer is associated with both item characteristics and individual ability, and therefore a collection of items of varying characteristics can determine an individual's overall ability.
Our aim is to build an intelligent evaluation metric to measure performance for NLP tasks. With IRT we can identify an appropriate set of items to measure ability in relation to the overall human population as scored by an IRT model. This process serves two purposes: (i) to identify individual items appropriate for a test set that measures ability on a particular task, and (ii) to use the resulting set of items as an evaluation set in its own right, to measure the ability of future subjects (or NLP models) for the same task. These evaluation sets can measure the ability of an NLP system with a small number of items, leaving a larger percentage of a dataset for training.
Our contributions are as follows: First, we introduce IRT and describe its benefits and methodology. Second, we apply IRT to Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE) and show that evaluation sets consisting of a small number of sampled items can provide meaningful information about the RTE task. Our IRT analyses show that different items exhibit varying degrees of difficulty and discrimination power and that high accuracy does not always translate to high scores in relation to human performance. By incorporating IRT, we can learn more about dataset items and move past treating each test case as equal. Using IRT as an evaluation metric allows us to compare NLP systems directly to the performance of humans.
\section{Background and Related Work}
\subsection{Item Response Theory}
\label{ssec:irtbackground}
IRT is one of the most widely used methodologies in psychometrics for scale construction and evaluation. It is typically used to analyze human responses (graded as right or wrong) to a set of questions (called ``items''). With IRT individual ability and item characteristics are jointly modeled to predict performance \cite{baker_item_2004}. This statistical model makes the following assumptions: (a) Individuals differ from each other on an unobserved latent trait dimension (called ``ability'' or ``factor''); (b) The probability of correctly answering an item is a function of the person's ability. This function is called the item characteristic curve (ICC) and involves item characteristics as parameters; (c) Responses to different items are independent of each other for a given ability level of the person (``local independence assumption''); (d) Responses from different individuals are independent of each other.
More formally, if we let $j$ be an individual, $i$ be an item, and $\theta_j$ be the latent ability trait of individual $j$, then the probability that individual $j$ answers item $i$ correctly can be modeled as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:3pl}
p_{ij} (\theta_j )= c_i + \frac{1- c_i}{1+ e^{-a_i (\theta_j-b_i)} }
\end{equation}
where $a_i$, $b_i$, and $c_i$ are item parameters: $a_i$ (the slope or discrimination parameter) is related to the steepness of the curve, $b_i$ (the difficulty parameter) is the level of ability that produces a chance of correct response equal to the average of the upper and lower asymptotes, and $c_i$ (the guessing parameter) is the lower asymptote of the ICC and the probability of guessing correctly. Equation \ref{eq:3pl} is referred to as the three-parameter logistic (3PL) IRT model. A two-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model assumes that the guessing parameter $c_i$ is 0.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{icc_sample}
\caption{Example ICC for a 3PL model with the following parameters: $a=1.0$, $b=0.0$, $c=0.25$.}
\label{fig:irtexample}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:irtexample} shows an ICC of a 3PL model.
The ICC for a good item will look like a sigmoid plot, and should exhibit a relatively steep increasing ICC between ability levels $-3$ and 3, where most people are located, in order to have appropriate power to differentiate different levels of ability. We have described a one factor IRT model where ability is uni-dimensional. Multi-factor IRT models would involve two or more latent trait dimensions and will not be elaborated here.
To identify the number of factors in an IRT model, the polychoric correlation matrix of the items is calculated and its ordered eigenvalues are plotted. The number of factors is suggested by the number of large eigenvalues. It can be further established by fitting (see below) and comparing IRT models with different numbers of factors. Such comparison may use model selection indices such as Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Conditional Bayesian Information Criterion (CBIC) and should also take into account the interpretablility of the loading pattern that links items to factors.
An IRT model can be fit to data with the marginal maximum likelihood method through an EM algorithm \cite{bock1981marginal}. The marginal likelihood function is the probability to observe the current response patterns as a function of the item parameters with the persons' ability parameters integrated out as random effects. This function is maximized to produce estimates of the item parameters. For IRT models with more than one factor, the slope parameters (i.e. loadings) that relate items and factors must be properly rotated \cite{browne2001overview} before they can be interpreted. Given the estimated item parameters, Bayesian estimates of the individual person's ability parameters are obtained with the standard normal prior distribution.
After determining the number of factors and fitting the model, the local independence assumption can be checked using the residuals of marginal responses of item pairs \cite{chen_local_1997} and the fit of the ICC for each item can be checked with item fit statistics \cite{orlando_likelihood-based_2000} to determine whether an item should be retained or removed. If both tests are passed and all items have proper discrimination power, then the set of items is considered a calibrated measurement scale and the estimated item parameters can be further used to estimate an individual person's ability level.
IRT accounts for differences among items when estimating a person's ability. In addition, ability estimates from IRT are on the ability scale of the population used to estimate item parameters. For example, an estimated ability of 1.2 can be interpreted as 1.2 standard deviations above the average ability in this population. The traditional total number of correct responses generally does not have such quantitative meaning.
IRT has been widely used in educational testing. For example, it plays an instrumental role in the construction, evaluation, or scoring of standardized tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) and the SAT college admissions standardized test.
\subsubsection{IRT Terminology}
Here we outline common IRT terminology in terms of RTE. An \textit{item} refers to a pair of sentences to which humans or NLP systems assign a label (entailment, contradiction, or neutral). A set of responses to all items (each graded as correct or incorrect) is a \textit{response pattern}. An \textit{evaluation scale} is a test set of items to be administered to an NLP system and assigns an \textit{ability score} (or \textit{theta score}) to the system as its performance.
\subsection{Recognizing Textual Entailment}
\label{ssec:rte}
RTE was introduced to standardize the challenge of accounting for semantic variation when building models for a number of NLP applications \cite{dagan_pascal_2006}. RTE defines a directional relationship between a pair of sentences, the text (T) and the hypothesis (H). T entails H if a human that has read T would infer that H is true. If a human would infer that H is false, then H contradicts T. If the two sentences are unrelated, then the pair are said to be neutral. Table \ref{tab:examples} shows examples of T-H pairs and their respective classifications. Recent state-of-the-art systems for RTE require a large amount of feature engineering and specialization to achieve high performance \cite{beltagy_representing_2015,lai_illinois-lh:_2014,jimenez_unal-nlp:_2014}.
\begin{table*}[th]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{|p{8.5cm} @{\extracolsep{\fill}}p{4.5cm}l|}
\hline \bf Text & \bf Hypothesis & \bf Label \\ \hline
\bf Retained - 4GS & & \\ \hline
1. A toddler playing with a toy car next to a dog & A toddler plays with toy cars while his dog sleeps & Neutral \\
2. People were watching the tournament in the stadium & The people are sitting outside on the grass & Contradiction \\
\hline \bf Retained - 5GS & & \\ \hline
3. A person is shoveling snow & It rained today & Contradiction \\
4 Two girls on a bridge dancing with the city skyline in the background & The girls are sisters. & Neutral \\
5. A woman is kneeling on the ground taking a photograph & A picture is being snapped & Entailment \\
\hline \bf Removed - 4GS & & \\ \hline
6. Two men and one woman are dressed in costume hats & The people are swingers & Neutral \\
7. Man sweeping trash outside a large statue & A man is on vacation & Contradiction \\
8. A couple is back to back in formal attire & Two people are facing away from each other & Entailment \\
9. A man on stilts in a purple, yellow and white costume & A man is performing on stilts & Entailment \\
\hline \bf Removed - 5GS & & \\ \hline
10. A group of soccer players are grabbing onto each other as they go for the ball & A group of football players are playing a game & Contradiction \\
11. Football players stand at the line of scrimmage & The players are in uniform & Neutral \\
12. Man in uniform waiting on a wall & Near a wall, a man in uniform is waiting & Entailment \\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Examples of retained \& removed sentence pairs. The selection is not based on right/wrong labels but based on IRT model fitting and item elimination process. Note that no 4GS entailment items were retained (Section \ref{ssec:irtevaluation})}\label{tab:examples}
\end{table*}
A number of gold-standard datasets are available for RTE \cite{marelli_sick_2014,young_image_2014,levy_focused_2014}. We consider the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) dataset \cite{bowman_large_2015}. SNLI examples were obtained using only human-generated sentences with Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to mitigate the problem of poor data that was being used to build models for RTE. In addition, SNLI included a quality control assessment of a sampled portion of the dataset (about 10\%, 56,951 sentence pairs). This data was provided to 4 additional AMT users to provide labels (entailment, contradiction, neutral) for the sentence pairs. If at least 3 of the 5 annotators (the original annotator and 4 additional annotators) agreed on a label the item was retained. Most of the items (98\%) received a gold-standard label. Specifics of SNLI generation are at \newcite{bowman_large_2015}.
\subsection{Related Work}
To identify low-quality annotators (\textit{spammers}), \newcite{hovy2013learning} modeled annotator responses, either answering correctly or guessing, as a random variable with a guessing parameter varying only across annotators. \newcite{passonneau2014benefits} used the model of \newcite{dawid1979maximum} in which an annotator's response depends on both the true label and the annotator. In both models an annotator's response depends on an item only through its correct label. In contrast, IRT assumes a more sophisticated response mechanism involving both annotator qualities and item characteristics. To our knowledge we are the first to introduce IRT to NLP and to create a gold standard with the intention of comparing NLP applications to human intelligence.
\begin{comment}
\newcite{munro2010crowdsourcing} evaluate the quality of data generated for linguistics with AMT, and recreate classic linguistic studies and provide evaluation metrics for the obtained data. They compare crowd-generated data with controlled experiments, where in this study we use the crowd to identify dataset items for a discriminating test set for future evaluations.
\end{comment}
\newcite{bruce1999recognizing} analyze patterns of agreement between annotators in a case-study sentence categorization task, and use a latent-trait model to identify true labels. That work uses 4 annotators at varying levels of expertise and does not consider the discriminating power of dataset items.
Current gold-standard dataset generation methods include web crawling \cite{guo_linking_2013}, automatic and semi-automatic generation \cite{an_automatic_2003}, and expert \cite{roller_held-out_2015} and non-expert human annotation \cite{bowman_large_2015,wiebe_development_1999}. In each case validation is required to ensure that the data collected is appropriate and usable for the required task. Automatically generated data can be refined with visual inspection or post-collection processing. Human annotated data usually involves more than one annotator, so that comparison metrics such as Cohen's or Fleiss' $\kappa$ can be used to determine how much they agree. Disagreements between annotators are resolved by researcher intervention or by majority vote.
\section{Methods}
We collected and evaluated a random selection from the SNLI RTE dataset ($GS_{RTE}$) to build our IRT models. We first randomly selected a subset of $GS_{RTE}$, and then used the sample in an AMT Human Intelligence Task (HIT) to collect more labels for each text-hypothesis pair. We then applied IRT to evaluate the quality of the examples and used the final IRT models to create evaluation sets ($GS_{IRT}$) to measure ability for RTE.
\subsection{Item Selection}
\label{ssec:itemselection}
For our evaluation we looked at two sets of data: sentence-pairs selected from SNLI where 4 out of 5 annotators agreed on the gold-standard label (referred to as 4GS), and sentence-pairs where 5 out of 5 annotators agreed on the gold-standard label (referred to as 5GS). We make the assumption for our analysis that the 4GS items are harder than the 5GS items due to the fact that there was not a unanimous decision regarding the gold-standard label.
We selected the subset of $GS_{RTE}$ to use as an examination set in 4GS and 5GS according to the following steps: (1) Identify all ``quality-control'' items from $GS_{RTE}$ (i.e. items where 5 annotators provided labels, see \S \ref{ssec:rte}), (2) Identify items in this section of the data where 4 of the 5 annotators agreed on the eventual gold label (to be selected from for 4GS) and 5 of the 5 annotators agreed on the gold standard label (to be selected from for 5GS), (3) Randomly select 30 entailment sentence pairs, 30 neutral pairs, and 30 contradiction pairs from those items where 4 of 5 annotators agreed on the gold label (4GS) and those items where 5 of 5 annotators agreed on the gold label (5GS) to obtain two sets of 90 sentence pairs.
90 sentence pairs for 4GS and 5GS were sampled so that the annotation task (supplying 90 labels) could be completed in a reasonably short amount of time during which users remained engaged. We selected items from 4GS and 5GS because both groups are considered high quality for RTE. We evaluated the selected 180 sentence pairs using the model provided with the original dataset \cite{bowman_large_2015} and found that accuracy scores were similar compared to performance on the SNLI test set.
\subsection{AMT Annotation}
For consistency we designed our AMT HIT to match the process used to validate the SNLI quality control items \cite{bowman_large_2015} and to generate labels for the SICK RTE dataset \cite{marelli_sick_2014}. Each AMT user was shown 90 premise-hypothesis pairs (either the full 5GS or 4GS set) one pair at a time, and was asked to choose the appropriate label for each. Each user was presented with the full set, as opposed to one-label subsets (e.g. just the entailment pairs) in order to avoid a user simply answering with the same label for each item.
For each 90 sentence-pair set (5GS and 4GS), we collected annotations from 1000 AMT users, resulting in 1000 label annotations for each of the 180 sentence pairs. While there is no set standard for sample sizes in IRT models, this sample size satisfies the standards based on the non-central $\chi^2$ distribution \cite{maccallum1996power} used when comparing two multidimensional IRT models. This sample size is also appropriate for tests of item fit and local dependence that are based on small contingency tables.
Only AMT users with approval ratings above 97\% were used to ensure that users were of a high quality. The task was only available to users located in the United States, as a proxy for identifying English speakers. Attention check questions were included in the HIT, to ensure that users were paying attention and answering to the best of their ability. Responses where the attention-check questions were answered incorrectly were removed. After removing individuals that failed the attention-check, we retained 976 labels for each example in the 4GS set and 983 labels for each example in the 5GS set. Average time spent for each task was roughly 30 minutes, a reasonable amount for AMT users.
\subsection{Statistical Analysis}
\label{ssec:stats}
Data collected for 4GS and 5GS were analyzed separately in order to evaluate the differences between ``easier'' items (5GS) and ``harder'' items (4GS), and to demonstrate the ability to show that theta score is consistent even if dataset difficulty varies. For both sets of items, the number of factors was identified by a plot of eigenvalues of the 90 x 90 tetrachoric correlation matrix and by a further comparison between IRT models with different number of factors. A target rotation \cite{browne2001overview} was used to identify a meaningful loading pattern that associates factors and items. Each factor could then be interpreted as the ability of a user to recognize the correct relationship between the sentence pairs associated with that factor (e.g. contradiction).
Once the different factors were associated with different sets of items, we built a unidimensional IRT model for each set of items associated with a single factor. We fit and compared one- and two-factor 3PL models to confirm our assumption and the unidimensional structure underlying these items, assuming the possible presence of guessing in people's responses. We further tested the guessing parameter of each item in the one factor 3PL model. If the guessing parameter was not significantly different from 0, a 2PL ICC was used for that particular item.
Once an appropriate model structure was determined, individual items were evaluated for goodness of fit within the model (\S \ref{ssec:irtbackground}). If an item was deemed to fit the ICC poorly or to give rise to local dependence, it was removed for violating model assumptions. Furthermore, if the ICC of an item was too flat, it was removed for low discriminating power between ability levels. The model was then refit with the remaining items. This iterative process continued until no item could be removed (2 to 6 iterations depending on how many items were removed from each set).
The remaining items make up our final test set ($GS_{IRT}$), which is a calibrated scale of ability to correctly identify the relationship between the two sentence pairs. Parameters of these items were estimated as part of the IRT model and the set of items can be used as an evaluation scale to estimate ability of test-takers or RTE systems. We used the \textit{mirt} R package \cite{chalmers_mirt:_2015} for our analyses.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Response Statistics}
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{3cm}ccc|}
\hline & \bf 4GS & \bf 5GS & \bf Overall \\ \hline
Pairs with majority agreement & 95.6\% & 96.7\% & 96.1\% \\ \hline
Pairs with supermajority agreement & 61.1\% & 82.2\% & 71.7\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary statistics from the AMT HITs.}\label{tab:amtres}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:amtres} lists key statistics from the AMT HITs. Most of the sampled sentence pairs resulted in a gold standard label being identified via a majority vote. Due to the large number of individuals providing labels during the HIT, we also wanted to see if a gold standard label could be determined via a two-thirds supermajority vote. We found that 28.3\% of the sentence pairs did not have a supermajority gold label. This highlights the ambiguity associated with identifying entailment.
We believe that the items selected for analysis are appropriate for our task in that we chose high-quality items, where at least 4 annotators selected the same label, indicating a strong level of agreement (Section \ref{ssec:itemselection}). We argue that our sample is a high-quality portion of the dataset, and further analysis of items where the gold-standard label was only selected by 3 annotators originally would result in lower levels of agreement.
Table \ref{tab:snlires} shows that the level of agreement as measured by the Fleiss' $\kappa$ score is much lower when the number of annotators is increased, particularly for the 4GS set of sentence pairs, as compared to scores noted in \newcite{bowman_large_2015}. The decrease in agreement is particularly large with regard to contradiction. This could occur for a number of reasons. Recognizing entailment is an inherently difficult task, and classifying a correct label, particularly for contradiction and neutral, can be difficult due to an individual's interpretation of the sentences and assumptions that an individual makes about the key facts of each sentence (e.g. coreference). It may also be the case that the individuals tasked with creating the sentence pairs on AMT created sentences that appeared to contradict a premise text, but can be interpreted differently given a different context.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|lccc|}
\hline \bf Fleiss' $\kappa$ & \bf 4GS & \bf 5GS & \bf Bowman et al. 2015 \\ \hline
Contradiction & 0.37 & 0.59 & 0.77 \\
Entailment & 0.48 & 0.63 & 0.72 \\
Neutral & 0.41 & 0.54 & 0.6 \\
Overall & 0.43 & 0.6 & 0.7 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of Fleiss' $\kappa$ scores with scores from SNLI quality control sentence pairs.}\label{tab:snlires}
\end{table}
Before fitting the IRT models we performed a visual inspection of the 180 sentence pairs and removed items clearly not suitable for an evaluation scale due to syntactic or semantic discrepancies. For example item 10 in Table \ref{tab:examples} was removed from the 5GS contradiction set for semantic reasons. While many people would agree that the statement is a contradiction due to the difference between football and soccer, individuals from outside the U.S. would possibly consider the two to be synonyms and classify this as entailment. Six such pairs were identified and removed from the set of 180 items, leaving 174 items for IRT model-fitting.
\subsection{IRT Evaluation}
\label{ssec:irtevaluation}
\subsubsection{IRT Models}
We used the methods described in Section \ref{ssec:stats} to build IRT models to scale performance according to the RTE task. For both 4GS and 5GS items three factors were identified, each related to items for the three $GS_{RTE}$ labels (entailment, contradiction, neutral). This suggests that items with the same $GS_{RTE}$ label within each set defines a separate ability. In the subsequent steps, items with different labels were analyzed separately. After analysis, we were left with a subset of the 180 originally selected items. Refer to Table 1 for examples of the retained and removed items based on the IRT analysis. We retained 124 of the 180 items (68.9\%). We were able to retain more items from the 5GS datasets (76 out of 90 - 84\%) than from the 4GS datasets (48 out of 90 - 53.5\%). Items that measure contradiction were retained at the lowest rate for both 4GS and 5GS datasets (66\% in both cases). For the 4GS entailment items, our analysis found that a one-factor model did not fit the data, and a two-factor model failed to yield an interpretable loading pattern after rotation. We were unable to build an IRT model that accurately modeled ability to recognize entailment with the obtained response patterns. As a result, no items from the 4GS entailment set were retained.
Figure \ref{fig:iccandgam} plots the empirical spline-smoothed ICC of one item (Table \ref{tab:examples}, item 9) with its estimated response curve. The ICC is not continuously increasing, and thus a logistic function is not appropriate. This item was spotted for poor item fit and removed. Figure \ref{fig:stackediccs} shows a comparison between the ICC plot of a retained item (Table \ref{tab:examples}, item 4) and the ICC of a removed item (Table \ref{tab:examples}, item 8). Note that the removed item has an ICC that is very flat between -3 and 3. This item cannot discriminate individuals at any common level of ability and thus is not useful.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{icc_gam_v2}
\caption{Estimated (solid) and actual (dotted) response curves for a removed item.}
\label{fig:iccandgam}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{combined_iccs}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ICCs for retained (solid) and removed (dotted) items.}
\label{fig:stackediccs}
\end{figure}
The items retained for each factor can be considered as an evaluation scale that measures a single ability of an individual test-taker. As each factor is associated with a separate gold-standard label, each factor ($\theta$) is a person's ability to correctly classify the relationship between the text and hypothesis for one such label (e.g. entailment).
\subsubsection{Item Parameter Estimation}
Parameter estimates of retained items for each label are summarized in Table \ref{tab:itemparams}, and show that all parameters fall within reasonable ranges. All retained items have 2PL ICCs, suggesting no significant guessing. Difficulty parameters of most items are negative, suggesting that an average AMT user has at least 50\% chance to answer these items correctly. Although some minimum difficulties are quite low for standard ranges for a human population, the low range of item difficulty is appropriate for the evaluation of NLP systems. Items in each scale have a wide range of difficulty and discrimination power.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|lp{1cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}p{1cm}|}
\hline
\bf Item Set & \bf Min. Difficulty & \bf Max. Difficulty & \bf Min. Slope & \bf Max. Slope \\ \hline
\bf 5GS & & & & \\ \hline
Contradiction & -2.765 & 0.704 & 0.846 & 2.731 \\
Entailment & -3.253 & -1.898 & 0.78 & 2.61 \\
Neutral & -2.082 & -0.555 & 1.271 & 3.598 \\ \hline
\bf 4GS & & & & \\ \hline
Contradiction & -1.829 & 1.283 & 0.888 & 2.753 \\
Neutral & -2.148 & 0.386 & 1.133 & 3.313 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameter estimates of the retained items}\label{tab:itemparams}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{d4c_v2}
\caption{Plot of total correct answers vs. IRT scores.}
\label{fig:correctvsIRT}
\end{figure}
With IRT we can use the heterogeneity of items to properly account for such differences in the estimation of a test-taker's ability. Figure \ref{fig:correctvsIRT} plots the estimated ability of each AMT user from IRT against their total number of correct responses to the retained items in the 4GS contradiction item set. The two estimates of ability differ in many aspects. First, test-takers with the same total score may differ in their IRT score because they have different response patterns (i.e. they made mistakes on different items), showing that IRT is able to account for differences among items. Second, despite a rough monotonic trend between the two scores, people with a higher number of correct responses may have a lower ability estimate from IRT.
We can extend this analysis to the case of RTE systems, and use the newly constructed scales to evaluate RTE systems. A system could be trained on an existing dataset and then evaluated using the retained items from the IRT models to estimate a new ability score. This score would be a measurement of how well the system performed with respect to the human population used to fit the model. With this approach, larger sections of datasets can be devoted to training, with a small portion held out to build an IRT model that can be used for evaluation.
\subsubsection{Application to an RTE System}
As a demonstration, we evaluate the LSTM model presented in \newcite{bowman_large_2015} with the items in our IRT evaluation scales.
In addition to the theta scores, we calculate accuracy for the binary classification task of identifying the correct label for all items eligible for each subset in Table 5 (e.g. all test items where 5 of 5 annotators labeled the item as \textit{entailment} for 5GS).
Note that these accuracy metrics are for subsets of the SNLI test set used for binary classifications and therefore do not compare with the standard SNLI test set accuracy measures.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|rcc|p{1.25cm}|}
\hline
\bf Item Set & \bf Theta Score & \bf Percentile & \bf Test Acc.\\ \hline
\bf 5GS & & & \\ \hline
Entailment & -0.133 & 44.83\% & 96.5\%\\
Contradiction & 1.539 & 93.82\% & 87.9\%\\
Neutral & 0.423 & 66.28\% & 88\%\\ \hline
\bf 4GS & & & \\ \hline
Contradiction & 1.777 & 96.25\% & 78.9\%\\
Neutral & 0.441 & 67\% & 83\%\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Theta scores and area under curve percentiles for LSTM trained on SNLI and tested on $GS_{IRT}$. We also report the accuracy for the same LSTM tested on all SNLI quality control items (see Section \ref{ssec:itemselection}). All performance is based on binary classification for each label.}\label{tab:testrun}
\end{table}
The theta scores from IRT in Table \ref{tab:testrun} show that, compared to AMT users, the system performed well above average for contradiction items compared to human performance, and performed around the average for entailment and neutral items.
For both the neutral and contradiction items, the theta scores are similar across the 4GS and 5GS sets, whereas the accuracy of the more difficult 4GS items is consistently lower.
This shows the advantage of IRT to account for item characteristics in its ability estimates.
A similar theta score across sets indicates that we can measure the ``ability level'' regardless of whether the test set is easy or hard.
Theta score is a consistent measurement, compared to accuracy which varies with the difficulty of the dataset.
The theta score and accuracy for 5GS entailment show that high accuracy does not necessarily mean that performance is above average when compared to human performance. However, theta score is not meant to contradict accuracy score, but to provide a better idea of system performance compared against a human population. The theta scores are a result of the IRT model fit using human annotator responses and provide more context about the system performance than an accuracy score can alone. If accuracy is high and theta is close to 0 (as is the case with 5GS entailment), we know that the performance of RTE is close to the average level of the AMT user population and that 5GS entailment test set was ``easy'' to both. Theta score and percentile are intrinsically in reference to human performance and independent of item difficulty, while accuracy is intrinsically in reference to a specific set of items.
\section{Discussion and Future Work}
As NLP systems have become more sophisticated, sophisticated methodologies are required to compare their performance. One approach to create an intelligent gold standard is to use IRT to build models to scale performance on a small section of items with respect to the tested population. IRT models can identify dataset items with different difficulty levels and discrimination powers based on human responses, and identify items that are not appropriate as scale items for evaluation. The resulting small set of items can be used as a scale to score an individual or NLP system. This leaves a higher percentage of a dataset to be used in the training of the system, while still having a valuable metric for testing.
IRT is not without its challenges. A large population is required to provide the initial responses in order to have enough data to fit the models; however, crowdsourcing allows for the inexpensive collection of large amounts of data. An alternative methodology is Classical Test Theory, which has its own limitations, in particular that it is test-centric, and cannot provide information for individual items.
We have introduced Item Response Theory from psychometrics as an alternative method for generating gold-standard evaluation datasets. Fitting IRT models allows us to identify a set of items that when taken together as a test set, can provide a meaningful evaluation of NLP systems with the different difficulty and discriminating characteristics of the items taken into account. We demonstrate the usefulness of the IRT-generated test set by showing that high accuracy does not necessarily indicate high performance when compared to a population of humans.
Future work can adapt this analysis to create evaluation mechanisms for other NLP tasks. The expectation is that systems that perform well using a standard accuracy measure can be stratified based on which types of items they perform well on. High quailty systems should also perform well when the models are used together as an overall test of ability. This new evaluation for NLP systems can lead to new and innovative methods that can be tested against a novel benchmark for performance, instead of gradually incrementing on a classification accuracy metric.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the AMT Turkers who completed our annotation task.
We would like to also thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.
This work was supported in part by the HSR\&D award IIR 1I01HX001457 from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We also acknowledge the support of HL125089 from the National Institutes of Health.
This work was also supported in part by the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval. The contents of this paper do not represent the views of CIIR, NIH, VA, or the United States Government
|
\section{Introduction}
Intersubband polaritons are quasiparticles stemming from the strong light-matter interaction between an intersubband plasmon excitation and an electromagnetic resonance. Since the theoretical prediction\cite{LiuPRB1997} and the first experimental observation\cite{DiniPRL2003}, several geometries for the electromagnetic resonator have been implemented, either in order to extend the operating frequency into the terahertz range\cite{TodorovPRL2009, GeiserAPL2010, StrupiechonskiAPL2012} and squeeze the electromagnetic field in strongly subwavelength volumes\cite{TodorovPRL2010, FeuilletPalmaOE2012}, or to engineer the photonic dispersion\cite{ZanottoAPL2010, ManceauAPL2014}. These efforts are motivated by fundamental questions and by applied physics issues. On the one side, lowering the operating frequency and hence entering the terahertz range enabled to achieve wider Rabi splittings, which are connected to a larger emission rate of photon pairs from the nonadiabatically-modulated polariton vacuum, in a phenomenon reminiscent of the \textit{dynamical Casimir effect}\cite{CiutiPRB2005, DeLiberatoPRL2007}. On the other side, mid-infrared or terahertz polaritonic devices, where the resonator possibly features a very small modal volume, are expected to lead to novel polariton lasing mechanisms, overcoming the low radiative efficiency of quantum cascade lasers\cite{DeLiberatoPRL2009, DeLiberatoPRB2013}.
It is well known that the photonic resonator influences the light-matter coupling by means of two key properties: the modal volume $V$ and the quality factor $Q$. The modal volume enters the definition of the vacuum Rabi frequency via the vacuum electric field amplitude, $\Omega \propto E_{\mathrm{vac}} \propto \sqrt{1/V}$; at a first glance, larger splittings $\Omega$ require smaller modal volumes. However, this applies for a \textit{single} quantum emitter. In the intersubband polariton case, the matter excitation is a \textit{bright} superposition of $N$ single-particle intersubband excitations, and the Rabi splitting undergoes a superradiant-like enhancement which leads to the final expression $\Omega \propto \sqrt{N/V} \equiv \sqrt{n_{\mathrm{3d}}}$, since $N$ coincides with the number of electrons in the active volume. Better yet, a more refined formula also takes into account the \textit{overlap} $\psi$ between the resonant field distribution and the quantum wells\cite{ZanottoPRB2012}; anyway, the final expression $\Omega \propto \psi \sqrt{n_{\mathrm{3d}}}$ does not depend on $V$. Rather, the push towards smaller modal volumes deals with the concern of avoiding to electrically pump the inactive \textit{dark states}, whose number scales as $V \cdot n_{\mathrm{3d}}$, in an electroluminescent polariton device\cite{DelteilPRB2011}.
Less attention has instead been devoted to study how the cavity quality factor influences intersubband polariton devices; perhaps, this is due to the lack of direct mechanisms for tuning the $Q$-factor of LC resonators and of patch cavities. However, we recently reported about two mechanisms for easily tuning the radiative $Q$-factor of photonic crystal-based resonators, both in the direction of smaller and of larger $Q$'s\cite{ManceauAPL2013, ZanottoJOSAB2014}. It is widely recognized that the quality factor plays a significant role in cavity quantum electrodynamics and in photonics, hence, it is expected to strongly influence intersubband polariton devices. For instance, the well-known photonic concept of \textit{critical coupling} has been recently extended to the strong coupling regime, leading to \textit{strong critical coupling} and perfect polariton absorption\cite{ZanottoNatPhys2014}. The strong critical coupling condition involves the cavity $Q$ by requiring the damping rate \textit{matching} between the intersubband and the photonic resonances, through the usual relation for the photonic damping rate $\gamma_c = \omega_c/2 Q$.
In this article we will instead explore the effect of the damping rate \textit{mismatch}, relying on the tunability of defect-mode photonic crystal resonators\cite{ZanottoJOSAB2014}. In a low-intensity transmission experiment, defect-mode intersubband polaritons appear as usual as a doublet of spectral features, whose contrast is governed by the damping rate mismatch. When a high-intensity, monochromatic source is employed, a peculiar sharp saturation and bistable behaviour is instead predicted. These phenomena, which may constitute the physical ground for actual mid-infrared photonic devices, have a neat theoretical interpretation as well: in the final part of this article we will connect the observed phenomenology to the presence of a large \textit{cooperativity} value, which -- more than the damping rate mismatch -- turns out to be the proper theoretical ground for the predicted nonlinearities.
\section{Linear optical properties of defect--mode intersubband polaritons}
A schematic of the samples we analyzed is given in Fig.~1.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figure1.jpg}
\caption{Schematics of the photonic crystal sample embedding a multi-quantum well structure. The conduction band profile $V_c$ and the electronic energy sublevels are sketched on the left. When excited at resonance, the defect-like photonic mode has a field distribution with a maximum below the central stripe in the supercell. The plotted field component is $|E_z|^2$; this interacts with the intersubband polarization eventually leading to defect-mode intersubband polaritons.}
\end{figure}
They consist of a semiconductor membrane patterned with gold stripes, following a supercell scheme where $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$ identical stripes (Bragg mirror) are interleaved with a larger stripe (defect). This metallo-dielectric photonic crystal resonator, whose fabrication procedure is described elsewhere\cite{ZanottoPRB2012R}, features a resonance whose field distribution has a maximum below the defect stripe. As reported in Ref.~\onlinecite{ZanottoJOSAB2014}, the resonance quality factor is governed by the parameters $d$ and $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$; on the three samples we realized, we kept fixed $d = 0.4$ and employed $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}} = 2$, $4$, and $6$. As it can be noticed in the figure inset, the resonant field distribution is mainly overlapped with the semiconductor membrane, which is nanostructured implementing a multi-quantum well (MQW, consisting of 65 repetitions of 6.8/15\, nm $\mathrm{GaAs}$/$\mathrm{Al}_{0.33}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.67}\mathrm{As}$ well/barrier pairs). Silicon impurities in the wells provide a $n$-type doping that partially fills the first electronic subband.
The photonic period $a$ of the three samples is calibrated in order to bring the defect mode in resonance with the intersubband transition: we employed $a = 2.96$, $3.06$, and $3.1\ \mu \mathrm{m}$ in correspondence to $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}} = 2$, $4$ and $6$. The fill factor $f = 0.8$ is always employed.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figure2.jpg}
\caption{Transmittance curves of defect-mode photonic crystals, with active (doped) or inactive (undoped) quantum wells (QWs). Dashed lines: bare photonic resonances (undoped QWs); solid lines, polaritonic resonances observed when the QWs are doped. The lines in the top panels are obtained from a rigorous coupled wave analysis method, while those in the bottom panels follow from a coupled-mode theory model. Samples with different $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$ result in different quality factors $Q$ of the photonic mode, and in different contrasts of the polaritonic features. Black dots in the upper panels are experimental data measured by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; the experiment only concerned a sample with doped quantum wells.}
\end{figure}
The low-intensity linear optical response is measured by means of Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), using as source the beam from a glo-bar lamp, polarized along $y$. The transmittance spectra (at normal incidence) are reported as black dots in the upper panels of Fig.~2, where the clear polaritonic doublet is well reproduced by the theoretical traces. The latter are obtained by solving Maxwell's equations with the rigorous coupled-wave analysis method (RCWA), where the input parameters are the geometry and the dielectric functions. The gold is assumed to have $\varepsilon = -4000$, while the MQW is modeled as an effective dispersive anisotropic medium\cite{ZanottoPRB2012R}. In essence, the $z$ component of the dielectric tensor is that of an ensemble of Lorentz oscillators, embedded in a background medium with permittivity $\varepsilon_{bg} = 10.05$, and characterized by a resonance frequency $\hbar \omega_{12} = 144.9\ \mathrm{meV}$, by a damping rate (i.e., half linewidth) $\hbar \gamma_{12} = 6.4\ \mathrm{meV}$, and by an oscillator strength which is proportional to the surface charge difference between the two subbands in the QWs: $\Delta n = n_1 - n_2 = 2.39 \cdot 10^{11}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$. Actually, since the excitation intensity is small and the number of thermally activated electrons is negligible even at room temperature, one has $\Delta n = n_1 = n^{(0)}$, where $n^{(0)}$ is the doping-induced charge density. The values reported above follow from a fitting procedure performed on the polaritonic spectra of the upper panels of Fig.~2, and are in good agreement with both the nominal growth parameters and the observations from independent measurements (i.e., multipass absorption). Our choice of a Lorentz-like broadening for the intersubband transition, rather than a Gaussian or a Voigt one, leads to a satisfactory fit of the experimental data for the coupled system within the measurement errors, and it can be shown that it does not invalidate the main conclusions reported in the remainder of the article. In the upper panels of Fig.~2 we report as red dashed lines the result of a further RCWA simulation, which was performed under the condition $\Delta n = 0$. From the width of the observed transmission peak, which corresponds to the bare photonic crystal cavity resonance, the cavity $Q$ is obtained: the values are reported in the lower panels of Fig.~2, and correspond to the damping rates $\hbar \gamma_c = 2$, 1.13, and 0.85 meV, respectively.
As $Q$ increases, the contrast of the polaritonic features is strongly reduced, reaching values as low as 5\,\% for $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}} = 6$. This is attributed to the increasing mismatch between the damping rates of the intersubband transition and of the photonic cavity: as recently demonstrated by means of a coupled-mode theory (CMT) model\cite{ZanottoNatPhys2014}, the difference $\gamma_{12} - \gamma_c$ plays a key role in the physics of strongly coupled dissipative light-matter systems. When $\gamma_{12} = \gamma_c$ and $\Omega > \gamma$, the \textit{strong critical coupling} condition is fulfilled and the \textit{absorbance} of the polaritonic system is the largest; meanwhile, the contrast of the transmittance doublet is maximised. Here, instead, when $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$ is increased, the mismatch $\gamma_{12} - \gamma_c$ progressively grows, the energy feeding into polariton states becomes less and less efficient, and the transmittance contrast is reduced. The ability of the CMT picture to quantitatively capture the transmittance contrast decrease can be gained by observing the lower panels of Fig.~2. Now, the input parameters of the theory are no longer the sample geometry and the material consitutive relations; rather, the model relies on the few physically meaningful parameters $\gamma_c$, $\gamma_{12}$ and $\Omega$. It should be noticed that, while increasing $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$ strongly affects the damping rate mismatch and hence the transmittance contrast, the polaritonic splitting essentially does not feel the effect of $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$. This is a clear proof that only the field overlap factor $\psi$, and not the resonant field enhancement -- the latter being connected to the $Q$-factor -- influences the intersubband polariton splitting. Indeed, the good agreement between the experiment and the models relies on the relation
\begin{equation}
\Omega = \psi \sqrt{\frac{\pi e^2 \Delta n }{ \varepsilon_w m^* L_{\mathrm{per}}}}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_w$ is the well material permittivity, $m^*$ is the effective conduction band electron mass, $L_{\mathrm{per}}$ is the MQW period, and $\Delta n$ is the surface charge difference between the first and second subband.
\section{Non--linear optical properties of defect--mode intersubband polaritons}
The independence of the Rabi splitting upon the $Q$-factor is a consequence of the general features outlined at the beginning of the article, which are valid in the linear response regime. When exciting the sample with a sufficiently intense light beam, non-linear phenomena like polariton saturation (\textit{polariton bleaching}) are known to occur\cite{ZanottoPRB2012R}, and it may be guessed that the saturation threshold depends on the cavity $Q$. We performed a bleaching experiment on the defect-mode polariton samples, looking for the intensity-dependent collapse of the transmission doublet, when intense mid-infrared pulses (generated by a system consisting of an optical parametric amplifier and a difference frequency generator) is employed instead of the glo-bar lamp source. As reported in Fig.~3 (a), by tuning the incident intensity with a set of neutral density filters the polariton splitting progressively vanishes as long as a sufficiently large pulse intensity is employed.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figure3.jpg}
\caption{(a) Spectra of a broadband ultrafast mid-infrared pulse ($E \in [130, 170]\ \mathrm{meV}$) transmitted through the defect-mode photonic crystal sample with $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}} = 2$. Similar traces are obtained for the $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}} = 4, 6$ samples. The dotted traces correspond to experimental data, while the red traces are obtained by fitting through rigorous coupled-wave analysis; a constant offset has been applied for clarity. (b) Dots: surface charge difference extracted from the spectra as in (a), and theoretical trend obtained by the rate-equation model (line). No appreciable dependence upon the number of Bragg periods is observed. (c) Saturation dynamics predicted by the rate-equation model for a narrowband excitation (i.e., $E \simeq 145\ \mathrm{meV}$. A sudden threshold is now observed, evolving in a bistability loop for large $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$'s.}
\end{figure}
In order to quantitatively compare the saturation thresholds occurring on the different samples, the transmitted pulse spectra have been fitted by RCWA, where the surface charge difference $\Delta n$ was regarded as a fitting parameter.
These values are reported as dots in Fig.~3 (b), where it is observed that, contrary to what might have been expected, the polariton bleaching occurs at the same intensity for all samples. This phenomenon can be interpreted by means of a rate-equation model. The idea is that each absorbed photon promotes an intersubband excitation, which eventually decays through a non-radiative mechanism\footnote{The radiative decay path is neglected since the non-radiative decay rate of intersubband excitations is much larger than the radiative one.}. In formulas,
\begin{equation}
\frac{n_2}{\tau_{12}}\frac{\hbar \omega}{I} = A(\Delta n,\omega)
\end{equation}
where $n_2$ is the charge density in the second subband, $\tau_{12} \simeq 1/\gamma_{12}$ is the decay time, $I$ is the incident intensity and $A$ the sample absorbance, which is dependent on the photon frequency $\omega$ and on the surface charge difference $\Delta n$. In the RCWA modelling, the dependence $A(\Delta n)$ occurs via the effective dielectric function\cite{ZanottoPRB2012R}. Finally, the constraints $\Delta n = n_1 - n_2$ and $n_1 + n_2 = n^{(0)}$, where $n^{(0)}$ is the static charge density provided by the doping, allows to solve Eq.~2 self-consistently and to obtain the relation $\Delta n (I)$. The above model applies straightforwardly to the case of a monochromatic excitation; when dealing with a broadband light pulse like that employed in the bleaching experiment\footnote{Mid-infrared pulses with duration of $\simeq 100\ \mathrm{fs}$, and spectral width $\simeq 30\ \mathrm{meV}$, have been employed.}, one could instead replace the fixed-frequency absorbance with an averaged quantity $\bar{A}(\Delta n)$, where the spectral averaging window is given by the light pulse spectral width. By employing this procedure it turns out that the dependence $\Delta n (I)$ is essentially the same for the three samples, hence uncorrelated with the cavity $Q-$factor. This theoretical result is reported in Fig.~3 (b) as a solid line, which accurately reproduces the experimental trend\footnote{Owing to technical difficulties, in the experiment we only had access to the relative values of the incident power, hence the measured points are not linked to a calibrated intensity scale. However, a horizontal rigid shift of the experimental points is sufficient to overlap with the theoretical curve.}.
The reason why samples with different cavity $Q$-factors essentially behave in the same way even in the non-linear response regime lies in the fact that the excitation employed here is broadband, and the integration over the whole absorption spectrum implies a kind of ``sum rule''. Indeed, the function $\bar{A}(\Delta n)$ is essentially independent on the value of $N_{\mathrm{Bragg}}$, and hence on the cavity $Q$. In addition, $\bar{A}(\Delta n)$ is a monotonic function, resulting in a smooth transition between the unbleached and bleached states. We now wonder which is instead the system's response to a narrowband excitation. If the energy corresponding to the bare photonic resonance is chosen in Eq.~2, the saturation curves reported in Fig.~3 (c) are obtained. Now, the smooth, monotonic saturation curve observed above is replaced by a steep function, possibly showing a hysteresis loop. While bistable behaviours in the exciton-polariton framework have already been reported in the literature\cite{TredicucciPRA1996, BaasPRA2004, BajoniPRL2008}, this is the first prediction of intersubband polariton bistability.
These findings rely on the absorption spectra calculated with the RCWA, and hence are based on actual parameters of photonic crystal membrane devices which can be realized in practice. Such devices differ from the ones we fabricated only for the doping, which needs to be increased to $n^{(0)} = 6 \cdot 10^{11}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$.
It is worth noticing that the sudden decrease in $\Delta n$ is followed by a sharp increase in the transmittance, which switches from values close to zero up to near unity. This behaviour could be at the base of an efficient, ultra-thin mid-infrared saturable absorber, with potential applications in connection to mode-locking of the quantum cascade laser\cite{PaiellaScience2000, MenyukPRL2009, AnisuzzumanOE2010}.
While the predictions based on RCWA are an invaluable tool for designing an actual device, an analysis based on the coupled-mode theory unveils the basic physical mechanism lying behind the operation of the sharp saturable absorber, or bistable device. Better yet, it allows to extend the operation principle to different frameworks, other than intersubband polaritons, where the coupled-mode model can be applied. For what concerns our two-port photonic crystal slab system, the key is the absorption formula for the coupled light-matter system\cite{ZanottoNatPhys2014}
\begin{equation}
A(\Delta n, \omega) = \frac{2 \gamma_c \gamma_{12} \Omega^2}{\Delta \omega^4 + \Delta \omega^2 (\gamma_c^2+\gamma_{12}^2-2\Omega^2)+(\Omega^2+\gamma_c \gamma_{12})^2}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is the light-matter coupling constant, connected to $\Delta n$ through Eq.~1; $\Delta \omega = \omega - \omega_0$ is the detuning from the cavity and material resonances, assumed to be coincident. This analytical expression, plugged into Eq.~2, justifies both the smooth and the sudden saturation behaviours observed in the above. Indeed, if the expression in Eq.~3 is averaged with respect to $\Delta \omega$, a monotonic function of $\Delta n$ is recovered, confirming the ``smoothing'' picture introduced in the case of a broadband pulse. In addition, it turns out that this smoothed function has a weak dependence upon the damping rates, hence confirming that in the broadband excitation regime the cavity quality factor does not play a significant role.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figure4.jpg}
\caption{Graphical interpretation of saturation and bistability mechanism, from coupled-mode theory and rate equation models. (a) Absorbance spectrum of the photonic cavity as a function of the quantum well charge difference $\Delta n$. It always exist a $\Delta n$ such that $A(\omega_0) = 1/2$; this is the \textit{weak critical coupling condition} usually expressed in terms of Rabi splitting and damping rates as $\Omega^2 = \gamma_c \gamma_{12}$ (where $\Omega \propto \sqrt {\Delta n}$). (b) Graphical solution of Eq.~2, at $\omega = \omega_0$. Saturation and bistability occur in the region of weak critical coupling. (c) Saturation and bistability as a crossover between weak and strong coupling, represented on the coupled mode theory phase diagram. For fixed cavity and transition damping rates, the incident intensity drives the system's working point along the dotted line, across the weak critical coupling. }
\end{figure}
When instead a narrowband excitation tuned at $\omega_0$ is considered, the function $A(\Delta n, \omega = \omega_0) $ has to be employed. This function is no more monotonic with respect to $\Omega$ (and to $\Delta n$), hence triggering the sharp saturation and bistability that was predicted in Fig.~3 (c) through the RCWA-calculated absorption spectra. These features can be immediately grasped by a graphical analysis of the problem, which is proposed in Fig.~4. Panel (a) represents the absorbance calculated from coupled-mode theory, given in Eq.~3. The absorbance spectrum, as a function of $\omega$, shows either one or two peaks, and it always exist a $\Delta n$ such that $A = 1/2$. This surface charge difference is that for which the system is in \textit{weak critical coupling} (WCC), usually expressed in terms of the cavity and transition damping rates, and of the light-matter coupling constant, as $\Omega^2 = \gamma_c \gamma_{12}$. It is actually in vicinity of the weak critical coupling that the relevant nonlinear dynamics, i.e., the saturation and bistability, takes place. This follows straightforwardly from the graphical analysis of Eq.~2, proposed in Fig.~4 (b). As the intensity is increased, the straight line (i.e., the right hand side of Eq.~2, expressed in terms of $\Delta n$ and of the static surface charge $n^{(0)}$) sweeps through the weak critical coupling absorption maximum, possibly with multiple crossings. The presence of multiple crossings is ruled by the relative position of the surface charge difference which gives WCC ($\Delta n_{\mathrm{WCC}}$) and the position of $n^{(0)}$. A completion of the graphical picture is given in panel (c), where we sketch on the coupled-mode theory phase diagram the path explored by the system throughout the bleaching process. Since the cavity and transition damping rates are assumed not to change, the working point always lies on a straight line passing from the origin. The position of the working point is determined by $\Omega$, hence by $\Delta n$, and may lie either in the strong coupling region (where the absorption spectrum is double-peaked) or in the weak coupling one (where the spectrum is single-peaked); close to this boundary (circular dashed line) the weak critical coupling locus is found (green hyperbola). We also notice that the \textit{strong critical coupling} locus (blue segment), i.e., the locus where the absorption spectrum has two peaks at the maximum value of $1/2$, does not appear to play a significant role in connection to the polariton saturation.
It is instead the concept of cooperativity\cite{Kimble}, $C = \Omega^2/2 \gamma_c \gamma_{12}$, which rules polariton saturation and bistability. Indeed, the weak critical coupling -- and not the strong critical coupling -- is directly connected to the cooperativity: at WCC, $C_{\mathrm{WCC}} = 1/2$. As already hinted by the graphical analysis of Eq.~2, given in Fig.~4 (b), the presence of bistability is governed by the relative position of $n^{(0)}$ and $\Delta n_{\mathrm{WCC}}$, connected to the ratio $C_0/C_{\mathrm{WCC}} = 2 C_0$, where $C_0 = \Omega_0^2/2 \gamma_c \gamma_{12} \propto n^{(0)} / \gamma_c \gamma_{12} $ is the cooperativity of the unbleached sample. In essence, in order to observe sharp polariton saturation or even bistability, the unbleached sample must exhibit a sufficiently large cooperativity\footnote{The connection between cooperativity and bistability has ben already reported in the literature; see, e.g., A. Desaix \textit{et al.}, Eur.~Phys.~Journal B, \textbf{6}, 183 (1998); J. Sauer \textit{et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~A \textbf{69}, 051804 (2004). The role of cooperativity in connection with intersubband polaritons has instead been highlighted in Y. Todorov \textit{et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~B \textbf{86}, 125314, although within a linear response framework.}. Since in the intersubband polariton framework the transition damping rate cannot be tailored to wide extents, the ability to tune the cavity damping rate (i.e., the cavity $Q$--factor) turns out to be the cornerstone towards the observation of intersubband polariton bistability in samples with a reasonable value of the ground-state charge density $n^{(0)}$.
In conclusion, we realized an intersubband polaritonic device where the cavity mode is a defect-type resonance in a metallo-dielectric photonic crystal slab. With this class of resonators, it is possible to achieve large quality factors, and hence small cavity decay rates, which are strongly mismatched with respect to the intersubband transition decay rate. While this mismatch limits the visibility of polaritonic features in a linear spectroscopic experiment, it enables certain nonlinearities which occur at large intensity, like sharp saturation or bistability of intersubband polaritons. Besides deserving an interest as mid-infrared optical components, these phenomena have a neat interpretation in terms of fundamental physics, and can potentially be exported to a multitude of systems. Indeed, they follow from simple assumptions -- a rate-equation model in conjunction with a coupled-oscillator model -- and only involve the basic physical concepts of cooperativity and of weak critical coupling.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Raffaele Colombelli and Riccardo Degl'Innocenti for stimulating discussions, and Ji-Hua Xu for the precious support with the ultrafast laser source. This work was partially supported by the European Research Council through the advanced grant ``SoulMan''.
|
\section{Introduction}
When random constructions have been used in other fields, including Graph Theory~\cite{erdos,bollobas} and Topology~\cite{flagcomplex,knots,triangulated}, they have helped to gain insights into the nature of large graphs that would be difficult to approach via other techniques. And in Algebra, these techniques have yielded a rich theory of Random Groups\cite{randgroup}.
Previous work in Algebraic Geometry on the use of random constructions include uses of random (topological) surfaces to study Gromov-Witten theory~\cite{randsurf}, and more closely related to this paper, work by Winfried Bruns\cite{quest} giving an algorithm for constructing random toric varities for the purpose of constructing counterexamples. In contrast to his technique, we are less concerned with using randomness to exhibit particular counterexamples, rather we will study the distributions given by our construction. This allows us to use tools similar to those in the theory of random graphs to understand toric surfaces as a whole.
In this paper we define the notion of a \emph{random toric surface} using a technique similar to that used to define a random graph. In particular, normal toric surfaces are given by a fan in $\mathbb{R}^2$, so if we can construct random fans we can construct random toric surfaces. To create a random fan, we start by randomly choosing rays; once we have chosen the rays, in 2 dimensions, there exists a unique way to ``fill in'' the fan with 2-cones (see Section~\ref{sec:notation}). As we will see in Definition~\ref{maindef} We will choose rays among those where the first lattice point on them is of magnitude at most $h$. Within this set, we choose whether to use a particular ray with probability $p$, allowing us to form a distribution $T(h,p)$ with two parameters. Here the h parameter is analogous to the number of verticies in a random graph, and we consider the behavior of this distribution as $h\rightarrow \infty$.
We say a fan $\Sigma$ chosen with respect to $T(h,p)$ has a property \emph{with high probability}, if the probability that $\Sigma$ has the property goes to $1$ as $h$ goes to $\infty$. Now we can state our main result. For convenience, let us define $f\prec g$ for functions $f,g$ to mean $\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} \frac{f(h)}{g(h)} = 0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{mainresult}
Let $q$ be a function of $h$. Then for a fan $\Sigma$ chosen with respect to $T(h,1-q)$, we have the following behavior
\begin{enumerate}[ref={\thetheorem(\arabic*)}]
\item if $q\prec 1/h^2$ or $1-q\prec 1/h^2$ then with high probability $X(\Sigma)$ is smooth \label{mainresultpart1}
\item if $q\succ 1/h^2$ and $1-q\succ 1/h^2$ then with high probability $X(\Sigma)$ is singular \label{mainresultpart2}
\end{enumerate}
In addition for $k>1$, then with $1-q\succ 1/h$ and $q\succ 1/h^2$, we have a singularity of index at least $k$. \footnote{See Definition~\ref{singindex} for the definition of singularity index and see Conjecture~\ref{stronger} for a slight strengthening.}
\end{theorem}
If we ignore the strengthening of the second statement in the case of $1-q\succ 1/h$ , this is completely analogous to the following familiar result from the theory of random graphs.
\begin{theorem*}[Erd\~os - R\'enyi theorem\cite{erdos}]
For any $\epsilon>0$ and for a graph $G$ chosen with respect to $G(n,p)$
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $p\geq \frac{(1+\epsilon)\log n}{n}$ Then with high probability $G$ is connected
\item if $p\leq \frac{(1-\epsilon)\log n}{n}$ Then with high probability $G$ is disconnected
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem*}
The content of this paper largely revolves around Theorem~\ref{mainresultpart2}. That part itself is proved in two overlapping cases, which we will call the dense ($q\succ 1/h^2$ and $1-q\succ 1/h$) and sparse case ($1-q\succ 1/h^2$ and $q\rightarrow 1$). This phrasing is motivated by noting that in the first case the number of rays grows at least linearly, and in the second case, the number of rays is always asymptotically less than the set of possible rays. As will be seen, the two cases behave quite differently as to the question of why a random fan is singular. In particular we will have two overlapping cases in our proof which together cover the second part of our theorem.
In contrast, for Theorem~\ref{mainresultpart1} the proof reduces to showing that a particular fan occurs with high probability. In particular, for $q\prec 1/h^2$ we get the complete fan\footnote{See Example~\ref{sigmah}.} $\Sigma_h$ and for $1-q\prec 1/h^2$, we get the empty fan, which corresponds to the toric surface $(\mathbb{C}^{*})^2$.
We should also note that as an immediate consequence of our theorem, we have that for a fixed $p$, random fans are singular.
\begin{cor}
For fixed $0<p<1$ then for a fan $\Sigma$ chosen with respect to $T(h,p)$, with high probability $X(\Sigma)$ is singular.
\end{cor}
\begin{comment}
More concretely, we can restate the Theorem~\ref{mainresult} via the following corollary, although this provides a slightly less sharp bound.
\begin{cor}
For any $\epsilon> 0$ and any $k>1$, then for a fan $\Sigma$ chosen with respect to $T(h,1-q)$, we have the following threshold
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $q \leq \frac{1}{h^{2+\epsilon}}$ then with high probability $X(\Sigma)$ is smooth
\item if $q \geq \frac{1}{h^{2-\epsilon}}$ then with high probability $X(\Sigma)$ has an singularity of index at least $k$
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\end{comment}
We might ask further questions about how many singularities we get. As it turns out we can always ensure that there are arbitrarily many of these singularities. But in the case of normal toric surfaces, singularities can only occur at torus fixed points, so we can actually ask a more refined question, namely what proportion of the torus fixed points are actually singular. Let $\delta_k$ be the density of fixed points of singularity index at least $k$ as defined in Section~\ref{sec:density}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{density}
For any $k>1$ and for a fan $\Sigma$ chosen with respect to $T(h,1-q)$ if $0<q<1$ and $c>0$ sufficiently small, then with high probability, $\delta_k(\Sigma)>c$.
\end{theorem}
This paper is organized as follows. We start with preliminaries in Section~\ref{sec:notation}. This is followed by a discussion of the geometry of fixed height fans in Section~\ref{sec:geometry}, which includes many of the main definitions. Next we consider what happens when we blow down along rays for these fans in Section~\ref{sec:sing}. These together form the basis of the proofs in Section~\ref{sec:threshold}. We end then with some further ideas and a conjecture in Section~\ref{sec:further}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:notation}
We use the following relatively standard notation as seen in Toric Varieties\cite{torvar}. $\Sigma$ is a fan, $\sigma$ is a cone in a fan and $\rho$ is a ray in a fan. $u_{\rho}$ is the minimal lattice point on $\rho$. $X(\Sigma)$ is the toric variety corresponding to $\Sigma$.
Recall that a normal toric surface can be given by a rational fan in $\mathbb{R}^2$. By the orbit-cone correspondence, the 2 dimensional cones in this fan correspond to fixed points under the torus action. Furthermore, on a normal toric surface, the only singularities occur at the fixed points. Thus our discussion of singularities on a toric surface comes down to discussing singular cones in rational fans in $\mathbb{R}^2$. For a rational cone in $\mathbb{R}^2$ given by rays $\rho,\tau$ with corresponding lattice points $u_{\rho}$ and $u_{\tau}$, the cone is smooth if and only if $\left|u_{\rho}\wedge u_{\tau}\right|=1$, where the the value $\left|u_{\rho}\wedge u_{\tau}\right|$ is the absolute value of the determinant of the $2\times 2$ matrix with columns $u_{\rho}$ and $u_{\tau}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{singindex}
We say that the fixed point on a toric surface corresponding to a cone given by $\rho$ and $\tau$ has \emph{singularity index} $\left|u_{\rho}\wedge u_{\tau}\right|$.
\end{definition}
Note that on a toric surface, for a cone of singularity index k, the singularity is of the form of a quotient by $\mathbb{Z}/k\mathbb{Z}$. Also, the blowing up this singularity gives an exceptional divisor with self intersection number $-k$. The second point will be important, because in Section~\ref{sec:sing} we will use rays of particular self intersection numbers to yield singularities of particular singularity index \cite{torvar}.
Much of the work here requires that we fix some norm on $\mathbb{Z}^2$, for our purposes we will use $\left|(x,y)\right|=\max\{\left|x\right|,\left|y\right|\}$, but essentially all of the proofs can be extended to any norm without any major changes. In addition, as a shorthand for a ray $\rho$, we write $\left|\rho\right|=\left|u_{\rho}\right|$.
\begin{definition}
\label{completedef}
Given a finite collection of rays $S$ from $\mathbb{Z}^2$, we define the \emph{completion of a set of rays} as the fan $\Sigma$ with $\Sigma(1)=S$ such that $\Sigma$ is maximal w.r.t. inclusion among all fans with this property. \footnote{Note that this construction is completely dependent on 2 dimensions, and is a large obstacle to the construction of analogous higher dimensional ideas.}
\end{definition}
At a practical level, this construction simply takes a collection of rays an ``fills in'' every possible cone, as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:fill}. We could follow the same construction in one dimension, but this is uninteresting due to the fact that there are only $3$ one dimensional normal toric varieties.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (-1,1);
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw[->,line width=2] (2,0.5) -- (3,0.5);
\fill[gray] (5,0) -- (6,1) -- (4,1) -- cycle;
\fill[gray] (5,0) -- (6,1) -- (6,0) -- cycle;
\draw[->] (5,0) -- (6,1);
\draw[->] (5,0) -- (4,1);
\draw[->] (5,0) -- (6,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:fill}To fill construction the completion of a set of rays shown above, as described in Definition~\ref{completedef}, we have to add two cones.}
\end{figure}
\section{Geometry of Fixed Height Fans}
\label{sec:geometry}
We can now define the distribution of interest.
\begin{definition}
\label{maindef}
Let $R$ be the set of rays $\rho\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ where $\left|\rho\right|\leq h$. We define \emph{the distribution $T(h,p)$} over fans formed by choosing rays in $R$ with probability $p$, and then completing it to a fan.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{sigmah}
In the case where we take empty set of rays, Definition~\ref{completedef} gives us the empty fan, since that is the only fan with no rays. Recall in particular that the empty fan corresponds to the variety $(\mathbb{C}^*)^2$.
In the opposite extreme, where we take the whole set $R$ from Definition~\ref{maindef}, we get a fan which we will denote $\Sigma_h$. As we will see in Lemma~\ref{completesmooth}, this fan is always smooth.
\end{example}
It will turn out to be useful to know that the number of rays of height at most $h$ is proportional to $h^2$.
\begin{lem}
\label{raycount}
Let the number of rays $\rho$ such that $\left|\rho\right|\leq h$ be $N_h$. Then \[0<\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} \frac{N_h}{h^2}<\infty\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will actually show that \[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} \frac{N_h}{h^2}=\frac{4}{\zeta(2)}\] where $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta function. For each $\rho$, we can consider the lattice point $u_{\rho}$. Let $u_{\rho}=(x,y)$ then we have $\gcd(x,y)=1$. This gives a 1-1 correspondence between pairs of integers $(x,y)$ with $\gcd(x,y)=1$, and rays $\rho$. Restricting to the case where $x$ and $y$ are both positive, we get that we simply need to count the proportion of pairs of positive integers $(x,y)$ with $x,y\leq h$ such that $\gcd(x,y)=1$. But we know that this proportion is asymptotically given by $\frac{1}{\zeta(2)}$. Since the restriction to $x,y>0$ simply counts the first quadrant, there are 4 times as many rays overall. Thus we have \[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} \frac{N_h}{h^2}=\frac{4}{\zeta(2)}\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{completesmooth}
$\Sigma_h$ is smooth.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that by Proposition~11.1.2 in \cite{torvar} it suffices to check smoothness on fixed points. Furthermore, by Proposition~1.2.16 in \cite{torvar}, we can phrase smoothness as the area of the fundamental parallelogram formed by the two vectors corresponding to the rays forming the fans. By Pick's Theorem, this parallelogram has area $1$ if and only if the triangle formed by its fundamental rays contains no lattice points aside from the verticies.
Now take a cone $\sigma$ formed by rays $\rho,\tau$. Suppose there existed some non-zero lattice point in the triangle formed by $u_{\rho}$ and $u_{\tau}$. Let this lattice point be $v$; since $v$ is in the triangle formed by $u_{\rho}$ and $u_{\tau}$, it is clear that $\left|v\right|<max\{|u_{\rho}|,|u_{\tau}|\}\leq h$. Consider the ray $\gamma = span(v)$. Since $\left|\gamma\right|\leq h$, $\gamma$ must be in the fan $\Sigma$. But by construction $\gamma\subset \sigma$. so $\gamma$ must be one of the two boundary rays. Thus the only lattice points on the triangle are $u_{\rho}$, $u_{\tau}$, and $0$. Thus every cone in $\Sigma_h$ is smooth which implies $\Sigma_h$ is smooth.
\end{proof}
To see this in the case of $h=3$, see Figure~\ref{fig:complete}. As noted, each of the triangles formed has area $1/2$ since they contain no interior points.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\foreach \x in {0,1,...,3}{
\foreach \y in {0,1,...,3}{
\node[draw,circle,inner sep=2pt,fill] at (\x,\y) {};
}
}
\draw[dashed] (1,0) -- (3,1) -- (2,1) -- (3,2) -- (1,1) -- (2,3) -- (1,2) -- (1,3) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,0);
\draw (0,0) -- (3,1);
\draw (0,0) -- (2,1);
\draw (0,0) -- (3,2);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw (0,0) -- (2,3);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,2);
\draw (0,0) -- (1,3);
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,4);
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (4,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{
Here the solid lines represent the rays in the first quadrant of the fan $\Sigma_3$. Each of the triangles formed by a pair of neighboring rays, who's third side is show by a dashed line, contains no interior points. This gives us the smoothness of $\Sigma_3$.}
\label{fig:complete}
\end{figure}
\section{Singularities From a Single Blowdown}
\label{sec:sing}
In the dense case, it suffices to consider those singularities that come from removing a single ray from the complete fan $\Sigma_h$. This is exactly the process that gives the blowdown of a toric surface along a ray. From this observation, we define the following two sets.
\begin{definition}
let $X=X(\Sigma_h)$ and let $\phi_{\rho}$ be the map that blows down along the ray $\rho$. We define
\begin{itemize}
\item $\displaystyle S_k=\left\{\rho | \phi_{\rho}\left(X\right)\text{ has a singularity of index }k\right\}$
\item $\displaystyle S_{\geq k}=\left\{\rho | \phi_{\rho}\left(X\right)\text{ has a singularity of index of at least }k\right\}$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The following property is crucial for our main result.
\begin{cor}
\label{singdensity}
For $k\geq 1$ The set $S_{\geq k}$ has positive density in the limit $h\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Note that by applying Proposition~\ref{bounds}, we get that if $\frac{|\rho|}{h}<\frac{2}{k+2}$, then $\rho$ has singularity index at least $k$, and furthermore the set $\left\{\rho \big| \frac{|\rho|}{h}<\frac{2}{k+2}\right\}$ has density $\left(\frac{2}{k+2}\right)^2$ inside of the set of rays.\footnote{For some numeric tests on the actual density of such rays see Section~\ref{sec:dist}.}
\end{proof}
This derives from the following stronger result which not only gives us the positive density condition but tells us where the lattice points corresponding to rays of a particular singularity index live.
\begin{prop}
\label{bounds}
Given any singularity index $k$, there exists $\epsilon=\epsilon(h)$, with $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ as $h\rightarrow \infty$, such that $\rho\in S_k$ implies $\frac{2-\epsilon}{k+2}h \leq |u_{\rho}| \leq \frac{2}{k}h$
\end{prop}
For a visualization of the geometric implications of this proposition see Figure~\ref{fig:bands}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,4)--(4,4)--(4,0);
\draw[pattern=north west lines] (3,3)--(0,3)--(0,2)--(2,2)--(2,0)--(3,0)--cycle;
\draw[pattern=north east lines] (2.5,2.5)--(0,2.5)--(0,1.5)--(1.5,1.5)--(1.5,0)--(2.5,0)--cycle;
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,5);
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (5,0);
\node[rectangle,pattern=north west lines] at (6,0.5) {};
\node at (7,0.5) {$k=3$};
\node[rectangle,pattern=north east lines] at (6,0) {};
\node at (7,0) {$k=4$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{For each self-intersection number, we expect that all rays with that self-intersection number lie in a band between $\frac{2-\epsilon}{k+2}h$ and $\frac{2}{k}h$. Although the bands overlap, the regions corresponding to higher self-intersection numbers are towards the interior.}
\label{fig:bands}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider the behavior of the the singularity index of a ray as we increase $h$. In particular. Note that if we have a ray $\rho$, with neighboring rays $\tau $ and $\omega$, then by Theorem~10.4.4 in \cite{torvar} the singularity index is the unique integer $k$ such that $ku_{\rho}=u_{\tau}+u_{\omega}$. Rearranging that gives $\left|u_{\tau}+u_{\omega}\right|/k=|u_{\rho}|$. Then we apply the triangle inequality.
\[\frac{2h}{k}\geq \left|u_{\rho}\right|\]
Now we want an lower bound on $|u_{\rho}|$, To start note that for a fixed $h$ the angle between neighboring rays is bounded from above. Furthermore, this bound goes to zero as $h$ increases. Consequently we can find $\epsilon>0$ with $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ as $h\rightarrow \infty$ such that
\[\left|\frac{u_{\tau}}{|u_{\tau}|}-\frac{u_{\omega}}{|u_{\omega}|}\right|\leq \epsilon\]
Let $x = u_{\tau}+\frac{|u_{\omega}|}{|u_{\tau}|}u_{\tau}$. Note in particular that $|x|=|u_{\tau}|+|u_{\rho}|$.
\begin{align*}
\left|\frac{|u_{\omega}|}{|u_{\tau}|}u_{\tau}-u_{\omega}\right| &= \left|\frac{|u_{\omega}|}{|u_{\tau}|}u_{\tau}+u_{\tau}-(u_{\omega}+u_{\tau})\right|\\
&= |x-(u_{\omega}+u_{\tau})|\\
&\geq \left|\left|x\right|-\left|u_{\omega}+u_{\tau}\right|\right|\\
&\geq |u_{\tau}|+|u_{\rho}|-|u_{\omega}+u_{\tau}|
\end{align*}
reorganizing, we get
\begin{align*}
|ku_{\rho}|&=|u_{\omega}+u_{\tau}|\\
&\geq |u_{\tau}|+|u_{\rho}|-\left|\frac{|u_{\omega}|}{|u_{\tau}|}u_{\tau}-u_{\omega}\right|\\
&= |u_{\tau}|+|u_{\rho}|-|u_\omega|\cdot \left|\frac{u_{\tau}}{|u_{\tau}|}-\frac{u_{\omega}}{u_{\omega}}\right|\\
&\geq |u_{\tau}|+|u_{\rho}|-h\epsilon
\end{align*}
Now if we can find good lower bounds on $|u_{\tau}|$ and $|u_{\omega}|$ we will be able to find a lower bound on $u_{\rho}$. To get these lower bounds on $|u_{\tau}|$ and $|u_{\omega}|$ note that the situation for the left and right neighbors is symmetric, it suffices to consider $u_{\tau}$.
By considering the case where $h=\left|u_{\rho}\right|$, on each side of $\rho$ there exists some $u_\gamma$ such that $\gamma$ is the neighbor of $\rho$. From this define the sequence $w_s=u_{\gamma}+s\cdot u_{\rho}$.
\begin{claim}
Given any $h$, $\nu$ is a neighbor on the (left/right) of $\rho$ in $\Sigma_h$ if and only if $u_{\nu}=w_a$ for some $a$ with $w_{s}\notin \Sigma_h(1)$ for $s>a$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Consider the cone formed by $u_\rho$ and $w_0$. Since any neighbor must be at least as close to $\rho$ as $\gamma$, given $\rho\in\Sigma_h$, the neighbor of $\rho$ in $\Sigma_h$ must be in this cone. Thus the neighbor of $\rho$ is of the form $au_{\rho}+bw_0$ for some $a,b\in \mathbb{N}$. Then since in every complete fan $\Sigma_h$, every cone is smooth, the cone formed by $au_{\rho}+bw_0$ and $\rho$ must be smooth. Thus we have that $\left|u_{\rho} \wedge (au_{\rho}+bw_0)\right|=1$. We can then simplify the l.h.s.
\begin{align*}
\left|u_{\rho}\wedge(au_{\rho}+bw_0)\right|&=\left|u_{\rho}\wedge bw_0\right|\\
&=b
\end{align*}
Thus we get $b=1$. Furthermore, note that if $s>a$, then $su_{\rho}+bw_0$ is closer to $\rho$. But since $au_{\rho}+w_0$ is the neighbor, this is impossible.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\coordinate (u) at (2,1);
\coordinate (v) at (1,1);
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (u) node[right] {$w_1$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (v) node[above] {$u_{\rho}$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- ( $ (u)-(v) $ ) node[right] {$w_0$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- ( $ (u)+(v) $ ) node[right] {$w_2$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- ( $ (u)+(v)+(v) $ ) node[right] {$u_{\nu}=w_3$};
\draw[dotted] ($(u)-(v)-(v)$) -- ( $ (u)+(v)+(v)+(v) $ );
\draw[dotted] (0,0) -- ( $ (v)+(v)+(v)+(v)+(v) $ );
\draw[dashed] (0,1.1) -- (1.1,1.1) -- (1.1,0);
\draw[dashed] (0,2.1) -- (2.1,2.1) -- (2.1,0);
\draw[dashed] (0,3.1) -- (3.1,3.1) -- (3.1,0);
\draw[dashed] (0,4.1) -- (4.1,4.1) -- (4.1,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{
As a consequence of the claim, the nearest neighbors to $u_{\rho}$ at every possible value for $h$ lie along a line parallel to $u_{\rho}$.
\label{fig:neighbor}
}
\end{figure}
Let $u_{\tau}=w_a$.
\begin{align*}
h&\leq \left|w_{a+1}\right|\\
&\leq\left|w_{a}+u_{\rho}\right|\\
&\leq \left|u_{\tau}\right|+\left|u_{\rho}\right|
\end{align*}
rearranging we get $|u_{\tau}|\geq h-|u_{\rho}|$. Then by the same process applied to $\omega$, we get $|u_{\omega}|\geq h-|u_{\rho}|$.
Now take $\theta$ to be the angle between $\tau$ and $\omega$, then $\left|u_{\tau}+u_{\omega}\right|$ is given by law of cosines as
\begin{align*}
|ku_{\rho}|&\geq |u_{\tau}|+|u_{\omega}|-h\epsilon\\
&\geq 2\left(h-|u_{\rho}|\right)-h\epsilon
\end{align*}
Now rearranging, we get the following
\begin{align*}
|ku_{\rho}|&\geq 2h-2|u_{\rho}| - h\epsilon\\
(k+2)\left|u_\rho\right|&\geq h(2-\epsilon)\\
|u_{\rho}|&\geq \frac{2-\epsilon}{k+2}h
\end{align*}
So given $\rho$ with singularity index $k$, the height of $\rho$, viewed as a proportion of $h$, satisfies the inequality \[\frac{2-\epsilon}{k+2} < \frac{|u_{\rho}|}{h} < \frac{2}{k}\]
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If we ignore the $\epsilon$, which goes to zero in the limits we care about, Proposition~\ref{bounds} tells us that for $\left|u_{\rho}\right|$ between $\frac{2}{k+1}h$ and $\frac{2}{k}h$, the only possible singularity indices are $k$ and $k+1$. See Figure~\ref{fig:space} in Section~\ref{sec:dist} to see how this affects the distribution of those minimal ray generators corresponding the singular rays.
\end{remark}
\section{Thresholds}
\label{sec:threshold}
\subsection{Main Result}
Now we begin to piece these together into a proof of our main result. To start though, we need a minor lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{limit}
Let $q(n)$ be a function taking values in $\left[0,1\right]$ Then
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } \left(1-q(n)\right)^n=\exp\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)\right)\]
\end{lem}
Note in particular that this is simply a generalization of the familiar fact that $\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)^x=e$ by taking $q(n)=-1/n$.
\begin{proof}
We start by taking logs and simplifying.
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\log\left(1-q(n)\right)^n&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\log\left(1-q(n)\right)\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\left(-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{q(n)^k}{k}\right)\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{q(n)^{k-1}}{k}\right)\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)\left(1 + q(n)\sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{q(n)^{k-2}}{k}\right)\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)+\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\cdot (q(n))^2\sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{q(n)^{k-2}}{k}\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)
\end{align*}
In the case where $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}q(n)=0$ then the last step proceeds by the convergence of the second sm. Otherwise, if $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}q(n)\neq 0$, we will have $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} nq(n) = \infty$ and $\lim \log(1-q(n))^n =\infty$.
Thus altogether we get \[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\log\left(1-q(n)\right)^n=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)\]
Finally since $\exp$ is continuous, we can apply $\exp$ to both sides.
\begin{align*}
\exp\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\log\left(1-q(n)\right)^n\right)&=\exp\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)\right)\\
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1-q(n)\right)^n&=\exp\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}-nq(n)\right)
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
We can now proceed with the proof of the main theorem.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult}]
For statement 1, let us start with the $q\prec 1/h^2$ case. Recall that the complete fan $\Sigma_h$ is smooth due to Lemma~\ref{completesmooth}. So it suffices to show that for $q\prec \frac{1}{h^2}$ we get $\Sigma_h$ with high probability. Expanding the definition of $\prec$ gives $h^2q\rightarrow 0$. Let $n$ be the number of rays with magnitude at most $h$ Then by Lemma~\ref{raycount}, we have that $nq\rightarrow 0$. Then the probability of getting $\Sigma_h$ is given by \[P(\Sigma=\Sigma_h)=(1-q)^n\] So we should compute $\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} (1-q)^n$. By Lemma~\ref{limit}, we know that \[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} (1-q)^n=\exp(\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} -nq)=\exp(0)=1.\] Thus in this case, we get $\Sigma_h$ with high probability. Then for the $1-q\prec 1/h^2$ case, note that by the same computation, we get that in this case with high probability we get the empty fan, which corresponds to $(\mathbb{C}^*)^2$, which is smooth.
For statement 2, recall that we have two cases, a dense case and a sparse case.
\noindent \emph{Dense case}: $q\succ 1/h^2$ and $1-q\succ 1/h$
By Corollary~\ref{singdensity} the rays which blow down to a singularity of index $k$ occur with positive density. So let this density be $\delta$, then we can choose at least $m=\frac{\delta}{4}h^2$ of them such that none of them share any neighboring rays in $\Sigma_h$. Then for each ray, we can consider the cone formed by taking both of its neighbors
Each of these cones occurs in a fan in $T(h,1-q)$ with probability given by $(1-q)^2q$. Since none of these cones share any rays, we can consider them independently. Thus the probability that at least one of these cones is in our fan is given by $1-(1-(1-q)^2q)^{m}$. If at least one of these cones is present, then the fan has a singularity of size at least $k$, so we simply need to consider
\[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}1-\left(1-\left(1-q\right)^2q\right)^{m}\]
We can simplify using Lemma~\ref{limit}.
\[
\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}1-\left(1-\left(1-q\right)^2q\right)^{m}=1-\exp\left(\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}\left(1-q\right)^2qm\right)
\]
Let us consider the possible cases.
\noindent\emph{ Case $lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}q\neq 1$}:
In this case, since we have that $q\succ 1/h^2$, we also have
\begin{align*}
\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} (1-q)^2qm&=\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} (1-q)^2 \lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} qm\\
&= \infty
\end{align*}
\noindent\emph{ Case $lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}q\neq 0$}:
In this case we have $1-q\succ 1/h$ so
\begin{align*}
\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} (1-q)^2qm&=\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} (1-q)^2m \lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} q\\
&= \infty
\end{align*}
Now by Lemma~\ref{limit} we get \[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}1-(1-(1-q)^2q)^{m}=1\] Thus with high probability the fan contains at least one singularity of index at least $k$.
\noindent \emph{Sparse Case}: $1/h^2\prec (1-q)$ and $q\rightarrow 1$
Given any ray $\rho$ there exists a set of rays in $\Sigma_h(1)$ with which, $\rho$ can form a smooth cone. Let $\tau$ be any ray such that the cone formed by $\rho$ and $\tau$ is smooth. Then given coordinates $(x,y)=u_{\rho}$ and $(a,b)=u_{\tau}$ we get that $\left|xb-ya\right|=1$. This implies that the lattice points corresponding to the rays with this property lie along two lines parallel to $\rho$, one on either side. But since the height of our rays is bounded above by $h$, there are at most $\frac{2h}{\left|\rho\right|}$ possible rays on either side.
Now consider the set of rays for which there are at most 4 rays on either side with which we can make a smooth cone. Note that it suffices to ask for $\frac{2h}{\left|\rho\right|}\leq 4$ which becomes $|\rho|\geq \frac{h}{2}$. Let this set of rays be $S$. For reasons of independence, we will want to restrict to the upper half plane, so let $S_{+}\subset S$ be the subset of those which are in the upper half plane. Finally we give $S_+$ an ordering starting the positive x-axis and proceeding counter clockwise.
Let $\rho\in S_{+}$ be the $k$-th ray in $S_+$. Define $F_{\rho}$ to be the set of fans where $\rho$ is the first ray from $S_{+}$ and the cone containing $\rho$ as its rightmost ray is singular. Then since the first ray is unique, these are disjoint sets for distinct $\rho$. Thus we have
\[P(\Sigma \in F_{\rho})\leq q^{k-1}(1-q)q^{4}\left(1-q^{n-4}\right)\]
Here the $q^{k-1}(1-q)$ gives the probability that $\rho$ is the first ray. The $q^{4}$ gives the probability that none of the rays with which it could make a smooth fan exists. Then $\left(1-q^{n-4}\right)$ gives the probability that at least one ray exists on the half plane after $\rho$ so that there is actually a cone to talk about. Now we sum each of these disjoint events.
\[P(\Sigma\text{ is singular}) \geq \sum_{\rho\in S_+}P(\Sigma\in F_{\rho})\]
and so we can compute
\begin{align*}
P(\Sigma\text{ is singular}) &\geq \sum_{k=1}^{\left|S_+\right|}q^{k-1}(1-q)q^4\left(1-q^{n-4}\right)\\
&=(\sum_{k=1}^{\left|S_+\right|}q^{k-1}(1-q)) q^4\left(1-q^{n-4}\right)\\
&=(1-q)\frac{1-q^{\left|S_+\right|}}{1-q} q^4\left(1-q^{n-4}\right)\\
&=(1-q^{\left|S_+\right|})q^4\left(1-q^{n-4}\right)
\end{align*}
For $q\rightarrow 1$ we have $q^2 \rightarrow 1$, and for $1/h^2\prec 1-q$, we get $1-q^{h^2-4}$ and $1-q^{|S_+|}$ go to $1$. Thus we have that for $q\rightarrow 1$ and $1/h^2\prec 1-q$, with high probability, $\Sigma$ is singular.
\end{proof}
As noted, the dense case and the sparse case proofs are entirely different, and reflect different ways in which the singularities arise. In the dense case, enough singularities arise from blowdowns along single rays that we can easily get the desired result from simply considering those singularities. This local computation contrasts with our proof in the sparse case. Here we look globally instead. For a fixed ray, there are only a fixed number of rays of height at most $h$ where the pair of rays form a smooth cone. Thus in many cases, we will fail to have any of these rays, and thus we will be forced to have a singular cone.
\subsection{Density}
\label{sec:density}
Let us define the density of singularities as the number of singular points divided by the number of fixed points. In particular given a fan $\Sigma$, let \[\delta_k\left(\Sigma\right)=\frac{\#\text{Points with singularity index } \geq k}{\# \text{Fixed Points}}\] With this we can proceed to prove our density result.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{density}]
Let $R_{\geq k}(\Sigma)$ be the number of singular points of index at least $k$ in $\Sigma$. We repeat the trick of considering certain cones as in the dense case of the proof of Theorem~\ref{mainresult}. As before, we can select $m:=\frac{\delta}{4}h^2$ of them, where $\delta$ is the density of rays with self-intersection number $k$ in $\Sigma_h$. Then $R_{\geq k}(\Sigma)$ is at least the number of such cones that exist.
For $\Sigma\in T(h,1-q)$, the probability of $\Sigma$ having any particular cone of this form is given by $r:=(1-q)^2q$. And since these cones are chosen to be independent, the number of such cones that exist is given by the binomial distribution, $Bin(m,r)$. Thus we have
\[P(R_{k}(\Sigma) \geq c\cdot h^2) \geq P(Bin(m,r) \geq ch^2)\]
Thus
\[P(R_{k}(\Sigma) < c\cdot h^2) \leq P(Bin(m,r) < ch^2)\]
Using a tail bound on the binomial distribution derived from Theorem 1 of \cite{hoeffding}, we get the following inequality so long as $c\cdot h^2 \leq m\cdot r$.
\[ P(Bin(m,r) < c\cdot h^2)\leq e^{-2(mr-ch^2)^2/m}\]
We get this by viewing $Bin(m,r)$ as the sum of $m$ identically distributed independent random variables each taking the value $1$ with probability $r$ and the value $0$ with probability $1-r$. Together with the previous inequality we get
\[P(R_{k}(\Sigma) < c\cdot h^2) \leq e^{-2(mr-ch^2)^2/m}\]
Then what we want to show is that the left hand side goes to zero, so it suffice to show that the right hand side goes to zero. To see this we use that $m\sim h^2$. For $c$ sufficiently small this allows us to rearrange to get the following inequality
\[P(R_k(\Sigma)<c\cdot h^2)\leq e^{-2m(r-c)^2}\]
But $r-c$ is constant, so we have
\[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}P(R_k(\Sigma)<c\cdot h^2)=0\]
Now we move from bounding the numerator to bounding the denominator. For sufficiently large $h$, given a fan $\Sigma$ the number of fixed points in $\Sigma$ is less than the number of rays in $\Sigma$, and we know $\left|\Sigma(1)\right|\leq N_h~h^2$. Thus, up to an adjustment of the constant, we have that for sufficiently small c
\[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty}P(\delta_k(\Sigma)<c\cdot h^2)=0\]
\end{proof}
A quick heuristic argument shows that so long as $p\rightarrow 1$, on average the density of cones in $\Sigma$ that are not in $\Sigma_h$ goes to zero, and since any singular points must come from cones not in the complete fan, from this we expect that with high probability the density will eventually be smaller than any positive number. Note also that this is distinct from asking that with high probability $\delta_k(\Sigma)=0$. Here perhaps by looking at the expected value of $\delta_k(\Sigma)$ we can find something more enlightening.
\section{Further Directions}
\label{sec:further}
\subsection{Direct Generalizations}
A first hope might be to generalize this to higher dimensions. But as stated before, our notion of a random fan does not directly extend to the case of higher dimensions. There are some potential candidates, but none seems particularly natural. The most straightforward way would simply be to still take random rays, but then use a ``minimal triangularization'' of the rays (viewed as points on the sphere) to choose a ``minimal simplicial completion'', but this process is now quite complex and hard to understand.
One might also try to consider the behavior along the threshold, namely the case where $q$ is proportional to $1/h^2$ or where $1-q$ is proportional to $1/h^2$. Numeric data suggests that in this case, the behavior is dependent only on the limit of $q\cdot h^2$ or $(1-q)h^2$.
\subsection{Complete Fans and the distribution of rays}
Instead of asking about random fans we can also ask about the properties of this complete fan that shows up in the smooth case. In particular, one might reasonably ask whether the limit of these fans has a reasonable interpretation as a geometric object. As a first step, we could try to compute what the density of rays in $S_{\geq k}$ is in the limit. This geometrically is counting the number of exceptional divisors with appropriate negative self-intersection number. The bounds we get in Proposition~\ref{bounds} suffice for the purposes of our result. But the numerical results presented in Figure~\ref{fig:limits} allow us to conjecture the following refinement.
\begin{conj}
\label{exactbounds}
For $k>1$
\[\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\left|S_{\geq k}\right|}{\left|\Sigma_h(1)\right|} = \frac{2}{T_{k}}\] Where $T_n=\frac{n^2+n}{2}$ is the n-th triangular number.
\end{conj}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
& $\geq 2$ & $\geq 3$ & $\geq 4$ & $\geq 5$ & $\geq 6$ & $\geq 7$\\\hline
10 & 0.6875 & 0.3125 & 0.1875 & 0.125 & 0.125 & 0.0625\\\hline
50 & 0.6641 & 0.3359 & 0.1990 & 0.1370, & 0.0930 & 0.0724 \\\hline
100 & 0.6675 & 0.3325 & 0.1997 & 0.1327 & 0.0959 & 0.0716 \\\hline
500 & 0.6666 & 0.3334 & 0.2000 & 0.1334 & 0.0952 & 0.0714 \\\hline
1000 & 0.6667 & 0.3333 & 0.2000 & 0.1333 & 0.0953 & 0.0714\\\hline
5000 & 0.6667 & 0.3333 & 0.2000 & 0.1333 & 0.0952 & 0.0714\\\hline
Conjectured Limits & 2/3 & 2/6 & 2/10 & 2/15 & 2/21 & 2/28\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{By considering the value $\left|S_{\geq k}\right|/\left|\Sigma(1)\right|$, we can compare the actual percentage of rays which have a particular self intersection number with the expected percentage as given by Conjecture~\ref{exactbounds}.\label{fig:limits}}
\end{figure}
In particular, this would imply that not only is $S_{\geq k}$ of positive density in $\Sigma_h(1)$ but also $S_{k}$, with that we would be able to strengthen Theorem~\ref{mainresult}.
\begin{conj}
\label{stronger}
Let $k>1$ then for a fan $\Sigma$ chosen with respect to $T(h,1-q)$. If $q\succ 1/h^2$ and $1-q\succ 1/h$ then with high probability $X(\Sigma)$ has a singularity of index of exactly $k$.
If instead we have $1-q\succ 1/h^2$, then with high probability $X(\Sigma)$ has a singularity of index of at least $k$.
\end{conj}
For the first statement in this conjecture, it suffices to show that $S_k$ is of positive density. Note that all we have is that $S_{\geq k}$ has positive density. Given this, the proof of the conjecture would proceed exactly as the proof of the dense case of statement 2 of Theorem~\ref{mainresult}.
For the second statement in this conjecture, a different technique to count singularities of a particular index is required, since we currently have no obvious way of doing this for cones that aren't just a simple blowdowns of a single ray relative to $\Sigma_h$.
Also, there's no reason to believe that we can extend the first statement to cover the second case, since we expect that with so few cones in the sparse case, we would at times fail to have any singularities of any particular index. In particular, the number of fixed points for $1-q\prec 1/h$ grows slower than linearly, and we expect that the number of possible singularity indexes to grow linearly, so in general a fan would fail to achieve most of the possible singularity indexes.
\subsection{The Distribution of Rays}
\label{sec:dist}
Similarly, we can also ask about the distribution of these rays instead of their density. One way is to consider the distribution within $\mathbb{Z}^2$ with rays represented by their minimal lattice generators. This yields concentric shells of points with decreasing singularity index, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:space} for the case of $h=5$. In particular, these shells can be a way to understand the geometry of Proposition~\ref{bounds} and Conjecture~\ref{exactbounds}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\definecolor{color10}{rgb}{1,0,0}
\definecolor{color9}{rgb}{0.8,0,0.1}
\definecolor{color5}{rgb}{0.4,0,0.4}
\definecolor{color4}{rgb}{0.3,0,0.5}
\definecolor{color3}{rgb}{0.2,0,0.6}
\definecolor{color2}{rgb}{0.1,0,0.7}
\definecolor{color1}{rgb}{0,0,1}
\begin{comment}
\datavisualization data group {points} = {
data [set=k1]{
x, y
1, 5
2, 5
3, 5
4, 5
5, 4
5, 3
5, 2
5, 1
}
data[set=k2] {
x, y
1, 4
3, 4
4, 3
4, 1
}
data [set=k3]{
x, y
1, 3
2, 3
3, 2
3, 1
}
data [set=k5]{
x, y
1, 2
2, 1
}
data [set=k9]{
x, y
1, 1
}
data [set=k10]{
x, y
1, 0
0, 1
}
};
\datavisualization[
school book axes,
visualize as scatter/.list={k1,k2,k3,k5,k9,k10},
style sheet=cross marks,
k1={label in legend={text={index=1}}},
k2={label in legend={text={index=2}}},
k3={label in legend={text={index=3}}},
k5={label in legend={text={index=5}}},
k9={label in legend={text={index=9}}},
k10={label in legend={text={index=10}}},
legend=right] data group {points};
\end{comment}
\begin{axis}[legend style={at={(1.2,1)},anchor=north}]
\addplot+[only marks,mark=o] coordinates {
(1, 5)
(2, 5)
(3, 5)
(4, 5)
(5, 4)
(5, 3)
(5, 2)
(5, 1)
};
\addlegendentry{k=1}
\addplot+[only marks,mark=square*] coordinates {
(1, 4)
(3, 4)
(4, 3)
(4, 1)
};
\addlegendentry{k=2}
\addplot+[only marks,mark=*] coordinates {
(1, 3)
(2, 3)
(3, 2)
(3, 1)
};
\addlegendentry{k=3}
\addplot+[only marks,mark=star] coordinates {
(1, 2)
(2, 1)
};
\addlegendentry{k=5}
\addplot+[only marks,mark=diamond*] coordinates {
(1, 1)
};
\addlegendentry{k=9}
\addplot+[only marks,mark=square] coordinates {
(1, 0)
(0, 1)
};
\addlegendentry{k=10}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{
By plotting the values of the self intersection numbers in the case of $h=5$, we can see the pattern suggested by Proposition~\ref{bounds}. In particular, the rays with low self-intersection are concentrated near the boundary.
\label{fig:space}
}
\end{figure}
\section{Acknowledgments}
Thanks first to my adviser Daniel Erman for helping me edit this paper. Also to my friends for helping me find many of the typos in the paper. Thanks to the developers of Macaulay2\cite{M2} which I used initially to generate examples and test conjectures. Thanks also to Phillp Matchet Wood, for his assistance in understanding the binomial distribution.
|
\section{Introduction}\noindent Products, such as the cup product for cohomology groups or the Whitehead product for homotopy groups, are important binary operations in
Algebraic Topology. The cup product is defined for cohomology groups with coefficients, whereas the Whitehead product is usually defined for integral homotopy groups. In spite of
the fact that the concept of homotopy groups with coefficients has been available for some time, there has been very little work on binary operations for homotopy groups with
coefficients (two exceptions are \cite{h} and \cite{n}). Our object in this paper is to discuss in some detail such binary operations and to provide a unifying method for studying them.
\medskip
\noindent The following is a brief outline of the paper. We shall refer to homotopy groups with coefficients as homotopy groups and binary operations as operations. After a preliminary section,
the generalized Whitehead product and generalized Whitehead product map are recalled. We show that the map can be extended to a map of a cone into a product of suspensions. We
next define the general notion of an operation for homotopy groups. A class of operations, called basic operations, is defined and it is proved that these are homomorphic images of the
generalized Whitehead product. We consider operations that have been restricted further (special operations) with a view to
studying two particular classes of operations, the Whitehead products and the Torsion products. In the case when an operation is the image of a generalized Whitehead product, we give
necessary and sufficient conditions for it to be a special operation. This is then applied to Whitehead and Torsion
products. In the final section, we discuss a number of topics related to earlier sections. We first
compare the Torsion product to Neisendorfer's Whitehead product \cite{n} when all coefficient groups are cyclic of the same odd prime power order. We consider in more detail the class of operations called Ext operations which were introduced earlier in the paper.
Next we establish a homotopy equivalence between the smash product of two Moore spaces and the wedge of two (different) Moore spaces. Finally we briefly discuss the difference between using Moore spaces or Co-Moore spaces to obtain coefficients.
\section{Preliminaries} \noindent In this section we present our notation and assumptions. All spaces are assumed to be based and of the homotopy type of based CW-complexes and all groups are assumed to be abelian. Maps and homotopies are to preserve base points. The base point is generically denoted by $*$. We let $[f]$ denote the homotopy class of the map $f$ and $f\simeq g$ signifies that $f$ and $g$ are homotopic, but notationally we often ignore the distinction between maps and homotopy classes. For example, an expression containing a mix of maps and homotopy classes refers to the homotopy class determined by the expression. We write $\Sigma X$ for the (reduced) suspension of the space $X$ and $CX =X\times I/\{ * \}\times I\cup X\times \{ 1 \}$ for the (reduced) cone. Also $X\vee Y$ denotes the wedge and $X \wedge Y$ the smash product. Furthermore, the join $X*Y$ is the quotient of
$X\times Y\times I$ with the equivalence relations $(x,y,0)\sim (x,y',0)$ and $(x,y,1) \sim (x',y,1)$ and base point
given by $\{ * \}\times \{ * \} \times I$. We use $``\approx "$ for isomorphism of groups and $``\equiv "$ for same homotopy type. We let $[X,Y]$ be the set of homotopy classes of maps from $X$ to $Y.$ A map $f$ induces a homomorphism $f_*$ of homology groups and a homomorphism $f_{\#}$ of homotopy groups.
For homomorphisms of groups $h:G'\to G $ and $k: H\to H'$, we let $h^*: \mathrm{Hom}(G,H)\to \mathrm{Hom}(G',H)$
and $k_*: \mathrm{Hom}(G,H)\to \mathrm{Hom}(G,H')$ be the induced homomorphisms.
We denote by $\mu ' :A*B \to \Sigma (A\wedge B)$ the homotopy equivalence obtained by collapsing the subset
$(A\times \{ * \}\times I)\cup (\{ * \}\times B\times I) $ to a point. The homotopy inverse of $\mu '$ is denoted $\mu :\Sigma (A \wedge B) \to A*B.$
Let $G$ be a group and $n$ an integer $\ge 2$. A {\bf Moore space} $M(G,n)$ is a simply-connected space with a single
non-vanishing reduced homology group $G$ in degree $n$. The {\bf $n$th homotopy group of $X$ with coefficients $G$}, denoted
$\pi _n(X;G)$, is defined to be $[M(G,n), X]$. If $(X;A)$ is a pair of spaces then the homotopy group
$\pi _n(X,A;G)$ is defined as the set of homotopy classes of maps $(CM(G,n-1),M(G,n-1))\to (X,A).$
We shall refer several times to the Universal Coefficient Theorem for homotopy groups:
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Theorem} There is a short exact sequence
$$\xymatrix{0\ar[r] &\mathrm{Ext}(G,\pi _{n+1}(X)) \ar[r]^-{\lambda } & \pi _n(X;G) \ar[r]^-{\eta } & \mathrm{Hom}(G,\pi _n(X))\ar[r] & 0}$$
where $\eta [f] = f_{\#} :G\to \pi _n(X)$ (\cite{h}, p.\,30). When $X$ is replaced by a pair of spaces, the sequence is also exact.
\section{Generalized Whitehead products}
\noindent Let $A$, $B$, and $X$ be spaces and let $\alpha \in [\Sigma A,X]$ and $\beta \in [\Sigma B,X]$. The generalized Whitehead product \cite{a} of
$\alpha $ and $\beta $ is an element $[\alpha ,\beta]\in [\Sigma (A\wedge B), X]$ and is defined as follows.
Let $\alpha $ be represented by $f:\Sigma A \to X$ and $\beta $ represented by $g:\Sigma B \to X$
and let $p_1:A\times B \to A$ and $p_2:A\times B \to B$ be the projections. Then $f' = f(\Sigma p_1)$ and $g' = g(\Sigma p_2)$ map
$\Sigma (A\times B)$ to $X.$ We define $c =(f',g') = f'^{-1}g'^{-1}f'g',$ the commutator of $f'$ and $g'.$
Let $j:A \vee B \to A\times B$ be the inclusion map and $q:A\times B \to A\wedge B$ the quotient map.
Clearly $(\Sigma j)^*(c) =0.$ Thus there is a unique element $[\alpha ,\beta]$ such that $(\Sigma q)^*[\alpha ,\beta]
=c$.
When $A$ and $B$ are spheres, this is
just the ordinary Whitehead product. Next let $\iota _1 \in [\Sigma A, \Sigma A\vee \Sigma B]$
and $\iota _2 \in [\Sigma B, \Sigma A\vee \Sigma B]$ be the inclusions. Then $[\iota _1, \iota _2] \in [\Sigma (A\wedge B), \Sigma A\vee \Sigma B]$
is called the {\bf universal element} for the generalized Whitehead product. If $f$ represents $\alpha $ and $g$ represents $\beta $, then $[\alpha , \beta]
=(f,g)_{*}[\iota _1, \iota _2]$, where $(f,g) : \Sigma A\vee \Sigma B \to X$ is the map determined by $f$ and $g$ and $(f,g)_{*}$ is the induced map $[\Sigma (A \wedge B), \Sigma A \vee \Sigma B] \to [\Sigma (A \wedge B), X].$ Thus any generalized Whitehead product is the image of
the universal element. We choose a map $\widetilde{k}: \Sigma (A\wedge B) \to \Sigma A\vee \Sigma B$ in the homotopy class $[\iota _1 , \iota _2 ]$ and
call it the {\bf generalized Whitehead product map}.
\begin{theorem}\label{3.1} There is a map $\Lambda : C(A \ast B) \to \Sigma A \times \Sigma B$ such that, if $\Lambda | A*B : A\ast B \to \Sigma A\vee \Sigma B$ is denoted by $\lambda $, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\lambda \mu \simeq \widetilde{k}:\Sigma (A \wedge B) \to \Sigma A \vee \Sigma B,$
\item $\Lambda $ induces $\overline{\lambda}:\Sigma (A*B) \to \Sigma A \wedge \Sigma B$ such that $\overline{\lambda}\simeq \sigma (\Sigma \mu '):\Sigma (A* B) \to \Sigma A \wedge \Sigma B$, where $\sigma: \Sigma ^2(A \wedge B) \to \Sigma A \wedge \Sigma B$
is the homeomorphism given by $\sigma ((a,b),t,u) =((a,t),(b,u))$, for $a\in A$, $b\in B$, and $t, u \in I$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The function $\Lambda $ was defined by D. Cohen (\cite{c}, Theorem 2.4)
as follows:
$$ \Lambda ((a,b,t),u) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
((a,u),(b,1-2t(1-u))) & {\mathrm{if}} \, \, 0\le t \le \frac{1}{2}\\
((a, 1-2(1-t)(1-u)),(b,u)) & {\mathrm{if}} \, \, \frac{1}{2} \le t \le 1,
\\
\end{array} \right.
$$
for $a\in A$, $b\in B$, and $t, u \in I$. The proof of (1) is an immediate consequence of Lemma 4.1 and the proof of
Theorem 2.4 of \cite{a}. For the proof of (2) we define a (linear) homotopy between $\overline{\lambda}$ and $\sigma (\Sigma \mu ')$:
$$ \Phi _s (x) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
((a,(1-s)u +st),(b,(1-s)(1-2t(1-u))+su)) \quad \, \,\,\,{\mathrm{if}} \,\, 0\le t \le \frac{1}{2}\\
((a,(1-s) (1-2(1-t)(1-u))+st),(b,u)), \qquad \quad \quad {\mathrm{if}} \,\, \frac{1}{2} \le t \le 1.
\\
\end{array} \right.
$$
where $x=((a,b,t),u) \in \Sigma(A*B)$ and $s\in I$.
\end{proof}
\section{Binary operations}
\noindent Let $G_1$, $G_2$, and $G_3$ be groups and $q_1$, $q_2$, and $q_3$ be integers.
A {\bf (binary) operation} of type $\{G_1, G_2, G_3; q_1, q_2, q_3\}$ is function $T$ which, for every space $X$ and integers $q_1, q_2\ge 2$, assigns
to each $\alpha \in \pi _{q_1}(X;G_1)$ and $\beta \in \pi _{q_{2}}(X;G_2)$, an element $T(\alpha , \beta ) \in \pi _{q_3}(X;G_3)$
(also written $T_X(\alpha , \beta ) $) such that if $f:X\to Y$ is a map, then $f_{\#}T_X(\alpha , \beta )
= T_Y(f_{\#}(\alpha ), f_{\#}(\beta ))$. In the examples, $q_3$ will be a simple function of $q_1$ and
$q_2$ such as $ q_1 +q_2 +C$, for some constant $C$.
Let $M_i = M(G_i,q_i)$, $i=1,2, $ or $3$, let $\iota _1 \in \pi _{q_1}(M_1\vee M_2;G_1)$ and $\iota _2 \in \pi _{q_2}(M_1\vee M_2;G_2)$
be the inclusions, and let $[f] =\alpha \in \pi _{q_1}(X;G_1)$ and $[g] = \beta \in \pi _{q_{2}}(X;G_2).$ Then $(f,g)_{\#}T(\iota _1, \iota_2)=T(\alpha , \beta )$. We call $T(\iota _1, \iota_2)
\in \pi _{q_3}(M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$ the {\bf universal element} for $T$.
\smallskip
\noindent Next
let the set of all operations of type $\{G_1, G_2, G_3; q_1, q_2, q_3\}$ be denoted
{\bf O} = {\bf O}$\{G_1, G_2, G_3; q_1, q_2, q_3\}$. If $T$ and $T'$ are two such operations, then $T + T'$ defined by $(T+T')(\alpha , \beta ) = T(\alpha , \beta )+T'(\alpha , \beta )$ is
also in {\bf O}. Thus {\bf O} is an abelian group. Furthermore, the function from {\bf O} to $\pi _{q_3}(M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$ which
sends $T$ to $T(\iota _1, \iota_2)$ is easily seen to be an isomorphism.
\noindent \begin{definition} Let $\partial :\pi _{q_{{3}+1}}(M_1\times M_2, M_1\vee M_2;G_3) \to \pi _{q_3}(M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$
be the boundary homomorphism in the homotopy sequence of $(M_1\times M_2, M_1\vee M_2)$, let $T$ be an operation as above, and assume
that $q_1,q_2 \ge 3$.
Then $T$ is called a {\bf basic operation} if $T(\iota _1, \iota_2) \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits \,\partial $, the image of
$\partial $.
\end{definition}
\smallskip
\noindent Next let $ \bar M_1 = M(G_1, q_1 -1)$ and $\bar M_2 = M(G_2, q_2 -1)$, so $\Sigma \bar M_1 = M_1$ and $\Sigma \bar M_2 = M_2$.
\begin{theorem}\label{theta} If $T$ is a basic operation and $q_3 <q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$, then there exists a unique element $\theta _T\in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$
such that $T(\alpha ,\beta) = [\alpha , \beta] \, \theta _T = h^* [\alpha , \beta]$,
for every space $X$, where $\alpha \in [\Sigma \bar M_1, X]$, $\beta \in [\Sigma \bar M_2, X]$, $[h] =\theta _T,$ and $h^*:[\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2),X]\to \pi _{q_3}(X;G_3)$ is induced by $h$. Furthermore, $h$ is a suspension and so $h^* $ is a homomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the diagram
$$
\xymatrix{\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2)\ar[r] \ar[d]^{\lambda \mu } & C\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2) \ar[r]^-{p'}\ar[d]^{\Lambda ( C\mu)} & \Sigma ^2(\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2) \ar[d]^{\overline{\lambda} (\Sigma \mu )}\\
\Sigma \bar M_1 \vee \Sigma \bar M_2\ar[r] & \Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2 \ar[r]^p & \Sigma \bar M_1 \wedge \Sigma \bar M_2,}
$$
where each row is a cofiber sequence, the squares commute, and $p$ and $p'$ are projections. By the Blakers-Massey
Theorem (\cite{h}, p.\,49), if $r<q_1+q_2+\min(q_1,q_2)-3 $, then both
$p'_{\#}: \pi _{r+1}(C\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2),\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)\to \pi _{r+1}(\Sigma ^2(\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$ and
$p_{\#}: \pi _{r+1}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2,\Sigma \bar M_1\vee
\Sigma \bar M_2;G_3)\to \pi _{r+1}(\Sigma \bar M_1\wedge \Sigma \bar M_2;G_3)$
are isomorphisms. Therefore the exact homotopy sequences with coefficients of the pairs $(C\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2),
\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2))$ and $(\Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2,\Sigma \bar M_1 \vee \Sigma \bar M_2)$, together with the homomorphism of the
first sequence into the second sequence determined by the map $\Lambda (C\mu )$, yield the following commutative square
$$
\xymatrix{\pi _{q_3+1}(\Sigma ^2(\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)\ar[r]^-{\delta '} \ar[d]^{(\overline{\lambda } \Sigma \mu )_{\#}=\sigma _{\#} }& \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3) \ar[d]^{(\lambda \mu)_{\#} =\widetilde{k}_{\#}}
\\ \pi _{q_3+1}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \wedge \Sigma \bar M_2;G_3)\ar[r]^-{\delta } & \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \vee \Sigma \bar M_2;G_3),}
$$
where
$p_{\#}^{-1}: \pi _{q_3+1}(\Sigma \bar M_1\wedge \Sigma \bar M_2;G_3) \to \pi _{q_3+1}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2,\Sigma \bar M_1\vee
\Sigma \bar M_2;G_3)$ and $\partial : \pi _{q_3+1}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2,\Sigma \bar M_1\vee \Sigma \bar M_2;G_3) \to \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \vee \Sigma \bar M_2;G_3).$
Then $\delta = \partial \, p_{\#}^{-1}$ and $\delta '$ is similarly defined. Clearly $\delta'$ and $\sigma_{\#}$ are isomorphisms. In addition, it follows from the exact sequence
of $(\Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2,\Sigma \bar M_1 \vee \Sigma \bar M_2)$ that $\delta $ is one-one. Thus $\bar{k}_{\#}$ is one-one and
$\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits \widetilde{k}_{\#} = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits \delta = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits \partial p_{\#}^{-1} = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits \partial $. But $T(\iota_1,\iota_2) \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits \partial $.
Thus there is a unique $\theta _T=[h] \in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$ with $T(\iota_1 ,\iota_2) = [\iota _1, \iota_2] \, \theta _T = h^* [\iota _1, \iota_2]$. If $f:\Sigma \bar M_1 \to X$ and $g:\Sigma \bar M_2 \to X$ represent $\alpha $ and $\beta $ respectively, then
$[\alpha , \beta] \, \theta _T = (f,g)_{\#}[\iota _1, \iota_2] \, \theta _T= (f,g)_{\#} T(\iota_1,\iota_2) = T(\alpha ,\beta) $. The second assertion of the theorem is a consequence of the generalized suspension theorem since the dimension of $M(G_3, q_3-1)$ is $\le q_3$ and $q_3< q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$.
\end{proof}
\noindent \begin{rmk}\label{BM} {\em If $G_3$ is a free-abelian group, then the conclusion of Theorem \ref{theta} holds when $q_3 =q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$. This is also true for the conclusion of subsequent results in which this strict inequality appears. This is because the Blakers-Massey Theorem holds in this case.}
\end{rmk}
\begin{corollary}\label{equivs} Let $T$ be an operation
of type $\{ G_1, G_2, G_3 ; q_1, q_2, q_3 \}$ and let $\alpha ,\alpha '\in \pi _{q_1}(X;G_1)$ and
$\beta ,\beta '\in \pi _{q_2}(X;G_2)$. Consider the following statements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T$ is basic;
\item $ j_{\#} T(\iota _1,\iota _2)= 0$, where $j: M_1\vee M_2 \to M_1 \times M_2 $ is the inclusion;
\item $T$ is bi-additive: $T(\alpha +\alpha ', \beta ) = T(\alpha , \beta ) +T(\alpha ', \beta )$ and $T(\alpha , \beta +\beta ')=
T(\alpha , \beta )+T(\alpha , \beta ')$;
\item $T(\alpha , 0)=0$ and $T(0,\beta) =0.$
\end{enumerate}
Then (1) $\Longleftrightarrow $ (2) and (3)$\Longrightarrow $ (4) $\Longrightarrow $(2). If in addition
$q_3 < q_1+q_2 +\min (q_1,q_1) -3$, then (2) $\Longrightarrow $ (3), and in this case all four statements are equivalent.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Longleftrightarrow $ (2): This is an immediate consequence of the exactness of the homotopy sequence of the pair $(M_1\times M_2, M_1\vee M_2)$.
(3)$\Longrightarrow $ (4): $ T(\alpha , 0)=T(\alpha , 0+0) =T(\alpha , 0) +T(\alpha , 0)$ and so
$T(\alpha , 0) =0$. $T(0, \beta ) =0$ is similar.
(4)$\Longrightarrow $ (2): Let $j_k:M_k\to M_1 \times M_2$ be the inclusions and $p_k: M_1 \times M_2
\to M_k$ be the projections, $k=1,2$. Then $$ j_{\#} T(\iota _1,\iota _2) = T(j_1, j_2) \in \pi _{q_3}(M_1 \times M_2; G_3).$$ But $T(j_1, j_2) =0 \Longleftrightarrow p_{1\# }T(j_1, j_2) =0 \mathrm{\; and \; }
p_{2\# }T(j_1, j_2) =0. $ However by (4), $p_{1\# }T(j_1, j_2) =T(p_1j_1, 0)=0$ and similarly $p_{2\# }T(j_1, j_2) =0.$ This proves (2).
(2) $\Longrightarrow $ (3): Since $q_3 < q_1+q_2 +\min (q_1,q_1) -3$ and since $T$ is basic, (3) follows from Theorem \ref{theta} and the bi-additivity of the generalized Whitehead product (\cite{a}, p.\,14).
\end{proof}
\noindent Next let {\bf BO} = {\bf BO}$\{G_1, G_2, G_3; q_1, q_2, q_3\}$ be the set of all basic operations of type $\{G_1, G_2, G_3; q_1, q_2, q_3\}$. Clearly {\bf BO} $\subseteq $ {\bf O} is a subgroup.
\begin{corollary} If $q_3 <q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$, then there is an isomorphism from {\bf BO} to $\pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
For $T \in \,${\bf BO}, we have $T(\iota_1,\iota_2) =\widetilde{k}_{\#}(\theta )$, for $\theta \in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$. Conversely given $\theta $, we define $T$ by $T(\iota_1,\iota_2) =\widetilde{k}_{\#}(\theta )$. It suffices to prove that $T$ is basic, that is, $j\widetilde{k}\theta \simeq 0$, by Corollary \ref{equivs}. But $j\widetilde{k}
\simeq j \lambda \mu \simeq 0$ since $ j \lambda \mu $ factors through $C\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2)$ (see the diagram in the proof of Theorem \ref{theta}).
\end{proof}
\noindent We have seen that if $T$ is basic and $q_3 <q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$, then $T$ is bi-additive. The following corollary gives additional properties with this hypothesis.
\begin{corollary} \label{properties} If \,$T \in \,${\bf BO} and $q_3 <q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T(\alpha , \beta ) =0$ if $X$ is an H-space;
\item $ET(\alpha , \beta ) =0$, where $E: \pi _{q_3}(X;G_3) \to \pi _{{q_3}+1}(\Sigma X;G_3)$ is the suspension homomorphism;
\item If $q_3 \le q_1 +q_2 -3$, then $T(\alpha , \beta ) = 0$, for all $\alpha $ and $\beta$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} The generalized Whitehead product satisfies the first two properties (see \cite{a}, p.\,13), and so (1) and (2) follow from
Theorem \ref{theta}.
Property (3) follows since the dimension of $M(G_3,q_3)$ is $\le q_3 +1$ and $\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2) $ is $(q_1 + q_2 -2)$-connected, and so $\theta _T $ is nullhomotopic.
\end{proof}
\noindent The inequality in property (3) of Corollary \ref{properties} cannot be improved. That is, there are non-trivial operations
with $q_3 =q_1 + q_2 -2$. To see this, let $q= q_1 +q_2 $, let $G_1 = G_2 =\mathbb{Z}$ and $G_3 =\mathbb{Z}_k$, for some integer $k>1$ (so that $M_1 = S^{q_1}$ and $M_2 = S^{q_2}$). Set $(Y,X) = (S^{q_1}\times S^{q_2}, S^{q_1}\vee S^{q_2})$ and consider
the homomorphisms
$$\xymatrix{\mathrm{Ext}(\mathbb{Z}_k,\pi_q(Y,X) )\ar[r]^{\lambda } & \pi_{q-1}(Y,X;
\mathbb{Z}_k)\ar[r]^-{\partial}
& \pi_{q-2}(X;\mathbb{Z}_k), }$$
where $\lambda $ is the monomorphism of the Universal Coefficient Theorem and $\partial $ is the boundary homomorphism. Furthermore, $\partial $ is a monomorphism. This follows from the exact homotopy sequence
with coefficients $\mathbb{Z}_k$ of $(S^{q_1}\times S^{q_2},S^{q_1}\vee S^{q_2})$ and the fact that
$j_{\#} : \pi _i(S^{q_1}\vee S^{q_2}) \to \pi _i(S^{q_1}\times S^{q_2})$ has a right inverse.
In addition, $\pi_q(Y,X)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ and so the Ext term
is $\mathrm{Ext}(\mathbb{Z}_k, \mathbb{Z}) =\mathbb{Z}_k$. Thus the monomorphism $\partial \lambda $ maps these $k$ elements
into $\pi_{q-2}(M_1\vee M_2;\mathbb{Z}_k)$ and hence determines $k$ basic homotopy operations. Since $q-2 <q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$,
all of these operations are bi-additive and have the properties listed in Corollary \ref{properties}. We shall refer to these operations of type $\{ \mathbb{Z}, \mathbb{Z}, \mathbb{Z}_k ; q_1, q_2, q_1 +q_2 -2 \}$ as {\bf Ext }operations. For more about them, see \S 6.
\section{Whitehead and Torsion products}
\noindent We next define a class of basic operations. The purpose is to unify Hilton's treatment of Whitehead products and Torsion products
in (\cite{h}, pp.\,110-120). Let $T$ be a basic operation
of type $\{ G_1, G_2, G_3 ; q_1, q_2, q_3 \}$
and let $\omega \in \pi _{q_3}(M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$ be the universal element for
$T$. Furthermore, let $(Y,X) = (M_1\times M_2, M_1\vee M_2)$ and $Z=M_1\wedge M_2$.
We give three conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H_{q_3 +1}(Z) \approx G_3$, and we let $\phi : G_3 \to H_{q_3+1}(Z)=H_{q_3 +1}(M_1 \wedge M_2) $ be the isomorphism of the K\"unneth Theorem (see Remark 5.2 (1)).
\item $T$ is basic, and so there is a unique $\xi \in \pi _{q_3+1}(Y,X;G_3)$ such that $\partial (\xi )= \omega $,
\item There is a homomorphism $\widehat{\eta}$ which is defined by the following diagram
$$
\xymatrix{\pi _{q_3+1}(Y,X;G_3) \ar[r]^-{p_{\#} }
\ar@/_1pc/[rr]_{\widehat{\eta }} & \pi _{q_3+1}(Z;G_3) \ar[r]^-{\eta }
& \mathrm{Hom} (G_3, \pi _{q_3+1}(Z)), }
$$
where $p:Y =M_1\times M_2\to Z=M_1\wedge M_2$ is the projection and $\eta $ is the epimorphism in the Universal Coefficient Theorem.
Then the third condition is that the
following composition is equal to the identity map
$$\xymatrix{G_3 \ar[r]^-{\widehat{\eta }(\xi )} & \pi _{q_3+1}(M_1\wedge M_2)
\ar[r]^-h & H _{q_3+1}(M_1\wedge M_2) \ar[r]^-{\phi ^{-1}} & G_3,}$$ where $h$ is the Hurewicz homomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{definition}\label{special} Any operation which satisfies these three conditions will be called a {\bf special
operation}.
\end{definition}
\noindent \begin{rmk} \label{specrmks}
\begin{enumerate}
{\em \item From the K\"unneth Theorem we have that there are two possibilities for a special operation:
\newline (a) $q_3 =q_1 + q_2 -1$ and $G_3= G_1\otimes G_2$. In this case assume
$q_1,q_2 \ge 3$.
\newline (b) $q_3 =q_1 + q_2 $ and $G_3= G_1* G_2 =
\mathrm{Tor}(G_1,G_2)$. In this case assume
$q_1,q_2 \ge 4$.
\item We comment on the third condition. The set of special operations of a given type may be empty since the third condition may not be satisfied (assuming that the first two are). Since $q_3 <q_1+q_2 +\min(q_1,q_2)-3$, $p_{\#} $ is an epimorphism and so $\widehat{\eta } $ is an epimorphism. If, in addition, $h$ is an isomorphism, then the set $\widehat{\eta }^{-1}(h^{-1}\phi)$ is non-empty and so the set of special operations equals $\partial \widehat{\eta }^{-1}(h^{-1}\phi ).$ In the general case ($h$ not
necessarily an isomorphism), $\partial (\xi )= \omega $ and $\widehat{\eta}(\xi ) = \eta (p_{\#}\xi ) = \eta (p\xi)$. There is a commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix{\pi _{q_3 +1}(M(G_3,q_3 +1))\ar[d]^{h'}\ar[r]^{(p\xi)_{\# }} &\pi _{q_3 +1}(M_1\wedge M_2)\ar[d]^h
\\ G_3= H _{q_3 +1}(M(G_3,q_3 +1))\ar[r]^-{(p\xi )_*} & H_{q_3 +1}(M_1\wedge M_2),}
$$
and $\eta (p\xi ) =(p\xi)_{\#} h'^{-1}$. Therefore $$ \phi = h\widehat{\eta }(\xi ) = h\eta (p\xi ) =h (p\xi )_{\#}h'^{-1} = (p\xi )_* h' h'^{-1}= (p\xi )_* .$$
Thus the third condition is $$ p_*\xi _* =(p\xi )_*= \phi :G_3= H _{q_3 +1}(M(G_3,q_3 +1))\to H_{q_3 +1}(M_1\wedge M_2).$$}
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}
\noindent In \cite{h}, Hilton defined two classes of binary homotopy operations, the Whitehead products and the Torsion products.
We give slightly different definitions which are equivalent to Hilton's definition. One difference is that we apply the Universal Coefficient Theorem
to $M_1\wedge M_2$ instead of to the pair $(M_1\times M_2, M_1 \vee M_2)$. In the relevant degrees the homotopy groups of the
two are isomorphic. A second difference concerns the existence of the isomorphism $\phi $. In
(\cite{h}, pp.\,110, 115), $H_{q_3 +1}(M_1 \wedge M_2)$ is identified with $G_3$, whereas we make the isomorphism explicit.
\medskip
\noindent Whitehead products (with coefficients) may now be defined as special operations $T$ satisfying 1(a) in Remark \ref{specrmks} with $G_3 = G_1 \otimes G_2$ and $q_3 =q_1+ q_2 -1$. They are called Whitehead products of type $\{G_1, G_2; q_1, q_2 \}$. It is clear that $\widehat{\eta} :\pi _{q_3 +1}(M_1\times M_2, M_1\vee M_2;G_3) \to \mathrm{Hom} (G_3, \pi _{q_3+1}(M_1\wedge M_2))$ is onto and $h: \pi _{q_3+1}(M_1\wedge M_2)\to
H _{q_3+1}(M_1\wedge M_2) $ is an isomorphism by the Hurewicz Theorem. Therefore if $\omega $ is an element of the non-empty
set $\partial \widehat{\eta}^{-1}(h^{-1}\phi )$, then by definition $\omega $ is the universal element of a
{\bf Whitehead product} $T$. There can be several different Whitehead products, in fact, since $\partial $ is one-one, the number of
Whitehead products is just the cardinality of the set $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}\nolimits \widehat{\eta } = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}\nolimits \eta = \mathrm{Ext} (G_3, \pi _{q_3+2}(M_1\wedge M_2))$ by the Universal Coefficient Theorem. Moreover, if $T $ is a Whitehead product, then there exists a unique $\theta _T\in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2);G)$
such that $T(\alpha ,\beta) = [\alpha , \beta] \, \theta _T $ by Theorem
\ref{theta}. Thus each Whitehead product $ T$ satisfies bi-additivity and the properties listed in Corollary \ref{properties}.
\medskip
\noindent Torsion products are defined as special operations $T$ which satisfy 1(b) in Remark \ref{specrmks}, with $G_3=G_1*\,G_2= \mathrm{Tor} (G_1,G_2),$ $q_3=q_1 + q_2,$ and, in addition, $q_1,q_2 \ge 4$. They will be called Torsion products of type $\{G_1, G_2; q_1, q_2 \}.$
A {\bf Torsion product}
is determined by an element $\tau \in \pi _{q_3}(M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$ such that $\tau = \partial (\zeta )$, for some $\zeta \in \pi _{q_3+1}(M_1\times M_2, M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$,
and such that $\phi ^{-1}h\widehat {\eta } (\zeta )$
is the identity homomorphism of $G_3$ (see \cite{h}, p.\,115).
Note that the set of Torsion products may be empty, though not if $h$ is an
isomorphism. In this case the number of Torsion products equals the cardinality of
$\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}\nolimits \widehat{\eta } = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}\nolimits \eta = \mathrm{Ext} (G_3, \pi _{q_3+2}(M_1\wedge M_2))$.
Furthermore, the hypotheses of
Theorem \ref{theta} are satisfied, and so there exists a unique $\theta_T \in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1 \wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$
such that $T(\alpha ,\beta) = [\alpha , \beta] \, \theta _T .$ As in the previous case, each Torsion product $T$ is bi-additive and satisfies the properties listed in Corollary \ref{properties}.
\medskip
\noindent Many of these
properties for Whitehead and Torsion products have been proved in (\cite{h}, pp.\,111--113 and 116--119) directly from the definitions, though some of
our results (such as bi-additivity) are more general and the proofs are shorter (see \cite{h}, Theorems 12.3 and 12.6).
\medskip
\noindent Since $\pi _i(X; G \oplus G') \approx \pi _i(X; G )\oplus \pi _i(X; G')$,
for any $i\ge 2$ and groups $G$ and $G',$ and since $G_1 *\,G_2 = 0$ if $G_1$ or $G_2$ is free-abelian, for the Torsion product we may restrict attention to the case when $G_1 =\mathbb{Z}_m$ and $G_2 =\mathbb{Z}_n$ are cyclic groups. Then $G_1*G_2 = \mathbb{Z}_d$, where $d$ is the greatest common divisor of $m$ and $n$.
In (\cite{h}, pp.\,115--116) the following was proved: A Torsion product of type $\{\mathbb{Z}_m, \mathbb{Z}_n ; q_1, q_2 \}$
exists if and only if (1) $d$ is odd or (2) $m$ and $n$ are even and either $m $ or $n$ is a multiple of 4.
In particular, a Torsion product exists if $m = n= p^k$, where $p$ is an odd prime and $k\ge 1$.
\medskip
\noindent
Another approach to Whitehead and Torsion products is suggested by Theorem \ref{theta}. In that theorem it is proved that many basic operations $T$ can be written as $T(\alpha , \beta ) = [\alpha , \beta]\, \theta _T$, for a unique
$\theta _T \in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3).$
This suggests that we define an operation by $T(\alpha , \beta ) = [\alpha , \beta]\, \theta
$, for some $\theta \in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$.
\begin{prop}\label{specequiv} Let the operation $T$ of type $\{G_1, G_2, G_3 ; q_1, q_2, q_3 \}$ be defined by $T(\alpha , \beta ) = [\alpha , \beta]\, \theta $
and let $\phi : G_3 \to H_{q_3 +1}(M_1 \wedge M_2)
= H_{q_3 +1}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \wedge \Sigma \bar M_2)$ be the K\"unneth isomorphism.
Then $T$ is a special operation if and only if
$(\Sigma \theta )_* =\sigma ^{-1}_* \phi , $ where $\sigma : \Sigma ^2(\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2)\to \Sigma \bar M_1 \wedge \Sigma \bar M_2$ is defined in Theorem \ref{3.1}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} First we show that $T$ is basic. Let $\omega $ be the universal element of $T$
and consider the homotopy-commutative diagram obtained from Theorem \ref{3.1} (see also
the diagram in the proof of Theorem \ref{theta})
$$\xymatrix{M(G_3,q_3) \ar[r]^{\theta }\ar[d] & \Sigma(\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2) \ar[r]^{\widetilde{k}} \ar[d] & \Sigma \bar M_1 \vee \Sigma \bar M_2 \ar[d]^j
\\ CM(G_3,q_3) \ar[r]^{C\theta } \ar[d] & C\Sigma(\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2) \ar[r]^-{\Lambda ' } \ar[d]& \Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2 \ar[d]^p
\\ \Sigma M(G_3,q_3) \ar[r]^{\Sigma \theta } & \Sigma ^2(\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2) \ar[r]^{\sigma } & \Sigma \bar M_1 \wedge \Sigma \bar M_2,
}$$
where $\Lambda ' = \Lambda (C\mu )$. Then $j\omega = j\widetilde{k}\theta \simeq 0$
and so $T$ is basic.
If $\xi = \Lambda '(C\theta ) \in \pi _{q_3+1}(\Sigma \bar M_1 \times \Sigma \bar M_2, \Sigma \bar M_1 \vee \Sigma \bar M_2 ;G_3)$, then $\partial (\xi )= \omega $. Also $p(\xi )= \sigma (\Sigma \theta ),$ and so the third condition is
$$\sigma _*(\Sigma \theta )_* =p_*\xi _* = \phi , $$ which is equivalent to $(\Sigma \theta )_* =\sigma ^{-1}_* \phi . $
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\noindent Note that if $T,$ given by the universal element $\widetilde{k}\theta $, is a special operation, then $\theta _*: H_{q_3}(M(G_3,q_3)) \to H_{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2))$ is an isomorphism.
\medskip
\noindent By Remark \ref{specrmks}, there are only two possibilities for special operations. The following result is then a consequence
of Proposition \ref{specequiv}.
\begin{corollary} \label{two} Let $T$ be an operation of type $\{G_1, G_2, G_3 ; q_1, q_2, q_3 \}$ with universal element $\widetilde{k}\theta $
for some $\theta \in \pi _{q_3}(\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3).$
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $q_3=q_1 +q_2-1 $ and $ G_3 = G_1 \otimes G_2$. Then $T$ is a Whitehead product if and only if $(\Sigma \theta )_* = \sigma _*^{-1} \phi .$
\item Let $q_3=q_1 +q_2 $ and $ G_3 = G_1 * G_2$. Then $T$ is a Torsion product if and only if $(\Sigma \theta )_* = \sigma _*^{-1} \phi .$
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{rmk} {\em For Whitehead products ($q=q_1 +q_2 =q_3 +1 $ and $ G_3 = G_1 \otimes G_2$), we claim that this corollary can identify those $\theta \in \pi _{q-1}(\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$ such that $\widetilde{k}\theta $ are
all the Whitehead universal elements. If $\omega \in \pi_{q-1}(M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$ is a universal element, then $\omega = \partial (\xi )$ for $\xi \in \pi_{q}(M_1\times M_2, M_1\vee M_2;G_3)$. Thus $p\xi \in \pi_{q}(M_1\wedge M_2;G_3)$ and $\sigma ^{-1}(p\xi ) \in \pi _q (\Sigma ^2 (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3).$
Because the suspension homomorphism $E: \pi _{q-1} (\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)\to \pi _q (\Sigma ^2 (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$ is an isomorphism, there exists a unique $\theta \in \pi _{q-1} (\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2);G_3)$ such that $\Sigma \theta = \sigma ^{-1}(p\xi )$.
We will show that $\widetilde{k} \theta = \omega .$ From the diagram in the proof of Proposition \ref{specequiv} we see that
$\partial (\Lambda ' (C\theta )) = \widetilde{k}\theta $ and furthermore, with $p_{\#}: \pi _q(M_1\times M_2, M_1 \vee M_2;G_3)\to
\pi _q(M_1\wedge M_2;G_3)$,
$$p_{\#}(\Lambda ' (C\theta ))= p(\Lambda ' (C\theta ))= \sigma (\Sigma \theta ) =\sigma \sigma^{-1}(p\xi ) =p_{\#}(\xi ).$$
Since $p_{\#}$ is an isomorphism, $\Lambda ' (C\theta ) =\xi ,$ and so
$$ \widetilde{k}\theta = \partial (\Lambda ' (C\theta ))= \partial (\xi )=\omega.$$ This establishes the claim.
\noindent A similar remark holds for the Torsion product.}
\end{rmk}
\noindent We next consider commutativity of special operations (see also \cite{h}, pp.\,113 -114 and 117-118).
\smallskip
\noindent Let $T$ be a special operation of type $\{G_1, G_2 ,G_3; q_1, q_2,q_3 \}$. Then $G_3 =G_1 \otimes G_2$ or $G_3 =G_1*G_2$ and we set
$G'_3 =G_2 \otimes G_1$ or $G'_3 =G_2 * G_1$, accordingly. Furthermore, let $ t: G'_3 \to G_3$ be the switching isomorphism ($G_2\otimes G_1 \to G_1\otimes G_2$ or $G_2 * G_1 \to G_1* G_2$). Then there is a map $\tau : M(G'_3,q_3) \to M(G_3,q_3)$ such that $\tau _* =t.$
\begin{prop} With $T$ a special operation as above, we define an operation $S$ by
$$ S(\beta ,\alpha ) = (-1)^{\varepsilon } T(\alpha , \beta )\tau ,$$
for $\alpha \in \pi _{q_1}(W;G_1)$ and $\beta \in \pi _{q_2}(W;G_2)$ for any space $W,$ where $\varepsilon = q_1q_2$ when $G_3 =G_1 \otimes G_2$ and $\varepsilon = q_1q_2+1$ when $G_3 =G_1*G_2$.
Then $S$ is a special operation of type $\{G_2, G_1 ,G_3'; q_2, q_1,q_3 \}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Let $(Y,X) =(M_1\times M_2,M_1 \vee M_2)$, $(Y',X')=(M_2\times M_1,M_2 \vee M_1)$, $Z =M_1 \wedge M_2$, and $Z' =M_2 \wedge M_1$.
If $\rho :(Y,X) \to (Y',X')$ is the switching map, then
$\rho $ determines maps $\rho ': X \to X'$ and $\rho '' : Z \to Z' .$ There is a commutative diagram
$$\xymatrix{\pi _{q_3+1}(Y,X;G_3) \ar[r]^-{\widehat{\eta} }\ar[d]^-{\rho _{\#}\tau ^{*}} & \mathrm{Hom} (G_3, \pi _{q_3+1} (Z)) \ar[r]^{h_*} \ar[d]^-{(\rho ''_{\#})_*t^* }& \mathrm{Hom} (G_3, H _{q_3+1} (Z))
\ar[d]^-{(\rho ''_{*})_*t^* }
\\ \pi _{q_3+1}(Y',X';G'_3) \ar[r]^-{\widehat{\eta '} } & \mathrm{Hom} (G'_3, \pi _{q_3+1} (Z')) \ar[r]^{h'_*} & \mathrm{Hom} (G'_3, H _{q_3+1} (Z')).}$$
If $\omega \in \pi _{q_3}(X;G_3)$ is the universal element with $\omega = \partial (\xi )$ for
$\xi \in \pi _{q_3+1}(Y,X;G_3)$, then $h_* \widehat{\eta } (\xi )= \phi \in \mathrm{Hom} (G_3, H_{q_3+1} (Z))$.
We show that if $\xi ' = \rho _{\#} \tau ^{*}(\xi )$, then $h'_* \widehat{\eta '} (\xi ')= (-1)^{\varepsilon}\phi '$,
where $\phi ' : G'_3\to H_{q_3+1} (Z')$ is the K\'unneth isomorphism.
We have
$$ h'_* \widehat{\eta '} (\xi ')=(\rho ''_{*})_*t^*(h_* \widehat{\eta } (\xi ))=(\rho ''_{*})_*t^*(\phi )=\rho ''_{*}\phi t.$$
It follows immediately from results in (\cite{h}, pp.\,114 and 118) that the following diagram is commutative
$$\xymatrix{G_3\ar[r]^-{(-1)^{\varepsilon}t^{-1}}\ar[d]_{\phi } & G_3' \ar[d]^{\phi '}
\\H_{q_3+1} (Z) \ar[r]^{\rho ''_* }& H _{q_3+1} (Z').}$$
Therefore
$$h'_* \widehat{\eta '} (\xi ')= \rho ''_{*}\phi t =(-1)^{\varepsilon}\phi' t^{-1}t =(-1)^{\varepsilon}\phi' .$$
We set $\omega ' = \partial ' (\xi '),$ where $\partial ' :\pi _{q_3+1}(Y',X';G_3')
\to \pi _{q_3}( X';G_3').$ Thus $(-1)^{\varepsilon}\omega ' $ is the universal element of an
operation $S$ of type $\{ G_2,G_1,G'_3;q_2,q_1,q_3)$. Note that
$$ \rho ' \omega \tau =\rho '_{\# } \tau ^*(\partial \xi ) = \partial '(\rho _{\#} \tau ^*( \xi ))=
\partial '( \xi ') =\omega '.$$ Let $j_1: M_2 \to M_2 \vee M_1$ and $j_2: M_1 \to M_2 \vee M_1$
be inclusions.Then
$$S(j_1,j_2) = (-1)^{\varepsilon} \rho ' T(\iota _1, \iota _2)\tau = (-1)^{\varepsilon} T(j_2, j_1)\tau ,$$
and so $$ S(\beta ,\alpha ) = (-1)^{\varepsilon } T(\alpha , \beta )\tau ,$$
for $\alpha \in \pi _{q_1}(W;G_1)$ and $\beta \in \pi _{q_2}(W;G_2)$. The conclusion of the proposition now follows.
\end{proof}
Note that if the operation $T$ is unique, then there is the following anti-commutative rule
$$T(\beta ,\alpha ) = (-1)^{\varepsilon } T(\alpha , \beta )\tau .$$
\begin{corollary}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $T$ is a Whitehead product of type $\{G_1, G_2 ; q_1, q_2 \}$,
then the special operation $S$ defined by $ S(\beta ,\alpha ) = (-1)^{q_1q_2} T(\alpha , \beta )\tau $
is a Whitehead product of type $(q_2,q_1;G_2,G_1).$
\item If $T$ is a Torsion product of type $\{G_1, G_2 ; q_1, q_2 \}$,
then the special operation $S$ defined by $ S(\beta ,\alpha ) = (-1)^{q_1q_2 +1} T(\alpha , \beta )\tau $
is a Torsion product of type $(q_2,q_1;G_2,G_1).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\section{Concluding remarks and results}
\begin{enumerate}
\item{Neisendorfer's approach}
\noindent We consider operations with coefficients $\mathbb{Z}_{p^k}$, $p$ an odd prime and $k\ge 1.$
As mentioned earlier, any operation with finite groups of coefficients of odd order can be expressed in terms of operations with these coefficients.
\noindent Let $G_1 = G_2 = G_3 = \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} ,$ so that $ G_1 \otimes G_2 = G_1* G_2= \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} ,$ and let $M(i)=
M(\mathbb{Z}_{p^k},i)$. Then
Neisendorfer proved that there is a homotopy equivalence $\delta : M(q-2)\vee M(q -1)\to M(q_1-1) \wedge M(q_2 -1) =\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2$, where $q = q_1 +q_2$ (\cite{n}, p.\,167).
We suspend and obtain (after the identification of $\Sigma (M(q-2)\vee M(q -1))$ with $M(q-1)\vee M(q)$) a homotopy equivalence
$\delta ': M(q-1)\vee M(q)\to \Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2) .$ If $j_2:M(q)\to M(q-1)\vee M(q)$ is the inclusion, then we set $\theta = \delta 'j_2: M(q) \to
\Sigma (\bar M_1\wedge \bar M_2)$ and define an operation ${\bf T}$ of type $\{\mathbb{Z}_{p^k}, \mathbb{Z}_{p^k}, \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} ; q_1, q_2, q_1+ q_2 \}$ by ${\bf T} (\alpha , \beta ) =[\alpha ,\beta ] \theta .$
This operation was originally defined in (\cite{n}, Section 6.3) where many of its properties were studied in detail. It was referred to as a Whitehead product. This may seem puzzling at first since the degrees of ${\bf T}$ are not those of a Whitehead product. But Neisendorfer used a definition of homotopy groups with coefficients which is different from the one we use. He defined them by means of co-Moore spaces (also called Peterson spaces), that is, simply-connected spaces $C(G,n)$ with a single, non-vanishing reduced cohomology group $G$ in degree $n$. Then these homotopy groups with coefficients, which we shall denote by $\pi _n' ,$ are defined by $\pi _n'(X;G) = [C(G,n),X]$. Clearly $C( \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} ,n) = M( \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} ,n-1)$ and so $\pi _n(X; \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} ) =\pi _{ n+1}'(X; \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} )$. The product {\bf T} then becomes a function $\pi _{ q_1+1}'(X; \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} )\times \pi _{ q_2+1}'(X; \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} ) \to \pi _{ q_1 +q_2 +1}'(X; \mathbb{Z}_{p^k} )$ which are the correct degrees for a Whitehead product.
\medskip
\item Ext operations
\noindent We return to the Ext operations introduced at the end of \S 4 and provide a simple interpretation of them. For $\alpha \in \pi _{q_1}(X)$ and $\beta \in \pi _{q_2}(X)$, let $[\alpha , \beta] \in \pi _{q_1 +q_2-1}(X)$ be the ordinary Whitehead product (that is, the generalized Whitehead product with $\bar M_1=S^{q_1-1}$ and $\bar M_2=S^{q_2-1}$), let $M_{k,j} $ be the Moore space $M(\mathbb{Z}_k,j)$,
with $k\ge 2$ and $j\ge 3$, and let $q=q_1 +q_2$. Then $M_{k,q-2} $ is the mapping cone
$S^{q-2}\cup _{\bf k} CS^{q-2}$, where ${\bf k}: S^{q-2}\to S^{q-2}$ is a map of degree k. A projection
$p: M_{k,q-2} \to S^{q-1}$ is obtained by collapsing $S^{q-2} \subseteq M_{k,q-2}$ to a point and
$$p \in \pi _{q-2}(S^{q-1};\mathbb{Z}_k) \approx \mathrm{Ext}(\mathbb{Z}_k, \pi _{q-1}(S^{q-1}))\approx \mathbb{Z}_k.$$
By applying $[-,S^{q-1}]$ to the sequence $ \xymatrix{S^{q-2}\ar[r] &M_{k,q-2} \ar[r]^p& S^{q-1}}$
we obtain an exact sequence of homotopy groups,
from which it follows that $p$ is a generator of the group.
\begin{prop} The set $\{ [\iota _1, \iota _2](ip)\, | \, i=0,1,...,k-1 \}$ is equal to the set of universal elements of the k Ext operations. In particuliar, if $T$ is an Ext operation and $\alpha \in \pi _{q_1}(X)$ and
$\beta \in \pi _{q_2}(X)$, Then $T(\alpha , \beta) = [\alpha ,\beta ](ip),$ for some $i \in \{0,1,...,k-1\}$.
\end{prop}
\noindent The proof is omitted, though we make a few comments about it. One shows that $ [\iota _1, \iota _2]p$ is basic
as in the proof of Proposition \ref{specequiv} by taking $\xi = \Lambda '(Cp) \in \pi _{q-1}(S^{q_1} \times S^{q_2}, S^{q_1} \vee S^{q_2}; \mathbb{Z}_k)$ so $\partial \xi = [\iota _1, \iota _2]p$.
Then $\eta (\xi) =0$ and so $\xi $ is in Ker $\eta $. Lastly, the set $\{ [\iota _1, \iota _2](ip)\, | \, i=0,1,...,k-1 \}$ has k elements since $\widetilde{k}_{\#}$ is one-one as in Theorem \ref{theta}.
\item Smash product of two Moore spaces
\begin{theorem}\label{wedge} Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be finitely-generated abelian groups such that neither $G_1$ nor $G_2$
has 2-torsion. Then there is a homotopy equivalence
$$ M(G_1,q_1) \wedge M(G_2,q_2) \equiv M(G_1 \otimes G_2, q_1 +q_2) \vee M(G_1 * G_2, q_1 +q_2 +1).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $M_i = M(G_i,q_i)$ for $i=1,2$, let $q=q_1 +q_2$, and let $G_3 =G_1\otimes G_2$ and
$\bar{
G_3 } =
G_1*G_2$. It is easily seen (e.g., by a homology decomposition) that there is a map $l : M(\bar{
G_3 }, q)\to M(G_3, q)$ such that
$ M(G_1,q_1) \wedge M(G_2,q_2)$ has the homotopy type of the mapping cone $M(G_3, q)\cup _l CM(\bar{
G_3 }, q)$ and that $l$ is homologically trivial. We shall show that $l=0$. Now $l \in \pi _q (M(G_3, q); \bar{
G_3 }) $ and, with $M = M(G_3,q)$, we consider
$$\xymatrix{\pi _q (M;\bar{
G_3 })\ar[r]^-{\eta } & \mathrm{Hom} (\bar{
G_3 }, \pi _q (M))\ar[r]^-{h_*}
&\mathrm{Hom}(\bar{
G_3 }, H _q (M)),}$$
where $\eta $ is the Universal Coefficient homomorphism and $h_*$ is induced by the Hurewicz isomorphism $h$. Then
$$ h_*(\eta (l)) = hl_{\#} = l_* =0 ,$$
and so $\eta (l) =0.$ Therefore by exactness of the Universal Coefficient Theorem, $l = \lambda (\tilde{l}),$ for
$\tilde{l}\in \mathrm{Ext}(\bar{G_3}, \pi _{q+1}(M(G_3,q)))$. It suffices to show that $\tilde{l} =0$.
We set $E = \mathrm{Ext}(\bar{G_3}, \pi _{q+1}(M(G_3,q)))$ and show that
$E=0$.
We write $G_i =F_i \oplus T_i$, $i=1, 2$,
where $F_i$ is a free-abelian group and $T_i$ is a finite torsion group. Then $E = \mathrm{Ext}(T_1 * T_2,A\oplus B \oplus C \oplus D)$, where $A=\pi _{q+1}(M(F_1\otimes F_2,q))$, $B = \pi _{q+1}(M(F_1\otimes T_2,q))$, $C=\pi _{q+1}(M(T_1\otimes F_2,q))$, and $D = \pi _{q+1}(M(T_1\otimes T_2,q))$. Then each of
$F_1\otimes T_2$, $T_1\otimes F_2$, and $T_1\otimes T_2$ is a finite direct sum of cyclic
groups of order a power of an odd prime. But $\pi _{m+1}(M(\mathbb{Z}_n,m)) =0 $ if $n$ is odd (\cite{b}, p.\,268).
Therefore $B=C= D= 0$. Thus $ E =\mathrm{Ext}(T_1*T_2, A) = \mathrm{Ext}(T_1*T_2, \pi _{q+1}(M(F_1\otimes F_2,q)))$.
Now $F_1\otimes F_2$ is a direct sum of finitely many copies of $\mathbb{Z}$ and so $M(F_1\otimes F_2,q)$ is a wedge of finitely many $q$-spheres $S^q_i$. Hence $A=\pi _{q+1}(M(F_1\otimes F_2,q))$ is a direct sum of terms
$\pi _{q+1}( S^q_i)$, that is, a direct sum of copies of $\mathbb{Z}_2$. Therefore $ E =\mathrm{Ext}(T_1*T_2, A) =0$
and so $l=0$. It follows that the mapping cone is a wedge of $M(G_1 \otimes G_2, q_1 +q_2) $ and $M(G_1 * G_2, q_1 +q_2 +1).$ This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk} {\em Theorem \ref{wedge} holds if either $G_1$ or $G_2$ has 2-torsion (but not both). For definiteness suppose that $G_1$ has 2-torsion and $G_2$ does not. Then $T_1\otimes F_2$ is a finite direct sum of cyclic
groups of order a power of a prime including the prime 2. Thus $C=\pi _{q+1}(M(T_1\otimes F_2,q))$ is a finite direct sum of copies of $\mathbb{Z}_2$ (\cite{b}, p.\,268) and it follows that $\mathrm{Ext}(T_1*T_2, C) =0$.}
\end{rmk}
\item Moore vs.\,co-Moore spaces
\noindent As a final comment we observe that there are advantages and disadvantages to using either co-Moore spaces or Moore spaces for coefficients. Co-Moore spaces are the dual of Eilenberg-MacLane spaces within the context of Eckmann-Hilton duality, where homotopy groups and cohomology groups are considered dual to each other, but co-Moore spaces do not exist for every group $G$ \cite{kw}. Moore spaces exist for every group, but they are not dual to Eilenberg-MacLane spaces.
\end{enumerate}
\medskip
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
In this paper, we consider the quasilinear dispersive equation
\begin{equation}
\label{DGL}
\partial_t u = \k0 u - u\, \partial_x u \,,
\end{equation}
where $ x,t, u(x,t) \in \R $ and
the linear operator $\k0\,$ is defined by its symbol
\begin{equation}
\widehat{K}_0 \, (k)= - i \tanh(k)\,.
\end{equation}
First, we show that solutions of \eqref{DGL} with initial data of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$ in Sobolev norms exist for a time span of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-2})$ for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$, although equation \eqref{DGL} has a quadratic nonlinearity. More precisely, we prove
\begin{theorem}
\label{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung}
Let $s \ge 2$. There are constants $a, \varepsilon_0>0$ and $C\ge0$ such that
for all $\varepsilon \in\, (0, \varepsilon_0)$ and $ u_0 \in H^s$ with
\begin{align*}
\Vert u_0 \Vert_{H^2} \le \varepsilon\,,
\end{align*}
there exists a solution $u \in C(I_\varepsilon, H^s)\, \cap\, C^1(I_\varepsilon, H^{s-1}) $, where $I_\varepsilon = [-a/\varepsilon^2, a/\varepsilon^2]$,
of \eqref{DGL} with $u(x,0) = u_0(x)$ for all $x \in \R$, which satisfies
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t \in I_\varepsilon}\Vert u(t) \Vert_{H^s}
\le C \Vert u_0 \Vert_{H^s} \,.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Secondly, we derive the Nonlinear Schr\"odinger (NLS) approximation for equation \eqref{DGL} and prove its validity. The NLS equation plays an important role in describing approximately
slow modulations in time and space of an underlying spatially and temporarily oscillating wave packet in dispersive systems, for example, the water wave equations, see \cite{AS81}.
In order to derive the NLS approximation, we make the ansatz $u= \varepsilon \psi = \varepsilon \psi_{NLS} + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$, with
\begin{equation} \label{NLS-ansatz}
\varepsilon \psi_{NLS}(x,t)
= \varepsilon A(\varepsilon
(x-c_g t),\varepsilon^2t) e^{i( k_0 x - \omega_0 t)} + \mathrm{c.c.} \,.
\end{equation}
Here $0 < \varepsilon \ll 1$ is a small perturbation parameter,
$ \omega_0 > 0$ the basic temporal
wave number associated to the basic spatial wave number $ k_0 > 0$ of the underlying carrier wave $ e^{i(k_0 x - \omega_0 t)}$,
$c_g$ the group velocity, $A$ the complex-valued amplitude, and c.c. the complex conjugate.
With the help of (\ref{NLS-ansatz}) we describe slow spatial and temporal modulations
of the envelope of the underlying carrier wave.
Inserting the above ansatz into \eqref{DGL} we find that $A$ satisfies at leading order in $\varepsilon$ the NLS equation
\begin{equation} \label{NLS}
\partial_T A = i \nu_1 \partial_{X}^2 A + i \nu_2 A|A|^2\,,
\end{equation}
where $X = \varepsilon(x-c_g t)$, $ T = \varepsilon^2 t $, and $\nu_j= \nu_j(k_0) \in \R$. $ T $ is the slow time scale and $ X$
is the slow spatial scale, that means,
the time scale of the modulations is
$\mathcal{O}({1/\varepsilon^2})$ and the spatial scale of the modulations
is $\mathcal{O}({1/\varepsilon})$. See Figure \ref{fig1}.
The basic spatial wave number $k= k_0$ and the basic temporal
wave number $\omega = \omega_0$
are related via the linear dispersion relation
of equation (\ref{DGL}), namely
\begin{equation}
\label{lindis}
\omega(k) = \tanh(k)\,.
\end{equation}
Then the group velocity $ c_g $ of the wave packet
is given by $ c_g = \partial_k \omega|_{k=k_0}$.
Our ansatz leads to waves moving to the right. To obtain waves moving
to the left, $-\omega_0$ and $c_g$ have to be replaced by $\omega_0$ and $-c_g$.
\vspace*{0.35cm}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\epsfig{file=wwwfig1.eps,width=14.6cm,height=6.2cm,angle=0}
\vspace*{-6.3cm}
\hspace{1.9cm}
\epsfig{file=fig1nn.eps,width=10.7cm,height=6.5cm,angle=0}
\vspace*{-5.34cm}
\hspace*{9.7cm}$c_\mathrm{g}$ \vspace*{3.2cm}
\hspace*{9.7cm} $c_\mathrm{p}$
\vspace*{-2.5cm}
\hspace{2.2cm}\hspace{5.0cm}$\varepsilon$
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\hspace{2.65cm}$1/\varepsilon
\hspace{2.7cm}
\vspace*{2.6cm}
\caption{{\small The envelope (advancing with the group velocity
$ c_g $) of the oscillating wave packet
(advancing with the phase velocity
$ c_p= \omega_0/k_0 $) is described by the
amplitude $ A $ which solves the NLS equation \eqref{NLS}.} \label{fig1} }
\end{figure}
To justify the NLS approximation for \eqref{DGL}, we prove
\begin{theorem}
\label{Theorem 2 NLS-APP}
Fix $s_A \geq 7$. Then for all $k_0 > 0$
and for all $C_1,T_0 > 0$ there exist $C_2 > 0$, $\varepsilon_0 > 0$
such that for all solutions $A \in
C([0,T_0],H^{s_A}(\R,\mathbb{C}))$ of the NLS equation (\ref{NLS})
with
$$
\sup_{T \in [0,T_0]} \| A(\cdot,T) \|_{H^{s_A}(\R,\mathbb{C})} \leq C_1
$$
the following holds.
For all $\varepsilon \in\, (0,\varepsilon_0)$
there are solutions
$$
u \in
C([0,T_0/\varepsilon^2], H^{s_A}(\R,\R))
$$
of equation \eqref{DGL} which satisfy
$$\sup_{t\in[0,T_0/\varepsilon^2]} \| u(\cdot,t) -
\varepsilon \psi_{NLS}(\cdot,t)\|_{H^{s_A}(\R,\R)}
\le C_2 \varepsilon^{3/2}.$$
\end{theorem}
The error of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{3/2})$ is small compared with the solution
$u$ and the approximation $\varepsilon \psi_{NLS}$, which are both of order
$\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$ in $ L^{\infty} $ such that the dynamics
of the NLS equation can be found in equation \eqref{DGL}, too. The NLS equation is a completely integrable
Hamiltonian system, which can be solved
explicitly with the help of some inverse scattering scheme, see, for example, \cite{AS81}.
It should be noted that the smoothness in our error bound is equal to the assumed smoothness of the amplitude. This can be achieved by using a modified approximation which has compact support in Fourier space but differs only slightly from $\varepsilon \psi_{NLS}$. Such an approximation can be constructed because the Fourier transform of $\varepsilon \psi_{NLS}$ is sufficiently strongly concentrated around the wave numbers $\pm k_0$.
We remark that such an approximation theorem should not be taken for granted. There are various counterexamples,
where approximation equations derived by reasonable formal arguments
make wrong predictions about the dynamics of the
original systems, see, for example, \cite{Schn05,SSZ15}. For an introduction into theory and applications of the NLS approximation we refer to \cite{Schn11OWbuch}.
\medskip
Now, we explain the main ideas for the proofs of our theorems. Like in many other proofs of related estimates in the literature we will assume in our proofs of Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung} and Theorem \ref{Theorem 2 NLS-APP} that $s$ and $s_A$ are integers in order to simplify the analysis by using Leibniz's rule, but our proofs can be generalized to be valid for all $s \geq 2$ and $s_A \geq 6$.
The main difficulty in the proof of Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung} is
to show that $I_\varepsilon$ is of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-2})$. If $u_0$ is of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$, then, due to the fact that the nonlinear term $-u \partial_x u$ is quadratic, direct energy estimates only guarantee an existence interval of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-1})$ for
$u$. A standard strategy to address this problem is to try to eliminate the quadratic term and transfer it into a cubic term with the help of a normal-form transform of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{nft}
\tilde{u}:= u + N(u,u)\,,
\end{equation}
where $N$ is an appropriately constructed bilinear mapping, see \cite{Sh85, Kal88}. In the case of equation \eqref{DGL}, a direct computation of the evolution equation for $\tilde{u}$ with the help of equation \eqref{DGL} yields
that $\tilde{u}$ solves
an evolution equation of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{t-ueq}
\partial_t \tilde{u} = \k0 \tilde{u} + h(u, \partial_x u)\,,
\end{equation}
where $h(u, \partial_x u)$ is a cubic term if $N$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{Nrel}
-\k0 N(u,u) + N(\k0 u, u) + N(u, \k0 u) = \frac{1}{2} \partial_x (u^{2})\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\k0\,$ satisfies the identity
\begin{align}
\label{K0id1}
\k0 \, (fg)-\k0 \,(f)\,g-f\k0 \,(g)=\k0 \;(\k0 \, (f) \k0 \,(g))\,,
\end{align}
see Lemma \ref{k0-id-lem} below, it follows
\begin{equation}
\label{Ndef1}
N(u,u) = -\frac{1}{2} \kk \partial_x (\kk u)^{2} \,.
\end{equation}
However, this condition for $N$ causes two problems. The first problem is that $\kk u$ may not exist, and the second one is that $N(u,u)$ loses one derivative, that means, $ u \mapsto N(u,u)$ maps $H^{m+1}(\R,\mathbb{C})$ into $H^{m}(\R,\mathbb{C})$ or $C^{n+1}(\R,\mathbb{C})$ into $C^{n}(\R,\mathbb{C})$. Even if it was possible to invert the normal-form transform \eqref{nft}, the cubic term $h$ expressed in terms of $\tilde{u}$ would lose two derivatives such that it would not be possible to use equation \eqref{t-ueq} to derive closed energy estimates for $\tilde{u}$.
To overcome these problems, we do not perform the normal-form transform \eqref{nft} explicitly, but only use the term $N$ to construct an energy of
the form
\begin{align}
\label{Edefa}
\mathcal{E}_{s}= \sum_{\ell=0}^{s} E_{\ell}\,,
\end{align}
where the summands $E_{\ell}$ are defined by a slight, $\ell$-dependent modification of the equation
\begin{align}
\label{Edefb}
E_{\ell} = \frac{1}{2} \Vert \partial_x^{\ell} u \Vert_{L^2}^2 + \int_{\R}
\partial_x^{\ell} u\, \partial_x^{\ell}N(u,u)\,dx
\end{align}
to get around the problem that $\kk u$ may not exist. More precisely, since
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} \|u\|_{L^{2}} = 0
\end{equation}
for any sufficiently regular solution $u$ of \eqref{DGL}, see Lemma \ref{E0-lem} below, we define
\begin{align}
\label{E0-def}
E_{0}:= \frac{1}{2} \Vert u \Vert_{L^2}^2\,.
\end{align}
Moreover, due to
\begin{align}
\label{partintf}
\int_{\R}
\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{\ell}(f\,\partial_x f)\,dx
&= \sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom {\ell} a}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\partial_x^{\ell} f
\, \partial_x^a f\, \partial_x^{\ell-a+1} f\, dx
+
\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\partial_x^{\ell} f\,
\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x f\,dx
\end{align}
for sufficiently regular functions $f$, which follows with the help of Leibniz' rule and integration by parts, and because of the facts that $\kk$ is skew symmetric and $\kk \partial_x g$ exists for any $g \in H^{1}$, we define
\begin{align}
\label{Eell-def}
E_{\ell} :=& \;\frac{1}{2} \| \partial_x^{\ell} u\|_{L^2}^2
+\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell} u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1} u\, dx
\\[2mm]
& \nonumber \;
+ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell} u \kk \partial_x u \,dx
\end{align}
for $\ell >0$.
$\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{s}}$ is equivalent to $\Vert u \Vert_{H^{s}}$ for $s \ge 2$ and $\Vert u \Vert_{H^{1}} = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$, see Lemma \ref{lem Energie aequi}.
Due to the skew symmetry of $\k0$ and \eqref{Nrel}, the right-hand side of the evolution equation for $\mathcal{E}_{s}$ contains neither quadratic nor cubic terms. Moreover, the right-hand side of the evolution equation for $\mathcal{E}_{s}$ can be written as a sum of integral terms containing at most one factor $\partial_x^{s+1} u$ and not two.
Consequently, using integration by parts and estimates for the commutator
$[K_0^{-1}, u] \partial_x u$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{E}_s \lesssim \varepsilon^{2} {\mathcal{E}_s}
\end{equation}
as long as $\|u\|_{H^2} = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$ such that Gronwall's inequality yields the $\mathcal{O}(1)$-boundedness of ${\mathcal{E}_s}$ and hence of $u$ for all $t\in I_\varepsilon$. For further details, see Section \ref{sec2}.
\medskip
There is an equation which is related to \eqref{DGL}, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{DGL-H}
\partial_t u = {\rm H} u - u\, \partial_x u \,,
\end{equation}
where $ x,t, u(x,t) \in \R $ and ${\rm H}$ is the Hilbert transform. For this equation, the analog of
Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung} was proven in \cite{HITW13}. The proof also relies on energy estimates inspired by a normal-form transform of the form \eqref{nft}, but the details of the proof are simpler in the following sense. Since the Hilbert transform also satisfies the identity \eqref{K0id1} (with $\k0\,$ replaced by ${\rm H}$), one obtains for the bilinear mapping $N$ the condition \eqref{Ndef1} with $\kk\,$
replaced by ${\rm H}^{-1}$. Because ${\rm H}^{-1}=-{\rm H}$ is well-defined in $L^2$, an appropriate energy can be defined directly by \eqref{Edefa} and \eqref{Edefb}.
In \cite{HIT14}, \cite{IT14} and \cite{IT16}, the techniques from \cite{HITW13} were further developed and applied to the 2D water wave problem with infinite depth in holomorphic coordinates in order to derive
high-order energy estimates which allowed the authors
to prove local well-posedness in Sobolev spaces and to establish extended life spans for small solutions. Moreover, by combining those high-order energy estimates with dispersive decay estimates the authors showed global existence of small localized solutions.
\medskip
In order to prove Theorem \ref{Theorem 2 NLS-APP}, we estimate the error
\begin{align}
\label{R1}
\varepsilon^{\beta} R := u- \varepsilon \psi
\end{align}
for all $t \in [0, T_0/\varepsilon^2]$ to be of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{\beta})$ in $H^{s_A}(\R,\R)$ for a $\beta \geq 3/2$, that means, we prove that
$R$ is of order $\mathcal{O}(1)$ for all $t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^2]$. The error $R$ satisfies the equation
\begin{align}
\label{erreq1}
\partial_t R= \k0 R +2 \varepsilon B(\psi, R) + \varepsilon^{\beta} B(R, R) +\varepsilon^{-\beta} \res(\varepsilon \psi)
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\label{B}
B(f, g) = -\frac{1}{2}\partial_x(fg)\,.
\end{align}
If $A$ is a sufficiently regular solution of the NLS equation \eqref{NLS}, then the Fourier transform $\varepsilon \widehat{\psi}_{NLS}$ is so strongly concentrated around the wave numbers $\pm k_0$ that it is possible to construct an approximation function $ \varepsilon \psi$ with compact support in Fourier space satisfying $\varepsilon \psi = \varepsilon \psi_{NLS} + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{3/2})$ in $H^{s_A}(\R,\R)$ and to choose
$\beta$ such that
\begin{align}
\partial_t R= \k0 R +2 \varepsilon B(\psi,R) + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})
\end{align}
with respect to a Sobolev norm.
Moreover, the approximation $ \varepsilon \psi$ can be split into
\begin{align}
\varepsilon \psi = \varepsilon \psi_c + \varepsilon^{2} \psi_s
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\label{supppsic}
\supp \widehat{\psi}_{c} = \{k \in \R:\, |k \mp k_0| \leq \delta\}\,,
\end{align}
where $\delta \in\, (0, k_0)$ is small, but independent of $\varepsilon$, and $\psi_s =
\mathcal{O}(1)$ with respect to a suitable norm, see Lemma \ref{Res-abschaetzung} below. Therefore, we have
\begin{align}
\partial_t R= \k0 R +2 \varepsilon B(\psi_c,R) + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})
\end{align}
such that the main difficulty is to control the quadratic term $2\varepsilon B({\psi}_c,R)$ for
$t \in [0, T_0/\varepsilon^2]$.
It is again instructive to try to eliminate this term
with the help of a normal-form transform.
We note that because $\psi_s$ is of order $\mathcal{O}(1)$, the other component $2 \varepsilon^2 B(\psi_s,R)$ of $2 \varepsilon B(\psi,R)$ is only of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})$ and need not to be eliminated, which will simplify the construction of the normal-form transform significantly.
Hence, we look for a normal-form transform of the form
\begin{equation} \label{inft}
\tilde{R} := R + \varepsilon
N({\psi}_c,R)\,,
\end{equation}
with an appropriate bilinear mapping $N$, to obtain
\begin{align}
\label{tReq}
\partial_t \tilde{R}= \k0 \tilde{R} + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\,,
\end{align}
which yields
\begin{equation}
\label{Nrel2}
-\k0 N({\psi}_c,R) + N(\k0 {\psi}_c, R) + N({\psi}_c, \k0 R) = -2B({\psi}_c, R)
\end{equation}
such that because of \eqref{K0id1} and \eqref{B} it follows
\begin{equation}
\label{NN}
N({\psi}_c,R) = -\kk \partial_x (\kk \psi_c \kk R) \,.
\end{equation}
$\kk \psi_c$ exists due to \eqref{supppsic}, but
we have the problems that $\kk R$ may not exist and
that $R \mapsto N({\psi}_c,R)$ loses one derivative.
Since the $L^{2}$-norm of $R$ is not a conserved quantity and $N$ depends on the two different functions ${\psi}_c$ and $R$, we cannot define an energy in an analogous way as in the proof of Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung} to overcome these problems. Nevertheless, it is still possible to use the method of normal-form transforms for constructing an appropriate energy to control the error, but it takes some additional effort.
The problem that $\kk R$ may not exist is related to the occurrence of so-called resonances. In Fourier space, we have
\begin{align}
\widehat{N}(\psi_c,R)(k)= \int_{\R}\widehat{n}(k, k-m,m)\, \widehat{\psi}_c(k-m)\,\widehat{R}(m)\, dm
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\widehat{n}(k,k-m,m)=- ik\,\widehat{K}_0^{-1}(k)\,\widehat{K}_0^{-1}(k-m)\, \widehat{K}_0^{-1}(m)\,.
\end{align}
Because of \eqref{supppsic}, it is instructive to analyze the behavior of $\widehat{n}$ for $|k-m| \approx k_0$. We have
\begin{align}
\label{nfrac}
\widehat{n}(k,k-m,m) \approx \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
- \dfrac{ik}{\widehat{K}_0(k)\,\widehat{K}_0(k_0)\, \widehat{K}_0(k - k_0)}
& \quad {\rm for }\;\, k-m \approx k_0\,, \\[5mm]
- \dfrac{ik}{\widehat{K}_0(k)\,\widehat{K}_0(- k_0)\, \widehat{K}_0(k + k_0)}
& \quad {\rm for }\;\, k-m \approx -k_0\,.
\end{array} \right.
\end{align}
The denominators of the fractions in \eqref{nfrac} have the following zeros, which are called resonances.
Both denominators have a zero at $k=0$. Since the numerators also vanish at $k=0$ and $\lim_{|k|\to 0} k/\tanh(k) =1$, the singularity at $k=0$ is removable.
Such a resonance is called a trivial resonance. The fact that the resonance at
$k=0$ is trivial correlates with the fact that $\kk \partial_x g$ exists for any $g \in H^{1}$. Moreover, both denominators have one more zero - the first
denominator at $k=k_0$, the second one at $k=-k_0$.
At these resonances, the respective numerators do not vanish. Such a resonance is called a non-trivial resonance. The fact that the resonances at
$k=\pm k_0$ are non-trivial correlates with the fact that $\kk R$ may not exist.
In the situation of a trivial resonance at $k=0$ and non-trivial resonances at
$k=\pm k_0$, it is possible to apply a technique from \cite{DS06} for constructing a modified normal-form transform. The essential tools for the construction procedure from \cite{DS06} are as follows.
Since $\widehat{B}(\psi_c,R)(k)$ vanishes at $k=0$, one can expect that
$\widehat{R}(k)$ will grow for $k$ near $0$ more slowly than for $k$ further away from $0$. Hence, it makes sense to rescale the error with the help of the weight function
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\vartheta}(k) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} 1 &\quad {\rm for }\; |k| > \delta\, ,\\[1mm]
\epsilon + (1-\epsilon) |k|/\delta &\quad {\rm for }\; |k| \leq \delta \, ,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is chosen as above. More precisely, by writing
\begin{align}
\label{Rsc}
u= \varepsilon \psi_c + \varepsilon^{2} \psi_s + \varepsilon^{5/2} \vartheta R\,,
\end{align}
where $\psi_c$ and $\psi_s$ are as above and $\vartheta R$ is defined by $\widehat{\vartheta} \widehat{R}$, one obtains for the rescaled error $R$ an evolution equation of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{d/dt Rsc}
\partial_t R= \k0R - \varepsilon \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_c\, \vartheta {P}_{\varepsilon,\infty} R) + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\,.
\end{equation}
Here, ${P}_{\varepsilon,\infty}$ is a linear operator with the symbol $\widehat{P}_{\varepsilon,\infty}(k)= (1-
\chi_{[-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]})(k)$, where $\chi_{[-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]}$ is the characteristic function on $[-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]$.
Now, constructing a normal-form transform of the form \eqref{inft} yields
\begin{equation}
\label{Nmod}
N(\psi_c, R) = - \vartheta^{-1} \kk \partial_x( \kk \psi_c\, \kk \vartheta P_{\varepsilon, \infty} R)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\kk \vartheta P_{\varepsilon, \infty} R$ exists for any $R \in L^{2}$.
However, since $(\widehat{\vartheta}(k))^{-1} = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-1})$
for $|k| < \delta$, the transformed
error $\tilde{R}$ satisfies an evolution equation of the form
\begin{align}
\label{d/dt Rsct}
\partial_t \tilde{R}= \k0 \tilde{R} - \varepsilon \sum_{j =\pm 1} (1- {P}_{\delta,\infty}) N(\psi_j, 2\varepsilon \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_j\, \vartheta {P}_{\varepsilon,\infty} R) ) + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\,,
\end{align}
with $\widehat{\psi}_j=\widehat{\psi}_c|_{[jk_0-\delta, jk_0+\delta]}$ and
$(1- {P}_{\delta,\infty}) N(\psi_j, 2\varepsilon \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_j\, \vartheta {P}_{\varepsilon,\infty} R))= \mathcal{O}(1)$.
But the term of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$ on the right-hand side of \eqref{d/dt Rsct} can be eliminated with the help of a second normal-form transform of the form
\begin{align}
\label{nft2}
\check{R}= \tilde{R}+ \varepsilon^{2} \sum_{j =\pm 1} \mathcal{T}_j(\psi_j,\psi_j,R)\,
\end{align}
with appropriate trilinear mappings $\mathcal{T}_j$. The construction of the trilinear mappings is similar to the construction of bilinear mappings for normal-form transforms. In the case of equation \eqref{d/dt Rsct}, no resonances occur
in the context of the construction of the trilinear mappings such that straightforward calculations yield
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{T}}_j(\psi_j,\psi_j,R)(k)=
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\widehat{t}_j(k)\, \widehat{\psi}_j(k-m)\, \widehat{\psi}_j(m-n)\,\hat{R}(n)\, dn\, dm
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\widehat{t}_j(k)= &-\frac{k(k-jk_0)\,\widehat{\vartheta}(k-2jk_0)\, \chi_{[-\delta,\delta]}(k)}{\widehat{\vartheta}(k)
\tanh(k) \tanh(jk_0) \tanh(k-jk_0)} \\[2mm]
\nonumber & \times (\tanh(k) -2 \tanh(jk_0)-\tanh(k-2jk_0))^{-1} \,.
\end{align}
After these two normal-form transforms we have
\begin{align}
\label{d/dt Rcheck}
\partial_t \check{R}= \k0 \check{R} + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\,.
\end{align}
For further details about the two normal-form transforms discussed just now, we refer to \cite{DS06}.
However, since the error equation \eqref{erreq1} is quasilinear, also the modified normal-form transform $R \mapsto \check{R}(R)$ loses one derivative. It can be shown that this normal-form transform is nevertheless invertible, but the
term of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})$ in the transformed error equation
\eqref{d/dt Rcheck} loses two derivatives if it is expressed in terms of $\check{R}$.
To overcome the regularity problems, we pursue again the strategy from the proof of Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung} that we do not perform the normal-form transform explicitly, but only use it to construct an energy of
the form
\begin{align}
\label{Edefa2}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}= \sum_{\ell=0}^{s} \tilde{E}_{\ell}\,,
\end{align}
where the summands $\tilde{E}_{\ell}$ are defined by a slight, $\ell$-dependent modification of the equation
\begin{align}
\label{Edefb2}
\tilde{E}_{\ell} = \frac{1}{2} \Vert \partial_x^{\ell} R \Vert_{L^2}^2 + \epsilon \int_{\R}
\partial_x^{\ell} R\, \partial_x^{\ell}N(\psi_c,R)\,dx +
\epsilon^{2} \sum_{j =\pm 1} \int_{\R}
\partial_x^{\ell} R\, \partial_x^{\ell}\mathcal{T}_j(\psi_j,\psi_j,R)\,dx\,,
\end{align}
where $R$ is defined by \eqref{Rsc}, $N$ is defined by \eqref{Nmod}, and the
mappings $\mathcal{T}_j$ are as in \eqref{nft2}.
Since $k^{\ell} (\widehat{\vartheta}(k))^{-1} = \mathcal{O}(1)$
for $|k| < \delta$ if $\ell \geq 1$,
we do not need to include the second normal-form transform in our energy for $\ell \ge 1$. Hence, we define
\begin{align}
\tilde{E}_{\ell} := \frac{1}{2} \Vert \partial_x^{\ell} R \Vert_{L^2}^2 + \epsilon \int_{\R}
\partial_x^{\ell} R\, \partial_x^{\ell}N(\psi_c,R)\,dx
\end{align}
for $\ell \geq 1$. Then integration by parts yields
\begin{align}
\tilde{E}_{\ell} = \frac{1}{2} \Vert \partial_x^{\ell} R \Vert_{L^2}^2 + \epsilon\, \mathcal{O}(\Vert R \Vert_{H^{\ell}}^2)
\end{align}
for $\ell \geq 1$. Because the mapping
\begin{align*}
R \mapsto \int_{\mathbb{R}} R \, \check{R}(R)\, dx
\end{align*}
is in general not positive definite, we have to perform the full normal-form transform in the case of $\ell=0$ and define
\begin{align}
\tilde{E}_0 := \Vert \check{R}\Vert_{L^2}^2 \,.
\end{align}
The resulting loss of regularity does not mind here because it can be compensated
with the help of the other components of our energy such that we obtain the equivalence of $\sqrt{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}}$ and $\Vert R \Vert_{H^s}$ for $s \geq 1$ and sufficiently small $\varepsilon$, see Corollary \ref{en-Aequi}. Consequently, the right-hand side of the evolution equation of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}$ can be written as a sum of integral terms containing at most one factor $\partial_x^{s+1} R$ and not two. Moreover, since $\|\check{R}\|_{H^s}^2$ differs from $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}$ only by terms of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$, the evolution equations of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}$ and $\|\check{R}\|_{H^s}^2$ share the property that their right-hand sides are of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$. Therefore, by using integration by parts, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \tilde{\mathcal{E}_s} \lesssim \varepsilon^{2} (\tilde{\mathcal{E}_s}+1)
\end{equation}
as long as $\|R\|_{H^s} = \mathcal{O}(1)$ such that Gronwall's inequality yields the $\mathcal{O}(1)$-boundedness of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_s$ and hence of $R$ for all $t\in[0,T_0/\varepsilon^{2}]$.
\medskip
For the reasons discussed above, the justification of the NLS approximation for dispersive
systems with quasilinear quadratic terms is a highly nontrivial problem, which
has been remained unsolved in general for more than four decades. The first and very general NLS approximation theorem for quasilinear dispersive
wave systems was shown in \cite{Kal88}. However, the occurrence of quasilinear quadratic
terms was excluded
explicitly.
In the case of quasilinear quadratic terms, an NLS approximation theorem was proven for dispersive wave systems where the right-hand sides lose only half a derivative. The 2D water wave problem without surface tension and finite depth in Lagrangian coordinates falls into this class.
In this case
the elimination of the quadratic terms is possible with the help of normal-form transforms. The right-hand sides of
the transformed systems then lose one derivative and can be handled with the help of the Cauchy-Kowalevskaya theorem \cite{SW10,DSW12}.
Furthermore, the NLS approximation was justified for the 2D and 3D water wave problem without surface tension and infinite depth \cite{TW11,T14} by finding a different
transform adapted to the special structure of that problem.
Similarly, for
the quasilinear Korteweg-de Vries
equation the result can be obtained by simply applying a
Miura transform \cite{Schn11}.
In \cite{CDS15}, the NLS approximation of time oscillatory long waves for equations with quasilinear quadratic terms was proven for analytic data without using a normal-form transform.
Moreover, another approach to address the problem of the validity of the NLS approximation can be found in \cite{MN13}.
Finally, some numerical evidence that the NLS approximation is also valid for quasilinear equations was given in \cite{CS11}.
Very recently, the first validity proof of the NLS approximation
of a nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation with a quasilinear quadratic term in Sobolev spaces was given in \cite{D16}. The proof also relies on estimates of an appropriate energy which is constructed with the help of a normal-form transform. The construction of the energy is easier in the sense that no problems with resonances occur, but more difficult in the sense that the energy has to allow to control a system of two coupled error equations.
Theorem \ref{Theorem 2 NLS-APP} of the present paper
is the first validity result for the NLS approximation of a quasilinear dispersive equation with resonances in Sobolev spaces.
\medskip
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sec2} we prove Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung}. In Section \ref{sec3} we derive the NLS approximation. In Section \ref{sec4} we perform
the error estimates to prove Theorem \ref{Theorem 2 NLS-APP}.
\medskip
The relevance of studying equation \eqref{DGL} lies in the fact that this equation serves as a simple model equation incorporating principal difficulties which have to be overcome both for
establishing extended life spans for small solutions and for justifying the NLS approximation
for more complicated dispersive systems with resonances and rough nonlinearities. In particular,
equation \eqref{DGL} and the 2D water wave problem with finite depth in various coordinates share the difficulties of having linear dispersion relations which cause a trivial resonance at the wave number $k=0$ as well as non-trivial resonances at $k= \pm k_0$ and possessing quadratic transport terms
which preclude the application of the standard method of normal-form transforms because of a loss of regularity problem.
In the proofs of the results of the present paper,
we have further developed our approach from \cite{D16}, i.e., the replacement of the standard method of normal-form transforms by the use of an energy which includes essential parts of a normal-form transform, in the following sense.
We have refined the basic form \eqref{Edefa}-\eqref{Edefb} of such an energy in a way that all problems caused by the occurring resonances can be
circumvented, which has taken some extra effort in the case of the justification of the NLS approximation.
We expect that a combination of this type of energy with the types of energies we have constructed in \cite{D16, DS06} will yield the main component of an energy which will allow us to prove new justification
results for the NLS approximation of the 2D water wave problem with finite depth and other complicated dispersive systems with resonances.
In particular, we intend in forthcoming papers
to establish an extended time span of the validity of the NLS approximation of the 2D water wave problem with finite depth and without surface tension as well as to solve the open problem of justifying the NLS approximation of the 2D water wave problem with finite depth and with surface tension. To address the latter problem we think that the arc length formulation of the 2D water wave problem is the most adapted framework since in this formulation the term with the most derivatives is linear.
Moreover, since the 2D water wave equations with finite depth can be obtained from the 2D water wave equations with infinite depth by replacing ${\rm H}$ by $\k0\,$, we expect that the techniques developed in the present paper and in \cite{D16, DS06} can be generalized and applied to the 2D water wave problem with finite depth and no surface tension as well as
to the 2D water wave problem with finite depth and with surface tension in the arc length formulation
to derive high-order energy estimates and to establish extended life spans for small solutions analogously to \cite{HIT14}. We think that proving such high-order energy estimates will also be an essential step toward solving the problem of global existence of small localized solutions to the 2D water wave problem with finite depth.
However, since the 2D water wave problem with finite
depth possesses solitary waves solutions, which are localized traveling waves of permanent form, analogous dispersive estimates as in the case of infinite depth cannot be expected. Hence, in order to
show global existence of small localized solutions to the 2D water wave problem with finite depth one may try to derive appropriate estimates characterizing the solitary wave dynamics of the water wave problem and combine them with the high-order energy estimates.
\medskip
{\bf Notation}.
We denote the
Fourier transform of a function $u \in L^2(\R,\mathbb{K})$, with $\mathbb{K}=\R$ or $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{C}$ by
$$\mathcal{F}(u)(k) = \widehat{u}(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\R} u(x) e^{-ikx} dx. $$
Let $H^{s}(\R,\mathbb{K})$ be
the space of functions mapping from $\R$ into $\mathbb{K}$
for which
the norm
$$ \| u \|_{H^{s}(\R,\mathbb{K})} = \left(\int_{\R} |\widehat{u}(k)|^2 (1+|k|^2)^{s}
dk \right)^{1/2} $$
is finite. We also write $L^2$ and $H^{s}$ instead of $L^2(\R,\R)$ and $H^{s}(\R,\R)$.
Moreover, we use the space
$ L^p(m)(\R,\mathbb{K}) $ defined by $ u \in L^p(m)(\R,\mathbb{K}) \Leftrightarrow u \sigma^m \in L^p(\R,\mathbb{K})$, where
$ \sigma(x) = (1+x^2)^{1/2}$.
Furthermore, we write $A
\lesssim B$, if $A \leq C B$ for a constant $C>0$, and $A = \mathcal{O}(B)$, if
$|A| \lesssim B$.
\medskip
\textbf{Acknowledgment:} The authors thank the referees for their useful comments.
\section{Long time solutions}
\label{sec2}
In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung}. To address this issue, we will need the following properties of the operator $\k0.$
\begin{lemma}
\label{k0-id-lem}
Let $f,g \in L^{2}$ and $fg \in L^{2}$. Then we have
\begin{align}
\label{k0-id}
\k0 \, (fg)-\k0 \,(f)\,g-f\k0 \,(g)=\k0 \;(\k0 \, (f) \k0 \,(g))\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
Considering the symbol of $\k0\,$, we obtain
the assertion of the Lemma due to
\begin{align*}
\tanh(k)-\tanh(m)-\tanh(k-m)=-\tanh(k)\tanh(m)\tanh(k-m)
\end{align*}
for all $m,k \in \R$, which can be directly verified.
\qed
\begin{lemma}
$\kk \partial_x$ is a continuous linear operator from $H^{s+1}$ into $H^{s}$ for any $s \ge 0$ and satisfies
\begin{align}
\| \kk \partial_x f \|_{H^s} \le \|f\|_{H^{s+1}}
\end{align}
for all $f \in H^{s+1}$.
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
The assertion of the Lemma is a consequence of
\begin{align}
\label{kthk}
|k| \le |\tanh(k)| (1+k^2)^{1/2}
\end{align}
for all $k \in \R$, which can be directly verified.
\qed
\begin{lemma} \label{commutator1}
Let $j \geq 0$, $q > \frac12$, $r \geq \max\{1+q, j\}$ and $u \in H^{r}$. Then we have the commutator estimate
\begin{equation} \label{kom1}
\|[K_0^{-1}, u] \partial_x u\|_{H^{j}} \lesssim \|u\|_{H^{1+q}} \|u\|_{H^{j}}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
Since $u \partial_x u = \frac{1}{2} \partial_x (u^2)$, the Fourier transform of $[K_0^{-1}, u] \partial_x u$ has the two representations
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}({[\kk\,, u] \partial_x u}) (k) &=
- \int_{\mathbb{R}} \Big( \frac{m}{\tanh(k)} - \frac{m}{\tanh(m)} \Big) \widehat{u}(k -m) \widehat{u}(m)\, dm \\[2mm]
&= - \int_{\mathbb{R}} \Big( \frac{k}{2\tanh(k)} - \frac{m}{\tanh(m)} \Big) \widehat{u}(k -m) \widehat{u}(m)\, dm\,.
\end{align*}
Hence, using Young's inequality for convolutions and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\| [\kk\,, u] \partial_x u \|_{H^j}
&\lesssim \Big( \sup_{k,m \in \mathbb{R}} G(k,m) \Big)\, \|\widehat{u} \|_{L^{2}(1+q)} \|\widehat{u}\|_{L^2(j)}\\
&\lesssim \Big( \sup_{k,m \in \mathbb{R}} G(k,m) \Big) \, \| u \|_{H^{1+q}} \|u\|_{H^j}
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
G(k,m)=\begin{cases}
\Big\vert \dfrac{k}{2\tanh(k)} - \dfrac{m}{\tanh(m)}\Big\vert \, \dfrac{(1+k^2)^{j/2}}{(1+(k-m)^2)^{j/2} (1+m^2)^{1/2}} & \quad {\rm for }\; |k| \leq 1\,,\\[4mm]
\Big\vert \dfrac{m}{\tanh(k)} - \dfrac{m}{\tanh(m)}\Big\vert \, \dfrac{(1+k^2)^{j/2}}{(1+(k-m)^2)^{j/2} (1+m^2)^{1/2}} & \quad{\rm for}\; |k| > 1 \,,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $y \mapsto y/\tanh(y)$ is continued by $1$ for $y=0$.
In order to show the boundedness of the supremum we distinguish three cases.
$G(k,m)$ is obviously uniformly bounded for all $(k,m) \in \R^2$ with
$\vert k \vert \le 1$ or $\vert m \vert \le 1$.
If $\vert k \vert, \vert m \vert \ge 1$ and ${\rm sign}(m) = {\rm sign}(k)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Big\vert \frac{1}{\tanh(k)} - \frac{1}{\tanh(m)} \Big\vert \lesssim e^{-2|k|}+e^{-2|m|}
\end{align*}
such that
\begin{align*}
G(k,m)
\lesssim
\frac{e^{-2|k|} (1+k^2)^{j/2} \vert m \vert }{(1+(k-m)^2)^{j/2} (1+m^2)^{1/2}} +
\frac{e^{-2|m|} (1+2(k-m)^2+2m^2)^{j/2} \vert m \vert }{(1+(k-m)^2)^{j/2} (1+m^2)^{1/2}} \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently, $G(k,m)$ is also uniformly bounded in this case. Finally,
if $\vert k \vert, \vert m \vert \ge 1$ and ${\rm sign}(m) = -{\rm sign}(k)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Big| \frac{1}{\tanh(k)} - \frac{1}{\tanh(m)}\Big| \lesssim 1
\end{align*}
such that
\begin{align*}
G(k,m)
\lesssim \frac{ (1+ k^2)^{j/2} \vert m \vert}{(1+(|k|+|m|)^2)^{j/2} (1+m^2)^{1/2}}
\end{align*}
and $G(k,m)$ is uniformly bounded in this case as well. Hence, the supremum is bounded, which implies the assertion of the lemma.
\qed
\medskip
Moreover, we will use the well-known interpolation inequalities
\begin{align}
\label{intpol1}
\Vert \partial_x^{j} f \partial_x^{\ell} g \Vert_{L^2}
\lesssim
\Vert g \Vert_{L^{\infty}}
\Vert \partial_x^{j+\ell} f \Vert_{L^2} +
\Vert \partial_x^{j+\ell} g \Vert_{L^2}
\Vert f \Vert_{L^{\infty}}
\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{intpol2}
\Vert \partial_x^{j} f \partial_x^{\ell} g \Vert_{L^2}
\lesssim
\Vert g \Vert_{H^q}
\Vert \partial_x^{j+\ell} f \Vert_{L^2} +
\Vert \partial_x^{j+\ell} g \Vert_{L^2}
\Vert f \Vert_{H^q}
\end{align}
for $j,\ell \in {\mathbb N}$, $k \ge 1$, $j+\ell \le k$, $\frac{1}{2}< q \le k$, and $f,g \in H^{k}$ as well as the identity
\begin{align}
\label{PI}
\int_{\R}f g \partial_x f\, dx = - \frac{1}{2} \int_{\R}f^{2} \partial_x g\, dx
\end{align}
for $f,g \in H^1$.
\medskip
As motivated in Section \ref{sec1}, we define the energy
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}_{s}:=\sum_{\ell=0}^{s} E_{\ell}\,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
E_0 :=& \;\frac{1}{2} \| u\|_{L^2}^2
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
E_{\ell} :=& \;\frac{1}{2} \| \partial_x^{\ell} u\|_{L^2}^2
+\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u\, dx
\\[2mm]
& \nonumber \;
+ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_xu \,dx
\end{align}
for $\ell >0$.
\begin{remark}
{\rm One may wonder why we do not write $E_{\ell}$ for $\ell >0$ in the equivalent form
\begin{align*}
E_{\ell} =& \;\frac{1}{2} \| \partial_x^{\ell} u\|_{L^2}^2
+ \sum_{a=2}^{\ell-1} {\binom {\ell} a}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\kk \partial_x^{\ell} u
\kk \partial_x^a u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1} u \,dx
\\[2mm] &
+ \frac{2\ell+1}{2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\kk \partial_x^{\ell} u
\kk \partial_x^{\ell} u \kk \partial_x u\, dx\,,
\end{align*}
but it turns out that the form \eqref{Eell-def} is more convenient for our
calculations below.}
\end{remark}
The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and \eqref{intpol1} directly imply
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem Energie aequi}
For $\ell\ge 1$, we have
\begin{align}
\label{lin Energie aequi}
E_{\ell}=\frac{1}{2} \Vert \partial_x^{\ell} u \Vert_{L^2}^2
+ \mathcal{O}( \Vert \kk \partial_x u \Vert_{L^\infty} )\Vert \kk \partial_x^{\ell} u \Vert_{L^2}^2\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Now, we would like to estimate the time derivative of $\mathcal{E}_{s}$ for any sufficiently regular solution of \eqref{DGL}. We obtain
\begin{lemma}
\label{E0-lem}
For $\ell=0$, we have
\begin{align}
\label{lin dt E, l=0}
\frac{d}{dt} E_0=0\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
Due to \eqref{DGL}, the skew symmetry of $\k0\,$ and \eqref{PI}, we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} E_{0} =&
\int_{\mathbb{R}} u \k0 u\, dx
-\int_{\mathbb{R}} u^{2} \,\partial_x u\, dx \,
=\,0\,.
\end{align*}
\qed
\begin{lemma}
For $\ell\ge 1$, we have
\begin{align}
\label{lin dt E, l>0}
\frac{d}{dt} E_{\ell} \lesssim \Vert u \Vert_{H^2}^2 \Vert u\Vert _{H^{\ell}}^2\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
Using \eqref{DGL}, we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} E_{\ell} =&
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{\ell} u \, \partial_x^{\ell}\!\k0 u\, dx
-\int_{\mathbb{R}} \,\partial_x^{\ell} u \,\partial_x^{\ell} (u \,\partial_x u)\, dx \\
&
+\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u \,dx
+ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_xu \,dx
\\
&
+\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk\partial_x^{\ell}u \, \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u\, dx
+ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk\partial_x^{\ell}u \, \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_xu \,dx
\\
&
+\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk\partial_x^{\ell}u \kk\partial_x^{a} u \, \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u \,dx
+ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk\partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \, \partial_xu \,dx
\\
&
-\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}(u \, \partial_x u) \kk \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u \,dx
\\
&
-\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{a} (u\, \partial_x u)\kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u \,dx
\\
&
-\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}(u\, \partial_x u) \,dx
\\&
-\int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}(u\, \partial_x u) \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_xu \,dx
- \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x (u \,\partial_x u) \,dx\,.
\end{align*}
Due to the skew symmetry of $\k0\,$, the first integral equals zero.
Because of \eqref{partintf}, \eqref{k0-id} and the skew symmetry of $\k0 \,$ all integrals with cubic integrands cancel. We recall that this cancellation is a consequence of the identities
\eqref{Nrel} and \eqref{Ndef1} of the normal-form transform $N$ and that $E_{\ell}$ was constructed by including this normal-form transform in order to obtain that the right-hand side of the evolution equation of $E_{\ell}$ consists only of quartic terms.
Hence, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} E_{\ell} =&
-\sum_{a=1}^{\ell} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}(u \, \partial_x u) \kk \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u \,dx
\\
&
-\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{a} (u\, \partial_x u)\kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}u \,dx
\\
&
-\sum_{a=1}^{\ell-1} {\binom \ell a} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a+1}(u\, \partial_x u) \,dx
\\&
- \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell}u \kk \partial_x (u \,\partial_x u) \,dx\,.
\end{align*}
Since ${\binom \ell a} = {\binom \ell {\ell-a} }$, we obtain by integration by parts
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} E_{\ell}= \sum_{a=1}^{\ell} {\binom \ell a} I_{a}\,,
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
I_{a}=& - \int_{\mathbb{R}}\kk \partial_x^{\ell}(u\, \partial_x u)\kk \partial_x^{a}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell- a +1} u\, dx
\\
&
+ \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a}(u\, \partial_x u) \kk \partial_x^{a} u \,dx
\\
=& - \int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{\ell}(u \kk \partial_x u )\kk \partial_x^{a}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell- a +1} u\, dx
\\
&
+ \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u \, \partial_x^{\ell-a}(u \kk \partial_x u) \kk \partial_x^{a} u \,dx
\\
&
- \int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{\ell}[\kk, u] \partial_x u
\kk \partial_x^{a}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell- a +1} u\, dx
\\
&
+ \int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u \, \partial_x^{\ell-a}[\kk, u] \partial_x u \kk \partial_x^{a} u\, dx
\\
=:& \sum_{k=1}^{4} I_{a,k}\,.
\end{align*}
With the help of Leibniz's rule we get
\begin{align*}
I_{a,1}+ I_{a,2}=& -
\int_{\mathbb{R}} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u
\kk \partial_x^{a}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell- a +1} u
\, dx
\\
&
- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}
{ \binom \ell i}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{i} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-i+1} u
\kk \partial_x^{a}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell- a +1} u
\, dx
\\
&
+\int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u\,
u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a +1}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \,dx
\\
&
+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-a} { \binom {\ell-a} j}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u\,
\partial_x^{j}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a -j+1}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \,dx
\\
=&
- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}
{ \binom \ell i}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{i} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-i+1} u
\kk \partial_x^{a}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell- a +1} u
\, dx
\\
&
+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-a} { \binom {\ell-a} j}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u\,
\partial_x^{j}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a -j+1}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \,dx
\,.
\end{align*}
Using the interpolation inequality \eqref{intpol2} and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}
{ \binom \ell i}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{i} u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-i+1} u
\kk \partial_x^{a}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell- a +1} u
\, dx
\lesssim &\, \Vert u \Vert_{H^2}^2 \Vert u\Vert _{H^{\ell}}^2
\,.
\end{align*}
The remaining integrals
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u\,
\partial_x^{j}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a -j+1}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \,dx
\end{align*}
can be rewritten by applying a finite, $\ell$-dependent number of integrations by parts into a sum of integrals of the form
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{\alpha} u\,
\kk \partial_x^{\beta}u \kk \partial_x^{\gamma}u \kk \partial_x^{\delta} u \,dx
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
1 \leq \alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \quad \mathrm{and}
\quad \alpha+\beta = \gamma+\delta = \ell +1
\end{align*}
such that we can apply again \eqref{intpol2} and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-a} { \binom {\ell-a} j}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \kk \partial_x^{\ell+1} u\,
\partial_x^{j}u \kk \partial_x^{\ell-a -j+1}u \kk \partial_x^{a} u \,dx
\lesssim &\, \Vert u \Vert_{H^2}^2 \Vert u\Vert _{H^{\ell}}^2
\,.
\end{align*}
Hence, we have shown
\begin{align*}
I_{a,1}+ I_{a,2}
\lesssim &\, \Vert u \Vert_{H^2}^2 \Vert u\Vert _{H^{\ell}}^2
\,.
\end{align*}
Finally, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, \eqref{kom1} and \eqref{intpol2}, we get
$$
I_{a,3} \lesssim \Vert u \Vert_{H^2}^2 \Vert u\Vert _{H^{\ell}}^2\,,
$$
and with the aid of integration by parts, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, \eqref{kom1}, \eqref{intpol2} and \eqref{PI}, we obtain
$$
I_{a,4} \lesssim \Vert u \Vert_{H^2}^2 \Vert u\Vert _{H^{\ell}}^2\,.
$$
\qed
\medskip
Now, combining the estimates \eqref{lin dt E, l=0}, \eqref{lin dt E, l>0} and \eqref{lin Energie aequi}, we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{E}_{s} \lesssim \varepsilon^2 \mathcal{E}_{s}
\end{equation}
for any solution $u \in C(I, H^s)\, \cap\, C^1(I, H^{s-1}) $, where $I \subset \R$ and $s \ge 2$, of \eqref{DGL} with $\|u\|_{H^{2}} \leq \varepsilon$.
Because of the local existence results for quasi-linear symmetric hyperbolic systems
from \cite{Kat75} and Gronwall's inequality, we obtain
the $\mathcal{O}(1)$-boundedness of $\mathcal{E}_{s}$ and therefore of $\|u\|_{H^{s}}$ for all $t \in I_{\varepsilon}$, which proves Theorem \ref{Theorem 1 Langzeit loesung}.
\qed
\section{The derivation of the NLS approximation}
\label{sec3}
In this section, we derive the NLS equation as an approximation equation for the quasilinear dispersive equation \eqref{DGL}.
In doing so, we make the ansatz
\begin{equation}
\label{ansatz}
u= \varepsilon \widetilde{\psi} =
\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}_1+\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}_{-1}
+\varepsilon^2 \widetilde{\psi}_0
+\varepsilon^2 \widetilde{\psi}_2+\varepsilon^2 \widetilde{\psi}_{-2}\,,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\psi}_j(x,t) = \widetilde{A}_j(\varepsilon(x-c_g t), \varepsilon^2 t)\, \textbf{E}^{j}
\end{equation*}
and $\widetilde{A}_{-j} = \overline{\widetilde{A}_j}$
for $j \in \{0,1,2\}$, where
$0< \varepsilon \ll 1$, $ k_0 >0$, $\omega_0= \tanh(k_0)$, $c_g= \tanh'(k_0) = {\sech}^2(k_0)$, and $\textbf{E}= e^{i(k_0x-\omega_0t)}$.
\begin{remark}{ Our ansatz leads to waves moving to the right.
For waves moving to the left one has to replace in the above ansatz
$\omega_0$ by $-\omega_0$
and $c_g$ by $-c_g$.
}
\end{remark}
We insert our ansatz \eqref{ansatz} in equation \eqref{DGL}. Then we expand all terms of the form $\k0 \widetilde{\psi}_j$ by using the Taylor series of the hyperbolic tangent around $k=jk_0$. (For more details compare Lemma 25 in \cite{SW10}, for example.) After that we equate the coefficients in front of the $\varepsilon^m \textbf{E}^{j}$ to zero.
In detail, we get for
\begin{align*}
& (m,j)=(1,1) : && i\omega_0\widetilde{A}_1= i \tanh(k_0)\widetilde{A}_1\,, \\
& (m,j)=(2,1) : && c_g \partial_X \widetilde{A}_1= {\sech}^2(k_0) \partial_X \widetilde{A}_1\,, \\
& (m,j)=(2,2) : && i(-2\omega_0+\tanh(2k_0))\widetilde{A}_2= ik_0 (\widetilde{A}_1)^2\,,\\
& (m,j)=(3,0) : && (-c_g + {\sech}^2(0)) \partial_X \widetilde{A}_0 = \partial_X(\widetilde{A}_1 \widetilde{A}_{-1})\,, \\
& (m,j)=(3,1) : && \partial_T \widetilde{A}_1= -i\, \tanh(k_0)\, {\sech}^2(k_0)\, \partial_X^2 \widetilde{A}_1 +ik_0(\widetilde{A}_0\widetilde{A}_1+\widetilde{A}_{-1}\widetilde{A}_2)\,,
\end{align*}
where $X=\varepsilon(x-c_g t)$ and $T= \varepsilon^2t$.
The equations for $(m,j)=(1,1)$ and $(m,j)=(2,1)$ are satisfied due to the definitions of $\omega_0$ and $c_g$.
Since for $k_0 \neq 0$ and all integers $j \geq 2$ the non-resonance conditions
\begin{equation}
\label{NR1a}
\tanh(jk_0)\neq j \tanh(k_0)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{NR1b}
\tanh'(k_0) \neq \tanh'(0)
\end{equation}
hold, we can choose $\widetilde{A}_0$ and $\widetilde{A}_2$ depending on $\widetilde{A}_1$, such that the equations for $(m,j)=(2,2)$ and $(m,j)=(3,0)$ are satisfied and
the equation for $(j,m)=(3,1) $ becomes the NLS equation
\begin{equation}
\label{NLS-Eq}
\partial_T \widetilde{A}_1= i \nu_1 \partial_X^2 \widetilde{A}_1 +i \nu_2 |\widetilde{A}_1|^2 \widetilde{A}_1\,,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align*}
&\nu_1= \frac{1}{2} \tanh''(k_0)= - \tanh(k_0) {\sech}^2(k_0)\,,
\\
& \nu_2= k_0
\left(
\frac{k_0}{\tanh(2k_0)-2\tanh(k_0)} +\frac{1}{{\tanh}^2(k_0)}
\right).
\end{align*}
To prove the approximation property of the NLS equation \eqref{NLS-Eq} it will be helpful to make the residual
\begin{equation}
\res (\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi})= -\partial_t (\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi})+ \k0 \,(\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi})- \varepsilon \widetilde{\psi} \partial_x (\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi})\,,
\end{equation}
which contains all terms that do not cancel after inserting ansatz
\eqref{ansatz} into system \eqref{DGL}, smaller in any Sobolev norm $\| \cdot \|_{H^s}$ with $s \geq 0$ by proceeding analogously as in Section 2 of \cite{DSW12} and replacing $\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}$ by a new approximation $\varepsilon\psi$ of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{ans-high}
\varepsilon \psi =\sum_{|j| \le 5} \sum_{\beta(j,n) \le 5} \varepsilon^{\beta(j,n)} \psi_{j}^{n}\,,
\end{equation}
where $j \in \mathbb{Z}$, $n \in {\mathbb N}_0$,
\begin{align}
\label{ext-ans1}
&\beta(j,n)=1+ \vert \vert j \vert -1 \vert +n\,, \\
&\psi_{j}^{n}(x,t)= A_{j}^{n}(\varepsilon(x- c_g t), \varepsilon^2 t)\textbf{E}^{j}\,,
\label{ext-ans2}
\end{align}
${A}_{-j}^{n} = \overline{{A}_j^{n}}$, and the functions
${\psi}_{j}^{n}$ have the compact support
\begin{align}
&\{k \in \R : |k- jk_0| \le \delta < k_0/20\}
\end{align}
in Fourier space, for sufficiently small $\varepsilon >0$.
For later purposes we fix $\delta \in (0, k_0/20)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{delta}
\vert \tanh(k) -2 \tanh(jk_0)-\tanh(k-2jk_0) \vert \ge C>0
\end{equation}
for a constant $C=C(k_0)$, which is possible due to \eqref{NR1a}.
This new approximation is constructed in the following way. First, the previous approximation $\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}$ is extended by higher order correction terms such that the resulting approximation, which we denote by $\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}_{ext}$, has the form \eqref{ans-high}-\eqref{ext-ans2} with $\psi$, $\psi_{j}^{n}$ and ${A}_{j}^{n}$ replaced by $\widetilde{\psi}_{ext}$, $\widetilde{\psi}_{j}^{n}$ and $\widetilde{A}_{j}^{n}$, where
$\widetilde{A}_{j}^{0}= \widetilde{A}_{j}$ and the higher order correctors
$\widetilde{A}_{j}^{n}$, $n > 0$, can be computed by a similar procedure as the functions $\widetilde{A}_{j}$. More precisely, inserting $\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}_{ext}$ into \eqref{DGL} and equating the coefficients in front of the $\varepsilon^{\beta(j,n)} \textbf{E}^{j}$ to zero yields
a system of algebraic equations and inhomogeneous linear Schr\"odinger equations that can be solved recursively. Due to the non-resonance conditions \eqref{NR1a}-\eqref{NR1b} the functions $\widetilde{A}_{j}^{n}$ with $j \neq \pm 1$ are uniquely determined by the algebraic equations. The functions $\widetilde{A}_{\pm 1}^{n}$ satisfy the inhomogeneous linear Schr\"odinger equations. Moreover, since the functions $\widetilde{A}_{\pm 1}^4$ do not appear in the equations for any other $\widetilde{A}_{j}^{n}$, we can set $\widetilde{A}_{\pm 1}^4=0$.
Secondly, by multiplying the Fourier transform of each function $\widetilde{\psi}_{j}^{n}$ by a suitable cut-off function, we obtain our final approximation $ \varepsilon \psi$. Since the Fourier transform of the functions $\widetilde{\psi}_{j}^{n}$ is strongly concentrated around the wave number $jk_0$ if $\widetilde{A}_{j}^{n}$ is sufficiently regular, the approximation is only changed slightly by the second modification, but this action will give us a simpler control
of the error and makes the approximation an analytic function.
Furthermore, we define
\begin{align}
&\psi_{\pm1}:=\psi_{\pm1}^{0}\,, \\
&\psi_c:=\psi_{-1}+\psi_{1}\,, \\
&\psi_{s}:= \varepsilon^{-1}(\psi-\psi_c)
\end{align}
and get the following estimates for the modified residual.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Res-abschaetzung}
Let $s_A \ge 7$, $\widetilde{A}_1 \in C([0,T_0],H^{s_A}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}))$ be a solution of the NLS equation \eqref{NLS-Eq} with
\begin{align*}
\sup_{T \in [0, T_0]} \Vert \widetilde{A}_1(T) \Vert_{H^{s_A}} \le C_A\,,
\end{align*}
and $\delta$ be chosen as above.
Then for all $s \geq 0$ there exist $ C_{\rm Res}, C_{\psi}, \varepsilon_0>0 $ depending on $C_A$, $k_0$ and $\delta$, where $\varepsilon_0 < \delta$, such that for all
$ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ the approximation $\varepsilon \psi$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray} \label{RES1}
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^2]} \| {\rm Res}(\varepsilon \psi)
\|_{H^s}
& \leq & C_{\rm Res}\, \varepsilon^{{11/2}}, \\ \label{RES2}
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^2]} \|\varepsilon \psi - (\varepsilon {\widetilde{\psi}_{1}} + \varepsilon {\widetilde{\psi}_{-1}})
\|_{H^{{s_A}}}
& \leq & {C_{\psi}}\, \varepsilon^{3/2},
\\
\label{RES3}
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^2]} (\|\widehat{\psi}_{\pm1}\|_{L^1({s})}+\|\widehat{\psi}_s\|_{L^1({s})})
&{\leq} & {C_{\psi}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
The first extended approximation $\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}_{ext}$ is constructed in a way that formally we have ${\rm Res}(\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}) = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{6})$ and $\varepsilon\widetilde{\psi} - (\varepsilon\widetilde{\psi}_{1}+\varepsilon\widetilde{\psi}_{-1}) = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{2})$ on the time interval $[0,T_0/\epsilon^2]$ if $\widetilde{A}_1$
is a solution of the NLS equation \eqref{NLS-Eq} for $T \in [0,T_0]$.
It can be shown exactly as in the proof of Theorem 2.5 in \cite{DSW12} that
$ \widetilde{A}_1 \in C([0,T_0],H^{s_A}) $ with $s_A \geq 5$ implies
$ \widetilde{A}_{j}^n \in C([0,T_0],H^{s_A-{{n}}}) $ if $j \neq \pm1 $ and
$ \widetilde{A}_{\pm 1}^n \in C([0,T_0],H^{s_A-n-2})$ for $n \in \{1,2,3\}$, where the
respective Sobolev norms are uniformly bounded by the $H^{s_A}$-norm of $ \widetilde{A}_1$.
Therefore, by taking into account that
$\| f(\epsilon\, \cdot)\|_{L^2} = \epsilon^{-1/2} \| f \|_{L^2}$, we obtain
estimates of the form \eqref{RES1} and \eqref{RES2} with $\psi$ replaced by $ \widetilde{\psi}_{ext}$ and $H^{s}, H^{s_A}$ replaced by $L^2$ if we have $ \widetilde{A}_1 \in C([0,T_0],H^{s_A}) $ with $s_A \geq 7$ (since two additional
spatial derivatives of $\widetilde{A}_1$ are needed to bound ${\rm Res} (\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}_{ext})$ in $L^2$).
Since the Fourier transform of the final approximation $\varepsilon \psi$ has a compact support whose size depends on $k_0$, there exists a $C=C(k_0) >0$ such that $\|\psi\|_{H^s} \leq C \|\psi\|_{L^2}$ and
$\|\widehat{\psi}\|_{L^1({s})} \leq C \|\widehat{\psi} \|_{L^1}$ for all $s \geq 0$.
Hence, by using the above $L^2$-estimates for $\varepsilon \widetilde{\psi}_{ext}$ as well as the estimate
\begin{equation} \label{cut}
\| (\chi_{[-\delta,\delta]}-1)\, \varepsilon^{-1}
\widehat{f} ( \varepsilon^{-1} \cdot) \|_{L^2(m)} \leq C(\delta)\,
\varepsilon^{m+{M}-1/2} \| f \|_{H^{m+{M}}}
\end{equation}
for all $M,m \geq 0$, where $\chi_{[-\delta,\delta]}$ is the characteristic function on $[-\delta,\delta]$, for $f=\widetilde{A}_{j}^n$ for each $\widetilde{A}_{j}^n$ with $m=0$, $M=M(j,n)$ determined by the maximal Sobolev regularity of the respective $\widetilde{A}_{j}^n$ and $\delta$ as above, we obtain \eqref{RES1} and
\begin{equation} \label{RES4}
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^2]} \|\varepsilon (\psi-\psi_c)
\|_{H^{{s_A}}}
\leq {C_{\psi}}\, \varepsilon^{3/2}
\end{equation}
if we have $ s_A \geq 7$, which yields $\beta(j,n)+ M(j,n) \geq 6$.
By combining \eqref{RES4} and \eqref{cut} for $f=\varepsilon {\widetilde{\psi}_{1}} + \varepsilon {\widetilde{\psi}_{-1}}$, $m=s_A$, $M=0$ and $\delta$ as above, we obtain \eqref{RES2}.
Finally, since $\| \epsilon^{-1} \widehat{f}(\epsilon^{-1} \cdot)\|_{L^1} = \| \widehat{f} \|_{L^1}$,
estimate \eqref{RES3} follows by construction of ${\psi}_{\pm 1}$ and ${\psi}_s$.
\qed
\begin{remark} \label{remneucam2}
{\rm
The bound \eqref{RES3} will be used for instance to estimate
$$ \| \psi_{j}^{n}f \|_{H^{s}} \leq C \| \psi_{j}^{n} \|_{C^{s}_b}\| f
\|_{H^{s}} \leq C \| \widehat{{\psi}}_{j}^{n} \|_{L^1(s)}\| f
\|_{H^{s}} $$
without loss of powers in $ \varepsilon $ as it would be the case with $\| \widehat{{\psi}}_{j}^{n} \|_{L^2(s)}$.}
\end{remark}
Moreover, by an analogous argumentation as in the proof of Lemma 3.3 in \cite{DSW12} we obtain the fact that $\partial_t \psi_{\pm 1}$ can be approximated by ${\k0 \psi}_{\pm 1}$. More precisely, we get
\begin{lemma}
For all $s>0$ there exists a constant $C>0$ depending on $ \Vert \widetilde{A}_1 \Vert_{H^{3}}$ and $k_0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{d/dt Psi}
\Vert \partial_t \widehat{\psi}_{\pm 1} - {\k0 \widehat{\psi}}_{\pm 1} \Vert_{L^1(s)}\le C \varepsilon^2.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\section{The error estimates}
\label{sec4}
Now, we write a solution $u$ of \eqref{DGL} as the sum of approximation and error.
To avoid problems arising from the resonances at $k=\pm k_0$, we rescale the error
with the help of the weight function
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\vartheta}(k) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} 1 &\quad {\rm for }\; |k| > \delta\, ,\\[1mm]
\epsilon + (1-\epsilon) |k|/\delta &\quad {\rm for }\; |k| \leq \delta \, ,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is chosen as above and $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $, with $\varepsilon_0$ as in Lemma \ref{Res-abschaetzung}. That means, we write
\begin{align}
u= \varepsilon \psi +\varepsilon^{5/2} \vartheta R\,,
\end{align}
where $\vartheta R$ is defined by $\widehat{\vartheta R} = \widehat{\vartheta} \widehat{R}$. By this choice $\widehat{\vartheta R}(k)
$ is small at the wave numbers close to zero reflecting
the fact that the nonlinearity of \eqref{DGL} vanishes at $k = 0$.
Inserting this ansatz into \eqref{DGL} leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{d/dt R}
\partial_t R= \k0R - \varepsilon \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi \vartheta R)
-\frac{1}{2} \varepsilon^{5/2}\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x (\vartheta R)^2 +\varepsilon^{-5/2} \vartheta^{-1}\res(\varepsilon \psi)\,,
\end{equation}
where the operator $\vartheta^{-1}$ is defined by its symbol $\widehat{\vartheta^{-1}}(k)= \widehat{\vartheta}^{-1}(k) =(\widehat{\vartheta}(k))^{-1}$.
Due to the structure of the nonlinear terms in the error equation \eqref{d/dt R}, the
size of the Fourier transform of these terms depends on whether $k$ is close
to zero or not. In order to separate the behavior in these two
regions more clearly, we define projection operators $P_{0,\alpha}$ and $P_{\alpha,\infty}$ for $\alpha >0$ by the Fourier
multipliers
\begin{align}
&\widehat{P}_{0,\alpha}(k) = \chi_{[-\alpha, \alpha]}(k)\,,\\[2mm]
&\widehat{P}_{\alpha,\infty}(k)= (1- \chi_{[-\alpha, \alpha]})(k)\,,
\end{align}
where $\chi_{[-\alpha, \alpha]}$ is the characteristic
function on $[-\alpha, \alpha]$.
As motivated in Section \ref{sec1}, we define the energy
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s} =\sum_{\ell=0}^{s} \tilde{E}_{\ell}\,,
\end{equation}
\medskip
\begin{equation}
\tilde{E}_{\ell} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \Vert \check{R}\Vert_{L^2}^2 &\quad {\rm for }\;\ell=0\,,
\\[3mm]
\dfrac{1}{2} \| \partial_x^{\ell} R\|_{L^2}^2
+ \varepsilon \displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x^{\ell}R\, \partial_x^{\ell} N(\psi_c, R)\, dx
&\quad {\rm for }\;\ell >0 \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\medskip
with
\begin{equation}
\label{ch R}
\check{R}=R+ \varepsilon N(\psi_c, R)+ \varepsilon^2 \mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\psi_c,R)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N(\psi_c, R) = - \vartheta^{-1} \kk \partial_x( \kk \psi_c \kk \vartheta P_{\varepsilon, \infty} R)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{T}}(\psi_c,\psi_c,R)(k)= \sum_{j=\pm1}
\widehat{\mathcal{T}}_j(\psi_j,\psi_j,R)(k)
\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{T}}_j(\psi_j,\psi_j,R)(k)=
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\widehat{t}_j(k)\, \widehat{\psi}_j(k-m)\, \widehat{\psi}_j(m-n)\,\hat{R}(n)\, dn\, dm
\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\widehat{t}_j(k)= &-\frac{k(k-jk_0)\,\widehat{\vartheta}(k-2jk_0)\,\chi_{[-\delta, \delta]}(k)}{\widehat{\vartheta}(k)
\tanh(k) \tanh(jk_0) \tanh(k-jk_0)} \\[2mm]
\nonumber & \times (\tanh(k) -2 \tanh(jk_0)-\tanh(k-2jk_0))^{-1} \,,
\end{align}
\medskip
where $s=s_A\geq 7$, in order to control the error.
To perform our energy estimates we will need the following lemmas.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Nlem}
The operator $N$ has the following properties:\\[2mm]
{\bf a)}
$f \mapsto N(\psi_c,f)$ defines a continuous linear map from $H^1(\R,\R)$ into $L^2(\R,\R)$, and there exists a constant $C=C(\psi_c)>0$, such that for all $f\in H^1(\R,\R)$ and all $g\in H^2(\R,\R)$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{N0}
\Vert N(\psi_c, f) \Vert_{L^{2}} \leq C \varepsilon^{-1} \Vert f \Vert_{H^1}\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{PN}
\Vert P_{\delta, \infty}N(\psi_c, f) \Vert_{L^{2}} \leq C \Vert f \Vert_{H^1}\,,
\end{align}\begin{align}
\label{d/dxN}
\Vert \partial_x N(\psi_c, g) \Vert_{L^{2}} \leq C \Vert g \Vert_{H^2}\,.
\end{align}
{\bf b)}
For all $f\in H^1(\R,\R)$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{N aufloesen}
\vartheta N(\psi_c,f) = \partial_x ( \kk \psi_c f) + Q(\psi_c, f)
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\label{Q0}
\Vert Q(\psi_c, f) \Vert_{H^{s}}= \mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2})
\end{align}
for all $s \ge 0$.
\\
{\bf c)}
For all $f \in H^1(\R,\R)$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{N-wahl}
-\k0N(\psi_c,R)
+N(\k0 \psi_c,R)
+N(\psi_c,\k0R) =\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_c \vartheta P_{\varepsilon, \infty} R)\,.
\end{align}
{\bf d)}
For all $f \in L^2(\R,\R)$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{P_0 N}
P_{0, \delta}N(\psi_c, P_{0, \delta}f)=0\,.
\end{align}
{\bf e)}\;
For all $f,g \in H^1(\R,\R)$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{partN}
\int_{\R} f\, \vartheta N(\psi_c,g)\,dx = - \int_{\R} g\, \vartheta N(\psi_c,f) \,dx + \int_{\R} S(\partial_x \psi_c,f)\, g\,dx + \int_{\R} Z(\psi_c,f,g)\,dx\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
S(\partial_x \psi_c,f)= \kk \partial_x \psi_cf \,,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
Z(\psi_c,f,g) = f\,Q(\psi_c,g) + g\,Q(\psi_c,f)\,.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
In Fourier space, we have
\begin{align}
\label{NFourier}
\widehat{N}(\psi_c,f)(k)= \int_{\R}\widehat{n}(k, k-m,m)\, \widehat{\psi}_c(k-m)\,\widehat{f}(m)\, dm
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
\widehat{n}(k,k-m,m)=- {\widehat{\vartheta}}^{-1}(k)\, \widehat{K}_0^{-1}(k)\, ik\, \widehat{K}_0^{-1}(k-m)\, \chi_c(k-m)\, \widehat{K}_0^{-1}(m)\, \widehat{\vartheta}(m)\, \widehat{P}_{\varepsilon, \infty}(m)\,,
\end{align*}
where $\chi_c= \chi_{\,\supp(\psi_c)}$.
Now, we estimate the kernel $\widehat{n}$. We have
\begin{align*}
|\widehat{K}_0^{-1}(m)\, \widehat{\vartheta}(m)\, \widehat{P}_{\varepsilon, \infty}(m)|
=
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
0 & \quad {\rm for }\; 0 < |m| \le \varepsilon\,, \\[2mm]
\dfrac{\varepsilon}{|\tanh(m)|} + \dfrac{(1 - \varepsilon )|m|}{\delta |\tanh(m)|} & \quad {\rm for }\; \varepsilon \le |m| \le \delta\, , \\[4mm]
\dfrac{1}{|\tanh(m)|} & \quad {\rm for }\; |m| \ge \delta \,.
\end{array} \right.
\end{align*}
Exploiting the monotonicity properties of $m \mapsto 1/|\tanh(m)|$ and $ m \mapsto |m|/|\tanh(m)|$, we obtain
\[
\frac{1}{|\tanh(m)|} \le \frac{1}{|\tanh(\delta)|}
\]
for $|m| \ge \delta$, and
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\varepsilon}{|\tanh(m)|} + \frac{(1 - \varepsilon )|m|}{\delta |\tanh(m)|}
\;\le\; \frac{\varepsilon}{|\tanh(\varepsilon)|} + \frac{(1 - \varepsilon )|\delta|}{\delta |\tanh(\delta)|} \;\le\; \frac{1+\delta}{\tanh( \delta )}
\end{align*}
for $\varepsilon \le |m| \le \delta$. This yields
\begin{align}
\sup_{m \in \R}\, |\widehat{K}_0^{-1}(m)\, \widehat{\vartheta}(m)\, \widehat{P}_{\varepsilon, \infty}(m)| \leq \frac{1+\delta}{\tanh( \delta )}\,.
\end{align}
Furthermore, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{k-m \in \R}\, |\widehat{K}_0^{-1}(k-m)\, \chi_c(k-m)| \leq \frac{1}{\tanh(k_0-\delta )}\,.
\end{align}
The definitions of $\vartheta$ and $P_{\delta,\infty}$ directly imply
\begin{align} \label{theta-1-eps-1}
\sup_{k \in \R}\, |\widehat{\vartheta}^{-1}(k)| &= \varepsilon^{-1}\,,\\
\sup_{k \in \R}\, |\widehat{P}_{\delta,\infty}(k)\widehat{\vartheta}^{-1}(k)| &= 1\,.
\end{align}
Moreover, we have
\begin{align*}
|k\, \widehat{\vartheta}^{-1}(k)|=
\begin{cases}
|k| & \quad {\rm for }\; |k| > \delta\,,\\[1mm]
\dfrac{|k|}{\varepsilon +(1- \varepsilon) \frac{|k|}{\delta}} & \quad{\rm for}\; |k| \le \delta \,.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Since
\begin{align*}
\frac{|k|}{\varepsilon +(1- \varepsilon) \frac{|k|}{\delta}} \;=\;
\frac{1}{\frac{\varepsilon}{|k|} + \frac{(1- \varepsilon)}{\delta}} \;\le\;
\frac{1}{\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} + \frac{(1- \varepsilon)}{\delta}}\;=\; \delta
\end{align*}
for $0 \neq |k| \le \delta$, we get
\begin{align}
\label{d/dx theta-1}
\sup_{k \in \R}\, |k\widehat{\vartheta}^{-1}(k)| &= \max\{\delta, |k|\}\,.
\end{align}
Now, using \eqref{NFourier}-\eqref{d/dx theta-1}, \eqref{kthk}, \eqref{RES3}, Young's inequality for convolutions,
\begin{align*}
\widehat{n}(k,k-m,m)=\widehat{n}(-k,-(k-m),-m) \in \R
\end{align*}
and the fact that $\psi_c$ is real-valued, we obtain the validity of all statements of a).
Let $k_1>0$ be a constant such that $|k| \ge k_1$ and $|k-m- k_0 | \le \delta$ imply
$|m| \ge \delta$ and ${\rm sign}(k)={\rm sign}(m)$.
Then, by using
\begin{align*}
\tanh(k)={\rm sign}(k) \Big(1-\frac{2}{1+e^{2 |k|}}\Big)
\end{align*}
we get
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\vartheta}(k)\, \widehat{n}(k,k-m,m)&=-\frac{k\, \chi_c(k-m)}{\tanh(k-m)}(1+\mathcal{O}(e^{-2|k|}))
(1+\mathcal{O}(e^{-2|k-(k-m)|})) \\[2mm]
&= \frac{k\, \chi_c(k-m)}{\tanh(k-m)}(1+\mathcal{O}(e^{-|k|}))
\end{align*}
for $|k| \ge k_1$ provided that $k_1$ is chosen large enough. This yields statement b).
\eqref{N-wahl} follows by construction of $N$ due to \eqref{k0-id}.
\eqref{P_0 N} is a direct consequence of
\begin{align*}
\chi_{[-\delta, \delta]}(k) \chi_{[-\delta, \delta]}(m) \chi_c(k-m)=0\,.
\end{align*}
Finally, \eqref{partN} follows from a) and b) by integration by parts.
\qed
\begin{lemma}
\label{int-kerne}
Fix $p \in \R$. Assume that $\kappa \in C(\R^3,\mathbb{C})$, that $g \in C^2(\R,\mathbb{C})$ has a compactly supported Fourier transform and that
$f \in H^{s}(\R,\mathbb{C})$ for $s \geq 0$.\\[2mm]
{\bf a)} If $\kappa$ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to its second argument in some neighborhood
of $p$, then there exist $C_{g,\kappa,p} >0$, $\varepsilon_0 >0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Big \| \int \big(\kappa (\cdot, \cdot-\ell,\ell) - \kappa (\cdot, p ,\ell)\big)\, \varepsilon^{-1} \widehat{g}\Big(\frac{ \cdot - \ell - p}{\varepsilon}\Big) \widehat{f}(\ell)\, d\ell\, \Big \|_{L^{2}(s)}
\le C_{g,\kappa,p}\, \varepsilon \| f \|_{H^{s}}
\end{equation}
for all $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$.
\\[2mm]
{\bf b)} If $\kappa$ is globally Lipschitz continuous with respect to its third argument, then there exist
$D_{g,\kappa} >0$, $\varepsilon_0 >0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Big \| \int \big(\kappa (\cdot, \cdot-\ell,\ell)- \kappa(\cdot, \cdot - \ell ,\cdot-p)\big)\, \varepsilon^{-1} \widehat{g}\Big(\frac{ \cdot - \ell - p}{\varepsilon} \Big) \widehat{f}(\ell)\, d\ell\, \Big \|_{L^{2}(s)}
\le D_{g,\kappa}\, \varepsilon \| f \|_{H^{s}}
\end{equation}
for all $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$.
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
The Lemma is a special case of Lemma 3.5 in \cite{DSW12}.
\qed
\begin{lemma}
\label{Tlem}
The operator $\mathcal{T}$ has the following properties:\\[2mm]
{\bf a)}
Fix functions $g,h$ with $\widehat{g}_c:= \chi_{\,\supp(\psi_c)}\, \widehat{g} \in L^1(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{C})$ and $ \hat{h}_c:= \chi_{\,\supp(\psi_c)}\, \widehat{h} \in L^1(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{C})$.
Then $f \mapsto \mathcal{T}(g_c,h_c,f)$ defines a continuous linear map from $L^2(\R,\mathbb{C})$ into $L^2(\R,\mathbb{C})$, and there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $f \in L^2(\R,\mathbb{C})$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{T-abschaetzung}
\Vert \mathcal{T}(g_c,h_c,f) \Vert_{L^2} \le C {\varepsilon}^{-1} \Vert \widehat{g}_c\Vert_{L^1} \Vert \widehat{h}_c\Vert_{L^1} \Vert f\Vert_{L^2}\,.
\end{align}
{\bf b)}
For all $f \in H^2(\R,\mathbb{C})$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{T-wahl}
&-\k0 \mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\psi_c,f)+
\mathcal{T}(\k0\psi_c,\psi_c,f) +\mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\k0\psi_c,f)
+\mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\psi_c,\k0 f) \\ \nonumber
&\qquad\quad = N(\psi_c, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi \vartheta f)) + Y(\psi,f)
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{T-rest}
\|Y(\psi,f)\|_{L^2} = \mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{H^2})
\end{equation}
for sufficiently small $\varepsilon >0$.\\[2mm]
{\bf c)}
For all $f \in L^2(\R,\mathbb{C})$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{P_0 T}
P_{\delta,\infty}T(\psi_c, \psi_c,f)=0\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
To show a), we use the triangle inequality, Young's inequality for convolutions, \eqref{kthk}, \eqref{theta-1-eps-1} and \eqref{delta} to get
\begin{align*}
\Vert T(g_c,h_c,f) \Vert_{L^2} &\lesssim \sum_{j= \pm 1} \|\widehat{t}_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \Vert \widehat{g}_c\Vert_{L^1} \Vert \widehat{h}_c\Vert_{L^1} \Vert f\Vert_{L^2} \lesssim \varepsilon^{-1} \Vert \widehat{g}_c\Vert_{L^1} \Vert \widehat{h}_c\Vert_{L^1} \Vert f\Vert_{L^2} \,.
\end{align*}
To prove b), we first show that
\begin{align}
\label{Ndom}
N(\psi_c, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi \vartheta f)) = \sum_{j= \pm 1} P_{0, \delta} N(\psi_j, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_j \vartheta f)) + \mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{H^2})
\end{align}
such that it is sufficient to prove that the $L^{2}$-norm of
\begin{align*}
\tilde{Y}:=& \sum_{j= \pm 1} \Big( -\k0 \mathcal{T}_j(\psi_j,\psi_j,f)+
\mathcal{T}_j(\k0\psi_j,\psi_j,f) + \mathcal{T}_j(\psi_j,\k0\psi_j,f)\\
&\qquad\quad +\mathcal{T}_j(\psi_j,\psi_j,\k0 f) - P_{0, \delta} N(\psi_j, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_j \vartheta f)) \Big)
\end{align*}
is of order $\mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2})$, which we will obtain
by construction of $\mathcal{T}$ and because of Lemma \ref{int-kerne}.
To verify \eqref{Ndom}, we split $N$ into
\begin{align*}
N(\psi_c, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi \vartheta f)) =& \sum_{j= \pm 1} P_{0, \delta} N(\psi_j, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_j \vartheta f)) +
\sum_{j= \pm 1} P_{0, \delta} N(\psi_j, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_{-j} \vartheta f))\\
&+ P_{\delta, \infty}N(\psi_c, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi \vartheta f))
+ \varepsilon P_{0, \delta}N(\psi_c, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_s \vartheta f))\,.
\end{align*}
Due to \eqref{N0}, \eqref{PN} and \eqref{d/dx theta-1}, the $L^{2}$-norm of the sum of the last two summands is of order $\mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{H^2})$.
Furthermore, in Fourier space, we have
\begin{align*}
&\;\widehat{P_{0, \delta}N}(\psi_j, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_{\ell} \vartheta f))(k) \\[2mm]
=&\;
\widehat{P}_{0, \delta}(k) \int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}} {K}(k,k-m,m,n)
\widehat{\psi}_{j}(k-m) \widehat{P}_{\varepsilon,\infty}(m) \widehat{\psi}_{\ell}(m-n) \widehat{f}(n)\, dn dm
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
{K}(k,k-m,m,n)=-\frac{ikm\,\widehat{\vartheta}(n)}{\widehat{\vartheta}(k)
\tanh(k) \tanh(k-m) \tanh(m) }\,,
\end{align*}
where $y \mapsto y/\tanh(y)$ is continued by $1$ for $y=0$.
For $\ell=-j$ we can apply Fubini's theorem, Young's inequality for convolutions and Lemma \ref{int-kerne} to obtain
\begin{align*}
&\;\|\widehat{P_{0, \delta}N}(\psi_j, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_{-j} \vartheta f))\|_{L^{2}}\\[2mm]
=&\;
\Big \| \int_{\mathbb{R}} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \widehat{P}_{0, \delta}(\cdot)\, {K}(\cdot,jk_0,\cdot-jk_0,\cdot)
\widehat{\psi}_{j}(\cdot-m) \widehat{P}_{\varepsilon,\infty}(m) \widehat{\psi}_{-j}(m-n)\widehat{f}(n)\, dn dm \,\Big \|_{L^{2}}\\[2mm]
&\; + \mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2})\,.
\end{align*}
Since
\begin{align*}
{K}(k,jk_0,k-jk_0,k) =-\frac{ik(k-jk_0)\, \widehat{\vartheta}(k)}{\widehat{\vartheta}(k)
\tanh(k) \tanh(jk_0)\tanh(k-jk_0)}
\end{align*}
and the factor $\widehat{\vartheta}(k)$ in the denominator is canceled by the same factor in the numerator, ${K}(k,jk_0,k-jk_0,k)$ contains no factors which are of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-1})$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{k \in \R}\, |{K}(k,jk_0,k-jk_0,k)| = \mathcal{O}(1)\,.
\end{align*}
Hence, by using \eqref{RES3} and Young's inequality for convolutions, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|\widehat{P_{0, \delta}N}(\psi_j, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_{-j} \vartheta f))\|_{L^{2}} =&\,
\mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2})
\end{align*}
such that we have verified
\eqref{Ndom}.
To estimate $ \Vert \tilde{Y} \Vert_{L^2}$, we use
\begin{align*}
&\;\widehat{\tilde{Y}}(k)\\[2mm]
=&\;
\sum_{j= \pm 1} \widehat{P}_{0, \delta}(k) \int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
K_j(k,k-m,m-n,n)
\widehat{\psi}_j(k-m)\widehat{\psi}_j(m-n)\widehat{f}(n)\, dn dm
\\[2mm]
&\;- \sum_{j= \pm 1} \widehat{P}_{0, \delta}(k) \int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
K(k,k-m,m,n)
\widehat{\psi}_j(k-m)\widehat{P}_{\varepsilon,\infty}(m)\widehat{\psi}_j(m-n)\widehat{f}(n)\, dn dm
\,,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
{K}_j(k,k-m,m-n,n) =&\; -\frac{ik(k-jk_0)\,\widehat{\vartheta}(k-2jk_0)}{\widehat{\vartheta}(k)
\tanh(k) \tanh(jk_0) \tanh(k-jk_0)} \\[2mm]
&\; \times \frac{\tanh(k)-\tanh(k-m)-\tanh(m-n)-\tanh(n)}{\tanh(k) -2 \tanh(jk_0)-\tanh(k-2jk_0)}
\end{align*}
and $K$ is as above. We can apply again Fubini's theorem, Young's inequality for convolutions and Lemma \ref{int-kerne} to obtain
\begin{align*}
&\,\widehat{\tilde{Y}}(k)\\[2mm]
=&\,
\sum_{j= \pm 1} \int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\widehat{P}_{0, \delta}(k)\, K_j(k,jk_0,jk_0,k\!-\!2jk_0)
\widehat{\psi}_j(k-m)\widehat{P}_{\varepsilon,\infty}(m)\widehat{\psi}_j(m\!-\!n)\widehat{f}(n)\, dn dm
\\[2mm]
&\,-\!\sum_{j= \pm 1} \int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\widehat{P}_{0, \delta}(k)\, K(k,jk_0,k\!-\!jk_0,k\!-\!2jk_0)
\widehat{\psi}_j(k-m)\widehat{P}_{\varepsilon,\infty}(m)\widehat{\psi}_j(m\!-\!n)\widehat{f}(n)\, dn dm
\\[2mm]
&\,+ \mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2})\,,
\end{align*}
where we used that due to the support of $\widehat{\psi}_j$ the first integrand vanishes for $|m| \leq \varepsilon$.
Since
\begin{align*}
K_j(k,jk_0,jk_0,k-2jk_0) = K(k,jk_0,k-jk_0,k-2jk_0)\,,
\end{align*}
the two integral kernels, which are both of order $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-1})$, cancel each other out such that we get
\begin{align*}
\Vert \tilde{Y} \Vert_{L^2} = \mathcal{O}(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2})\,.
\end{align*}
Hence, we have proven b).
Finally, c) follows directly by the definition of $\mathcal{T}$.
\qed
\medskip
\begin{lemma}
\label{int-helfer}
Let $f \in H^{\ell}(\R,\R)$ and $g \in H^{m}(\R,\R)$ with $\ell,m \ge 0$. Then we have
\begin{align}
\label{int und theta}
\int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m} \vartheta g\, dx = \int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m} g\,dx+ \mathcal{O}(\Vert f\Vert_{L^2} \Vert g\Vert_{L^2})\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{int und theta-1}
\int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m+1} \vartheta^{-1} g\, dx = \int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m+1} g\, dx+\mathcal{O}(\Vert f\Vert_{L^2} \Vert g\Vert_{L^2})\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
Using the definition of $\vartheta$, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m} \vartheta g\, dx &= \int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m} g \,dx + (-1)^{\ell}\! \int_{\R}f\, \partial_x^{\ell+m} P_{0, \delta}(\vartheta-1) g \,dx \,,\\[2mm]
\int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m+1} \vartheta^{-1} g\,dx &= \int_{\R}\partial_x^{\ell} f\, \partial_x^{m+1}g\,dx + (-1)^{\ell}\! \int_{\R}f\, \partial_x^{\ell+m+1} P_{0, \delta}(\vartheta^{-1}-1) g\, dx \,,
\end{align*}
which yields \eqref{int und theta} and, due to \eqref{d/dx theta-1}, also \eqref{int und theta-1}.
\qed
\medskip
\begin{lemma}
\label{checkRlem}
For sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$ there exist constants $C, \check{C} >0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{checkR gegen R}
\Vert \check{R} \Vert_{L^2}
\leq C \Vert R \Vert_{H^{1}}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{R gegen checkR}
\Vert R \Vert_{L^2} \leq \check{C} \Vert \check{R} \Vert_{L^2}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
Estimate \eqref{checkR gegen R} is a direct consequence of the estimates \eqref{N0} and \eqref{T-abschaetzung}.
To prove \eqref{R gegen checkR} we introduce
$R_0:=P_{0, \delta}R$, $\check{R}_0:=P_{0, \delta}\check{R}$, $R_1:=P_{ \delta, \infty}R$, $\check{R}_1:=P_{ \delta, \infty}\check{R}$
and split $R$, $\check{R}$ into $R=R_0+R_1$ and $\check{R}=\check{R}_0+\check{R}_1$.
Because of \eqref{P_0 N} and \eqref{P_0 T}, $R_0$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
R_0 + \varepsilon^{2} \mathcal{T}(\psi_c, \psi_c, R_0) = \check{R}_0 - \varepsilon P_{0,\delta} N(\psi_c, R_1)- \varepsilon^{2} \mathcal{T}(\psi_c, \psi_c, R_1)\,.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{N0} and \eqref{T-abschaetzung} yields
\begin{align}
\label{R0est}
\Vert R_0 \Vert_{L^2}
& \lesssim \Vert \check{R}_0 \Vert_{L^2} + \Vert R_1 \Vert_{L^2}
\end{align}
for sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$. Moreover, $R_1$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
R_1 + \varepsilon P_{\delta,\infty} N(\psi_c, R_1)
= \check{R}_1 - \varepsilon P_{\delta,\infty} N(\psi_c, R_0)\,.
\end{equation}
Multiplying this equation with $R_1$, integrating and using $P_{\delta,\infty} N= P_{\delta,\infty} \vartheta N$ as well as \eqref{PN} yields
\begin{align*}
\Vert R_1 \Vert_{L^2}^2 + \varepsilon \int_{\mathbb{R}} R_1\, \vartheta N(\psi_c, R_1)\, dx
\lesssim (\Vert \check{R}_1 \Vert_{L^2} + \varepsilon \Vert R_0 \Vert_{L^2}) \Vert R_1 \Vert_{L^2}\,.
\end{align*}
Because of \eqref{partN} and \eqref{R0est}, we get
\begin{align}
\label{R1est}
\Vert R_1 \Vert_{L^2}
& \lesssim \Vert \check{R}_1 \Vert_{L^2} + \varepsilon \Vert R_0 \Vert_{L^2} \lesssim \Vert \check{R} \Vert_{L^2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\label{R0est2}
\Vert R_0 \Vert_{L^2}
& \lesssim \Vert \check{R} \Vert_{L^2}
\end{align}
for sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$. Combining \eqref{R1est} and \eqref{R0est2} yields \eqref{R gegen checkR}.
\qed
\medskip
The assertions of Lemma \ref{Nlem} and Lemma \ref{checkRlem} imply
\begin{lemma}
For $\ell \geq 1$, we have
\begin{align}
\tilde{E}_{\ell} = \frac{1}{2} \Vert \partial_x^{\ell} R \Vert_{L^2}^2 + \epsilon\, \mathcal{O}(\Vert R \Vert_{H^{\ell}}^2) \,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
\label{en-Aequi}
$\sqrt{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}}$ is equivalent to $\Vert R \Vert_{H^{s}}$
for all $s \ge 1$ if $\varepsilon > 0$ is sufficiently small.
\end{corollary}
Now, we are prepared to estimate the time derivative of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}$ for any sufficiently regular solution of \eqref{d/dt R}. We obtain
\begin{lemma}
For sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{dt E_0}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{E}_0 \lesssim
\varepsilon^2( \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{2}
+ \varepsilon^{1/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{2}^{3/2} +1)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
Because of \eqref{d/dt R} and \eqref{ch R} we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{E}_0 = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \overline{\check{R}}\, \partial_t\check{R}\, dx +\int_{\mathbb{R}} {\check{R}}\, \overline{\partial_t\check{R}}\, dx
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
\partial_t\check{R} =&\, \k0 \check{R} + \varepsilon^{-5/2} \vartheta^{-1}\res(\varepsilon \psi)\\[2mm]
&\, - \varepsilon \big( \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\psi_c \vartheta P_{\varepsilon, \infty} R)
+\k0 N(\psi_c, R)- N(\k0 \psi_c, R)- N(R, \k0 \psi_c)\big)
\\[2mm]
&\, + \varepsilon \big(N( \partial_t \psi_c- \k0 \psi_c, R) +
N
(\psi_c,\varepsilon^{-5/2}\vartheta^{-1} \res(\varepsilon \psi)) \big)
\\[2mm]
&\,- \varepsilon \big(\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x({\psi}_c \vartheta P_{0,\varepsilon} R) + \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x((\tilde{\psi}-\psi_c) \vartheta R) \big)
\\[2mm]
&\,- \varepsilon^{2}
N
(\psi_c,\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x({\psi} \vartheta R))
\\[2mm]
&\,- \varepsilon^{2}
\big( \k0 \mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\psi_c,R)
- \mathcal{T}(\k0 \psi_c,\psi_c,R)-\mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\k0 \psi_c,R)- \mathcal{T}
(\psi_c,\psi_c,\k0R)\big)
\\[2mm]
&\,+ \varepsilon^{2}
\big(\mathcal{T}(\partial_t \psi_c- \k0 \psi_c, \psi_c,R) +\mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\partial_t \psi_c- \k0 \psi_c,R)\big)
\\[2mm]
&\,+ \varepsilon^{2}
\mathcal{T}(\psi_c,\psi_c,\varepsilon^{-5/2}\vartheta^{-1} \res(\varepsilon \psi))
\\[2mm]
&\,- \varepsilon^{3} \mathcal{T}
(\psi_c,\psi_c,\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R))
- \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{7/2}
N
(\psi_c,\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x(\vartheta R)^{2})
\,,
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{\psi}=\psi + \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{3/2} \vartheta R$.
Exploiting the skew symmetry of $\k0 \,$ and
the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we conclude
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{E}_0
\leq 2 \Vert \partial_t\check{R} - \k0 \check{R} \Vert_{L^2} \Vert \check{R} \Vert_{L^2}\,.
\end{align*}
Using \eqref{ans-high}, the bounds \eqref{RES1}, \eqref{RES3} and \eqref{d/dt Psi}
for the approximation functions and the residual, the properties \eqref{N0} and
\eqref{N-wahl} of the operator $N$, the properties \eqref{T-abschaetzung}-\eqref{T-rest} of the operator $\mathcal{T}$, the bounds \eqref{d/dx theta-1} and
\begin{equation}
\label{P_0 Theta}
\|\vartheta P_{0,\epsilon} f \|_{L^{2}} \lesssim \epsilon \|f \|_{L^{2}}
\end{equation}
for $\vartheta$, the estimate \eqref{checkR gegen R} for $\check{R}$ as well as Corollary \ref{en-Aequi}, we get
\begin{align*}
\Vert \partial_t\check{R} - \k0 \check{R} \Vert_{L^2}
\lesssim &\; \varepsilon^{2} ( \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{2}^{1/2}
+ \varepsilon^{1/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{2} +1) \,,\\[2mm]
\Vert \check{R} \Vert_{L^2}
\lesssim &\; \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{1}^{1/2}
\end{align*}
and therefore
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{E}_0 \lesssim
\varepsilon^2( \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{2}
+ \varepsilon^{1/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{2}^{3/2} +1)\,.
\end{equation*}
\qed
\medskip
\begin{lemma}
For $\ell\ge 1$, $\theta \ge \max \{2,\ell\} $ and sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{dt E_l}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{E}_{\ell} \lesssim
\varepsilon^2 (\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta} +
\varepsilon^{1/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}^{3/2}
+1)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof.}
We compute
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{E}_{\ell} \;=&\; \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial_t\partial^{\ell}_x R \,dx\,
+ \varepsilon \Big( \int_{\R} \partial_t\partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\psi_c,R)\,dx
\\[2mm] &\;
+ \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\psi_c,\partial_t R)\,dx\,
+ \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\partial_t \psi_c, R)\,dx \Big)\,.
\end{align*}
Using the error equation \eqref{d/dt R}, we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{E}_{\ell}
\,\,=&\,\, \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R \k0 \partial^{\ell}_x R \,dx
\\[2mm]
&\,\,
+ \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \varepsilon^{-5/2} {\vartheta}^{-1} \partial^{\ell}_x \res(\varepsilon\psi)\,dx\,
\\[2mm]
&\,\,
+\, \varepsilon \Big(- \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\psi_c \vartheta P_{\varepsilon, \infty} R)\,dx
\\[2mm]
&\,\,
\qquad\;
+ \int_{\R} \k0 \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_xN(\psi_c, R)\,dx
\\[2mm]
&\,\,
\qquad\;
+ \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\psi_c, \k0 R)\,dx
\\[2mm]
&\,\,
\qquad\;
+ \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\k0 \psi_c, R)\,dx
\\[2mm]
&\,\,
\qquad\;
+ \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\partial_t \psi_c -\k0 \psi_c, R)\,dx\\[2mm]
&\,\,
\qquad\;
+ \int_{\R} \varepsilon^{-5/2} {\vartheta}^{-1} \partial^{\ell}_x \res(\varepsilon\psi)\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\psi_c,R)\,dx
\\[2mm]&\,\,
\qquad\;
+ \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\psi_c,\varepsilon^{-5/2} {\vartheta}^{-1} \res(\varepsilon\psi))\,dx\\[2mm]
&\,\,
\qquad\;
- \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\psi_c \vartheta P_{0,\varepsilon} R)\,dx
\\[2mm]&\,\,
\qquad\;
- \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}((\tilde{\psi}-\psi_c) \vartheta R)\,dx\, \Big)
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
& -\, \varepsilon^{2} \Big(\, \int_{\R} \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R)\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\psi_c, R)\,dx\\[1mm]
&\,
\qquad\;\,\,
+\int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x N(\psi_c,\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x (\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R))\,dx \,\Big) \\[2mm]
\qquad\, =:&\, \sum_{j=1}^{13} I_j\,
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{\psi}=\psi + \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{3/2} \vartheta R$.
Because of the skew symmetry of $\k0\,$, the integral $I_1$ equals zero.
Since the operator $N$ satisfies \eqref{N-wahl}, we have $$I_3+I_4+I_5+I_6=0.$$
Furthermore, by integration by parts we get
\begin{align*}
I_8 = (-1)^{\ell-1} \int_{\R} \varepsilon^{-3/2} {\vartheta}^{-1} \partial^{2\ell-1}_x \res(\varepsilon\psi)\, \partial_x N(\psi_c,R)\,dx \,.
\end{align*}
Hence, the bounds \eqref{RES1}, \eqref{d/dxN}, \eqref{d/dx theta-1} and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality directly yield
\begin{align*}
I_8 = \varepsilon^{4}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+ 1)
\,.
\end{align*}
Similarly, one can derive
\begin{align*}
I_2 + I_9 = \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+ 1)
\,.
\end{align*}
To control $I_7$ we use \eqref{int und theta-1} and obtain
\begin{align*}
I_7 = \varepsilon \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x \vartheta N(\partial_t \psi_c -\k0 \psi_c, R)\,dx + \varepsilon\, \mathcal{O}(\|R\|_{L^2} \|\vartheta N(\partial_t \psi_c -\k0 \psi_c, R)\|_{L^2} )
\end{align*}
such that \eqref{N aufloesen}, \eqref{Q0}, \eqref{PI}, \eqref{d/dt Psi} and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yield
\begin{align*}
I_7 = \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta})
\,.
\end{align*}
Moreover, by using
\eqref{RES3},
\eqref{d/dx theta-1}, \eqref{P_0 Theta}, the fact that $\widehat{P_{0,\varepsilon} f}$ has compact support and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get
\begin{align*}
I_{10} =& \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta})
\,.
\end{align*}
Next, we analyze $I_{12}+I_{13}$. Due to \eqref{int und theta-1}, we have
\begin{align*}
I_{12}+ I_{13}
=& -\varepsilon^{2} \Big(\, \int_{\R} \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R)\, \partial^{\ell}_x \vartheta N(\psi_c, R)\,dx\\[1mm]
&\,
\qquad\;\,\,
+\int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell}_x \vartheta N(\psi_c,\vartheta^{-1} \partial_x (\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R))\,dx \,\Big) \\[2mm]
& +\, \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+ \varepsilon^{3/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{3/2}_{\theta})\,.
\end{align*}
To extract all terms with more than $\ell$ spatial derivatives falling on $R$, we apply Leibniz's rule and get
\begin{align*}
I_{12}+ I_{13}
=&-\varepsilon^{2}\, \Big(\,\int_{\R} \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R)\, \vartheta N(\psi_c, \partial^{\ell}_x R)\,dx\\[1mm]
&\qquad\;\;\; + \ell \int_{\R} \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R)\, \vartheta N(\partial_x \psi_c, \partial^{\ell-1}_x R)\,dx\\[2mm]
&\qquad\;\;\; +\int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R \,\vartheta N(\psi_c, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R) )\,dx \\[2mm]
&\qquad\;\;\; +\ell \int_{\R} \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \vartheta N(\partial_x\psi_c, \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R))\,dx \,\Big)\\[2mm]
&+\, \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+ \varepsilon^{3/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{3/2}_{\theta})\,.
\end{align*}
Because of \eqref{partN}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
I_{12}+ I_{13} =& -\varepsilon^{2} \Big( \int_{\R} \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R)\, {S}(\partial_x \psi_c, \partial^{\ell}_x R)\,dx\\[1mm]
&\qquad\;\;\;+2\ell \int_{\R} \vartheta^{-1} \partial_x^{\ell+1}(\tilde{\psi} \vartheta R)\, \vartheta N(\partial_x \psi_c, \partial^{\ell-1}_x R)\,dx\, \Big)\\[2mm]
&+\, \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+ \varepsilon^{3/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{3/2}_{\theta})\,.
\end{align*}
Using \eqref{N aufloesen}, \eqref{int und theta} and \eqref{int und theta-1} yields
\begin{align*}
I_{12}+ I_{13}
=& -(2\ell+1)\, \varepsilon^{2} \int_{\R} \kk \partial_x \psi_c\, \tilde{\tilde{\psi}}\, \partial^{\ell}_x R\, \partial^{\ell+1}_x R\,dx \\[2mm]
&+\, \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+\varepsilon^{3/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{3/2}_{\theta})
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{\tilde{\psi}}=\psi + \varepsilon^{3/2} \vartheta R$.
Finally, with the help of \eqref{PI}, we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
I_{12}+ I_{13}
= \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+\varepsilon^{3/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{3/2}_{\theta})\,.
\end{equation*}
Using again \eqref{PI}, \eqref{int und theta} and \eqref{int und theta-1} as well as \eqref{RES3} yields
\begin{equation*}
I_{11}
= \varepsilon^{2}\,\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}+\varepsilon^{1/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{3/2}_{\theta})\,.
\end{equation*}
Hence, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{{E}}_{\ell} \lesssim \varepsilon^2 (\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta} +
\varepsilon^{1/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{\theta}^{3/2}
+1)\,.
\end{equation*}
\qed
\medskip
Now, combining the estimates \eqref{dt E_0} and \eqref{dt E_l}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s} \lesssim \varepsilon^2 (\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}
+ \varepsilon^{1/2} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}^{3/2}+1)
\end{equation}
for $s=s_A > 7$ and sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$.
Consequently, Gronwall's inequality yields the $\mathcal{O}(1)$-boundedness of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{s}$ for $t \in [0, T_0/{\varepsilon}^2]$.
Due to Corollary \ref{en-Aequi} and estimate \eqref{RES2}, Theorem \ref{Theorem 2 NLS-APP} follows.
\qed
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
The growth of massive data domains such as social networks, high frequency trading, online gaming, advertisement, DNA sequencing are beyond the reach of traditional data processing systems. Companies are focusing towards real time data-based products for their consumers. For example, Supercell\footnote{http://www.supercell.net/} provides online games - Clash of Clans\footnote{http://www.supercell.net/games/view/clash-of-clans} and Boom Beach\footnote{http://www.supercell.net/games/view/boom-beach}. These are online combat strategy games, which can be played on hand-held devices, such as tablets and smartphones. Supercell is using Amazon Kinesis \cite{Amazon:Kinesis:Main:Web} for real time processing of data streams generated from various devices. Amazon Kinesis helps in real time analysis of game insight from the data originated from hundreds of users and the game engine servers \cite{AWS:Supercell}. The timely insight data helps in business analytics and to improve the game experience of the players \cite{AWS:Supercell}.
The stream processing concept has evolved from stream computing paradigm, which involves continuous query and real time analytics on massive stream of data. There are a number of solutions, which address real time stream processing. S4 \cite{Neumeyer:2010:SDS:1933306.1934385}, Storm \cite{ApacheStorm} and Spark Streaming \cite{SparkStreaming:Online} are examples of existing open-source solutions. Commercial solutions such as Amazon Kinesis \cite{Amazon:Kinesis:Main:Web}, IBM Infosphere stream \cite{IBM:Infosphere:Stream:WhitePaper} are also working in the same direction.
The paper focuses on discussion and comparative analysis of the existing state-of-the-art stream processing solutions. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section two discusses massive data streaming concepts. Section three looks into various streaming solutions. Section four discusses the architecture perspective of stream processing solutions and explores programming model, latency, data pipelines, fault tolerance, and data. Section five presents emerging use cases of stream processing solutions. Section six explores the challenges of stream processing solutions and applications. Finally, the conclusions are summarized in section seven.
\section{Streaming Concepts}
Streaming data is fundamentally different from traditional data handling patterns and comes with its own set of challenges and requirements. It requires in-stream processing to have a low latency. The system should be scalable with self load balancing capability and should have high availability. It may require some persistent storage for short period of time. Real time streaming data has all the well-known attributes of Big Data, such as volume, variety, velocity and veracity.
Stream processing requires handling of varying rate of streaming data, the incoming streaming data might involve missing data or delays. The processing includes on-the-fly decision and provision for handling such out of order streaming data. The streaming data can be time-stamped on arrival or subject to discard depending upon sensitiveness of data. The time sensitive operations require time-out of blocking computations. The time intensive operations require careful handling of stream linked to the system and resources binding to the computation. Real time streaming also requires deterministic processing as time-order guarantee is subject to different conditions. The system demands mining around processed streaming data and data stored across persistent storage. Although the persistent storage adds additional latency, the integration is required to provide business analytic around data. Persistent storage for long time of streaming data involves its own set of challenges. The streaming data require extensible framework for querying and processing to conclude desired results. The operators involving stream data require understanding of streaming data context. The variety of data in the structured, unstructured or semi-structured form requires adaptability in real time processing.
The attributes such as data integrity and data availability are the integral parts of data engines. There is a change in paradigm, which involves distributed processing solution providers to run on low cost commodity hardware clusters. The system demands scalability and transparent load-balancing for such high volume of data. The data engine should be adaptive, extensible to add easy to program modules, and capable to process high-volume of streaming data with low latency.
\section{Streaming Solutions}
There are few solutions available for real time massive streaming data processing. The available solutions can be classified into open source contributions and commercial solutions. Table \ref{table:kysymys} refers to various available open-source solutions. Table \ref{table:propStream} refers to the list of various commercial solutions.
\def\arraystretch{1.2}%
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Open Source Streaming Solutions}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline Solution&Type&Developed By\\ \hline
Storm & Streaming & BackType\\ \hline
Spark Streaming & Batch \& Streaming & Berkeley AMPLab \\ \hline
S4 & Streaming & Yahoo \\
\hline\end{tabular}
\label{table:kysymys}
\end{table}
\def\arraystretch{1.2}%
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Commercial Streaming Solutions}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline Solution&Developed By\\ \hline
MillWheel & Google \\ \hline
Amazon Kinesis & Amazon\\ \hline
Infosphere & IBM \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:propStream}
\end{table}
\subsection{Open Source Streaming Solutions}
\textbf{Storm} is a distributed stream processing framework, developed in Clojure and built upon model of task parallel computation \cite{ApacheStorm}. It provides an adapter to write applications virtually in any language. Storm is optimized for low-latency processing and uses ZeroMQ\footnote{http://zeromq.org/} for message passing, which makes its architecture to provide a guaranteed message processing \cite{ApacheStorm}. It attempts to process each record at least once and if a record is not yet processed by a node, it replays the records. In addition, It provides fair fault detection and process management. On discovery of the failure of a task, messages are automatically reassigned by quickly restarting the processing. For optimal resource handling, the processes in Storm are managed by some supervisors.
\textbf{Spark Streaming} is an extension of the core Spark which is an in-memory distributed data analysis platform \cite{SparkStreaming:Online}. Spark is built upon the model of data parallel computation. It provides reliable processing of live streaming data. Spark streaming transforms streaming computation into a series of deterministic micro-batch computations, which are then executed using Spark's distributed processing framework.
\textbf{S4} (Simple Scalable Streaming System) is a general purpose distributed and scalable streaming platform that allows the processing of continuous unbounded streams of data. Its processing model is inspired by MapReduce, which uses key based programming model \cite{gdfm:S4vsStorm:Online}. The computation is performed by processing elements and messages are transmitted between them in the form of data events \cite{Neumeyer:2010:SDS:1933306.1934385}.
\subsection{Commercial Streaming Solutions}
\def\arraystretch{1.2}%
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{Attributes based Streaming solution classification}
\begin{tabular}{| L{4cm} | L{4cm} | L{4cm} | L{4cm} |} \hline Attributes& Storm & Spark Streaming & S4\\ \hline
Framework & Stream Processing + Micro-Batching using Trident & Micro-Batching with Batch Processing using Core Spark & Actor Programming Model \\ \hline
Implemented in & Clojure & Scala & Java \\ \hline
Application Language & Java, Clojure, Scala, Python, Ruby & Java, Scala & Java, Python, C++ \\ \hline
Stream Primitive & Tuples & DStream & Events \\ \hline
Stream Source & Spouts & Network, HDFS & Network \\ \hline
Computation or Transformation & Bolts & Transformation, Window Operations & Processing Element \\ \hline
Persistence Entity & Bolts & foreach RDD & Control Messages \\ \hline
Reliable Execution & At least once & Exactly once & -- \\ \hline
Fault Tolerance & Tuples are replayed, Guaranteed delivery & Tiny bits loss possible, Require HDFS for fully fault tolerant & New Node begin from snapshot \\ \hline
Latency & Sub-Second & Few Seconds & Few Seconds\footnote{Assuming low latency as few seconds \cite{Neumeyer:2010:SDS:1933306.1934385}} \\ \hline
Developed By & Conceived by BackType/ Twitter, Now Apache incubation project & Conceived by AmpLab Berkely, Now Apache incubation project & Initially conceived by Yahoo!, Now Apache incubation project \\
\hline\end{tabular}
\label{table:tab3}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Google\footnote{https://www.google.com/} MillWheel} is a framework for low-latency streaming data processing applications \cite{41378}. It is also inspired by MapReduce programming model and allows users to write application logic in a directed computer graph using custom topology \cite{41378}. Records in a Google MillWheel are delivered continuously along the edges in a graph \cite{41378}. It provides fault tolerance and guaranteed delivery of records to the users.
\textbf{Amazon\footnote{http://www.amazon.com/} Kinesis} is another service to process real time massive data from streams \cite{a2zKinesis}. It is a recent solution, which was introduced in late 2013. Kinesis adapts to streaming data and do load-balancing by auto-scaling. Fault tolerance is provided by check-pointing to replay the data records. It comes with a Kinesis client library that requires users to create "Producer" and "Worker" in an application. The Producer accepts data from a stream source and converts it into a Kinesis stream. Kinesis stream consists of data records organized into tuples. The Worker acts as a client application, which accepts Kinesis stream and performs required processing on stream. The worker can be invoked on a stream of data to obtain required results. The processed data is available only for 24 hours, which requires a user to link storage solution for future processing.
\textbf{IBM\footnote{http://www.ibm.com/} InfoSphere Streams} (Streams) is a high-performance stream processing system \cite{ballard2010ibm}. It is used for large scale continuous real time in-stream data processing \cite{ballard2010ibm}. InfoSphere does not follow specific programming model. The Stream Processing Language (SPL) has been used for developing streaming data processing applications. SPL is a declarative programming language \cite{ballard2010ibm}. SPL allows users to create complex applications without focusing on intricacies of distributed execution \cite{ballard2010ibm}. Users can control operator and its execution using C++ or Java.
InfoSphere includes various management services, which together lay the foundation of distributed execution. An application accepts jobs and performs concurrent processing. A job consists of one or more Processing Elements (PEs) \cite{ballard2010ibm}. Messaging in the system is performed using Low Latency Messaging (LLM) mechanism to optimize application execution. IBM Infosphere Streams is actively used in diverse domains such as transportation \cite{Biem:2010:IIS:1807167.1807291}, DNA sequencing \cite{Kienzler:2011:LDS:2238436.2238494}, radio astronomy \cite{5495521}, weather forecasting \cite{daldorff2009novel}, stock market trading \cite{4812538}, and telecommunications \cite{IBM:Infosphere:App:Telecomm}.
\section{Architecture Analysis}
The streaming data analytics concept has been divided into micro-batch and non-batch processing techniques. Spark Streaming solution provides micro-batching of an unbounded stream. It incorporates stream processing via short interval of batches and provides linear streaming solution, which is suitable for existing batch processing infrastructure. Storm and S4 both adopted non-batch processing of streaming data. Storm also provides micro-batch processing using Trident APIs. On the other hand, Apache S4 is entirely focused on real time stream processing and does not support micro-batch processing.
The attribute based comparison between Storm, Spark Streaming, and S4 is presented in Table \ref{table:tab3}. The table highlights different aspects of these solutions, which can be compared in context of processing model, data pipeline, latency, fault tolerance, and data guarantees.
\subsection{Processing Model \& Latency}
Storm does not mandate any specific programming model. It adopted both stream and complex event processing \cite{stromjens}. It follows Directed acyclic graph (DAG) as a processing model. DAG is a directed graph with no directed cycles. Storm provides topologies that operate on the streaming data. A topology is a job and is represented as DAG. The vertex in a topology represents a worker and edges represent the data flow between the worker instances. Workers are classified as spouts and bolts. Therefore, as topologies are arranged in a DAG, the data flows from spout to bolt and reverse flow is not possible. A spout works as an input source for the topology. Since, incoming events are processed as one record at a time, Storm has sub-second latency.
Spark streaming follows a micro-batching programming model. It combines streaming model with batch processing model. Before processing arrived data, Spark streaming batches up events within a short time frame. The batch processing of smallest units in Spark streaming leads to few second latency.
S4 implements the Actors programming paradigm \cite{gdfm:S4vsStorm:Online}. Processing elements are defined by the user. The messages as data events are transmitted between the processing elements \cite{Neumeyer:2010:SDS:1933306.1934385}. The triggered events are consumed by the S4 processing elements. Processing Elements interact with each other either as an event generator or consumer. S4 is inspired by the MapReduce model.
\subsection{Data pipeline}
Storm employs pull model where events from sources are pulled by each bolt. The loss of events is possible only at ingestion time. Spouts are responsible for maintaining the event rate.
On the other hand, Spark follows micro-batching processing model where data streams are divided into small batches and considered as Resilient Distributed Dataset (RDD). RDD is a distributed memory abstraction that allows in-memory computations on large clusters in a fault-tolerant manner \cite{Zaharia:2012:RDD:2228298.2228301}. RDD is the smallest processing unit and the results of RDD operations are returned as batches.
Finally, S4 is based on push model. The data events are pushed to the appropriate Processing Elements. There is a possibility of data loss in case of choking of receiver buffer.
\subsection{Fault Tolerance \& Data Guarantees}
As Storm processing model is based on a record, the state of each record requires to be tracked as arrived in DAG nodes. Storm only guarantees processing of a record at least once. In case of failure, the records can be replayed by spout. It is quite possible to have duplicates or twice updates to the mutable state of record and the events can be lost due to various reasons. Therefore, the state recovery is important from system perspective. State recovery is also one of the required attributes for long running operations. Storm does not provide state recovery but provides guaranteed delivery and processing of data.
Spark Streaming and Storm both provide fault tolerance and data guarantees. Stateful computation is better supported in Spark Streaming. Spark Streaming guarantees that batch level processing will be executed in an exactly once manner. In case of a node failure, Spark Streaming allows rebuilding a dataset in a node.
S4 provides state recovery via uncoordinated check pointing \cite{Chauhan:2012:PEY:2415755.2415892}. In case of failure or crash, the other nodes begin operation with recent snapshot of its state. The data events to the Processing Elements may be sent with or without guaranteed delivery. S4 also provides guaranteed delivery of control messages.
\section{Applications}
The rise of various solutions to process real time continuous stream of data reflects the trends and interest of in massive streaming data analytics. The stream processing systems are adopted by variety of applications from social media to sensing devices to astronomical telescope. An overview of such applications is provided below.
\textbf{Finance services} are based on high frequency real time trading and investment information. Most of the transactions are performed using credit cards by the customers. Banking institutions have to take preventive measures to detect any fraud activities with credit cards \cite{Storm:FinnServ:CC:Fraud:Detection}. For that purpose, banking sector monitors and processes multiple streams of transaction every day. The real time monitoring of transactions prevents the likelihood of miscellaneous activities. Therefore, real time stream processing systems play important roles in decision making for trading and investment.
\textbf{Medical hospitals} are also involved in using distributed stream processing for health monitoring objectives. The streams of measurement data generated from various medical instruments are processed and analyzed for proactive health diagnosis. The real time stream based monitoring tool assists doctors for diagnosis and relieves workload \cite{5431948}.
\textbf{Smart cities} \cite{hernandez2011smart} explore urban planning to incubate human adaptive environment. The real time data from different domains is analyzed for city planning and human mobility \cite{5512826}. The urban data from cities are explored to assist government in dynamic decision making process \cite{schaffers2011smart}. These distributed real time streams of data can be used for optimization of public transportation. It also allows people to avoid traffic congestion across different routes within a city. The urban data can also be used for constant weather and air content monitoring.
\textbf{Radio Astronomy} involves continuous stream of data from radio telescopes. The telemetry communication process collects continuous stream of data remotely using various radio elements such as antennas, beam formers. These imaging signals are synthesized and processed real time. The final accumulated outcome is stored in a system. There are number of projects which are utilizing streaming solutions such radio astronomy group of Uppsala University and the LOFAR Outrigger In Scandinavia (LOIS) project \cite{5495521} \cite{IBM:Infosphere:Stream:WhitePaper}.
\textbf{DNA sequence analysis} requires large-scale data set processing along with incremental computation and parallel processing while handling linear scalability. The Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) methods benefit from streaming data analysis in a scalable and cost-efficient way. The stream computing provides promising solution for large scale data-intensive computations in domain such as bio-informatics. The stream-based data management solution for large-scale DNA sequence analysis is explored using IBM Infosphere Streams computing platform \cite{Kienzler:2011:LDS:2238436.2238494}.
There are endless possibilities to utilize real time streaming data. Various applications such as the personalization of web page by Yahoo!\footnote{https://www.yahoo.com/}, pay-as-you-drive insurance model, recommendation system, weather forecasting, energy trading services are the emerging domains. They are are transforming their business models to gain benefits from the analytics on real time data streams. With the major developments in Internet of Things, distributed real time stream processing and analysis soon will be part of life.
\def\arraystretch{1.2}%
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{Applications using streaming solution in real time environment}
\begin{tabular}{| L{3cm} | L{3cm} | L{10.5cm} |}
\hline
Applications &
Applied Streaming Solution & Challenges \\ \hline
Online Gaming (esp. Supercell) \cite{AWS:Supercell} &
Amazon Kinesis &
\nextitem real time data streams originated from multiple players
\nextitem continuous query on data streams to improve player experience
\nextitem real time player sessions to provide real time experience
\nextitem business analytics on real time insight of game data
\\ \hline
Medical Hospitals \cite{5431948} &
IBM Infosphere Stream &
\nextitem privacy-protected real time stream monitoring from medical devices
\nextitem analysis of data streams to explore correlation in patient diseases
\nextitem predictive proactive medical alerts from real time data streams
\nextitem handling multiple data streams on large scale from multiple patients
\\ \hline
Radio Astronomy Imaging \cite{5495521} &
IBM Infosphere Stream &
\nextitem large volume of imaging data from multiple channels
\nextitem handling of high incoming data rate
\nextitem real time image synthesis for analysis
\nextitem storage limitation as all raw data is not useful
\\ \hline
DNA Sequencing \cite{Kienzler:2011:LDS:2238436.2238494} &
IBM Infosphere Stream &
\nextitem large volume of genetic data
\nextitem large-scale DNA sequence analysis
\nextitem high latency and significant processing time
\nextitem incremental and parallel processing
\\ \hline
Smart Cities \cite{Biem:2010:IIS:1807167.1807291} &
IBM Infosphere Stream &
\nextitem large volume of raw data from various source in cities
\nextitem data disparity due to unstructured and unrelated raw data
\nextitem modeling of heterogeneous data and real time data analogy
\\ \hline
Finance Services \cite{Storm:FinnServ:CC:Fraud:Detection} \cite{4812538} &
Storm, IBM Infosphere Stream &
\nextitem real time decision on investing and trading
\nextitem analytics around real data stream and previous stored market data
\nextitem monitoring of millions of high frequency transactions
\nextitem sub-second latency
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:tab4}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\section{Challenges}
The stream processing solutions are designed to solve emerging Big Data trends. The solutions and applications incorporate their own set of challenges, which should be addressed before designing any solution. The challenges require elaborate reasoning and inspection of application requirements to create an optimal solution. However, the challenges can be classified into application challenges and system level challenges.
\subsection{Application Challenges}
In the earlier section we mentioned a number of domains which incorporated stream processing. Each application is having its own set of requirements, which provide uniqueness to them. Table \ref{table:tab4} provides an overview of application challenges for domains such as radio astronomy imaging, smart cities, online gaming, medical hospitals, financial services including data handling challenges. The high volume of data leads to high latency in DNA sequencing. The modeling of heterogeneous data and real time data analogy is a challenge for smart cities. The real time analysis of business analytics data is an important requirement for financial services. The adaptive real time experience for players in online gaming requires continuous query on real time data. The solutions require low latency for these domains to adapt with real time stream of massive data.
\subsection{System Challenges}
The stream processing system encounters following challenges which can be broadly categorized into four categories.
\textbf{Data Acquisition}: It is challenging to handle massive stream of continuous data. The system requires to adapt with the velocity of incoming data. The variety of incoming data described as structured or unstructured data. The structured data acts as an optimal input for stream processing systems, whereas the unstructured data requires data pre-processing which involves filtering, extraction and organization into structured format. The latency of the stream processing system varies with structured and unstructured data. The correct representation of data and data acquisition strategies depend on the application built on the top of stream processing systems.
\textbf{Data Handling}: Another challenge is to properly handle large volume of data. The stream processing application requires analyzing the sensitivity of data, which need to store into persistent storage. Some applications only require storing the cumulative processed results while other applications require storing filtered and structurally organized processed data for later usage and analysis. The data handling and persistent storage of data format varies with the application requirement. It needs to be properly assessed by stream processing systems.
\textbf{Data Modeling}: The stream processing systems require in-stream processing capabilities to have a low latency. Considering the volume, variety, velocity and veracity of data, the stream processing system requires predictive models and efficient algorithms to extract application linked to important events from massive data streams. It also requires data models to perform comprehensive analysis by combining all available data.
\textbf{Data Mining}: The stream computing involves computational analysis and analytics around it. The stream processing requires new computational tools which can analyze heterogeneous data sets into appropriate results. It involves data analytics and data visualization of massive data sets. The traditional mining approaches need to adapt as per in-stream processing to provide dynamic results.
\section{Conclusions}
In the last decade, significant research has been performed to create a system that can handle Big Data. The MapReduce paradigm is able to offer a solution for Big Data and many solutions revolves around it. A solution based on MapReduce is suitable for many problems but not appropriate for many others. Previous research has been paired to find solutions which would be optimal for emerging Big Data trends. The stream computing paradigm appears to be a solution to the emerging Big Data trends.
The research community is primarily focused on development of solution or mining of large data sets. The research on providing solution is divided into the selection of the programming model or data model for a system. The selection of processing model for a system varies from batch processing to micro-batch processing. Considering the availability of MapReduce as successful paradigm, many solutions for streaming are influenced by this paradigm. Some solutions also explore the Actor model to have stream processing solution. Solutions such as Storm provide a sub-second latency and S4 does not provide persistent state and complete fault tolerance. Spark Streaming has mixed processing model and exactly once mechanism for record delivery which might affect processing.
A fundamental set of questions exists, which should be addressed before selecting any programming model or data model for stream processing. The design choices and challenges affect system latency and throughput. The challenges linked to applications and processing system require elaborate reasoning and inspection of requirements to create a stream processing system for heterogeneous data set. The stream processing paradigm requires solution which can provide low latency, high throughput, fault tolerance along with scalability and versatility. The system requires extensibility to plug and play different components to provide analytics for in-stream processing and stored stream data in a persistent storage.
\section{Acknowledgements}
I sincerely thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. This survey paper has been supported by the University of Helsinki as a learning initiative under Seminar course on distributed computing frameworks for Big Data.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
The standard model (SM) is widely regarded as an effective
approximation, valid at low energies, of a more complete theory of
particle interactions, such as supersymmetry (SUSY)~\cite{ref:SUSY-1,
ref:SUSY0, ref:SUSY1, ref:SUSY2, ref:SUSY3, ref:SUSY4,
ref:hierarchy1, ref:hierarchy2}, which would supersede the SM at
higher energy scales. A realisation of SUSY with TeV-scale
third-generation squarks is motivated by the cancellation of
quadratically divergent loop corrections to the mass of the Higgs
boson~\cite{ref:atlashiggsdiscovery, ref:cmshiggsdiscoverylong}
avoiding the need for significant fine tuning~\cite{ref:hierarchy1,
ref:hierarchy2, ref:barbierinsusy}. In R-parity-conserving
SUSY~\cite{Farrar:1978xj}, supersymmetric particles (sparticles) such
as squarks and gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to the lightest
stable supersymmetric particle (LSP), which is generally assumed to be
a weakly interacting and massive neutralino, $\PSGczDo$. A
characteristic signature of these events is a final state with jets
accompanied by an apparent, significant imbalance in transverse
momentum, \ptvecmiss, due to unobserved $\PSGczDo$ particles that can
carry substantial momentum.
The lack of evidence to date for SUSY at the CERN LHC has led to the
careful consideration of regions of the SUSY parameter space that have
a relatively weak coverage in the experimental programme. One such
class of models is that of compressed mass spectra, in which the LSP
lies close in mass to the parent sparticle produced in the collisions.
Models in which both the top squark ($\PSQt$) and neutralino LSP are
light and nearly degenerate in mass are phenomenologically well
motivated~\cite{Boehm:1999tr,Boehm:1999bj,Balazs:2004bu,
Martin:2007gf,
Martin:2007hn,Carena:2008mj,Grober:2014aha,Grober:2015fia}. For a
mass splitting $\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace = m_{\PSQt} - m_{\PSGczDo} < m_{\PW}$, where
$m_{\PW}$ is the mass of the W boson, the decay modes available to the
top squark are either loop-induced, flavour-changing neutral current
decays to a charm (c) quark and a neutralino, $\PSQt \to
\PQc\PSGczDo$, or four-body decays, $\PSQt \to {\PQb \ensuremath{f{\bar{f}'}}\xspace} \PSGczDo$,
where b is a bottom quark with $f$ and $\bar{f}'$ fermions from, for
example, an off-shell W boson decay. Improved experimental acceptance
for systems with compressed mass spectra can be achieved by requiring
the sparticles to be produced in association with jets from
initial-state radiation (ISR). The sparticle decay products from these
systems can be Lorentz boosted to values of transverse momentum \pt
within the experimental acceptance if they recoil against a
sufficiently high-\pt jet from ISR. This topology is exploited by
searches that consider $\text{``monojet''} + \ptvecmiss$ final
states~\cite{atlas-13, atlas-6, cms-9}. The reliance on ISR is reduced
for systems with larger \ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace, as in this case the sparticle decay
products can have sufficiently large values of \pt to lie within the
experimental acceptance even without the Lorentz boost from ISR.
This letter presents an inclusive search for the pair production of
massive coloured sparticles in final states with two or more energetic
jets and \ptvecmiss in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$. The data
correspond to an integrated luminosity of $18.5 \pm
0.5\fbinv$~\cite{lumi} collected with the CMS detector at the LHC. The
search is based upon a kinematic variable \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace, described in
Section~\ref{sec:alphat}, which offers powerful discrimination against
SM multijet production, and adheres to a strategy of maximising
experimental acceptance through the application of loose selection
requirements to provide sensitivity to a wide range of SUSY
models. Previous versions of this search were reported at $\sqrt{s} =
7\TeV$~\cite{RA1Paper, RA1Paper2011, RA1Paper2011FULL}, and for an
initial sample of data corresponding to 11.7\fbinv at
$8\TeV$~\cite{RA1Paper2012}. Other LHC searches for manifestations of
SUSY in all-jet final states are presented in Refs.~\cite{atlas-0,
atlas-1, atlas-2, atlas-3, atlas-4, atlas-5, atlas-11, atlas-7,
atlas-8, atlas-9, atlas-10, atlas-12, Aad:2016eki, Aaboud:2016zdn,
cms-1, cms-2, cms-3, cms-4, cms-8,cms-11,cms-5, cms-6, cms-7,
cms-10, cms-12, cms-13, atlas-13, atlas-6, cms-9}. Recent searches
for top squark production in leptonic final states can be found in
Refs.~\cite{Aad:2015pfx} (and references therein)
and~\cite{Khachatryan:2016pup, Aaboud:2016lwz}.
The search makes use of the number of reconstructed jets per event
(\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace), the number of these jets identified as originating from b
quarks (\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace), and the sum of the transverse energies of these jets
(\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace), where the transverse energy of a jet is given by $\ET =
E\sin\theta$, with $E$ the energy of the jet and $\theta$ its polar
angle with respect to the beam axis. The three discriminants provide
sensitivity to different production mechanisms of massive coloured
sparticles at hadron colliders (\ie squark-squark, squark-gluino, and
gluino-gluino), to a large range of mass splittings between the parent
sparticle and the LSP, and to third-generation squark signatures.
While the search results can be interpreted with a broad range of
models involving the strong production of coloured sparticles leading
to final states with both low and high b quark content, we focus on
the parameter space of simplified models~\cite{Alwall:2008ag,
Alwall:2008va, sms} that assumes the pair production of top squarks,
including the nearly mass-degenerate scenarios described
above. Furthermore, interpretations are provided for top squarks that
decay to the $\PSGczDo$ either directly in association with a top
quark ($\PSQt \to \PQt \PSGczDo$), or via an intermediate lightest
chargino $\PSGcpmDo$ in association with a bottom quark, with the
subsequent decay of the $\PSGcpmDo$ to the $\PSGczDo$ and a W boson
($\PSQt \to \PQb \PSGcpmDo \to {\PQb\PW}^{\pm(*)} \PSGczDo$). All
models assume only the pair production of the low-mass eigenstate
$\PSQt_1$, with the $\PSQt_2$ decoupled to a high mass.
Several aspects of the present search are improved relative to the
results of Ref.~\cite{RA1Paper2012} in order to increase the
sensitivity to models with nearly mass-degenerate $\PSQt$ and
$\PSGczDo$ states. The signal region is extended to incorporate events
with a low level of jet activity using a parked data set collected
with a dedicated trigger stream~\cite{CMS:2012ooa}, where ``parked''
means that, due to limitations in the available processing capability,
the data were recorded without being processed through the
reconstruction software, and were processed only subsequent to the end
of the 2012 data collection period. Furthermore, tight requirements on
a combination of kinematic variables are employed to suppress multijet
production to the sub-percent level relative to the total remaining
number of background events from other SM processes. Finally, an event
veto based on isolated tracks is used to further suppress SM
background contributions from $\tau \to \text{hadrons} + \nu$ decays
and misreconstructed electrons and muons. These features yield an
increased experimental acceptance to events with low jet activity, and
improvements in the control of SM backgrounds, which are crucial for
enhancing sensitivity to new sources of physics with nearly degenerate
mass spectra.
\section{The CMS detector}
The central feature of the CMS detector is a superconducting solenoid
providing an axial magnetic field of 3.8\unit{T}. The CMS detector is
nearly hermetic, which allows for accurate momentum balance
measurements in the plane transverse to the beam axis.
Charged particle trajectories are measured by a silicon pixel and
strip tracker system, with full azimuthal ($\phi$) coverage and a
pseudo-rapidity acceptance $\abs{\eta} < 2.5$. Isolated particles of
\pt = 100\GeV emitted at $\abs{\eta} < 1.4$ have track resolutions of
2.8\% in \pt and 10 (30)\mum in the transverse (longitudinal) impact
parameter \cite{TRK-11-001}.
A lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) and a
brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL) surround the tracking
volume and provide coverage over $\abs{\eta} < 3.0$. A forward HCAL
extends the coverage to $\abs{\eta} < 5.0$. In the barrel section of
the ECAL, an energy resolution of about 1\% is achieved for
unconverted or late-converting photons with energies on the order of
several tens of GeV. In the $\eta$--$\phi$ plane, and for $\abs{\eta}<
1.48$, the HCAL cells map onto $5 \times 5$ arrays of ECAL crystals to
form calorimeter towers projecting radially outwards from a location
near the nominal interaction point. At larger values of $\abs{ \eta
}$, the size of the towers increases and the matching ECAL arrays
contain fewer crystals. Within each tower, the energy deposits in ECAL
and HCAL cells are summed to define the calorimeter tower energies,
subsequently used to provide the energies and directions of
reconstructed jets. The HCAL, when combined with the ECAL, measures
jet energies with a resolution of approximately 40\% at 12\GeV, 5\% at
100\GeV, and 4\% at 1\TeV.
Muons are identified in gas ionisation detectors embedded in the steel
flux-return yoke of the magnet. Muons are measured in the range
$\abs{\eta}< 2.4$. By matching track segments reconstructed in the
muon detectors to segments measured in the silicon tracker, a relative
transverse momentum resolution of 1.3--2.0\% and $<$10\% is achieved
for muons with, respectively, $20 <\pt < 100\GeV$ and $\pt <
1\TeV$~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012xi}.
The first level (L1) of the CMS trigger system, composed of custom
hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon
detectors to select events of interest within a fixed time interval of
less than 4\mus. The high-level trigger (HLT) processor farm further
decreases the event rate from around 100\unit{kHz} to about
600\unit{Hz}, before data storage. Of these events, about half are
reconstructed promptly. The other half represent the parked data set
referred to above.
A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a
definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic
variables, can be found in Ref.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2008zzk}.
\section{The \texorpdfstring{\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace}{AlphaT} variable\label{sec:alphat}}
The \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace kinematic variable, first introduced in
Refs.~\cite{Randall:2008rw, RA1Paper}, is used to efficiently reject
events that do not contain significant \ptvecmiss or that contain
large \ptvecmiss only because of transverse momentum mismeasurements,
while retaining sensitivity to new-physics events with significant
\ptvecmiss. The \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace variable depends solely on the transverse
energies and azimuthal angles of jets, and is intrinsically robust
against the presence of jet energy mismeasurements in multijet
systems.
For events containing only two jets, \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace is defined as $\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace =
\ET^{\text j_2}/M_\mathrm{T}$, where $\ET^{\text j_2}$ is the
transverse energy of the jet with smaller \ET, and $M_\mathrm{T}$ is
the transverse mass of the dijet system, defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mt}
M_\mathrm{T} = \sqrt{ \left( \sum_{i=1}^2 \ET^{\mathrm{j}_i}
\right)^2 - \left( \sum_{i=1}^2 p_x^{\mathrm{j}_i} \right)^2 - \left(
\sum_{i=1}^2 p_y^{\mathrm{j}_i} \right)^2},
\end{equation}
where $\ET^{\mathrm{j}_i}$, $p_x^{\mathrm{j}_i}$, and
$p_y^{\mathrm{j}_i}$ are, respectively, the transverse energy and $x$
or $y$ components of the transverse momentum of jet $\mathrm{j}_i$.
For a perfectly measured dijet event with $\ET^{\mathrm{j}_1} =
\ET^{\mathrm{j}_2}$ and the jets in the back-to-back configuration
($\Delta\phi = \pi$), and in the limit in which the momentum of each
jet is large compared with its mass, the value of \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace is 0.5. For
an imbalance in the \ET values of the two back-to-back jets, whether
due to an over- or under-measurement of the \ET of either jet, then
$\ET^{\mathrm{j}_2} < 0.5M_\mathrm{T}$. This in turn implies $\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace
< 0.5$, giving the variable its intrinsic robustness. Values of
\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace significantly greater than 0.5 are observed when the two jets
are not back-to-back and recoil against significant, genuine
$\ptvecmiss$ from weakly interacting particles that escape the
detector, such as neutrinos.
The definition of the \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace variable can be generalised for events
with more than two jets~\cite{RA1Paper}. The mass scale for any
process is characterised through the scalar \ET sum of jets, defined
as $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace = \sum_{i=1}^{N_\text{jet}} \ET^{\mathrm{j}_i}$, where
$N_\text{jet}$ is the number of jets with \ET above a predefined
threshold. The estimator for $\abs{\ptvecmiss}$ is given by the
magnitude of the vector \pt sum of all the jets, defined by $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace =
\abs{\sum_{i=1}^{N_\text{jet}} \vec{\pt}^{\mathrm{j}_i}}$. For events
with three or more jets, a pseudo-dijet system is formed by combining
the jets in the event into two pseudo-jets. The total \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace for each
of the two pseudo-jets is given by the scalar \ET sum of its
contributing jets. The combination chosen is the one that minimises
\ensuremath{\Delta\scalht}\xspace, defined as the difference between the \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace of the two
pseudo-jets. This clustering criterion assumes a balanced-momentum
hypothesis, $\abs{\ptvecmiss} \approx 0\GeV$, which provides the best
separation between SM multijet events and events with genuine
\ptvecmiss. The \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace definition can then be generalised to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:alphat}
\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace -
\ensuremath{\Delta\scalht}\xspace}{\sqrt{(\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace)^2 - (\ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace)^2}}.
\end{equation}
When jet energies are mismeasured, or there are neutrinos from
heavy-flavour quark decays, the magnitude of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\Delta\scalht}\xspace are
highly correlated. This correlation is much weaker for
R-parity-conserving SUSY events, where each of the two decay chains
produces an undetected LSP.
\section{Event reconstruction and selection}
\label{sec:selections}
The event reconstruction and selection criteria described below are
discussed in greater detail in Ref.~\cite{RA1Paper2012}. To suppress
SM processes with genuine \ptvecmiss from neutrinos, events containing
an isolated electron~\cite{Khachatryan:2015hwa} or
muon~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012xi} with $\pt > 10\GeV$ are
vetoed. Furthermore, events containing an isolated
track~\cite{single-lepton-stop} with $\pt > 10\GeV$ are vetoed. Events
containing isolated photons~\cite{Khachatryan:2015iwa} with $\pt >
25\GeV$ are also vetoed to ensure an event sample comprising only
multijet final states.
Jets are reconstructed from the energy deposits in the calorimeter
towers, clustered using the anti-\kt algorithm~\cite{antikt} with a
radius parameter of 0.5. The jet energies measured in the calorimeters
are corrected to account for multiple pp interactions within an event
(pileup), and to establish a uniform relative response in $\eta$ and a
calibrated absolute response in \pt~\cite{Chatrchyan:2011ds}. Jets
are identified as originating from b quarks using the ``medium''
working point of the combined secondary vertex
algorithm~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012jua}, such that the probability to
misidentify jets originating from light-flavour partons (gluons and u,
d, or s quarks) as b quark jets is approximately 1\% for jets with
$\pt = 80\GeV$. The ``medium'' working point results in a b-tagging
efficiency, \ie the probability to correctly identify jets as
originating from b quarks, in the range 60--70\% depending on the jet
\pt.
All jets are required to satisfy $\abs{\eta} < 3.0$, and the jet with
largest \ET is also required to satisfy $\abs{\eta} < 2.5$. All jets
and the two jets with largest \ET are, respectively, subjected to a
nominal ($\ET > 50\GeV$) and higher ($\ET > 100\GeV$) threshold.
Events are required to contain at least two jets that satisfy the
aforementioned $\ET$ and $\eta$ requirements. The value of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace for
each event is determined from these jets. If $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace < 375\GeV$, the
respective jet \ET thresholds are lowered to 43 and 87\GeV, \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace is
recalculated, and the event is reconsidered for selection. If the
recalculated \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace is less than 325\GeV, the respective \ET
thresholds are lowered yet further, to 37 and 73\GeV and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace again
recalculated. If this newly recalculated \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace is less than
200\GeV, the event is rejected. The scheme is summarised in
Table~\ref{tab:thresholds}. Events can be selected with this iterative
procedure even if they do not satisfy the sets of tighter requirements
on the \ET thresholds. The reason why lower jet \ET thresholds are
employed for $200 < \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace < 375\GeV$ is to maintain a similar
background composition in all \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bins, and to increase the
acceptance for SUSY models characterised by compressed mass
spectra. Significant jet activity in the event is established by
requiring $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 200\GeV$, which also ensures high efficiency for
the trigger conditions, described below, used to record the
events. Events are vetoed if rare, anomalous signals are identified in
the calorimeters~\cite{Chatrchyan:2009hy} or if any jet satisfies $\ET
> 50\GeV$ and has $\abs{\eta} > 3$, in order to enhance the
performance of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace as an estimator of $\abs{\ptvecmiss}$.
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\topcaption{\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace-dependent thresholds on the \ET values of jets and
\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace values.\label{tab:thresholds}}
\centering
\newcolumntype{.}{D{.}{.}{2}}
\begin{tabular}{ l.... }
\hline
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace (\GeVns) & \multicolumn{1}{c}{200--275} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{275--325} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{325--375} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$>$375} \\
\hline
Highest \ET jet (\GeVns) & 73 & 73 & 87 & 100 \\
Next-to-highest \ET jet (\GeVns) & 73 & 73 & 87 & 100 \\
\ET of other jets (\GeVns) & 37 & 37 & 43 & 50 \\
\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace & 0.65 & 0.60 & 0.55 & 0.55 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Events are categorised according to the number of jets per event,
\ensuremath{2 \leq \njet \leq 3}\xspace or \ensuremath{\njet \geq 4}\xspace, and the number of reconstructed b quark jets
per event, $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace = 0$, 1, 2, 3, or $\geq$4. For events containing
exactly zero or one b quark jet, we employ eleven bins in \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace:
three bins at low jet activity in the range of $200 < \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace <
375\GeV$, as detailed in Table~\ref{tab:thresholds}, an additional
seven bins $100\GeV$ wide in the range of $375 < \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace < 1075\GeV$,
and an open final bin $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 1075\GeV$. For events containing two
or three (at least four) b quark jets, a total of nine (four) bins are
used in \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, with an open final bin $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 875\, (375)\GeV$.
This categorisation according to \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace results in a
total of eight (\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace,\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace) event categories and 75
bins. An overview of the binning scheme is provided by
Table~\ref{tab:fit-result}.
For events satisfying the above selection criteria, the multijet
background dominates over all other SM sources. Multijet events
populate the region $\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace \lesssim 0.5$, and the \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace
distribution is characterised by a sharp edge at 0.5, beyond which the
multijet event yield falls by several orders of magnitude. Multijet
events with extremely rare but large stochastic fluctuations in the
calorimetric measurements of jet energies can lead to values of
\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace slightly above 0.5. The edge at 0.5 sharpens with increasing
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace for multijet events, primarily due to a corresponding increase
in the average jet energy and a consequent improvement in the jet
energy resolution. The contribution from multijet events is suppressed
by more than five orders of magnitude by imposing the
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace-dependent \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace requirements summarised in
Table~\ref{tab:thresholds}.
Several beam- and detector-related effects, such as interactions from
beam halo, reconstruction failures, detector noise, or event
misreconstruction due to detector inefficiencies, can lead to events
with large, unphysical values of \ptvecmiss and values of \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace
greater than 0.55. These types of events are rejected with high
efficiency by applying a range of vetoes~\cite{cms-met}.
Two final event vetoes complete the definition of the signal region.
An estimator for \ptvecmiss is defined by the negative of the vector
sum of the transverse momenta of all reconstructed particles in an
event, as determined by the particle-flow (PF)
algorithm~\cite{CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001}. The magnitude
of this vectorial summation is referred to as \ETmiss. The first veto
concerns the rare circumstance in which several jets, collinear in
$\phi$ and each with \pt below its respective threshold, result in
significant \ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace. This type of background, typical of multijet
events, is suppressed while maintaining high efficiency for SM or
new-physics processes with genuine \ptvecmiss by requiring $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace /
\MET < 1.25$. The second veto considers the minimum azimuthal
separation between a jet and the negative of the vector sum derived
from the transverse momenta of all other jets in the event, which is
referred to as \ensuremath{\Delta\phi^{*}_\text{min}}\xspace~\cite{RA1Paper}. This variable is employed to
suppress potential contributions from energetic multijet events that
have significant \ptvecmiss through the production of neutrinos in
semileptonic heavy-flavour decays. Such neutrinos are typically
collinear with the axis of a jet. We impose the requirement $\ensuremath{\Delta\phi^{*}_\text{min}}\xspace >
0.3$, which effectively suppresses this background as determined using
control data.
\section{Triggers and data control samples \label{sec:triggers}}
Candidate signal events are recorded under multiple jet-based trigger
conditions that require both \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace to satisfy
predetermined thresholds. The trigger-level jet energies are corrected
to account for energy scale and pileup effects. The trigger
efficiencies for the SM backgrounds are measured using a sample of \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace
events, which provides an unbiased coverage of the kinematic phase
space when the muon is ignored. The efficiencies are determined as a
function of \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, and lie in the range 79--98\% and
$>$99\% for $200 < \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace < 375\GeV$ and $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 375\GeV$,
respectively. The inefficiencies at low values of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, which are
accounted for in the final result, arise from conditions imposed on L1
trigger quantities. Statistical uncertainties of a few percent are
considered. Simulation-based studies demonstrate that trigger
inefficiencies for signal events are typically negligible.
A set of prescaled $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace$ trigger conditions is used to record
events for a multijet-enriched control sample, defined by relaxed
requirements on \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\Delta\phi^{*}_\text{min}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\HTmiss / \ETmiss}\xspace with respect to the signal
region. This event sample is used to estimate the multijet background
contribution.
Significant background in the signal region is expected from SM
processes with genuine \ptvecmiss in the final state. The dominant
processes are the associated production of W or Z bosons and jets,
with the decays \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn}\xspace or $\PW^\pm \to \ell\nu$ ($\ell=\Pe$, $\Pgm$,
$\Pgt$), and top quark pair production followed by semileptonic top
quark decay. Three separate data control regions are used to estimate
the background from these processes. The control regions are defined
through the selection of \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, or \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace
events~\cite{RA1Paper2012}. The selection criteria are chosen such
that the SM processes and their kinematic properties resemble as
closely as possible the SM background behaviour in the signal region,
once the muon, dimuon system, or photon are ignored in the
determination of quantities such as \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace. The event
selection criteria are defined to ensure that the potential
contribution from multijet events or from a wide variety of SUSY
models (\ie so-called signal contamination) is negligible. Events are
categorised according to \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, identically to the
scheme used for events in the signal region, as defined in
Section~\ref{sec:selections}.
The \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace sample is recorded using a trigger that requires an isolated
muon. The event selection criteria are chosen so that the trigger is
maximally efficient ($\approx$90\%). Furthermore, the muon is required
to be well separated from the jets in the event, and the transverse
mass formed by the muon and \ETmiss system must lie between 30 and
125\GeV to ensure a sample rich in W bosons (produced promptly or from
the decay of top quarks). The \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace sample uses the same trigger
condition (efficiency $\approx$99\%) and similar selection criteria as
the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace sample, specifically requiring two oppositely charged isolated
muons that are well separated from the jets in the event, and with a
dilepton invariant mass within a $\pm 25\GeV$ window around the
nominal mass of the Z boson. For both the muon and dimuon samples, no
requirement is made on \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace, in order to increase the statistical
precision of the predictions from these samples. The \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace events are
recorded using a single-photon trigger condition. The event selection
criteria require an isolated photon with $\pt > 165\GeV$, $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace >
375\GeV$, and $\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace > 0.55$, yielding a trigger efficiency
of~$\gtrsim$99\%.
\section{Multijet background suppression \label{sec:multijet}}
The signal region is defined in a manner to suppress the expected
contribution from multijet events to the sub-percent level relative to
the expected background from other SM processes for all event
categories and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bins. This is achieved through very restrictive
requirements on the \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\Delta\phi^{*}_\text{min}}\xspace variables, as described
above. In this section, we discuss these requirements further,
together with the procedure for estimating the remaining multijet
background.
Independent estimates are determined per bin in the signal region,
defined in terms of \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace. The method utilises the
multijet-enriched control sample introduced in
Section~\ref{sec:triggers}, defined by $0.505 < \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace < 0.55$ and no
threshold requirements on \ensuremath{\Delta\phi^{*}_\text{min}}\xspace or \ensuremath{\HTmiss / \ETmiss}\xspace. The event counts in this
data sideband are corrected to account for contamination from
nonmultijet processes, which are estimated using the method described
in Section~\ref{sec:ewk}. The method exploits the evolution of the
ratio $\mathcal{R}(\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace)$, defined by the number of (corrected)
event counts that satisfy the requirement $\ensuremath{\HTmiss / \ETmiss}\xspace < 1.25$ to the
number that fail, as a function of \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace. The ratio
$\mathcal{R}(\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace)$ is observed to monotonically fall as a function
of \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace and is modelled, independently for each bin, with an
exponential function $\mathcal{F}(\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace)$. An additional
multijet-enriched data sideband, defined by $\ensuremath{\HTmiss / \ETmiss}\xspace > 1.25$ and
$\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace > 0.55$, is used to determine the number of (corrected)
events $\mathcal{N}(\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace > \ensuremath{\alphat^\text{min}}\xspace)$ per bin that satisfy a
minimum threshold requirement on \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace. Finally, an estimate of the
multijet background for each bin is determined as a function of the
threshold $\ensuremath{\alphat^\text{min}}\xspace$ based on the product of $\mathcal{N}(\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace >
\ensuremath{\alphat^\text{min}}\xspace)$ and the extrapolated value of the ratio from the
corresponding fit, $\mathcal{F}(\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace > \ensuremath{\alphat^\text{min}}\xspace)$.
The $\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace$ value required to suppress the predicted multijet
contribution to the sub-percent level relative to the total SM
background is determined independently for each bin of the signal
region. The $\ensuremath{\alphat^\text{min}}\xspace$ thresholds determined from this method are
summarised in Table~\ref{tab:thresholds} and, for simplicity, are
chosen to be identical for all \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace categories. Higher
\ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace thresholds are required than those used for
Ref.~\cite{RA1Paper2012} because of higher pileup conditions in the
latter half of the data collected in 2012 and because of the addition
of the low \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bins.
Various checks are performed in simulation and in data to assure
closure, which, in simulation refers to the ability of the method to
correctly predict the background rates found in simulated data, and,
in data, refers to the consistency between the data-derived
predictions for, and counts in, a separate multijet-enriched
validation sample in data. The exponential functions are found to
adequately model the observed behaviour in data and
simulation. Systematic uncertainties in the predictions are obtained
from the differences observed using alternative fit functions and can
be as large as $\sim$100\%.
Following application of the \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace requirements, residual
contributions from multijet events with significant \ptvecmiss due to
semileptonic heavy-flavour decays are suppressed by requiring $\ensuremath{\Delta\phi^{*}_\text{min}}\xspace >
0.3$, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:selections}. This suppression
is validated in simulation and in data using a control sample defined
by the requirements $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 775 \GeV$ and either $0.51 < \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace <
0.55$ or $\ensuremath{\HTmiss / \ETmiss}\xspace > 1.25$. These events are selected with an
unprescaled \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace trigger, allowing a study of the performance of
the selection requirements in the low \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace region around 0.51,
which corresponds to similar \ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace values as employed in the lowest
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bins. From these studies, the remaining multijet background
is found to be at the sub-percent level. With this level of
suppression, any residual contribution from multijet events is assumed
to be negligible compared to the uncertainties associated with the
nonmultijet backgrounds (described below) and is ignored.
\section{Estimation of nonmultijet backgrounds\label{sec:ewk}}
In events with few jets or few b quark jets, the largest backgrounds
are $\ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn}\xspace\ + \text{jets}$ or $\PW^\pm \to \ell\nu\ +
\text{jets}$. At higher jet or b quark jet multiplicities, \ttbar and
single top production also become an important source of
background. For W boson decays that yield an electron or muon
(possibly originating from leptonic $\Pgt$ decays), the background
arises when the $\Pe$ or $\Pgm$ is not rejected through the dedicated
lepton vetoes. Background also arises when the $\tau$ lepton decays to
neutrinos and hadrons, which are identified as a jet. The veto of
events containing at least one isolated track is efficient at further
suppressing these backgrounds, including those from single-prong
$\tau$-lepton decays, by as much as $\sim$50\% for categories enriched
in \ttbar.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figure_002-a.pdf} ~
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figure_002-b.pdf}
\caption{The \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace distribution observed in data for event samples
that are recorded with an inclusive set of trigger conditions and
satisfy (\cmsLeft) the selection criteria that define the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace
control region or (\cmsRight) the criteria that define the signal
region, with the additional requirement $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 375\GeV$. Event
yields observed in data (solid circles) and SM expectations
determined from simulation (solid histograms) are
shown. Contributions from single top quark, diboson, Drell-Yan,
and \ttbar + gauge boson production are collectively labelled
``Residual SM''. The final bin contains the overflow events. The
lower panels show the ratios of the binned yields obtained from
data and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation as a function of
$\alpha_\text{T}$. The statistical uncertainties in the SM
expectations are represented by the hatched
areas. \label{fig:alphat} }
\end{figure}
The production of W and Z bosons in association with jets is simulated
with the leading-order (LO) \MADGRAPH 5.1.1.0~\cite{madgraph5} event
generator, with up to four additional partons considered in the matrix
element calculation. The production of \ttbar and single top quark
events is generated with the next-to-leading-order (NLO) \POWHEG
1.0~\cite{powheg, Nason:2004rx, Alioli:2010xd, Frixione:2007nw}
program. The LO \PYTHIA 6.4.26~\cite{pythia} program is used to
generate WW, WZ, and ZZ (diboson) events, and to describe parton
showering and hadronisation for all samples. The
{CTEQ6L1}~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} and {CT10}~\cite{ct10} parton
distribution functions (PDFs) are used with \MADGRAPH and \POWHEG,
respectively. The description of the detector response is implemented
using the \GEANTfour~\cite{geant} package. The simulated samples are
normalised by the most accurate cross section calculations currently
available, usually up to next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) accuracy
in QCD~\cite{xs-1, Gavin:2012sy, xs-2, xs-3, Czakon:2011xx}. To model
the effects of pileup, the simulated events are generated with a
nominal distribution of pp interactions per bunch crossing and then
reweighted to match the pileup distribution measured in data.
Figure~\ref{fig:alphat} shows the distributions of the \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace
variable obtained from samples of events that satisfy the selection
criteria used to define the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace control region and the signal
region. The inclusive requirements $\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace \geq 2$, $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \geq 0$, and
$\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 200$ and 375\GeV for the two samples, respectively, are
imposed. The distributions illustrate the background composition of
the two samples as determined from simulation. While the figure also
demonstrates an adequate modelling of the \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace variable with
simulated events, the method employed by the search to estimate the
nonmultijet backgrounds is designed to mitigate the effects of
simulation mismodelling.
The method relies on the use of transfer factors that are constructed
per bin, with a binning scheme defined identically to that of the
signal region in terms of \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, for each control
sample in data. The transfer factors are determined using simulated
events, and are given by the ratios of the expected yields in the
corresponding bins of the signal region and control samples. The
transfer factors are used to extrapolate from the event yield measured
in a data control sample to the expectation for background from a
particular SM process or processes in the signal region. The method
aims to minimise the effects of simulation mismodelling, as many
systematic biases are expected to largely cancel in the ratios used to
define the transfer factors. Uncertainties in the transfer factors are
determined from a data-derived approach, described below.
The \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace data sample provides an estimate of the total contribution
from \ttbar and W boson production, as well as of the residual
contributions from single top quark, diboson, and Drell--Yan
($\PQq\PAQq \to \PZ/\gamma^* \to \ell^+\ell^-$) production. Two
independent estimates of the background from \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn + \text{jets}}\xspace events with
$\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \leq 1$ are determined, one from the \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace data sample and the
other from the \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace data sample, which are considered simultaneously
in the likelihood function described in Section~\ref{sec:results}. The
\ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace processes have similar kinematic properties when
the photon or muons are ignored in the determination of \ETmiss and
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace~\cite{Bern:2011pa}, although the acceptances differ. An
advantage of the \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace process is its much larger production cross
section compared to the \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn + \text{jets}}\xspace process.
In the case of events with $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \geq 2$, the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace sample is also used
to estimate the small \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn + \text{jets}}\xspace background because of the limited
event counts in the \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace control samples. The method relies
on the use of \ensuremath{\PW \to \mu\nu + \text{jets}}\xspace events to predict the \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn + \text{jets}}\xspace
background~\cite{RA1Paper, RA1Paper2011FULL, RA1Paper2012}. The method
corrects for \ttbar contamination in the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace sample, which can be
significant in the presence of jets identified as originating from b
quarks. However, while the \ttbar contamination increases with
increasing \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, the \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn + \text{jets}}\xspace background is reduced to a subdominant
level relative to other backgrounds. The method is validated in data
control regions defined by samples of events categorised according to
\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace. In summary, only the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace sample is used to estimate the total SM
background for events with $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \geq 2$, whereas all three data
control samples are used for events with $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \leq 1$.
To maximise sensitivity to new-physics signatures with a large number
of b quarks, a method is employed that allows event yields for a given
b quark jet multiplicity to be predicted with a higher statistical
precision than obtained directly from simulation, particularly for
events with a large number of b quark jets ($N_\cPqb \ge
2$)~\cite{RA1Paper2012}. The method relies on generator-level
information contained in the simulation to determine the distribution
of \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace for a sample of events categorised according to \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace. First, simulated events are categorised according to the
number of jets per event that are matched to underlying b quarks
($N_\cPqb^\text{gen}$), c quarks ($N_\cPqc^\text{gen}$), and
light-flavoured quarks or gluons ($N_\cPq^\text{gen}$). Second, the
efficiency $\epsilon$ with which b quark jets are identified, and the
misidentification probabilities for c quarks and light-flavour
partons, $f_\cPqc$ and $f_\cPq$, respectively, are also determined
from simulation, with each quantity averaged over jet \pt and $\eta$
per event category. Corrections to $\epsilon$, $f_\cPqc$, and $f_\cPq$
are applied on a jet-by-jet basis as a function of \pt and $\eta$ so
that they match the corresponding quantity measured in
data~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012jua}. Finally, $N_{\cPqb}^{\text{tag}}$,
$N_{\cPqc}^{\text{tag}}$, and $N_{\cPq}^{\text{tag}}$ are,
respectively, the number of jets identified (``tagged'') as
originating from b quarks per event when the underlying parton is a b
quark, c quark, or a light-flavoured quark or gluon, and
$P(N_{\cPqb}^{\text{tag}} ; N_{\cPqb}^{\text{gen}}, \epsilon)$,
$P(N_{\cPqc}^{\text{tag}} ; N_{\cPqc}^{\text{gen}}, f_\cPqc)$, and
$P(N_{\cPq}^{\text{tag}} ; N_{\cPq}^{\text{gen}}, f_\cPq)$ are the
binomial probabilities for this to happen. These quantities are
sufficient to estimate how events are distributed according to
$N_\cPqb$ per (\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace) category when summing over all relevant
combinations that satisfy the requirements $\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace = N_\cPqb^\text{gen}
+ N_\cPqc^\text{gen} + N_\cPq^\text{gen}$ and $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace =
N_{\cPqb}^{\text{tag}} + N_{\cPqc}^{\text{tag}} +
N_{\cPq}^{\text{tag}}$.
The event yields determined with the method described above are
subsequently used to determine the transfer factors binned according
to \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace (in addition to \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace). The uncertainties in the
transfer factors obtained from simulation are evaluated through sets
of closure tests based on events from the data control
regions~\cite{RA1Paper2012}. Each set uses the observed event counts
in up to eleven bins in \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace for a given sample of events, along
with the corresponding (\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace-dependent) transfer factors obtained
from simulation, to determine \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace-dependent predictions
$N_\text{pred}(\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace)$ for yields in another event sample. The two
samples are taken from different data control regions, or are subsets
of the same data control sample with differing requirements on \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace
or \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace. The predictions $N_\text{pred}(\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace)$ are compared with the
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace-binned observed yields $N_\text{obs}(\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace)$ and the level
of closure is defined by the deviation of the ratio $(N_\text{obs} -
N_\text{pred})/N_\text{pred}$ from zero. A large number of tests are
performed to probe key aspects of the modelling that may introduce an
\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace- or \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace-dependent source of bias in the transfer
factors~\cite{RA1Paper2012}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_001-a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_001-b.pdf}
\caption{
Ratio $(N_\text{obs} - N_\text{pred})/N_\text{pred}$ as a
function of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace for different event categories and/or
control regions for (upper) events with two or three jets, and
(lower) events with four or more jets; ``b tag'' refers to a
reconstructed b quark candidate.
Error bars represent statistical uncertainties only, while the
grey shaded bands represent the \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace- and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace-dependent
uncertainties assumed in the transfer factors, as determined
from the procedure described in the text.
\label{fig:closure}
}
\end{figure}
Systematic uncertainties are determined from core sets of closure
tests, of which the results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:closure}. Five
sets of tests are performed independently for each of the two \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace
categories, and a further three sets that are common to both \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace
categories. The tests aim to probe for the presence of statistically
significant biases that could arise due to limitations in the
method. For each \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace category, the first three sets of closure tests
are performed using the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace sample. The first set probes the modelling
of the \ensuremath{\alpha_\mathrm{T}}\xspace distribution for events containing genuine \ptvecmiss
from neutrinos (open circle markers). Two sets (crosses, squares)
probe the relative composition between \ensuremath{\PW + \text{jets}}\xspace and top events and the
modelling of the reconstruction of b quark jets. The fourth set
(triangles) validates the modelling of vector boson production by
connecting the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace control samples, which are enriched in
\ensuremath{\PW + \text{jets}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\cPZ + \text{jets}}\xspace events, respectively. The fifth set (swiss crosses)
deals with the consistency between the \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace samples, which are
both used to provide an estimate of the \ensuremath{\cPZ \to \cPgn\cPagn + \text{jets}}\xspace background. Three
further sets of closure tests (stars, inverted triangles, diamonds),
one per data control sample, probe the simulation modelling of the
\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace distribution for a range of background compositions.
\begin{table*}[!thb]
\topcaption{Systematic uncertainties (\%) in the transfer factors,
in intervals of \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace.}
\label{tab:syst-values}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l*{7}r }
\hline
& \multicolumn{7}{c}{\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace region (\GeVns)} \\
\cline{2-8}
\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace & \multicolumn{1}{c}{200--275} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{275--325} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{325--375} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{375--575} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{575--775} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{775-975} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$>975$} \\
\hline
2--3 & 4 & 6 & 6 & 8 & 12 & 17 & 19 \\
$\geq$4 & 6 & 6 & 11 & 11 & 18 & 20 & 26 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
The closure tests reveal no significant biases or dependency on \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace
nor \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace. Systematic uncertainties in the transfer factors are
determined from the variance in $(N_\text{obs} -
N_\text{pred})/N_\text{pred}$, weighted to account for statistical
uncertainties, for all closure tests within an individual \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bin
in the range $200 < \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace < 375\GeV$ and for each \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace
category. For the region $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 375\GeV$, all tests within
200\GeV-wide intervals in \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, defined by pairs of adjacent bins,
are combined to determine the systematic uncertainty, which is assumed
to be fully correlated for bins within each interval, and fully
uncorrelated for different \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace intervals and \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace categories. The
magnitudes of the systematic uncertainties are indicated by shaded
grey bands in Fig.~\ref{fig:closure} and summarised in
Table~\ref{tab:syst-values}. The same (uncorrelated) value of
systematic uncertainty is assumed for each \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace category.
An independent study is performed to assess the effect of
uncertainties in the simulation modelling of the efficiency and
misidentification rates for jets originating from b quarks and from
light-flavoured quarks or gluons. These uncertainties are found to be
at the sub-percent level, subdominant relative to the values in
Table~\ref{tab:syst-values}, and therefore considered to be
negligible.
\section{Results and interpretation\label{sec:results}}
For a given category of events satisfying requirements on both \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace
and \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, a likelihood model of the observations in all data samples is
used to obtain a consistent prediction of the SM backgrounds and to
test for the presence of a variety of signal models. This is written
as:
\begin{equation}
\label{likelihood}
\begin{aligned}
L_{\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace,\,\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace} & = L_\mathrm{SR} L_{\mu} L_{\mu\mu} L_{\gamma}, & (0 \leq \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \leq 1) \\
L_{\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace,\,\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace} & = L_\mathrm{SR} L_{\mu}, & (\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \geq 2)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $L_\mathrm{SR} = \prod_{i} \mathrm{Pois}(
n^{i} \, | \, b^{i} +
s^{i} )$ is a likelihood function comprising a
product of Poisson terms that describe the yields in each of the
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bins of the signal region for given values of \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace.
In each bin of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace (index $i$), the observation
$n^{i}$ is modelled as a Poisson variable
distributed about the sum of the SM expectation
$b^{i}$ and a potential contribution from a signal
model $s^{i}$ (assumed to be zero in the following
discussion). The contribution from multijet production is assumed to
be zero, based on the studies described in Section~\ref{sec:multijet}.
The SM expectations in the signal region are related to the expected
yields in the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace control samples via the transfer
factors derived from simulation. Analogous to $L_\mathrm{SR}$, the
likelihood functions $L_\mu$, $L_{\mu\mu}$, and $L_\gamma$ describe
the yields in the \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bins of the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace control
samples for the same values of \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace as the signal region.
For the category of events with $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \geq 2$, only the \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace control
sample is used in the likelihood to determine the total contribution
from all nonmultijet SM backgrounds in the signal region. The
systematic uncertainties in the transfer factors, determined from the
ensemble of closure tests described above and with magnitudes in the
range 4--26\% (Table~\ref{tab:syst-values}), are accommodated in the
likelihood function through a nuisance parameter associated with each
transfer factor used in the background estimation for each (\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace,
\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace) category and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace interval. The \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace intervals are defined
by pairs of adjacent \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bins for the region $\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace > 375\GeV$,
as described in Section~\ref{sec:ewk}, and so adjacent bins share the
same nuisance parameter. The measurements of these parameters are
assumed to follow a lognormal distribution.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\topcaption{
Observed event yields in data and the ``a priori'' SM expectations
determined from event counts in the data control samples and
transfer factors from simulation, in bins of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, and
categorised according to \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace. Also shown are the SM
expectations (labelled ``SM'') obtained from a combined fit to
control and signal regions under the SM hypothesis. The quoted
uncertainties include the statistical as well as systematic
components. For each row that lists fewer than the full set of
columns, the final entry represents values obtained for an open
final \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace bin.
}
\label{tab:fit-result}
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{ lllllllllllll }
\hline
Category & & \multicolumn{11}{c}{\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace (\GeVns)} \\
\cline{3-13}
(\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace,\,\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace)
&
& 200--275
& 275--325
& 325--375
& 375--475
& 475--575
& 575--675
& 675--775
& 775--875
& 875--975
& 975--1075
& 1075--$\infty$ \\
\hline
(2--3,\,0)
& Data
& $13090$
& $5331$
& $3354$
& $2326$
& $671$
& $206$
& $76$
& $29$
& $10$
& $9$
& $2$ \\
(2--3,\,0)
& a priori
& $12410^{+370}_{-410}$
& $5540^{+340}_{-230}$
& $3330^{+130}_{-170}$
& $2400^{+120}_{-90}$
& $663^{+34}_{-26}$
& $225^{+21}_{-17}$
& $68.5^{+6.9}_{-6.7}$
& $26.5^{+3.9}_{-3.0}$
& $10.3^{+1.9}_{-2.1}$
& $5.1^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$
& $4.5^{+0.9}_{-0.9}$ \\
(2--3,\,0)
& SM
& $13030^{+90}_{-120}$
& $5348^{+85}_{-67}$
& $3351^{+56}_{-50}$
& $2351^{+38}_{-45}$
& $655^{+14}_{-11}$
& $218^{+12}_{-17}$
& $68.5^{+4.9}_{-4.8}$
& $27.2^{+3.0}_{-3.0}$
& $10.4^{+1.5}_{-1.6}$
& $5.6^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$
& $4.3^{+0.7}_{-1.0}$ \\\\[-2ex]
(2--3,\,1)
& Data
& $1733$
& $833$
& $527$
& $356$
& $90$
& $31$
& $6$
& $4$
& $1$
& $0$
& $1$ \\
(2--3,\,1)
& a priori
& $1669^{+65}_{-67}$
& $853^{+50}_{-46}$
& $525^{+37}_{-24}$
& $391^{+23}_{-21}$
& $94.3^{+6.0}_{-5.6}$
& $24.5^{+2.5}_{-3.6}$
& $9.0^{+1.2}_{-1.4}$
& $2.8^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$
& $2.5^{+0.8}_{-0.9}$
& $0.3^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$
& $0.2^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ \\
(2--3,\,1)
& SM
& $1711^{+37}_{-33}$
& $839^{+21}_{-25}$
& $526^{+20}_{-17}$
& $372^{+12}_{-14}$
& $90.6^{+5.1}_{-4.6}$
& $25.8^{+2.9}_{-2.6}$
& $8.7^{+0.8}_{-1.4}$
& $3.0^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$
& $2.2^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$
& $0.3^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$
& $0.2^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ \\\\[-2ex]
(2--3,\,2)
& Data
& $172$
& $116$
& $101$
& $55$
& $16$
& $9$
& $0$
& $0$
& $0$ \\
(2--3,\,2)
& a priori
& $187^{+7}_{-8}$
& $118^{+7}_{-7}$
& $98.7^{+7.1}_{-7.0}$
& $61.3^{+5.9}_{-5.5}$
& $12.3^{+1.7}_{-1.0}$
& $2.8^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$
& $0.7^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
& $0.2^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
& $<$0.1 \\
(2--3,\,2)
& SM
& $184^{+5}_{-7}$
& $117^{+7}_{-5}$
& $99.4^{+5.4}_{-4.6}$
& $60.2^{+3.5}_{-3.8}$
& $12.4^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$
& $3.3^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$
& $0.7^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
& $0.2^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
& $<$0.1 \\\\[-2ex]
($\geq$4,\,0)
& Data
& $99$
& $568$
& $408$
& $336$
& $211$
& $117$
& $38$
& $13$
& $9$
& $4$
& $6$ \\
($\geq$4,\,0)
& a priori
& $108^{+10}_{-12}$
& $497^{+34}_{-36}$
& $403^{+36}_{-33}$
& $327^{+25}_{-22}$
& $193^{+14}_{-13}$
& $95^{+13}_{-11}$
& $40.3^{+5.9}_{-4.4}$
& $14.5^{+3.5}_{-2.4}$
& $7.1^{+1.7}_{-1.4}$
& $3.2^{+0.7}_{-1.0}$
& $2.9^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ \\
($\geq$4,\,0)
& SM
& $104^{+6}_{-8}$
& $544^{+21}_{-18}$
& $407^{+18}_{-18}$
& $337^{+15}_{-10}$
& $202^{+10}_{-8}$
& $105^{+9}_{-7}$
& $42.5^{+4.5}_{-3.3}$
& $14.3^{+1.7}_{-2.5}$
& $7.5^{+1.4}_{-1.5}$
& $3.5^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$
& $3.4^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ \\\\[-2ex]
($\geq$4,\,1)
& Data
& $38$
& $195$
& $210$
& $159$
& $83$
& $33$
& $7$
& $10$
& $4$
& $1$
& $1$ \\
($\geq$4,\,1)
& a priori
& $39.2^{+3.0}_{-3.5}$
& $215^{+12}_{-16}$
& $208^{+24}_{-22}$
& $150^{+15}_{-11}$
& $75.8^{+7.8}_{-6.6}$
& $28.6^{+3.8}_{-3.7}$
& $10.3^{+2.1}_{-1.4}$
& $5.1^{+1.3}_{-0.9}$
& $2.0^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$
& $0.8^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$
& $0.9^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ \\
($\geq$4,\,1)
& SM
& $38.9^{+2.2}_{-3.7}$
& $206^{+12}_{-10}$
& $209^{+13}_{-10}$
& $157^{+9}_{-9}$
& $79.3^{+5.2}_{-4.7}$
& $29.4^{+3.8}_{-2.2}$
& $9.9^{+1.9}_{-1.3}$
& $6.2^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$
& $2.3^{+0.7}_{-0.7}$
& $0.9^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
& $0.9^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ \\\\[-2ex]
($\geq$4,\,2)
& Data
& $16$
& $81$
& $88$
& $64$
& $43$
& $14$
& $5$
& $1$
& $1$ \\
($\geq$4,\,2)
& a priori
& $12.3^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$
& $76.7^{+5.6}_{-5.2}$
& $93^{+11}_{-9}$
& $63.0^{+7.8}_{-5.7}$
& $34.0^{+3.6}_{-3.4}$
& $10.1^{+2.6}_{-1.8}$
& $3.4^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$
& $1.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
& $0.7^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ \\
($\geq$4,\,2)
& SM
& $12.5^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$
& $77.8^{+4.7}_{-4.6}$
& $90.2^{+9.0}_{-6.5}$
& $66.1^{+4.6}_{-4.8}$
& $36.3^{+3.4}_{-2.9}$
& $11.4^{+1.8}_{-1.9}$
& $3.9^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$
& $1.0^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$
& $0.7^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ \\\\[-2ex]
($\geq$4,\,3)
& Data
& $0$
& $7$
& $5$
& $5$
& $6$
& $1$
& $1$
& $0$
& $0$ \\
($\geq$4,\,3)
& a priori
& $1.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$
& $8.2^{+0.6}_{-0.9}$
& $11.1^{+2.0}_{-1.6}$
& $7.4^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$
& $4.0^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$
& $1.1^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
& $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$
& $0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$
& $<$0.1 \\
($\geq$4,\,3)
& SM
& $1.1^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
& $8.1^{+0.9}_{-0.9}$
& $9.9^{+1.5}_{-1.3}$
& $7.2^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$
& $4.1^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$
& $1.1^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
& $0.4^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
& $0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$
& $<$0.1 \\\\[-2ex]
($\geq$4,\,$\geq$4)
& Data
& $0$
& $0$
& $0$
& $2$ \\
($\geq$4,\,$\geq$4)
& a priori
& $<$0.1
& $0.2^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
& $0.5^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
& $0.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ \\
($\geq$4,\,$\geq$4)
& SM
& $<$0.1
& $0.1^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
& $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$
& $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
Table~\ref{tab:fit-result} summarises the observed event yields and
expected number of events from SM processes in the signal region as a
function of \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace. The ``a priori'' SM expectations
are determined from event counts in the data control samples and
transfer factors from simulation, and are therefore independent of the
signal region. No significant discrepancies are observed between the
``a priori'' SM expectations and the observed event yields. In
addition, a simultaneous fit to data in the signal region and in up to
three control regions is performed. The likelihood function is
maximised over all fit parameters under the SM-only hypothesis in
order to estimate the yields from SM processes in each bin in all
regions, in the absence of an assumed contribution from signal
events. Table~\ref{tab:fit-result} summarises these estimates
(labelled ``SM'') for the signal region.
A goodness-of-fit test is performed to quantify the degree of
compatibility between the observed yields and the expectations under
the background-only hypothesis. The test is based on a log likelihood
ratio and the alternative hypothesis is defined by a ``saturated''
model~\cite{sat-llk}. The $p$-value probabilities for all \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and
\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace categories are found to be uniformly distributed, with a minimum
value of 0.19.
The results of this search are interpreted in terms of limits on the
parent sparticle and LSP masses in the parameter space of simplified
models~\cite{Alwall:2008ag, Alwall:2008va, sms} that represent the
direct pair production of top squarks and the decay modes $\PSQt
\to\PQc\PSGczDo$, $\PSQt \to{\PQb \ensuremath{f{\bar{f}'}}\xspace} \PSGczDo$, $\PSQt \to \PQb
\PSGcpmDo$ followed by $\PSGcpmDo \to \PW^\pm \PSGczDo$, and $\PSQt
\to \PQt \PSGczDo$. The \text{CL$_s$}\xspace method~\cite{read,junk} is used to
determine upper limits at the 95\% confidence level (CL) on the
production cross section of a signal model, using the one-sided
(LHC-style) profile likelihood ratio as the test
statistic~\cite{higgs-comb}. The sampling distributions for the test
statistic are generated from pseudo-experiments using the respective
maximum likelihood values of nuisance parameters determined from a
simultaneous fit to the pseudo-data, in the 75 bins of the signal
region and in the corresponding bins of up to three control samples,
under the SM background-only and signal + background hypotheses. The
potential contributions of signal events to each of the signal and
control samples are considered, but the only significant contribution
occurs in the signal region and not the control samples.
The event samples for the simplified models are generated with the LO
\MADGRAPH 5.1.1.0 generator, which considers up to two additional
partons in the matrix element calculation. Inclusive,
process-dependent, NLO calculations of SUSY production cross sections,
with next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) corrections, are obtained with
the program \PROSPINO 2.1~\cite{Beenakker:1996ch, PhysRevD.80.095004,
PhysRevLett.102.111802, PhysRevD.80.095004, 1126-6708-2009-12-041,
doi:10.1142/S0217751X11053560, susy-nlo-nll}. All events are
generated using the \textsc{CTEQ6L1} PDFs. As for SM processes, the
simulated events are generated with a nominal pileup distribution and
then reweighted to match the distribution observed in data. The
detector response is provided by the CMS fast simulation
package~\cite{fastsim}.
Experimental uncertainties in the expected signal yields are
considered. Contributions to the overall systematic uncertainty arise
from various sources such as the uncertainties from the choice of
PDFs, the jet energy scale, the modelling of the efficiency and
misidentification probability of b quark jets in simulation, the
integrated luminosity~\cite{lumi}, and various event selection
criteria. The magnitude of each contribution depends on the model, the
masses of the parent sparticle and LSP, and the event category under
consideration. Uncertainties in the jet energy scale are typically
dominant ($\sim$15\%) for models with mass splittings that satisfy
$\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace > m_\PQt$, where $m_\PQt$ is the top quark mass. The acceptance
for models with mass splittings satisfying $\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace < m_\PQt$ is due in
large part to ISR, the modelling of which contributes the dominant
systematic uncertainty for systems with a compressed mass spectrum. An
uncertainty of $\sim$20\% is determined by comparing the simulated and
measured \pt spectra of the system recoiling against the ISR jets in
\ttbar events, using the technique described in
Ref.~\cite{single-lepton-stop}. For the aforementioned simplified
models, the effect of uncertainties in the distribution of signal
events is generally small compared with the uncertainties in the
experimental acceptance. The total systematic uncertainty in the yield
of signal is found to be in the range 5--36\%, depending on \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace and
\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace, and is taken into account through a nuisance parameter that
follows a lognormal distribution.
\begin{figure*}[!tbhp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{Figure_003-a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{Figure_003-b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{Figure_003-c.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{Figure_003-d.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{Figure_003-e.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{Figure_003-f.pdf}
\caption{ Observed upper limits on the production cross section at
95\% CL (indicated by the colour scale) as a function of the
top squark and $\PSGczDo$ masses for
(upper left) $\PSQt \to\PQc\PSGczDo$,
(upper right) $\PSQt \to{\PQb \ensuremath{f{\bar{f}'}}\xspace}\PSGczDo$,
(middle left) $\PSQt \to\PQb\PSGcpmDo$ with $m_{\PSGcpmDo} = 0.25m_{\PSQt} + 0.75m_{\PSGczDo}$,
(middle right) $\PSQt \to\PQb\PSGcpmDo$ with $m_{\PSGcpmDo} = 0.75m_{\PSQt} + 0.25m_{\PSGczDo}$, and
(lower left) $\PSQt \to\PQt \PSGczDo$.
The black solid thick curves indicate the observed exclusion
assuming the NLO+NLL SUSY production cross sections; the thin
black curves show corresponding ${\pm}1\sigma$ theoretical
uncertainties. The red thick dashed curves indicate median
expected exclusions and the thin dashed and dotted
curves indicate, respectively, their ${\pm}1 \sigma$ and
${\pm}2\sigma$ experimental uncertainties. A summary of the
observed (solid) and median expected (dotted) exclusion contours
is presented (lower right). The grey dotted diagonal lines
delimit the region for which $m_{\PSQt} > m_{\PSGczDo}$. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
\label{fig:limits-sms}
}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:limits-sms} shows the observed upper limit on the
production cross section at 95\% confidence level (CL), as a function
of the top squark and $\PSGczDo$ masses, for a range of simplified
models based on the pair production of top squarks, together with
excluded mass regions.
Figures~\ref{fig:limits-sms} (upper left and right) show the
sensitivity of this analysis to the decay modes $\PSQt \to
\PQc\PSGczDo$ and $\PSQt \to\PQb \ensuremath{f{\bar{f}'}}\xspace \PSGczDo$, respectively. Models
with \ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace as small as 10\GeV are considered, and the top squarks are
assumed to decay promptly. The excluded regions are determined using
the NLO+NLL cross sections for top squark pair production, assuming
that b squarks, light-flavoured squarks, and gluinos are too heavy to
be produced in the pp collisions. Also shown are the excluded regions
observed when the production cross section is changed by its
theoretical uncertainty, and the expected region of exclusion, as well
as those determined for both ${\pm}1$ and ${\pm}2$ standard deviation
($\sigma$) changes in experimental uncertainties. The range of
excluded top squark masses is sensitive to both the decay mode and
\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace. For the decay $\PSQt \to\PQc\PSGczDo$, the expected excluded
region is relatively stable as a function of \ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace, with $\PSQt$ masses
below 285 and 325\GeV excluded, respectively, for $\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace = 10$ and
80\GeV. The observed exclusion, assuming the theoretical production
cross section reduced by its $1\sigma$ uncertainty, is weaker, with
$\PSQt$ masses below 240 and 260\GeV excluded for $\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace = 10$ and
80\GeV. For the decay $\PSQt \to\PQb \ensuremath{f{\bar{f}'}}\xspace \PSGczDo$, the expected
excluded mass region is strongly dependent on \ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace, weakening
considerably for increasing values of \ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace due to the increased
momentum phase space available to leptons produced in the four-body
decay. Top squark masses below 265 and 165\GeV are excluded based on
the expected results, respectively, for $\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace = 10$ and 80\GeV. The
observed exclusion is again weaker, with masses below 225 and 130\GeV
excluded. The nonsmooth behaviour of the exclusion contours is the
result of statistical fluctuations and the sparseness of the scan over
the mass parameter space, and does not represent a kinematical effect.
Figures~\ref{fig:limits-sms} (middle left and right) show the limits
on the allowed cross section for the decay $\PSQt \to \PQb \PSGcpmDo$,
followed by a decay of the $\PSGcpmDo$ to the $\PSGczDo$ and to either
an on- or off-shell W boson, depending on the mass difference between
the $\PSGcpmDo$ and $\PSGczDo$. For a model with $m_{\PSGcpmDo} =
0.25m_{\PSQt} + 0.75m_{\PSGczDo}$, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:limits-sms}
(middle left), the analysis has sensitivity in the region
$m_{\PSGcpmDo} - m_{\PSGczDo} < m_{\PW}$, excluding $\PSGczDo$ masses
up to 225\GeV and $\PSQt$ masses up to 350\GeV. Models that satisfy
$m_{\PSGcpmDo} < 91.9\GeV$, or $m_{\PSGcpmDo} < 103.5\GeV$ and
$m_{\PSGcpmDo} - m_{\PSGczDo} < 5\GeV$, are already excluded by a
combination of results obtained from the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL
experiments at LEP~\cite{lep1, lep2}. For a model with $m_{\PSGcpmDo}
= 0.75m_{\PSQt} + 0.25m_{\PSGczDo}$, shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:limits-sms} (middle right), $\PSQt$ masses up to $400
\GeV$ can be excluded but the reach in $\PSGczDo$ mass is reduced.
Figure~\ref{fig:limits-sms} (lower left) shows the results of the
analysis for the decay $\PSQt \to \PQt \PSGczDo$. Both two- and
three-body decays are considered, for which the latter scenario
involves an off-shell top quark. The polarizations of the top quarks
are model dependent and are non-trivial functions of the top-squark
and neutralino mixing matrices~\cite{Perelstein:2008zt}. Simulated
events of the production and decay of top squark pairs are generated
without polarization of the top quarks. Models with $m_{\PSQt} <
200\GeV$ are not considered, due to significant signal contributions
in the control regions. Top squark masses up to 500 GeV are excluded,
and $\PSGczDo$ masses up to 100 and 50\GeV are excluded for the two-
and three-body decays, respectively. As in Fig.~\ref{fig:limits-sms}
(middle right), the observed limit is around 2$\sigma$ below the
expected result for large values of $m_{\PSQt}$. This is mainly due to
an excess of observed counts in data in the $\ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace=2$ categories in the
region of $500 < \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace < 700 \GeV$, which is compatible with a
statistical fluctuation. The observed limits lie closer to the
expected values at low top squark masses, which correspond to lower
values of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace for which good agreement between the data and SM
background predictions is observed.
Figure~\ref{fig:limits-sms} (lower right) presents a summary of all
the expected and observed exclusion contours and indicates that the
analysis has good sensitivity across many different decay signatures
in the $m_{\PSQt}$--$m_{\PSGczDo}$ plane. The sensitivity for these
models is typically driven by categories involving events satisfying
$\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace \geq 4$ and $1 \leq \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace \leq 2$, while events with lower \ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace
and \ensuremath{N_{\PQb}}\xspace multiplicities become increasingly important for nearly
mass-degenerate models.
\section{Summary}
An inclusive search for supersymmetry with the CMS detector is
reported, based on data from pp collisions collected at $\sqrt{s} =
8\TeV$, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $18.5 \pm 0.5
\fbinv$. The final states analysed contain two or more jets with large
transverse energies and a significant imbalance in the event
transverse momentum, as expected in the production and decay of
massive squarks and gluinos. Dedicated triggers made it possible to
extend the phase space covered in this search to values of \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace and
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace as low as 200 and 130\GeV, respectively. These regions of low
\ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace and \ensuremath{H_\text{T}^\text{miss}}\xspace correspond to regions of phase space that are
highly populated in models with low-mass squarks and nearly degenerate
mass spectra. The signal region is binned according to \ensuremath{H_\text{T}}\xspace, the
number of reconstructed jets, and the number of jets identified as
originating from b quarks. The sum of standard model backgrounds in
each bin is estimated from a simultaneous binned likelihood fit to the
event yields in the signal region and in \ensuremath{\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mu\mu + \text{jets}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\gamma + \text{jets}}\xspace control
samples. The observed yields in the signal region are found to be in
agreement with the expected contributions from standard model
processes.
Limits are determined in the mass parameter space of simplified models
that assume the direct pair production of top squarks. A comprehensive
study of top squark decay modes is performed and interpreted in the
parameter space of the loop-induced two-body decays to the neutralino
and one c quark ($\PSQt \to \PQc\PSGczDo$); four-body decays to the
neutralino, one b quark, and an off-shell W boson ($\PSQt \to {\PQb
\ensuremath{f{\bar{f}'}}\xspace} \PSGczDo$); decays to one b quark and the lightest chargino
($\PSQt \to \PQb \PSGcpmDo$), followed by the decay of the chargino to
the lightest neutralino and an (off-shell) W boson; and the decay to a
top quark and neutralino ($\PSQt \to \PQt \PSGczDo$). In the region
$m_{\PSQt} - m_{\PSGczDo} < m_{\PW}$, top squarks with masses as large
as 260 and 225\GeV, and neutralino masses up to 240 and 215\GeV, are
excluded, respectively, for the two- and four-body decay modes. For
top squark decays to $\PQb\PSGcpmDo$, top squark masses up to 400\GeV
and neutralino masses up to 225\GeV are excluded, depending on the
mass of the chargino. For top squarks decaying to a top quark and a
neutralino, top squark masses up to 500\GeV and neutralino masses up
to 105\GeV are excluded.
In summary, the analysis provides sensitivity across a large region of
parameter space in the ($m_{\PSQt}, m_{\PSGczDo}$) plane, covering
several relevant top squark decay modes. In particular, the
application of low thresholds to maximise signal acceptance provides
sensitivity to models with compressed mass spectra. For top squark
decays to b$\PSGcpmDo$, where the W boson from the $\PSGcpmDo$ decay
is off-shell, the presented studies improve on existing limits. Mass
exclusions are reported in previously unexplored regions of the
$(m_{\PSQt}, m_{\PSGcpmDo}, m_{\PSGczDo})$ parameter space that
satisfy $100\GeV < \ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace < m_\PQt$, of up to $m_{\PSQt} = 325$,
$m_{\PSGcpmDo} = 250$, and $m_{\PSGczDo} = 225\GeV$. For the region
$\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace < m_\PW$, the search provides the strongest expected mass
exclusions, up to $m_{\PSQt} = 325\GeV$, for the two-body decay $\PSQt
\to \PQc\PSGczDo$ when $30\GeV < \ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace < m_\PW$.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments
for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and
administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their
contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we
gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the
Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the
computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we
acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation
of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding
agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq,
CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAST Innovation Foundation, MoST,
and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia);
RPF (Cyprus); MoER, ERC IUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland,
Nokia, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and
HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST
(India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF
(Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP,
CINVESTAV, CONACYT, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnolog{\'i}a del Distrito Federal, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New
Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal);
JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MESTD (Serbia);
SEIDI and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and
TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE
and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and
the European Research Council and EPLANET (European Union); the
Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the
Fonds pour la Formation \`a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans
l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education,
Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of
the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union,
Regional Development Fund; the Mobility Plus programme of the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland); the OPUS
programme of the National Science Centre of Poland (Poland); the Thalis and
Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the
National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research
Fund; the Programa Clar\'in-COFUND del Principado de Asturias; the
Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn
University (Thailand); the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd
Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); and the Welch
Foundation, contract C-1845.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the last few years, lots of new particles have been observed,
such as charmomium-like state was first observed in $e^+e^-$ annihilation by Belle in 2002~\cite{FirstCharm}.
Then many more charmomium-like states were discovered in experiments,
and the family of charmonium-like states have become very abundant.
Such as the $X(3872)$ resonance was discovered by Belle Collaboration
through the channel $B^{\pm}\to K^{\pm}\pi^+\pi^-J/ \psi$~\cite{3872}.
The $X(3915)$ was reported by Belle Collaboration
in $\gamma\gamma\to\omega J/\psi$~\cite{3915}.
$X(3940)$ was observed from the inclusive process
$e^+e^-\to J/\psi X(3940)$, with the mass $(3943\pm6\pm6)$ MeV~\cite{3940}.
Latter Belle Collaboration confirmed $X(3940)$ by the process
$e^+e^-\to J/\psi D^*\bar D^*$,
and they also reported a new charmonium-like state $X(4160)$~\cite{39404160}.
Now the Particle Data Group(PDG) give the mass and width of $X(3940)$: $M=(3942^{+7}_{-6}\pm6)$ MeV,
$\Gamma=(37^{+26}_{-15}\pm8)$ MeV,
the mass and width of $X(4160)$: $M=(4156^{+25}_{-20}\pm15)$ MeV, $\Gamma=(139^{+111}_{-61}\pm21)$ MeV~\cite{PDG}.
The charmomium-like states provide us a good way to study the
nonperturbative behavior of QCD, so they have attracted a lot of attention of theorists and experimentalists.
People had detailed summarized the present experimental
status of the $XYZ$ particles,
gave the productions and properties of $XYZ$ states~\cite{liuxiang1,zhushilin1,stephen1,zhao1,kim}.
As two of these new observed particles, there are already some theoretical studies on $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$.
Ref.~\cite{kim} calculate the mass of $X(3940)$ as $J^{PC}=2^{++}$.
Ref.~\cite{Lu} gave the production of $X(3940)$ which was assumed as $3^1S_0$ state
in weak decay of $B_c$ in the framework of the light-cone QCD sum rules approach.
Ref.~\cite{39401} had studied the inclusive production of $X(3940)$
in the decay of ground bottomnium state $\eta_b$ by the NRQCD factorization formula,
and they also considered $X(3940)$ as the excited $\eta_c(3S)$ state.
Using the NRQCD factorization approach, Ref.~\cite{zhuruilin} calculated the branching fractions of
$\Upsilon(nS)\to J/\psi+X$ with $X=X(3940)$ or $X=X(4160)$.
In Ref.~\cite{liuxiang2}, they also explored the properties and strong decays of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$
as the $\eta_c(3S)$ and $\eta_c(4S)$, respectively.
Ref.~\cite{41601} calculated the strong decay of $X(4160)$ which was assumed as $\chi_{c0}(3P)$,
$\chi_{c1}(3P)$, $\eta_{c2}(2D)$ or $\eta_c(4S)$ by the $^3P_0$ model.
Ref.~\cite{th6} calculated the strong decays of $\eta_c(nS)$,
they found that the explanation of $X(3940)$
as $\eta_c(3S)$ is possible and the assignment of $X(4160)$ as $\eta_c(4S)$ can not
be excluded.
According to the strong decay of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ in Ref.~\cite{liuxiang2,41601,th6},
considering $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ as $\eta_c(3S)$ and $\eta_c(4S)$($J^{PC}=0^{-+}$) are possible.
In this paper we will consider the possibilities of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$
as radial high excited states $\eta_c(3S)$ and $\eta_c(4S)$, respectively.
We focus on the productions of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$
in exclusive weak decays of $B_c$ meson by the improved the Bethe-Salpeter(B-S) Method.
On the one hand, the higher excited states have larger relativistic correction than
the corresponding ground state, a relativistic model is needed in a careful study.
On the other hand, this study can improve the knowledge of $B_c$ meson,
and $B_c$ meson only decay weakly which is an ideal particle to study the weak decays.
In recent years, more and more people had studied the $B_c$ meson by different methods,
such as different relativistic constituent quark models~\cite{bc1,bc2,bc3,bc4,bc5,Ebert11,Ebert12,Ebert13,Ebert14,Ebert15,Ivanov1,Ivanov2,Ivanov3,Ivanov4},
the covariant light-front quark model~\cite{bc6,bc7} and perturbative QCD factorization approach~\cite{bc8}.
In these literatures, they studied the nature of $B_c$ meson
by the semileptonic and nonleptonic decays of $B_c$, the $CP$ violation in two-body hadronic decays of $B_c$,
rare semileptonic decays of $B_c$ etc.
We also discussed the properties of $B_c$ meson by the improved B-S method,
include $B_c$ decays to $P-$wave mesons,
the rare weak decays and rare radiative decays of $B_c$, the nonleptonic charmless decays of $B_c$,
and so on~\cite{bc-pwave,heavy-light,bc9,bc10,bc11,bc12,bc13}.
In previous papers, we focused on $B_c$ decays to $1S,~2S,~1P,$ and $2P$ states,
because when the final states were $3S,~4S$ states, the corresponding branching ratios were very small,
and there were only limited data of $B_c$ available.
Now the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
will produce as much as $5\times10^{10}$ $B_c$ events per year~\cite{lhc1,lhc2}.
The huge amount of $B_c$ events will provide us a chance
to study $B_c$ decay to $3S,~4S$ states,
some channels also provide an opportunities to discover the new particles in $B_c$ decay.
The mesons can be described by the B-S equation.
Ref.~\cite{robert1} took the B-S equation to describe the light mesons $\pi$ and $K$,
then they calculated the mass and decay constant of $\pi$ by the B-S amplitudes~\cite{robert2},
they also studied the weak decays~\cite{robert3} and the strong decays~\cite{robert4} combine the Dyson-Schwinger
equation.
But in this paper, we describe the properties of heavy mesons and
the matrix elements of weak currents by improved B-S method,
which include two improvement~\cite{BS1}: one is about relativistic wavefunctions
which describe bound states with definite quantum number,
and a relativistic form of wavefunctions are solutions of the full Salpeter equations.
The other one is about the matrix elements of weak-current which obtained with
relativistic wavefunctions as input.
So the improved B-S method is good to describe the properties and decays of the heavy mesons with the relativistic corrections.
The paper is organized as follows.
In Sec.~II, we give the formulations of the exclusive semileptonic and
nonleptonic decays;
We show the hadronic weak-current matrix elements which is related to the wavefunctions of initial mesons and
final mesons in Section.~III;
We show the wavefunctions of initial and final mesons in Sec.~IV;
The corresponding results and conclusions are present in Sec.~V;
Finally in Appendix, we introduce the instantaneous Bethe-Salpeter equation.
\section{The formulations of semileptonic decays and nonleptonic decay of $B_c$}
In this section we present the formulations of
semi-leptonic decay and nonleptonic decay of $B_c$ mesons to $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$
which
are considered as $\eta_c(3S)$ and $\eta_c(4S)$ states.
\subsection{Semileptonic decay of $B_c$}
The feynman diagram of $B_c$ semileptonic decay to $X=X(3940)$ or $X=X(4160)$
is shown in Fig. \ref{semileptonic}.
The corresponding amplitude for the decay can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T}
T=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{bc}\bar{u}_{\nu_\ell}\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma_5)
v_{\ell}\langle X(P_f)|J_{\mu}|B_c(P)\rangle\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_{bc}$ is the CKM matrix element, $G_F$ is the the Fermi constant,
$J_{\mu}=V_{\mu}-A_{\mu}$ is the charged weak current, $P$ and
$P_f$ are the momentum of the initial meson $B_c$ and the final
state, respectively. The hadronic part can be written
as,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{form}
&&\langle
X(P_f)|V_{\mu}|B_c(P)\rangle=f_+(P+P_f)_{\mu}+f_-(P-P_f)_{\mu},
\nonumber\\
&&\langle X(P_f)|A_{\mu}|B_c(P)\rangle=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_+, f_-$ are the Lorentz invariant form factors.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{semileptonic}
\caption{\label{semileptonic}{Feynman diagram of the semi-leptonic decay $B_c\to X \ell^+\nu_\ell$,
$X$ denote $X(3940)$ or $X(4160)$.}}
\end{figure}
We define $x\equiv E_\ell/M,\;\; y\equiv (P-P_f)^2/M^2$, where $E_\ell$
is the energy of the final charge lepton, $M$ is the mass of
initial meson. The differential width of the decay can be reduced
to:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{differ}
&&\frac{d^2\Gamma}{dxdy}=|V_{bc}|^2\frac{G_F^2M^5}{64{\pi}^3}
\nonumber\\
&&\left\{{\beta}_{++}\left[4\left(2x(1-\frac{M_f^2}{M^2}+y)-4x^2-y\right)
+\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2}\left(8x+4\frac{M_f^2}{M^2}-3y-\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2}\right)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.({\beta}_{+-}+{\beta}_{-+})\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2}
\left(2-4x+y-2\frac{M_f^2}{M^2}+\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2}\right)
+{\beta}_{--}\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2}\left(y-\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2}\right)\right\}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_f$, $m_\ell$ are the masses of the meson and the lepton in
final states, respectively. $\beta_{++}=f^2_+$,
$\beta_{+-}=\beta_{-+}=f_+f_-$, $\beta_{--}=f^2_-$.
\subsection{Nonleptonic decay of $B_c$}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{nonleptonic}
\caption{\label{nonleptonic}{Feynman diagram of the nonleptonic decay $B_c\to X M_2$,
$X$ denote $X(3940)$ or $X(4160)$, $M_2$} denote a light meson: $\pi, K, \rho,$ or $K^*$.}
\end{figure}
For the nonleptonic decay of $B_c\to X+M_2$ in Fig.~\ref{nonleptonic},
the relevant effective Hamiltonian $H_{eff}$ is~\cite{Heff1,Heff2}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Heff}
H_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt2}
\left\{V_{bc}[c_1(\mu)O_1^{bc}+c_2(\mu)O_2^{bc}]+h.c.\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $V_{bc}$ is the CKM matrix element and
$c_i(\mu)$ are the scale-dependent Wilson coefficients.
$O_i$ are the operators responsible for the decays constructed by four quark fields and
have the structure as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{O1O2}
&&O_1^{bc}=[V_{ud}(\bar d_\alpha u_\alpha)_{V-A}+V_{us}(\bar s_\alpha u_\alpha)_{V-A}](\bar c_\beta b_\beta)_{V-A},
\nonumber\\
&&O_2^{bc}=[V_{ud}(\bar d_\alpha u_\beta)_{V-A}+V_{us}(\bar s_\alpha u_\beta)_{V-A}](\bar c_\beta b_\alpha)_{V-A},
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\bar q_1q_2)_{V-A}=\bar q_1\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)q_2$.
Since this is the primary study of these nonleptonic decays,
we apply the naive factorization to $H_{eff}$ \cite{naive},
the nonleptonic two-body decay amplitude $T$ can be reduce to a product of
a transition matrix element of a weak current $\langle X|J^\mu|B_c\rangle$
and an annihilation matrix element of another weak current $\langle M_2|J_\mu|0\rangle$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{nonamplitude}
T=\langle XM_2|H_{eff}|B_c\rangle\approx
\frac{G_F}{\sqrt2}V_{bc}V_{ij}a_1\langle X|J^\mu|B_c\rangle\langle M_2|J_\mu|0\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
$a_1=c_1+\frac{1}{N_c}c_2$ and $N_c=3$ is the number of colors.
While the annihilation matrix element $\langle M_2|J_\mu|0\rangle$ is related to
the decay constant of $M_2$. When $M_2$ is a pseudoscalar meson~\cite{pseudo},
$$\langle M_2|J_\mu|0\rangle=if_{M_2}P_{M_2\mu}$$
$f_{M_2}$ is the decay constant of meson $M_2$, $P_{M_2}$ is the momentum of $M_2$.
When $M_2$ is a vector meson~\cite{vector},
$$\langle M_2|J_\mu|0\rangle=\epsilon_\mu f_{M_2}M_{M_2}$$
where $M_{M_2}$, $f_{M_2}$ and $\epsilon$ are the mass, decay constant and polarization vector of
the vector meson $M_2$, respectively. The decay constant of the meson can be obtained
either by theoretical model or by indirect experiment measurement.
In Eq.~(\ref{differ}) and Eq.~(\ref{nonamplitude}),
we find that the most important things to get the decay width of the corresponding decay
are to calculate hadronic weak-current matrix elements $\langle
X(P_f)|J_{\mu}|B_c(P)\rangle$.
We will give the detailed calculation of the hadronic weak-current matrix elements in the Section.~III.
\section{The hadronic weak-current matrix elements}
The calculation of the hadronic weak-current matrix element are different from
model to model. In this paper, we combine the B-S method which is
based on relativistic B-S equation with Mandelstam formalism~\cite{Mand}
and relativistic wave functions to calculate the
hadronic matrix element.
The numerical values of wavefunctions
have been obtained by solving the full Salpeter equation which we
will introduce in Appendix. As an example, we consider the
semileptonic decay $B_c\to X\ell^+{\nu_\ell}$ in Fig.~\ref{semileptonic}. In this way,
at the leading order the hadronic matrix element can be written as
an overlapping integral over the wavefunctions of initial and final mesons~\cite{BS1},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{matrix}
\langle X(P_f)|J_{\mu}|B_c(P)\rangle=
\int\frac{d{\vec{q}}}{(2\pi)^3}{\rm Tr}\left[
\bar{\varphi}^{++}_{_{P_{f}}}(\vec {q}_{_f})\frac{\not\!P}{M}
{\varphi}^{++}_{_P}({\vec{q}})\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_5)\right]\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{q}$ ($\vec{q}_{_f}$) is the relative three-momentum
between the quark and anti-quark in the initial (final) meson and
$\vec{q}_{_f}=\vec{q}-\frac{m'_1}{m'_1+m'_2}{\vec{P_f}}$.
$M$ is the mass of $B_c$, ${\vec{P_f}}$ is the three dimensional
momentum of $X$, ${\varphi}^{++}_P(\vec q)$ is the positive
Salpeter wavefunction of $B_c$ meson and
${\varphi}^{++}_{P_f}(\vec q_f)$
is the positive Salpeter wavefunction of $X$ meson,
$\bar{\varphi}^{++}_{_{P_f}}=\gamma_0({\varphi}^{++}_{_{P_f}})^{\dagger}\gamma_0$.
We will show the Salpeter wavefunctions for the different mesons in next section.
\section{The Relativistic Wavefunctions of Pseudoscalar Meson}
\subsection{ For $B_c$ meson with quantum numbers
$J^{P}=0^{-}$}
The general form for the relativistic wavefunction of
pseudoscalar meson $B_c$ can be written as~\cite{w1}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{aa01}
\varphi_{0^-}(\vec q)&=&\Big[f_1(\vec q){\not\!P}+f_2(\vec q)M+
f_3(\vec q)\not\!{q_\bot}+f_4(\vec q)\frac{{\not\!P}\not\!{q_\bot}}{M}\Big]\gamma_5,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$ is the mass of the pseudoscalar meson, and
$f_i(\vec q)$ are functions of $|\vec q|^2$. Due to
the last two equations of Eq.~(\ref{eq11}):
$\varphi_{0^-}^{+-}=\varphi_{0^-}^{-+}=0$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{constrain}
f_3(\vec q)&=&\frac{f_2(\vec q)
M(-\omega_1+\omega_2)}{m_2\omega_1+m_1\omega_2},~~~
f_4(\vec q)=-\frac{f_1(\vec q)
M(\omega_1+\omega_2)}{m_2\omega_1+m_1\omega_2}.
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_1, m_2$ and
$\omega_1=\sqrt{m_1^{2}+\vec{q}^2},\omega_2=\sqrt{m_2^{2}+\vec{q}^2}$ are
the masses and the energies of
quark and anti-quark in $B_c$ mesons, $q_{_\bot}=q-(q\cdot P/M^2)P$, and $q_{\bot}^2=-|\vec q|^2$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Bcfunction}
\caption{\label{Bcfunction}The wavefunctions of $B_c$.}
\end{figure}
The numerical values of radial wavefunctions $f_1$, $f_2$ and
eigenvalue $M$ can be obtained by solving the first two Salpeter equations in
Eq.~(\ref{eq11}). To show the numerical
results of wavefunctions explicitly, we plot the wavefunctions
of $B_c$ meson in
Fig.~\ref{Bcfunction}.
According to the Eq.~(\ref{eq10}) the relativistic positive wavefunction
of pseudoscalar meson $B_c$ in C.M.S can be written as \cite{w1}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{0-postive}
{\varphi}^{++}_{0^-}(\vec{q})=b_1
\left[b_2+\frac{\not\!{P}}{M}+b_3\not\!{q_{\bot}}
+b_4\frac{\not\!{q_{\bot}}\not\!{P}}{M}\right]{\gamma}_5,
\end{eqnarray}
where the $b_i$s ($i=1,~2,~3,~4$) are related to the original
radial wavefunctions $f_1$, $f_2$, quark masses $m_1$, $m_2$, quark energy $w_1$, $w_2$,
and meson mass $M$:
$$b_1=\frac{M}{2}\left({f}_{1}(\vec{q})
+{f}_{2}(\vec{q})\frac{m_1+m_2}{\omega_1+\omega_2}\right),
b_2=\frac{\omega_1+\omega_2}{m_1+m_2}, b_3=-\frac{(m_1-m_2)}{m_1\omega_2+m_2\omega_1},
b_4=\frac{(\omega_1+\omega_2)}{(m_1\omega_2+m_2\omega_1)}.$$
\subsection{For $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ mesons with quantum numbers
$J^{P}=0^{-}$}
Because the $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ mesons have the same quantum numbers as
$B_c$, the wavefunctions of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ mesons are similar to
Eq.~(\ref{0-postive}),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{final-2S}
{\varphi}^{++}_{_{P_f}}(\vec{q}_{f})=a_1
\left[a_2+\frac{\not\!{P_f}}{M_f}+a_3\not\!{q_{_{f\bot}}}
+a_4\frac{\not\!{q_{_{f\bot}}}\not\!{P_f}}{M_f}\right]{\gamma}_5,
\end{eqnarray}
$$a_1=\frac{M_f}{2}\left(f'_1(\vec{q}_f)
+f'_2(\vec{q}_f)\frac{m'_1+m'_2}{\omega'_1+\omega'_2}\right),
a_2=\frac{\omega'_1+\omega'_2}{m'_1+m'_2}, a_3=\frac{-m'_1+m'_2}{m'_1\omega'_2+m'_2\omega'_1},
a_4=\frac{\omega'_1+\omega'_2}{m'_1\omega'_2+m'_2\omega'_1}.$$
Where $M_f$, $P_f$, $f'_i(\vec q_f)$ are the mass,
momentum and the radial wavefunctions of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$, respectively.
$m'_1, m'_2$ and
$\omega'_1=\sqrt{m_1^{\prime2}+\vec{q}_f^2},\omega'_2=\sqrt{m_2^{\prime2}+\vec{q}_f^2}$ are
the masses and the energies of
quark and anti-quark in $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$.
To show the numerical
results of wavefunctions explicitly, we plot the wavefunctions
of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ states in
Fig.~\ref{wavefunction}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X3940wavefunction}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X4160wavefunction}
\caption{\label{wavefunction}The wavefunctions of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Number results and discussions}
\subsection{Semi-leptonic decays}
In order to fix Cornell potential in Eq.(\ref{eq16}) and masses of quarks,
we take these parameters: $a=e=2.7183,
\lambda=0.21$ GeV$^2$, ${\Lambda}_{QCD}=0.27$ GeV, $\alpha=0.06$
GeV, $m_b=4.96$ GeV, $m_c=1.62$ GeV, $etc$~\cite{mass1},
which are best to fit the mass spectra of ground states $B_c$ and other heavy mesons.
Taking these parameters to B-S equation,
and solving the B-S equation numerically,
we get the masses of $X(3940)$, $X(4160)$ and $B_c$ as:
$M_{X(3940)}$=3.942 GeV, $M_{X(4160)}$=4.156 GeV, $M_{B_c}=6.276$ GeV.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X3940formfactor}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X4160formfactor}
\caption{\label{formfactor}The form factor of semileptonic decay $B_c$ to $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X3940energyspectra}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X4160energyspectra}
\caption{\label{energyspectra}The leptonic energy spectra of semileptonic decay $B_c$ to $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$.}
\end{figure}
For semileptonic decays we need to input
the CKM matrix elements:
$V_{cb}=0.0406$,
$G_F=1.166\times10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$
and the life time of $B_c$ meson: $\tau_{B_c} =
0.453$ps,
which are taken from PDG~\cite{PDG}.
In Section.~III,
we have found that the hadronic weak-current matrix element is overlapping integral over the
wavefunctions of initial and final states,
and the hadronic weak-current matrix element can be written as the form factors $f_+$ and $f_-$.
The form factors are relate to four-momentum transfer squared $t=(P-P_f)^2=M^2+M_f^2-2ME_f$
which provides the kinematic range for the semileptonic decay of $B_c$.
It varies from $t=0$ to $t=5.45$ GeV$^2$ for the decays to $X(3940)$ and
from $t=0$ to $t=4.48$ GeV$^2$ for the decays to $X(4160)$.
We give the relations of $(t_m-t)$($t_m=(M-M_f)^2$ is the maximum of $t$) and the form factors,
which are calculated by Eq.~(\ref{matrix}) in Fig.~\ref{formfactor}.
The leptonic energy spectra $\frac{d\Gamma}{\Gamma dP_e}$ for semileptonic $B_c$
decay to $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ are calculated by Eq.~(\ref{differ}).
The results are plot in Fig.~\ref{energyspectra}.
In Table.~\ref{semidecaywidth}, we summarize the decay widths of the semileptonic
$B_c \to X\ell^+ \nu_\ell$ ($X=X(3940)$ or $X(4160)$, $\ell=e,\mu,\tau$).
We have taken $\Gamma_e\simeq\Gamma_\mu$ with the massless lepton limit since
the muon mass effect is negligible for these transitions with large kinematic ranges.
The semileptonic decay widths of $B_c^+\to X(3940)$ are larger than $B_c^+\to X(4160)$ in Table.~\ref{semidecaywidth},
there are two reasons: first, the former decay has larger kinematic ranges,
second, there is one minus part in the wavefunctions of $X(3940)$,
and there are two minus parts in the wavefunctions of $X(4160)$ in Fig.~\ref{wavefunction},
after the overlapping integral in Eq.~(\ref{matrix}),
much more minus parts of the wavefunctions cause the smaller result for $X(4160)$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{\label{semidecaywidth}The decay widths of exclusive semileptonic decay $B_c$ to $X(3940),~X(4160)$ (in $10^{-15}$GeV).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hline
Mode&Ours&Mode&Ours \\
\hline
$B_c^+\to$ $X(3940)$$e^+\nu_e$&0.147&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$$e^+\nu_e$&3.46$\times10^{-2}$\\
$B_c^+\to$ $X(3940)$$\tau^+\nu_\tau$&$4.35\times 10^{-3}$&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$$\tau^+\nu_\tau$&$2.57\times10^{-4}$\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
For the exclusive nonleptonic decay, we only consider two body decays,
and another meson is light meson. The corresponding CKM matrix elements are:
$V_{ud}=0.974$ and $V_{us}=0.2252$. The masses and decay constants are:
$M_\pi=0.140$ GeV, $f_\pi=0.130$ GeV,
$M_\rho=0.775$ GeV, $f_\rho=0.205$ GeV,
$M_K=0.494$ GeV, $f_K=0.156$ GeV,
$M_{K^*}=0.892$ GeV, $f_{K^*}=0.217$ GeV~\cite{PDG,kk}, respectively.
The kinematic range of nonleptonic decay is fixed value,
so the form factors of $B_c$ nonleptonic decay are definite value.
Using the form factors of $B_c$ nonleptonic decay and the decay constants,
we show the nonleptonic decay widths which are related to the parameter $a_1$ in Table.~\ref{nondecaywidth}.
The results of $B_c$ nonleptonic decay are affected by the CKM matrix elements, so the results of light mesons $\pi, \rho$
are larger than the ones of light mesons $K, K^*$ in Table.~\ref{nondecaywidth}, respectively.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{\label{nondecaywidth}The decay widths of exclusive nonleptonic decay $B_c$ to $X(3940),~X(4160)$ (in $10^{-15}$GeV).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hline
Mode&Ours&Mode&Ours \\
\hline
$B_c^+\to$ $X(3940)$+$\pi$&7.57$\times 10^{-2}a^2_1$&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$\pi$&2.29$\times 10^{-2}a^2_1$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$+$K$&5.51$\times 10^{-3}a^2_1$&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$K$&1.61$\times 10^{-3}a^2_1$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$+$\rho$&0.149$a^2_1$&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$\rho$&4.17$\times 10^{-2}a^2_1$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$+$K^*$&8.30$\times 10^{-3}a^2_1$&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$K^*$&2.22$\times 10^{-3}a^2_1$\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In order to compare the numerical values of semileptonic and nonleptonic decays,
we show the branching ratios of semileptonic and nonleptonic $B_c$ with $a_1=1.14$~\cite{Heff1,Heff2} in Table.~\ref{Branch}.
We find that the central value results of $B_c^+\to$ $X(3940)$$e^+\bar\nu_e$ and $B_c^+\to X(3940)\tau^+\bar\nu_\tau$ are
less than Ref.~\cite{Lu}. But considering the errors of results, our results are in accordance with ones of Ref.~\cite{Lu}.
If we compare $B_c\to$$X(3940)$, $X(4160)$ in this paper with $B_c$ decays to $\eta_c(1S)$ in literatures,
for example in Ref.~\cite{bc1,bc2,bc13},
our results are almost two order smaller than the results of $B_c$ decay to $\eta_c(1S)$.
there are two reasons, one reason is that the $B_c\to$$X(3940)$, $X(4160)$ have small kinematic ranges,
another one is that the wavefunctions have some minus parts in $X(3940)$, and $X(4160)$.
Because the mass errors of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ are still large,
the widths and branching ratios of $B_c$ weak decays to $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ are influenced
by the masses of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$,
we plot the relations of the branching ratios of $B_c$ weak decays to $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ to
the masses of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ in Fig.~\ref{M-Br}.
The relations of the branching ratios to the masses of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ are linear.
The branching ratios decrease with the increase of the masses of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{\label{Branch}The branching ratio(in $\%$) of exclusive semileptonic and nonleptonic decay $B_c$ to $X(3940),~X(4160)$ with $a_1=1.14$.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hline
Mode&Ours&\cite{Lu}&Mode&Ours \\
\hline
$B_c^+\to$ $X(3940)$$e^+\nu_e$&$1.02\times 10^{-2}$&$1.9^{+0.2+0.1+0.0+0.8+0.7+0.0}_{-0.1-0.1-0.0-0.9-0.7-0.0}\times10^{-2}$
&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$$e^+\nu_e$&2.39$\times 10^{-3}$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$$\tau^+\nu_\tau$&3.00$\times 10^{-4}$&$5.7^{+0.6+0.7+0.3+2.4+2.0+0.0}_{-0.3-0.4-0.3-2.7-2.2-0.1}\times10^{-4}$
&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$$\tau^+\nu_\tau$&1.78$\times 10^{-5}$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$+$\pi$&6.78$\times 10^{-3}$&--&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$\pi$&2.05$\times 10^{-3}$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$+$K$&4.94$\times 10^{-4}$&--&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$K$&1.44$\times 10^{-4}$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$+$\rho$&1.34$\times 10^{-2}$&--&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$\rho$&3.73$\times 10^{-3}$\\
$B_c^+\to$$X(3940)$+$K^*$&7.44$\times 10^{-4}$&--&$B_c^+\to$$X(4160)$+$K^*$&2.00$\times 10^{-4}$\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X3940M-Br}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{X4160M-Br}
\caption{\label{M-Br}The relations of branching ratios to the mass of final mesons.}
\end{figure}
In conclusion, considering $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ as $\eta_c(3S)$ and $\eta_c(4S)$ states,
we study the semileptonic and nonleptonic $B_c$ decays to $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$
by the improved B-S method.
The corresponding decay form factors are calculated and the corresponding
decay widths and branching ratios are obtained.
The exclusive decay widths and branching ratios are very small,
because of the minus value in the wavefunctions.
But now the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
will produce as much as $5\times10^{10}$ $B_c$ events per year~\cite{lhc1,lhc2},
if we can observe the sufficient events, some channels will provide us a sizable ratios,
and may be we will detect the productions of $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ in $B_c$ exclusive
weak semileptonic and nonleptonic decay.
That will provide us a new way to observe the $X(3940)$ and $X(4160)$ in the future.
\noindent
{\Large \bf Acknowledgements}
This work was supported in part by
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under
Grant No.~11405004, No.~11405037, No.~11505039 and No.~11575048.
|
\section{Experimental Apparatus and Methods}
Neutrino flavour oscillation due to the mixing angle $\theta_{13}${} has been observed using reactor
antineutrinos ($\overline{\nu}_{e}${}) \cite{cit1, cit2, cit3} and accelerator neutrinos~\cite{cit4,cit5}. The
\textsc{Daya Bay}{} experiment previously reported the discovery of a non-zero value of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ by observing the disappearance of reactor
antineutrinos over kilometre distances~\cite{cit1}, and the first measurement of the effective mass splitting
$|\Delta m^{2}_{ee}|$ via the distortion of the $\overline{\nu}_{e}${} energy spectrum~\cite{cit9}.
This poster presents new results with larger statistics and
significant improvements in energy calibration and background reduction published in \cite{cit0}.
The \textsc{Daya Bay}{} experiment consists of eight functionally identical antineutrino detectors (ADs) hosted in three underground experimental
halls (EHs), detecting reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}${} via inverse beta decay (IBD) reactions.
EH1 and EH2 are respectively located at short distance from the Daya Bay and Ling Ao reactor cores,
and they both host two ADs. EH3 is at 1.6~km distance from the cores and hosts 4 ADs. Each EH is equipped with a
muon detector system to tag and veto cosmic muons, consisting of a layer of resistive plate chambers (RPCs)
and a water Cherenkov detector, in which the ADs are immersed.
Each AD has three nested cylindrical volumes separated by concentric acrylic vessels, while the outermost vessel is made of stainless steel.
The innermost volume holds 20~ton of gadolinium-doped liquid scintillator (Gd-LS) that serves as the antineutrino target.
The middle volume is called the gamma catcher and is filled with 21~ton of undoped liquid scintillator (LS) for detecting gamma rays that escape
the target volume.
The outer volume contains 37~ton of mineral oil (MO) to provide optical homogeneity
and to shield the inner volumes from background radiation.
The outer volume also hosts 192 eight-inch PMTs facing the target volume.
IBDs are selected by exploiting the prompt-delayed time structure of the event, where the positron annihilates soon after its production
(prompt energy), while the neutron gets captured on gadolinium with a mean capture time of $\sim$30~$\upmu \mathrm{s}$ (delayed energy).
In order for an event to be selected, the difference between the two energy depositions is required to be between 1 and 200~$\upmu \mathrm{s}$.
\noindent\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{ p{0.43\textwidth} p{0.02\textwidth} p{0.45\textwidth} }
\includegraphics[height=4.9cm]{ibd2D_m2}
& &
\includegraphics[height=4.9cm]{background} \\
{\small \textbf{Figure 1.} IBD prompt/delayed energy spectrum. The dashed line shows the energy-based selection criteria.}
& &
{ \small \textbf{Figure 2.} Prompt energy spectrum of IBD candidates in EH3 together with the subtracted background components.
The inset shows the same plot in logarithmic scale.\vspace{10pt}}\\
\end{tabular*}
\noindent\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{ p{0.45\textwidth} b{0.45\textwidth} }
\includegraphics[height=5.8cm]{energy_scale} \vspace{10pt}
&
{\vspace{15pt} \small \textbf{Figure 3.} Comparison of the reconstructed energy between antineutrino detectors for a variety of calibration references.
$\mathrm{E_{AD}}$ is the reconstructed energy determined using each AD, and $\langle E \rangle$ is the 8-detector average.
Error bars are statistical only, and systematic variations between detectors for all calibration references are \textless0.2\%.
The \textasciitilde8 MeV n-Gd capture gamma peaks from Am-C sources are used to define the energy scale of
each detector, and hence show zero deviation.} \\
\end{tabular*}
\noindent Additional energy selection criteria require the prompt energy to be in the 0.7-12~MeV range, and the delayed energy
to be in the 6-12~MeV range, as shown in Fig.~1.
In order to suppress cosmogenic products, IBD candidates are rejected if the delayed signal occurs
soon after a muon trigger, where the vetoed time window can range from 600~$\upmu$s to 1~s according the
amount of energy deposited in the detector.
The prompt energy spectrum of selected events, together with the five major sources of background
(fast neutrons of cosmogenic origin, correlated $\beta$-n decays from cosmogenic $^9$Li and $^8$He,
$^{13}\mathrm{C}(\alpha , \, \mathrm{n}) ^{16}\mathrm{O}$ reactions, single neutrons from the Am-C calibration sources
and accidental coincidences), are shown in Fig.~2.
We use the prompt energy as a proxy for the incident $\overline{\nu}_{e}${} energy, and any difference in the energy response between ADs
affects the estimation of $|\Delta \mathrm{m}^2_{ee}|${}.
The detector energy scale is calibrated using Am-C neutron sources deployed at the detector centre,
with the \textasciitilde8~MeV peaks from neutrons captured on Gd aligned across all eight ADs.
The time variation and the position dependence of the energy scale are corrected using the 2.5~MeV gamma-ray peak from
$^{60}$Co calibration sources.
The uncertainty associated to any residual difference in the energy response is evaluated by comparing several
calibration reference points across all ADs, as shown in Fig.~3.
Such reference points are:
(\textsc{i}) $^{68}$Ge, $^{60}$Co and Am-C calibration sources placed at detector centre,
(\textsc{ii}) Gd-captured neutrons from IBD and muon spallation, distributed nearly uniformly throughout the Gd-LS region,
(\textsc{iii}) neutrons being captured on $^1$H, intrinsic $\alpha$ particles from polonium and radon decays, and gammas from $^{40}$K and $^{208}$Tl decays, all being distributed inside and outside of the target volume.
Events from all the calibration samples are required to have the reconstructed vertex within the Gd-LS region.
However, since the spatial distribution of each calibration sample varies, the energy difference shown in Fig.~3
incorporates also deviations in spatial response between detectors. The resulting uncorrelated relative uncertainty of the energy scale
is 0.2\%.
The detector energy response is known to be non-linear. The main causes of this behaviour are: (\textsc{i}) a particle-dependent
non-linear light yield of the scintillator, and (\textsc{ii}) a charge-dependent non-linearity in the PMT readout electronics,
each being at the level of 10\% within the IBD energy range.
We model the non-linear response with a semi-empirical model, which can be factorised into two independent components:
$f_{\mathrm{scintillator}}(k_B, k_C)$ ---where the two free parameters are the Birks' constant $k_B$ and
the fraction of Cherenkov light contributing to the total light yield $k_C$---, and $f_{\mathrm{electronics}}(\alpha, \tau)$ ---where
$\alpha$ and $\tau$ are respectively the amplitude and the scale of the exponential describing the electronics non-linearity.
\noindent\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{ p{0.45\textwidth} p{0.02\textwidth} p{0.45\textwidth} }
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{scintillator_nl}
& &
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{positron_response} \\
{\small \textbf{Figure 4.} The scintillator non-linearity resulting from the best-fit parameters of the overall energy response model,
compared to deployed and intrinsic gamma calibration sources.}
& &
{ \small \textbf{Figure 5.} \textit{Solid curve}: Estimated energy response of the detectors to positrons,
based on gamma rays from both deployed and intrinsic sources, as well as electrons from $^{12}$B $\beta$ decays.
\textit{Dashed curve}: Validation model based on
$^{12}$Bi, $^{214}$Bi, $^{208}$Tl $\beta$\texttt{+}$\gamma$ spectra together with the
53-MeV edge in the Michel electron spectrum. \vspace{10pt}}\\
\end{tabular*}
\noindent The values of these four free parameters are obtained from an unconstrained $\chi^2$ fit to several calibration datasets,
namely 12 gamma lines by both artificial sources deployed at detector centre and naturally occurring sources, and
the continuous $\beta$ decay spectrum of $^{12}$B resulting from muon spallation events in the Gd-LS volume.
The comparison of the best fit model against gamma data is shown in Fig.~4, while
the nominal positron response derived from the best fit parameters is represented by the solid curve in Fig.~5.
The depicted uncertainty band represents other response functions
consistent with the fitted calibration data within a 68.3\% C.L.
The positron response is further validated
with
the 53-MeV cutoff in the decay electron
spectrum from muon decay at rest, and with the continuous $\beta$\texttt{+}$\gamma$ spectra from natural bismuth and thallium decays.
This additional model ---represented by the blue dashed curve in Fig.~5--- falls within the 1-$\sigma$ contour of the nominal
positron response curve, improving our confidence in the characterization of the absolute energy response of the detectors.
\section{Results}
Neutrino oscillation parameters are measured using the L/E-dependent disappearance of $\overline{\nu}_{e}${}, as given by the survival probability
\begin{equation}
P \simeq 1- \cos^4 \theta_{13} \, \sin^2 2 \theta_{12} \, \sin^2 \frac{1.267 \Delta m_{21}^2 \, L }{E} - \sin^2 2 \theta_{13} \, \sin^2 \frac{1.267 \Delta m^2_{ee} \, L }{E} \, \, .
\end{equation}
Here E is the energy in MeV of the $\overline{\nu}_{e}${}, L is the distance in meters from its production point,
$\theta_{12}$ is the solar mixing angle, and $\Delta m^2_{12} = m_2^2 - m_1^2$ is the mass-squared
difference of the first two neutrino mass eigenstates in eV$^2$.
Since recent measurements of the IBD positron energy spectrum disagree with models of reactor $\overline{\nu}_{e}${}
emission~\cite{cit3, cit20, cit21},
to measure the neutrino oscillation parameters we employ a technique predicting the signal in the far hall based on
measurements obtained in the near halls.
This allows us to minimise the result's dependence on models of the reactor antineutrino flux
(more information can be found in \cite{cit0}). Out of this approach, we obtain $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13} = 0.084 \pm 0.005$
and $\Delta \mathrm{m}^2_{ee} = (2.42 \pm 0.11) \times 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$, with $\chi^2$/NDF = 134.6/146.
Under the normal (inverted) hierarchy assumption, $|\Delta \mathrm{m}^2_{ee}|${} yields
$\Delta m_{32} = (2.37 \pm 0.11) \times 10^{-3} \mathrm{eV}^2$
($\Delta m_{32} = -(2.47 \pm 0.11) \times 10^{-3} \mathrm{eV}^2$).
This result is consistent with and of compatible precision to measurements obtained from accelerator
$\nu_{\mu}$ and $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}$ disappearance~\cite{cit10, cit11}.
The reconstructed positron energy spectrum observed in the far site is compared in Fig.~6 with the
expectation based on the near-site measurements.
The total uncertainties of both
$\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ and $|\Delta \mathrm{m}^2_{ee}|${} are dominated by statistics. The most significant systematic uncertainties for
$\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ are due to the relative detector efficiency, reactor power,
relative energy scale, and $^9$Li/$^8$He background.
The systematic uncertainty in $|\Delta \mathrm{m}^2_{ee}|${} is dominated by uncertainty in the relative energy scale.
\noindent\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{ p{0.45\textwidth} p{0.02\textwidth} b{0.45\textwidth} }
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{spectral_distortion}
& &
{\small \textbf{Figure 6.} \textit{Top}: Background-subtracted reconstructed positron energy spectrum observed in the far site (black points),
as well as the expectation derived from the near sites excluding (blue line) or including (red line) our best estimate of oscillation.
The spectra were efficiency corrected and normalised to one day of live time.
\textit{Bottom}: Ratio of the spectra to the no-oscillation case.
The error bars show the statistical uncertainty of the far site data.
The shaded area includes the systematic and statistical uncertainties from the near-site measurements.}\\
\end{tabular*}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we prove convergence and rate-optimality of adaptive finite element methods (AFEM) for computing harmonic forms. Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a polyhedral domain with Lipschitz boundary $\partial \Omega$. The space $\mathfrak{H}^1$ of harmonic forms (the first de Rham cohomology group in $\mathbb{R}^3$) i
\begin{align}
\label{eq0-1}
\mathfrak{H}^1 = \{ {\bf v} \in L_2(\Omega)^3 | \mathop{\rm curl} {\bf v} = {\bf 0}, ~ \mathop{\rm div} ({\bf v}) = 0, ~ {\bf v} \cdot {\bf n} = 0 \hbox{ on } \partial \Omega \}.
\end{align}
Here ${\bf n}$ is the outward unit normal on $\partial \Omega$.
$\beta^1 :={\rm dim}\hspace{2pt}\mathfrak{H}^1<\infty$ is equal to the number of handles of the domain $\Omega$, so $\beta^1=0$ if $\Omega$ is simply connected. We denote by $\{q^1, ..., q^{\beta^1}\}$ a fixed $L_2$-orthonormal basis for $\mathfrak{H}^1$.
Computation of harmonic forms arises in applications including computer graphics and surface processing \cite{XZCX09, FSDH07} and numerical solution of PDE related to problems having Hodge-Laplace structure posed on domains with nontrivial topology. Important practical examples of the latter type arise in boundary and finite element methods for electromagnetic problems. There computation of harmonic fields may arise as a necessary precursor step which in essence factors nontrivial topology out of subsequent computations. We refer to \cite{Hip02, HO02, RV10, RBGV13, TV14, BS15} for general discussion, topologically motivated algorithms for efficient computation of $\mathfrak{H}^1$, and specific applications requiring such a step. In addition, harmonic fields on spherical subdomains play an important role in understanding singularity structure of solutions to Maxwell's equations on polyhedral domains \cite[Section 6.4]{CD00}. Computation of harmonic forms is also an important part of the finite element exterior calculus (FEEC) framework. The FEEC framework provides a systematic exposition of the tools needed to stably solve Hodge-Laplace problems related to the de Rham complex and other differential complexes \cite{AFW06, AFW10}. It thus has provided a broader exposition of many of the tools needed for the numerical analysis of Maxwell's equations. The mixed methods used in these works solve the Hodge-Laplace problem modulo harmonic forms, so as above their accurate computation is a prerequisite for accurate computation of Hodge-Laplace solutions. This is true of adaptive computation of solutions to Hodge-Laplace problems also \cite{DH14, MHS13}. Our results thus serve as a necessary precursor to study of convergence of AFEM for solving the full Hodge-Laplace problem as posed within the FEEC framework. While keeping in mind the concrete representation \eqref{eq0-1}, outside of the introduction we will use the more general notation and tools that have been developed within the FEEC framework. The results described in the introduction below are valid essentially verbatim in arbitrary space dimension $n$ and for arbitrary cohomology group $\mathfrak{H}^k$, $1 \le k \le n-1$.
We briefly describe our setting. Let $\mathcal T_\ell$, $\ell \ge 0$, be a set of nested, adaptively generated simplicial decompositions of $\Omega$. Let also $V_\ell^0 \subset H^1(\Omega)$ and $V_\ell^1 \subset H(\mathop{\rm curl};\Omega)$ be conforming finite element spaces which together satisfy a complex property described in more detail below. For \eqref{eq0-1} we may take $V_\ell^0$ to be $H^1$-conforming piecewise linear functions and $V_\ell^1$ to be lowest-order N\'ed\'elec edge elements. Higher-degree analogues also may be used. The space $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$ of discrete harmonic fields corresponding to $\mathfrak{H}^1$ is then those fields $q_\ell \in V_\ell^1$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\label{eq0-2}
\begin{aligned}
\langle q_\ell, \nabla \tau_\ell \rangle & = 0, ~\tau_\ell \in V_\ell^{0},
\\ \langle \mathop{\rm curl} q_\ell, \mathop{\rm curl} v_\ell \rangle & = 0, ~ v_\ell \in V_\ell^1.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Note that while $\mathop{\rm curl} q_\ell ={\bf 0}$, $q_\ell$ is not generally in $H(\mathop{\rm div}; \Omega)$. The first equation in \eqref{eq0-2} instead implies that $\mathop{\rm div}_h q_\ell=0$, where $\mathop{\rm div}_h$ is a weakly defined discrete divergence operator which is not generally the same as the restriction of $\mathop{\rm div}$ to $V_\ell^1$. We denote by $\{q_\ell^j\}_{j=1}^{\beta^1}$ a (computed) orthonormal basis for $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$. Let also $P_{\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1}$ be the $L_2$ projection onto $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$. Given $q \in \mathfrak{H}^1$, a posteriori error estimates for controlling $\|q-P_{\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1} q\|_{L_2(\Omega)}$ were given in \cite{DH14}. From these we may generate an adaptive finite element method having the standard form $\textsf{solve} \rightarrow \textsf{estimate} \rightarrow \textsf{mark} \rightarrow \textsf{refine}$ for controlling the defect between $\mathfrak{H}^1$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$.
There are important technical and conceptual parallels between AFEM for controlling harmonic forms and AFEM for elliptic eigenvalue problems, as both consider approximation of finite-dimensional (invariant) subspaces. Consider the eigenvalue problem $-\Delta u = \lambda u$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Assume that $\lambda$ is the $j$-th eigenvalue of the continuous problem. AFEM employing residual-type error indicators based on the $j$-th discrete eigenvalue $\lambda_\ell$ on the $\ell$-th mesh level yield an approximating sequence $(\lambda_\ell, u_\ell)$ for the $j$-th continuous eigenpair $(\lambda, u)$. Analyses of AFEM for elliptic eigenvalue problems have focused on two convergence regimes. The first is a preasymptotic regime in which the method converges, but with no provable rate. In \cite{GMZ09} it was proved that starting from {\it any} initial mesh $\mathcal T_0$, $(\lambda_\ell, u_\ell) \rightarrow (\lambda, u)$ in $\mathbb{R} \times H_0^1(\Omega)$, but with no guaranteed convergence rate. In the second convergence regime the eigenvalue problem is effectively linearized, and the convergence behavior is that of a source problem. More precisely, it the initial mesh $\mathcal T_0$ is sufficiently fine, then the AFEM is contractive and achieves an optimal convergence rate \cite{DXZ08, GG09, DHZ15, Gal15, BD15}. The plain convergence results of \cite{GMZ09} guarantee that such a state is initially reached from any initial mesh $\mathcal T_0$.
Our results below indicate that the convergence behavior of harmonic forms essentially begins in a transition region in which the AFEM contracts, but with contraction constant that may improve as the overlap between $\mathfrak{H}^1$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$ increases. A regime in which AFEM contracts with constants independent of essential quantities is then eventually reached, as for AFEM for eigenvalue problems. It is to be expected that AFEM for harmonic forms contract from any initial mesh as computation of harmonic forms reduces to solving $Au=0$ with $A$ a linear operator. That is, harmonic forms are eigenfunctions with {\it known} eigenvalue and their computation is essentially a linear problem. On the other hand, we have set as our main goal the production of an {\it orthonormal} basis for $\mathfrak{H}^1$ and do not assume any particular alignment or method of production for the basis. The problem of producing an orthonormal basis is mildly nonlinear, so it is reasonable that the contraction constant can improve as the mesh is refined. As we discuss in \S\ref{subsec:cutting}, alternate methods for producing and aligning the discrete and continuous bases may lead to AFEM with different properties. Our framework has the advantage of being completely generic with respect to the method used to compute $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$.
There are two main challenges in proving contraction of AFEM for eigenspaces. These are lack of orthogonality caused by non-nestedness of the discrete eigenspaces, and lack of alignment of computed eigenbases at adjacent discrete levels. In the context of elliptic eigenvalue problems, suitable nestedness and orthogonality is recovered only on sufficiently fine meshes as the nonlinearity of the problem is resolved. In the case of harmonic forms a novel situation arises. The discrete spaces $\{H_\ell^1\}$ of harmonic forms are not themselves nested. However, as we show below the Hodge decomposition nonetheless guarantees sufficient nestedness and orthogonality uniformly starting from any initial mesh. In essence, {\it topological} resolution of $\Omega$ by $\mathcal T_0$ is sufficient to ensure some {\it analytical} resolution of $\mathfrak{H}^1$ by $\mathfrak{H}_0^1$.
Lack of alignment between discrete bases at adjacent mesh levels occurs in the case of multi-dimensional target subspaces, including multiple or clustered eigenvalues and harmonic forms when $\beta>1$. Standard AFEM convergence proofs employ ``indicator continuity'' arguments which in our case would require comparing discrete basis members $q_\ell^j$ and $q_{\ell+1}^j$ on adjacent mesh levels. When $\beta^1>1$, $q_\ell^j$ and $q_\ell^{j+1}$ may not be meaningfully related. To overcome the difficulty of multiple eigenvalues, we follow \cite{DHZ15, Gal15, BD15} in using a non-computable error estimator $\mu_\ell$ calculated with respect to projections $P_\ell q^j$ of a {\it fixed} basis for the continuous harmonic forms. Indicator continuity arguments apply to these theoretical error indicators, which must in turn be compared to the practical ones based on $\{q_\ell^j\}$. We follow \cite{BD15} in establishing an equivalence between the theoretical and practical indicators with constants asymptotically independent of essential quantities.
We now briefly describe our results. We first show that there exists $\gamma>0$ and $0< \rho <1$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{intro:contraction}
\sum_{j=1}^{\beta^1} \|q^j-P_{\ell+1} q^j\|^2 + \gamma \mu_{\ell+1}^2 \le \rho \left (\sum_{j=1}^{\beta^1} \|q^j - P_{i} q^j\|^2 + \gamma \mu_\ell^2 \right ).
\end{align}
While we may take $\gamma, \rho$ above independent of mesh level, our proof indicates that $\rho$ may in fact improve (decrease) as the overlap between $\mathfrak{H}^1$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$ improves. Because a contraction occurs from the initial mesh with fixed constant $\rho<1$, this improvement in overlap is guaranteed to occur. Thus our result lies between standard results for elliptic source problems in which contraction occurs from the initial mesh with fixed contraction constant, and AFEM convergence results for elliptic eigenvalue problems for which sufficient overlap between discrete and continuous eigenspaces is not guaranteed unless the initial mesh is sufficiently fine.
We additionally prove rate-optimality, or more precisely that
\begin{align}
\label{intro_optimality}
\left ( \sum_{j=1}^{\beta^1} \|q^j-P_{\ell+1} q^j\|^2 \right )^{1/2} \le C (\# \mathcal T_\ell -\# \mathcal T_0)^{-s}
\end{align}
whenever systematic bisection is able to produce a sequence of meshes that similarly approximates $\mathfrak{H}^1$ with rate $s$. As is typical for AFEM results, our proof of \eqref{intro_optimality} requires that the D\"orfler (bulk) marking parameter that specifies the fraction of elements to be refined in each step of the algorithm be sufficiently small. We show that the threshold value for the D\"orfler parameter is independent of all essential quantities, including the initial resolution of $\mathfrak{H}^1$ by $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$. This situation is typical of elliptic source problems; cf. \cite{CKNS08}. In contrast to elliptic source problems, however, the constant $C$ may depend on the quality of approximation of $\mathfrak{H}^1$ by $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^1$. Finally, proof of rate optimality requires establishing a localized a posteriori upper bound for the defect between the target spaces on nested meshes. This step is substantially more involved for general problems of Hodge-Laplace type than for standard scalar problems. Proof of localized upper bounds has been previously given for Maxwell's equations \cite{ZCSWX11}, but the necessary tools have not previously appeared in a form suitable for our purposes. Our approach below is valid for arbitrary form degree and space dimension and generically for problems of Hodge-Laplace type. In addition to being more general, our proof is also slightly simpler due to its use of the recently-defined quasi-interpolant of Falk and Winther \cite{FW14}.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In \S\ref{sec:deRham} we describe continuous and discrete spaces of differential forms, interpolants into discrete spaces of differential forms, and existing a posteriori estimates for harmonic forms. In \S\ref{sec:L2} we give a number of preliminary results concerning the Hodge decomposition and $L_2$ projections described above. Section \S\ref{sec:contraction} and \S\ref{sec:optimality} contain statements, discussion, and proofs of our contraction and optimality results. Section \S\ref{sec:extensions} contains brief discussion of essential boundary conditions and harmonic forms in the presence of coefficients, and also of the effects of methods for computing harmonic fields on the resulting AFEM. Finally, in \S\ref{sec:numerics} we present numerical results illustrating our theory.
\section{The de Rham complex and its finite element approximation}
\label{sec:deRham}
In this section we generalize the classical function space setting from the introduction to arbitrary space dimension and form degree and introduce corresponding finite element spaces and tools. We for the most part follow \cite{AFW10} in our notation and refer to that work for more detail.
\subsection{The de Rham complex}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lipschitz polyhedral domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$, $n \ge 2$. Let $\Lambda^k(\Omega)$ represent the space of smooth $k$-forms on $\Omega$. The natural $L_2$ inner product is denoted by $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$, the $L_2$ norm by $\| \cdot \|$, and the corresponding space by $L_2 \Lambda^k(\Omega)$. We let $d$ be the exterior derivative, and $H \Lambda^k(\Omega)$ be the domain of $d^k$ consisting of $L_2$ forms $\omega$ for which $d \omega \in L_2 \Lambda^{k+1}(\Omega)$. We denote by $\|\cdot \|_H$ the associated graph norm; here one may concretely think of $H$ as $H(\mathop{\rm curl})$, $H(\mathop{\rm div})$, or $H^1$.
We denote by $W_p^r \Lambda^k(\Omega)$ the corresponding Sobolev spaces of forms and set $H^r \Lambda^k(\Omega) = W_2^r \Lambda^k (\Omega)$. Finally, for $\omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, we let $\|\cdot\|_\omega=\|\cdot \|_{L_2 \Lambda^k(\omega)}$ and $\|\cdot \|_{H, \omega}=\|\cdot \|_{H \Lambda^k(\omega)}$; in both cases we omit $\omega$ when $\omega=\Omega$.
Denote by $\delta$ the codifferential, that is, the adjoint of the exterior derivative $d$ with respect to $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$
The space of harmonic $k$-forms is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq2-1}
\mathfrak{H}^k = \{q \in H \Lambda^k(\Omega): dq=0, ~\delta q=0, ~\hspace{1pt}{\rm tr}\hspace{2pt} \star q=0\}.
\end{align}
Here $\hspace{1pt}{\rm tr}\hspace{2pt}$ is the trace operator and $\star$ the Hodge star operator. We denote by
\begin{align}
\beta^k = {\rm dim} \hspace{2pt} \mathfrak{H}^k
\end{align}
the $k$-th Betti number of $\Omega$. When $n=3$, $\beta^0=1$, $\beta^1$ is the number of holes in $\Omega$, $\beta^2$ the number of voids, and $\beta^3=0$. In general, $\beta<\infty$. We additionally let $\mathfrak{B}^k = d H\Lambda^{k-1}$ be the range of $d^{k-1}$, $\mathfrak{Z}^k = {\rm kernel} d^k$ the kernel of $d^k$, and by $\mathfrak{Z}^{k \perp}$ the orthogonal complement of $\mathfrak{Z}^k$ in $H\Lambda^k$. We have $\mathfrak{Z}^k= \mathfrak{H}^k \oplus \mathfrak{B}^k$, and the Hodge decomposition is given by $H \Lambda^k = \mathfrak{B}^k \oplus \mathfrak{H}^k \oplus \mathfrak{Z}^{k \perp}$. Note that $\mathfrak{B}^k \subset \mathfrak{Z}^k$, that is, $d \circ d=0$.
\subsection{Meshes and mesh properties}
We employ, and now briefly review, the conforming simplicial mesh refinement framework commonly employed in AFEM convergence theory; cf. \cite{Ste08} for details. Let $\mathcal T_0$ be a conforming, shape regular simplicial decomposition of $\Omega$. By fixing a local numbering of all vertices of all $T \in \mathcal T_0$, all possible descendants $\mathcal T$ of $\mathcal T_0$ that can be created by newest vertex bisection are uniquely determined. By newest vertex bisection we mean either the refinement procedure as it was developed in two space dimensions or its generalization to any space dimension. The simplices in any of those partitions are {\em uniformly shape regular}, dependent only on the shape regularity parameters of $\mathcal T_0$ and the dimension $n$. Generally a descendant of $\mathcal T_0$ is non-conforming. Our AFEM will generate a nested sequence $\mathcal T_0 \subset \mathcal T_1 \subset \mathcal T_2...$ of conforming meshes which we index by $\ell$. Given marked sets $\mathcal{M}_\ell \subset \mathcal T_\ell$, conforming bisection thus refines all $T \in \mathcal{M}_\ell$ and then additional elements in order to ensure that $\mathcal T_{\ell+1}$ is conforming. With a suitable numbering of the vertices in the initial partition, the total number of refinements needed to make the sequence $\{\mathcal T_\ell\}$ conforming can be bounded by the number of marked elements. More precisely, for any $\underline{\ell} \ge 0$, there is a constant $C_{ref,\underline{\ell}}$ such that for $\ell > \underline{\ell}$,
\begin{align}
\label{numrefined}
\# \mathcal T_\ell - \# \mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}} \le C_{ref, \underline{\ell}} \sum_{i=\underline{\ell}}^{\ell-1} \# \mathcal{M}_i
\end{align}
with constant depending on $\mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}}$. Such an initial numbering always exists, possibly after an initial uniform refinement of $\mathcal T_0$. Assuming such a numbering, we denote the set of all {\em conforming} descendants $\mathcal T$ of $\mathcal T_0$ by $\mathbb{T}$.
For $\mathcal T, \tilde{\mathcal T} \in \mathbb{T}$, we write $\mathcal T \subset \tilde{\mathcal T}$ when $\tilde{\mathcal T}$ is a refinement of $\mathcal T$. Finally, for $T \in \mathcal T \in \mathbb{T}$ we let $h_T=|T|^{1/n}$.
\subsection{Approximation of the de Rham complex and interpolants}
\label{sec:interpolants}
Given $\mathcal T \in \mathbb{T}$, let $...V_\mathcal T^{k-1} \rightarrow V_\mathcal T^k \rightarrow V_\mathcal T^{k+1} \rightarrow ...$ be an approximating subcomplex of the de Rham complex with underlying mesh $\mathcal T$. That is, $V_\mathcal T^k \subset H\Lambda^k(\Omega)$, $v \in V_\mathcal T^k$ is polynomial on each $T \in \mathcal T$, and $d V_\mathcal T^{k-1} \subset V_\mathcal T^k$. When $\mathcal T = \mathcal T_\ell$ we use the abbreviation $V_{\mathcal T_\ell} = V_\ell$ (where here we also depress the dependence on $k$). We refer to \cite{AFW10} for descriptions of the relevant spaces. In three space dimensions, we may think for example of standard Lagrange spaces approximating $H\Lambda^0 =H^1$, N\'edel\'ec spaces approximating $H(\mathop{\rm curl})$, and Raviart-Thomas or BDM spaces approximating $H(\mathop{\rm div})$, with appropriate relationships between polynomial degrees enforced to ensure commutation properties.
In addition to the subcomplex property, we also require the existence of a commuting interpolant (or more abstractly, commuting cochain projection) with certain properties. Desirable properties include commutativity, boundedness on the function spaces $L_2\Lambda$ and/or $H\Lambda$ that are natural for our setting, local definition of the operator, and projectivity, and a local regular decomposition propertyL. Several recent papers have achieved constructions possessing some of these properties \cite{Sch01, Sch08, CW08, FW14}, though no one operator has been shown to possess all of them. We use two different such constructions below along with a standard Scott-Zhang interpolant. First, the commuting projection operator $\pi_{CW}: L_2\Lambda(\Omega) \rightarrow V_\mathcal T$ of Christiansen and Winther \cite{CW08} has the following useful properties:
\begin{align}
\label{CW_interp}
d^k \pi_{CW}^k = \pi_{CW}^{k+1} d^k, ~~\pi_{CW}^2 = \pi_{CW}, ~~\|\pi_{CW} v \|_{L_2(\Omega)} \lesssim \|v\|_{L_2(\Omega)}~ \forall~ \omega \in L_2\Lambda(\Omega).
\end{align}
The Christiansen-Winther interpolant also can be modified to preserve homogeneous essential boundary conditions with no change in its other properties.
The commuting projection operator $\pi_{FW}$ defined by Falk and Winther in \cite{FW14} has the following properties. First, it commutes:
\begin{align}
\label{FW_interp1}
d^k \pi_{FW}^k = \pi_{FW}^{k+1} d^k.
\end{align}
Second, given $T \in \mathcal T$, there is a patch of elements surrounding $T$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{FW_count}
\#(T \subset \omega_T) \lesssim 1.
\end{align}
and for $v \in H \Lambda(\Omega)$,
\begin{align}
\label{FW_interp2}
\|\pi_{FW} v\|_{T} \lesssim \|v\|_{\omega_T} + h_T \|d \pi_{FW} v\|_{\omega_T}, ~~ \|\pi_{FW}v \|_{H\Lambda(T)} \lesssim \|v\|_{H\Lambda(\omega_T)}.
\end{align}
The patch $\omega_T$ is not necessarily the standard patch of elements sharing a vertex with $T$, and its configuration may depend on form degree. The relationship \eqref{FW_count} is however the essential one for our purposes. Given $v \in H^1(\omega_T)$, there also follows the interpolation estimate
\begin{align}
\label{FW_interp4}
h_T^{-1} \|v-\pi_{FW} v\|_T + |v-\pi_{FW} v|_{H^1 \Lambda(T)} \lesssim |v|_{H^1 \Lambda(\omega_T)}.
\end{align}
Finally, $\pi_{FW}$ is a local projection in the sense that
\begin{align}
\label{FW_interp3}
u|_{\omega_T} \in V_\mathcal T|_{\omega_T} ~ \Rightarrow ~(u-\pi_{FW}u)|_T \equiv 0.
\end{align}
In summary, $\pi_{FW}$ and $\pi_{CW}$ are both commuting projection operators. $\pi_{FW}$ is however locally defined, but only stable in $H\Lambda$, while $\pi_{CW}$ is globally defined but stable in $L_2 \Lambda$. Also, to our knowledge there is no detailed discussion in the literature of the modifications needed to construct a version of $\pi_{FW}$ which preserves essential boundary conditions, although a comment in \cite{FW14} indicates that such an adaptation is natural.
We shall also employ an $L_2$-stable Scott-Zhang operator $I_{SZ}:L_2 \Lambda^k(\Omega) \rightarrow \tilde{V}_\mathcal T^k \subset H^1 \Lambda^k(\Omega)$ \cite{SZ90}. Here $\tilde{V}_\mathcal T^k$ is the smallest space of forms containing all forms with continuous piecewise linear coefficients. $I_{SZ}$ may be obtained by employing the standard scalar Scott-Zhang interpolant coefficientwise. We then have for $u \in L_2\Lambda(\Omega)$
\begin{align}
\label{SZ_interp}
\begin{aligned}
\|I_{SZ} u \|_{L_2\Lambda (T)} & \lesssim \|u\|_{L_2\Lambda (\omega_T)},
\\ h_T^{-1} \|u- I_{SZ}u\|_{L_2 \Lambda(T)} + |u-I_{SZ} u|_{H^1\Lambda(T)} & \lesssim |u|_{H^1\Lambda(\omega_T)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
We shall finally use a regular decomposition property, which is given in \cite[Lemma 5]{DH14} (this lemma is largely a reformulation of more general results given in \cite{MiMiMo08}). Given a form $v \in H\Lambda^k(\Omega)$, there are $\varphi \in H^1 \Lambda^{k-1}(\Omega)$ and $z \in H^1 \Lambda^k(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{reg_decomp}
v=d\varphi + z, ~~\|\varphi \|_{H^1 \Lambda^{k-1}(\Omega)} + \|z\|_{H^1 \Lambda^k(\Omega)} \lesssim \|v\|_{H\Lambda^k(\Omega)}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Discrete harmonic forms}
Let $\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T^k \subset V_\mathcal T^k$ be the set of discrete harmonic forms, which is more precisely defined as those $q_\mathcal T \in V_\mathcal T^k$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\langle q_\mathcal T, d\tau_\mathcal T \rangle & = 0, ~\forall \tau_\mathcal T \in V_\mathcal T^{k-1},
\\ \langle d q_\mathcal T, d v_\mathcal T \rangle & = 0, ~ \forall v_\mathcal T \in V_\mathcal T^k.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
The discrete Hodge decomposition $V_\mathcal T^k = \mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T^k \oplus \mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T^k \oplus \mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T^{k, \perp}$ ($\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T^k = \mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T^k \oplus \mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T^k = {\rm kern} \hspace{2pt} d|_{V_\mathcal T^k}$) is defined entirely analogously to the continuous version. Note however that while
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T^k \subset \mathfrak{Z}^k \hbox{ and } \mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T^k \subset \mathfrak{B}^k,
\end{align}
there holds
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T^k \not\subset \mathfrak{H}^k \hbox{ and } \mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T^{k, \perp} \not\subset \mathfrak{Z}^{k, \perp}.
\end{align}
We briefly summarize the index system we use. The integer $n$ is the dimension of the domain $\Omega$. The integer $k$, $0\leq k\leq n$, is the order of differential form. The subscript $\ell$, $\ell=0,1,2\ldots$ is used for a sequence of triangulations of the domain $\Omega$ and the corresponding finite element spaces. For a fixed $k$, $0\leq k\leq n$, we consider the convergence of the sequence $\{q_\ell, \ell=0,1,2,\ldots \}$. Therefore we may suppress the index $k$ when no confusion can arise. $j$ is used to index the bases of $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$.
\section{Properties of an $L_2$ Projection}
\label{sec:L2}
We first specify the error quantity that we seek to control. Let $\{q^j\}_{j=1}^{\beta}$ be an orthonormal basis for $\mathfrak{H}$, and let $\{q_\mathcal T^j\}_{j=1}^{\beta}$ be an orthonormal basis for $\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$. Denote by $P$ the $L_2$ projection onto $\mathfrak{H}$ and by $P_\mathcal T = P_{\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T}$ the $L_2$ projection onto $\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$. As above we use the abbreviation $P_\ell = P_{\mathcal T_\ell}$ and similarly for $q_\ell^j$.
We seek to control the subspace defect
\begin{align}
\label{eq2-9}
\mathcal E_\mathcal T := \left ( \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|q^j-P_\mathcal T q^j\|^2 \right )^{1/2} .
\end{align}
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
\label{eq2-9-a}
\left ( \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|q^j-P_\mathcal T q^j\|^2 \right )^{1/2} = \left ( \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|q_\mathcal T^j-P q_\mathcal T^j\|^2 \right )^{1/2}.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
There holds $P_\mathcal T q^j = \sum_{m=1}^{\beta} \langle q^j, q_\mathcal T^m \rangle q_\mathcal T^m$ and $\|P_\mathcal T q^j\| ^2= \sum_{m=1}^\beta \langle q^j, q_\mathcal T^m \rangle^2$, and similarly $\|P q_\mathcal T^m\|^2 = \sum_{j=1}^\beta \langle q_\mathcal T^m, q^j \rangle^2$. Also, $\|q^j-P_\mathcal T q^j\|^2 = \langle q^j-P_\mathcal T q^j, q^j-P_\mathcal T q^j \rangle = 1-\|P_\mathcal T q^j\|^2$ and similarly for $\|q_\mathcal T^m - P q_\mathcal T^m\|^2$. Thus
\begin{align}
\label{eq2-9-c}
\sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|q^j-P_\mathcal T q^j\|^2 = \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \left (1-\sum_{m=1}^\beta \langle q^j, q_\mathcal T^m \rangle^2 \right ) = \sum_{m=1}^{\beta} \|q_\mathcal T^m - P q_\mathcal T^m\|^2.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
Previous error estimates for errors in harmonic forms have instead controlled the {\it gap} between $\mathfrak{H}$ and $H_\ell$. Given two finite-dimensional subspaces $A, B$ of the same ambient Hilbert space with ${\rm dim} \hspace{2pt} A = {\rm dim} \hspace{2pt} B$, we define
\begin{align}
\delta(A,B)=\sup_{x \in A, \|x\|=1} \|x-P_B x\|, ~~~~{\rm gap}(A,B) = \max\{ \delta(A,B), \delta(B,A)\}.
\end{align}
There also holds in this case
\begin{align}
\label{gapequiv}
\delta(A,B)=\delta(B,A).
\end{align}
Let $P_{\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T}$ be the $L_2$ projection onto $\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T$.
\begin{lemma}
\begin{align}
\label{eq3-4}
P_\mathcal T q = P_{\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T} q, \quad \text{for all } q\in \mathfrak{H}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Because $\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T= \mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T \oplus \mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$, we have for $q \in \mathfrak{H}$ that $P_{\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T} q = P_{\mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T} q + P_{\mathfrak{H}_T} q$. But $\mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T \subset \mathfrak{B}$ and $\mathfrak{H} \perp \mathfrak{B}$, so $P_{\mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T} q=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop3}
Given $\mathcal T \subset \mathcal T'$ and $q \in \mathfrak{H}$, we have $\| P_{T} q\|\leq \|P_{\mathcal T'} q \|$. In particular, $\|P_\ell q\|\le \|P_{\ell+1} q\|$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $q \in \mathfrak{H}$, $P_\mathcal T q = P_{\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T} q$. Noting that $\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T \subset \mathfrak{Z}_{\mathcal T"}$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We next show that there is overlap between $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$ on any conforming mesh $\mathcal T_\ell$; cf. \cite[Theorem 2.7]{MHS13}.
\begin{proposition}\label{lem2}
The projection $P_\mathcal T$ is injective. Namely, given $q \in \mathfrak{H}$ and $q\neq 0$, $P_\mathcal T q \neq 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi$ be a commuting projection operator (either $\pi_{FW}$ or $\pi_{CW}$ will suffice). Suppose there exists a $0 \neq q \in \mathfrak{H}$ with $P_\ell q = 0$. By \eqref{gapequiv}, $\delta(\mathfrak{H}, \mathfrak{H}_\ell) = 1 =\delta(\mathfrak{H}_\ell, \mathfrak{H}) $, so there is a non-zero form $q_\ell \in \mathfrak{H}_\ell$ with $P_{\mathfrak{H}}q_\ell = 0$. Note that $\mathfrak{H}_\ell \subset \mathfrak{Z}_\ell \subset \mathfrak{Z} = \mathfrak{B} \oplus \mathfrak{H}$, so $P_{\mathfrak{H}}q_\ell = 0$ implies $q_\ell \in \mathfrak{B}$. That is, $q_\ell = d v$ for some $v\in V^{k-1}$. But $q_\ell = \pi^k q_\ell = \pi^k d v = d \pi^{k-1}v \in \mathfrak{B}_\ell$. But $\mathfrak{B}_\ell \bot \mathfrak{H}_\ell$ implies that $q_\ell = 0$, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Combining the above two propositions yields the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem3}
$P_\ell:\mathfrak{H} \rightarrow \mathfrak{H}_\ell$ is an isomorphism. In addition, $\|P_\ell^{-1}\| \le \|P_0^{-1}\| <\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\beta = \beta_\ell<\infty$ and $P_\ell$ is injective, we conclude $P_\ell$ is an isomorphism. Consider the constant $c_0 = \inf_{q\in \mathfrak{H}, \|q\| = 1}\|P_0 q\|$, which is positive because it is the infimum over a compact set of a continuous and positive function. Then $\|P_0^{-1}\|\leq c_0^{-1}$. By Proposition \ref{prop3}, $\|P_0 q\|\leq \|P_1 q\| \leq \|P_2 q\| \leq ...$, and so we have $\|P_{\ell+1}^{-1}\| \le \|P_\ell^{-1}\| \leq ... \leq \|P_0^{-1} \| \leq c_0^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
\section{A posteriori error estimates}
\subsection{Previous estimates}
Our first goal is to control the error quantity $\mathcal E_\ell$ defined in \eqref{eq2-9}, which is a measure of the distance between $\mathfrak{H}^k$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^k$.
We follow \cite{DH14}, where a posteriori error estimates were given for measuring the gap between $\mathfrak{H}^k$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^k$. Let $\mathcal T_\ell$ be the mesh on level $\ell$, and let $h_T=|T|^{1/n}$ for $T \in \mathcal T_\ell$. Given $q_\ell \in \mathfrak{H}_\ell^k$, let
\begin{align}
\eta_\ell(T; q_\ell)=h_T\|\delta_{T} q_\ell\|_T + h_T^{1/2} \|\llbracket \hspace{1pt}{\rm tr}\hspace{2pt} \star q_\ell \rrbracket \|_{\partial T}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align} \eta_\ell(T)^2=\sum_{l=1}^{\beta} \eta_\ell(T; q_\ell^l)^2, ~~~\eta_\ell(\mathcal T) = \left ( \sum_{T \in \mathcal T} \eta_\ell(T)^2 \right ) ^{1/2}, ~\mathcal T \subset \mathcal T_\ell.
\end{align}
In the concrete case of the classical space given in \eqref{eq0-1}, we have $\eta_\ell(T; q_\ell) = h_T \|\mathop{\rm div} q_\ell\|_T + h_T^{1/2} \|\llbracket q_\ell \cdot {\bf n} \rrbracket \|_{\partial T}.$ A slight modification of Lemma 9 and Lemma 13 of \cite{DH14} yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:practapost}
\eta(\mathcal T_\ell) \le C_1 \mathcal E_\ell \lesssim \eta(\mathcal T_\ell).
\end{align}
with $C_1$ and the constant hidden in $\lesssim$ depending on the shape regularity properties of $\mathcal T_0$, but independent of essential quantities including especially the dimension $\beta$ of $\mathfrak{H}^k$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^k$. From \cite{DH14} we also have
\begin{align}
{\rm gap}(\mathfrak{H}^k, \mathfrak{H}_\ell^k) \lesssim \eta(\mathcal T_\ell) \lesssim \sqrt{\beta} {\rm gap}(\mathfrak{H}^k, \mathfrak{H}_\ell^k).
\end{align}
Employing the error notion $\mathcal E_\ell$ thus allows us to obtain estimates with entirely nonessential constants.
\subsection{Non-computable error estimators}
Convergence of adaptive FEM for multiple and clustered eigenvalues has been studied in \cite{DHZ15, Gal15, BD15}. Our problem is similar in that our AFEM approximates a subspace rather than a single function. The estimators defined above with respect to $\{q_\ell^j\}$ are problematic when viewed from the standpoint of standard proofs of AFEM contraction, which require continuity between estimators at adjacent mesh levels. Because the bases $\{q_\ell^j\}$ and $\{q_{\ell+1}^j\}$ are not generally aligned, such continuity results are not meaningful.
Following \cite{DHZ15}, we employ a non-computable intermediate estimator which solves this alignment problem and is equivalent to $\eta_\ell(T)$. Let $\{q^j\}_{j=1}^{\beta}$ be a fixed orthonormal basis for $\mathfrak{H}^k$. We define
\begin{align}
\mu_\ell(T)^2 = \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \eta_\ell(T; P_\ell q^j)^2, ~~~\mu_\ell(\mathcal T) = \left ( \sum_{T \in \mathcal T} \mu_\ell(T)^2 \right ) ^{1/2}, ~\mathcal T \subset \mathcal T_\ell.
\end{align}
We next establish that approximation of $\mathfrak{H}^k$ is sufficiently good on the initial mesh to guarantee that the estimators $\eta_\ell(T)$ and $\mu_\ell(T)$ are equivalent.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:equivalence}
$$\mu_\ell(T) \le \|P_\ell\| \eta_\ell(T) \le \|P_\ell\| \|P_\ell^{-1}\| \mu_\ell(T) \le \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\| \mu_\ell(T), ~~ T \in \mathcal T_\ell, ~~0 \le \underline{\ell} \le \ell.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\mu_\ell$ is defined using $\{P_\ell q^j \}$ with $\{q^j\}_{j=1}^{\beta}$ a fixed orthonormal basis for $\mathfrak{H}^k$ and $\eta_\ell$ is defined using the orthonormal basis $\{q_\ell^j\}_{j=1}^{\beta_\ell}$. Also, $\beta = \beta_\ell <\infty$. Let $\boldsymbol q = (q^1, q^2, \cdots, q^{\beta})^T$ and $\boldsymbol q_\ell = (q_\ell^1, q_\ell^2, \cdots, q_\ell^{\beta})^T$. The matrix $[\langle q^i, q_\ell^j \rangle]=:M:\mathbb{R}^\beta \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^\beta$ satisfies $P_\ell\boldsymbol q = M \boldsymbol q_\ell$.
Following the proof of \cite[Lemma 3.1]{BD15}, let $B:=MM^T=[\langle P_\ell q^i, P_\ell q^j \rangle]$. $MM^T$ and $M^TM$ are isospectral and thus have the same $2$-norm, and $\|M^T\|^2=\|M\|^2=\|M^TM\|=\|B\|$. We thus compute $\|M^T\|$. Given $v \in \mathbb{R}^\beta$ with $|v|=1$, let $\tilde{v} = \sum_{j=1}^\beta v_i q^i$ so that $\tilde{v} \in \mathfrak{H}$ with $\|\tilde{v}\|=1$. Then $|M^T v|=|[\sum_{j=1}^\beta \langle q_\ell^i, v_j q^j \rangle] | =|[\langle q_\ell^i, \tilde{v} \rangle ]|= \|P_\ell \tilde{v}\| \le \|P_\ell\|$. Thus $\|M\|=\|M^T\|\le \|P_\ell\|\le 1$. Similarly, $\|M^{-1}\|^{-1} = \|M^{-T}\| \ge \inf_{\tilde{v} \in \mathfrak{H}, \|\tilde{v}\|=1} \|P_\ell \tilde{v}\| =\|P_\ell^{-1}\|^{-1}$. Thus $\|M^{-1}\| \le \|P_\ell^{-1}\|$.
As $\delta$ is linear and commutes with $M$, we have
$$
\sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|\delta_T P_\ell q^j\|_T^2 = \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|(M \delta_T \boldsymbol q_\ell)_j\|_T^2\leq \|M\|^2 \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|\delta_T q_\ell^j\|_T^2\leq \|P_\ell \|^2 \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|\delta_T q_\ell^j\|_T^2.
$$
Similarly
$$
\sum_{l=1}^{\beta} \|\delta_T q_\ell^l\|_T^2 \leq \|M^{-1}\|^2 \sum_{l=1}^{\beta} \|\delta_T P_\ell q^l\|_T^2 \leq \|P_\ell^{-1}\|^2 \sum_{l=1}^{\beta} \|\delta_T P_\ell q^l\|_T^2.
$$
Similar inequalities hold for the boundary term.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{th:equivalence} and \eqref{eq:practapost} immediately imply an a posteriori bound using $\mu_\ell$.
\begin{corollary}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:apost}
\mathcal E_\ell^2 \le C_1 \|P_\ell^{-1}\|^2 \mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)^2 \le C_1 \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|^2 \mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)^2, ~~0 \le \underline{\ell} \le \ell,
\end{align}
where $C_1$ is independent of essential quantities.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Localized a posteriori estimates}
\label{sec:locapost}
As is common in AFEM optimality proofs, we require a localized upper bound for the difference between discrete solutions on nested meshes. More precisely, let $\mathcal R_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal T}}$ be the set of elements refined in passing from $\mathcal T_\ell$ to $\tilde{\mathcal T}$. A standard estimate for elliptic problems with finite element solutions $u_\ell$ and $\tilde{u}$ on $\mathcal T_\ell, \tilde{\mathcal T}$ is $|||u_\ell -\tilde{u}||| \lesssim (\sum_{T \in \mathcal R_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \tilde{T}}} \xi(T)^2)^{1/2}$, where $\xi(T)$ is a standard elliptic residual indicator and $|||\cdot |||$ is the energy norm. The estimate we prove is not as sharp but suffices for our purposes.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:locapost}
Let $\mathcal T$ be a refinement of $\mathcal T_\ell$ so that $V_\ell^k \subset V_\mathcal T^k \subset H \Lambda^k$. Then there exists a set $\hat{\mathcal R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}$ with $\mathcal R_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T} \subset \hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}$ and
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-100}
\# \hat{\mathcal R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T} \lesssim \# \mathcal R_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}
\end{align}
such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-101}
\sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|(P_\ell -P_\mathcal T) q^j\|^2 \le C_2^2 \sum_{T \in \hat{\mathcal R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}} \eta_\ell(T)^2,
\end{align}
where $C_2$ is independent of essential quantities.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Following the notation used in the proof of Theorem \ref{th:equivalence}, denote by ${\bf q}$, ${\bf q}_\ell$, and ${\bf q}_\mathcal T$ the column vectors of orthonormal basis functions for $\mathfrak{H}$, $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$, and $\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$, respectively. Let $M=(q^i, q_\mathcal T^j)$ be the matrix satisfying $P_\mathcal T {\bf q} = M {\bf q}_\mathcal T$; recall that $\|M\| \le \|P_\mathcal T\| \le 1$, with $\|M\|$ the matrix (operator) 2-norm. Note also that $P_\ell {\bf q} =P_\ell P_\mathcal T {\bf q}$, since $P_\ell {\bf q} = P_{\mathfrak{Z}_\ell} {\bf q}$, $P_\mathcal T {\bf q} = P_{\mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T} {\bf q}$, and $\mathfrak{Z}_\ell \subset \mathfrak{Z}_\mathcal T$ so that $P_{\mathfrak{Z}_\ell} q_\mathcal T = P_\ell q_\mathcal T$, $q_\mathcal T \in \mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$. We then compute
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-110}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|(P_\ell -P_\mathcal T) q^j\|^2 & = \| | (P_\ell -P_\mathcal T) {\bf q}|\|^2 = \| | (P_\ell P_\mathcal T-P_\mathcal T) {\bf q}|\|^2
\\ & = \| |P_\ell M {\bf q}_\mathcal T - M {\bf q}_\mathcal T| \|^2 = \| | M(P_\ell {\bf q}_\mathcal T- {\bf q}_\mathcal T) | \|^2
\\ & \le \|M\|^2 \| | P_\ell {\bf q}_\mathcal T-{\bf q}_\mathcal T|\|^2 \le \| | {\bf q}_\ell -P_\mathcal T {\bf q}_\ell |\|^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where in the last inequality above we employ $\|M\| \le 1$ along with \eqref{eq2-9-a}.
Following \cite[(2.12) and Lemma 9]{DH14}, we note that $q_\ell^j -P_\mathcal T q_\ell^j \in \mathfrak{B}_\mathcal T \perp \mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$, and $q_\ell^j \perp \mathfrak{B}_\ell$. Thus for $1 \le j \le \beta$ and some $v_\mathcal T \in V_\mathcal T^{k-1}$ with $\|v_\mathcal T\|_{H \Lambda(\Omega)} \simeq 1$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-111}
\begin{aligned}
\|q_\ell^j - P_\mathcal T q_\ell^j\| \lesssim \sup_{v \in V_\mathcal T^{k-1}, \|v\|_{H\Lambda(\Omega)}=1} \langle q_\ell^j-P_\mathcal T q_\ell^j, dv \rangle \lesssim \langle q_\ell^j-P_\mathcal T q_\ell^j, v_\mathcal T \rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
We next apply the regular decomposition result \eqref{reg_decomp} to find $z \in H^1 \Lambda^{k-1}(\Omega)$ with $dz = d v_\mathcal T$ (note that $\varphi$ as in \eqref{reg_decomp} plays no role here since $v_\mathcal T=d \varphi+ z$ implies $d v_\mathcal T = dz$). We now denote by $\pi_\mathcal T$ and $\pi_{\ell}$ the Falk-Winther interpolants $\pi_{FW}$ on $\mathcal T$ and $\mathcal T_\ell$, respectively. The commutativity of $\pi_\mathcal T$ implies that $d v_\mathcal T = \pi_\mathcal T d v_\mathcal T = d \pi_\mathcal T z$, so that using orthogonality properties as above we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-115}
\|q_\ell^j - P_\mathcal T q_\ell^j\| \lesssim \langle q_\ell^j, d \pi_\mathcal T z \rangle = \langle q_\ell^j, d (I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T z \rangle.
\end{align}
In addition, by \eqref{FW_interp3} we have for some $\hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}$ satisfying \eqref{eq6-100}
\begin{align}
{\rm supp}( d(I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T z ) \subset \cup_{T \in \hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}} T.
\end{align}
Integrating by parts elementwise the last inner product in \eqref{eq6-115} and carrying out standard manipulations yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-114}
\begin{aligned}
\|q_\ell^j - P_\mathcal T q_\ell^j\| & \lesssim \sum_{T \in \hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}} \eta_\ell (T; q_\ell^j)
\\ & ~~~\cdot (h_T^{-1} \| (I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T z\|_T + h_T^{-1/2} \|(I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T z\|_{\partial T}).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
A standard scaled trace inequality may be applied to the term $\|d (I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T z\|_{\partial T}$ only if extra care is taken. We first write $(I-\Pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T z = [\pi_\mathcal T z - I_{SZ} z] + [I_{SZ} z - \pi_\ell I_{SZ} z] + [\pi_\ell (I_{SZ} z -\pi_\mathcal T z)]:= I+II+III$, where $I_{SZ}$ is the Scott-Zhang interpolant on $\mathcal T$. For $T' \in \mathcal T$, we apply a standard scaled trace inequality $\|v\|_{L_2(\partial T')}^2 \lesssim h_{T'}^{-1} \|v\|_{T'} + h_T |v|_{H^1(T')}$, an inverse inequality, and the approximation properties \eqref{FW_interp4} and \eqref{SZ_interp} to find
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-119}
\begin{aligned}
h_T^{-1} \|I\|_{\partial T}^2 & \lesssim \sum_{T' \in \mathcal T, T' \subset T} (h_T h_{T'})^{-1} \| I\|_{T'}^2
\\ & \lesssim \sum_{T' \in \mathcal T, T' \subset T} (h_T h_{T'})^{-1} (\|z-\pi_\mathcal T z\|_{T} + \|z-I_{SZ} z\|_{T})^2
\\ & \lesssim |z|_{H^1(\omega_T)}^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $h_{T'} \le h_T$ when $T' \subset T$ as above. Next, $III \in V_\ell^{k-1}$, so we apply the trace inequality on $T \in \mathcal T_\ell$, the stability estimate \eqref{FW_interp2} and an inverse inequality, and then approximation properties as before to find
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-220}
\begin{aligned}
h_T^{-1} \|III\|_{\partial T}^2 & \lesssim h_T^{-2} \|\pi_\ell (\pi_\mathcal T - I_{SZ})z \|_{T}^2
\\ & \lesssim \sum_{T' \subset T} (h_T h_{T'})^{-1} \|(\pi_\mathcal T-I_{SZ} z)\|_{\omega_{T'}}^2
\\ & \lesssim \sum_{T' \subset T} |z|_{H^1\Lambda (\omega_{T'}')}^2 \lesssim |z|_{H^1 \Lambda(\omega_{T}')}^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Here we let $\omega_T' = \cup_{\tilde{T} \in \omega_T} \omega_{\tilde{T}}$. Finally, we have $II \in H^1\Lambda(T)$, $ T \in \mathcal T_\ell$, so we directly apply a scaled trace inequality, approximation properties of $\pi_\ell$, and $H^1$ stability of $I_{SZ}$ on $T$ to find that
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-221}
h_T^{-1} \|III\|_{\partial T}^2 \lesssim |z|_{H^1\Lambda (\omega_T ')}^2.
\end{align}
Similar arguments yield
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-222}
h_T^{-2} \|(I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T z\|_{L_2(T)} \lesssim |z|_{H^1 \Lambda (\omega_T')}^2.
\end{align}
Inserting the previous inequalities into \eqref{eq6-114}, applying the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality over $\mathcal T_\ell$, employing finite overlap of the patches $\omega_T$, and finally using \eqref{reg_decomp} along with $\|v_\mathcal T\|_{H\Lambda(\Omega)} \lesssim 1$, we find that
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-223}
\begin{aligned}
\|q_\ell^j -P_\mathcal T q_\ell^j\| & \lesssim ( \sum_{T \in \hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}} \eta_\ell (T; q_\ell^j)^2)^{1/2} |z|_{H^1(\Omega)}
\\ & \lesssim ( \sum_{T \in \hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}} \eta_\ell (T; q_\ell^j)^2)^{1/2} \|v\|_{H \Lambda (\Omega)}
\\ & \lesssim ( \sum_{T \in \hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}} \eta_\ell (T; q_\ell^j)^2)^{1/2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Summing over $j$ yields \eqref{eq6-101}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{ZCSWX11}, the authors employ the local regular decomposition results of \cite{Sch08}, several different quasi-interpolants, and a discrete regular decomposition as in \cite{HX07} to prove a localized a posteriori upper bound for time-harmonic Maxwell's equations. We do not need a local regular decomposition here, but rather combine the more powerful interpolant recently defined in \cite{FW14}, the Scott-Zhang interpolant, a global regular decomposition, and some ideas related to discrete regular decompositions as in \cite{HX07} in order to prove our local upper bound.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Proof of a posteriori bounds for harmonic forms is slightly simpler than for general problems of Hodge-Laplace type. Our technique for proof of localized a posteriori bounds does however carry over to the more general case. Proof of such upper bounds requires testing various terms with $v_\mathcal T \in V_\mathcal T$ and then subtracting $\pi_\ell v_\mathcal T$ via Galerkin orthogonality. Employing a global regular decomposition yields $v_\mathcal T = d \varphi + z$, and subsequently $v_\mathcal T = \pi_\mathcal T v_\mathcal T = d \pi_\mathcal T \varphi + \pi_\mathcal T z$. Subtracting off $\pi_\ell v_\mathcal T$ via Galerkin orthogonality yields $v_\mathcal T -\pi_\ell v_\mathcal T = d [(I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T \varphi] + (I-\pi_\ell)\pi_\mathcal T z$. Proceeding as above using a combination of standard residual estimation tools and the Scott-Zhang interpolant will generically lead to localized upper bounds. It is crucial that each of the terms $d [(I-\pi_\ell) \pi_\mathcal T \varphi]$ and $(I-\pi_\ell)\pi_\mathcal T z$ is individually locally supported. The Falk-Winther interpolant plays a critical role as all of its major properties are employed in the proof.
\end{remark}
\section{Contraction}
\label{sec:contraction}
We employ a standard adaptive finite element method of the form
\begin{equation}
\textsf{solve} \rightarrow \textsf{estimate} \rightarrow \textsf{mark} \rightarrow \textsf{refine}.
\label{eq1-0}
\end{equation}
Our contraction proof follows the standard outline \cite{CKNS08} in that it combines an a posteriori error estimate, an estimator reduction property relying on properties of the marking scheme, and an orthogonality result in order to establish stepwise contraction of a properly defined error notion.
In the ``\textsf{mark}'' step we use a bulk (D\"orfler) marking. That is, we fix $0<\theta \le 1$ and choose a minimal set $\mathcal{M}_\ell \subset \mathcal T_\ell$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bulkmarking}
\eta_\ell(\mathcal{M}_\ell) \ge \theta \eta_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell).
\end{align}
The following is an easy consequence of Theorem \ref{th:equivalence} and $\|P_\ell^{-1}\| \le \|P_0\|^{-1}$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:modmarking}
Let $0 < \theta \le 1$, and let $\mathcal{M}_{\underline{\ell}} \subset \mathcal T_\ell$ satisfy \eqref{eq:bulkmarking}. Let also $\bar{\theta} = \theta (\|P_\ell\| \|P_\ell^{-1}\|)^{-2}$ and $\tilde{\theta}_\ell= \theta \|P_\ell^{-1}\|^{-2}$. Then for $\ell \ge 0$ and $0 \le \underline{\ell} \le \ell$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:modmarking}
\mu_\ell(\mathcal{M}_{\underline{\ell}})^2 \ge \bar{\theta}_\ell \mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)^2 \ge \tilde{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)^2.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:theta}
Note that $\|P_\ell\| \|P_\ell^{-1}\|=1$ when $\beta=1$, and for $\beta>1$ the deviation of $\|P_\ell\| \|P_\ell^{-1}\|$ from 1 is dependent on the isotropy of $P_\ell$. Thus if $\|P_\ell q^i \| \approx \|P_\ell q^j\|$ for $1 \le i, j \le \beta$, then $\|P_\ell\| \|P_\ell^{-1}\| \approx 1$ even if $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$ do not overlap strongly. If $\beta=1$ or $P_\ell$ is isotropic, the theoretical and practical AFEM's will therefore mark the same elements for refinement.
\end{remark}
We next establish continuity of the theoretical indicators (also known as an estimator reduction property). The proof is standard and is thus omitted.
\begin{lemma}
Given $0 <\theta \le 1$, let $\mathcal{M}_{\underline{\ell}} \subset \mathcal T_\ell$ satisfy \eqref{eq:bulkmarking}. Assume also that each $T \in \mathcal{M}_{\underline{\ell}}$ is bisected at least once in passing from $\mathcal T_\ell$ to $\mathcal T_{\ell+1}$. Then there are constants $C_2$ and $1>\lambda>0$ independent of essential quantities such that for any $\alpha>0$, any $\ell \ge 0$, and any $0 \le \underline{\ell} \le \ell$,
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:estred}
\mu_{\ell+1}(\mathcal T_{\ell+1})^2 & \le (1+ \alpha) (1-\lambda \bar{\theta}_{\ell}) \mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)^2 + C_2 (1+\frac{1}{\alpha}) \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|(P_\ell-P_{\ell+1})q^j\|^2
\\ & \le (1+ \alpha) (1-\lambda \tilde{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}}) \mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)^2
+ C_2 (1+\frac{1}{\alpha}) \sum_{j=1}^{\beta} \|(P_\ell-P_{\ell+1})q^j\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Here $\bar{\theta}_{\ell}$ and $ \tilde{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}}$ are as defined in Proposition \ref{prop:modmarking}.
\end{lemma}
Although $\mathfrak{H}_\ell^k \not\subseteq \mathfrak{H}_{\ell+1}^k$, the Hodge decomposition and the differential complex-conforming structure of the finite element spaces nonetheless yields the following essential orthogonality result.
\begin{theorem} \label{lem1}
For $q \in \mathfrak{H}^k$,
\begin{equation}\label{orth}
\|q-P_{\ell+1} q \|^2 = \|q-P_\ell q\|^2 - \|(P_\ell -P_{\ell+1})q\|^2.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove $(q-P_{\ell+1} q, (P_\ell -P_{\ell+1})q) = 0$. This is a consequence of $(P_\ell -P_{\ell+1})q \in \mathfrak{Z}_{\ell+1}^k$, which holds due to the nestedness $\mathfrak{Z}_\ell^k\subset \mathfrak{Z}_{\ell+1}^k$ and the fact that $P_\ell : \mathfrak{H}^k \rightarrow \mathfrak{H}_\ell^k$ also acts as the $L_2$ projection from $\mathfrak{H}^k$ to $\mathfrak{Z}_\ell^k$.
\end{proof}
Assembling the above estimates yields the following contraction result. The proof is standard, except we must track dependence of constants on the mesh level $\ell$.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:contraction}
For each $\underline{\ell}>0$, there exist $0<\rho_{\underline{\ell}}<1$ and $\gamma_{\underline{\ell}} >0 $ such that for $\ell \ge \underline{\ell}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:contraction}
\mathcal E_{\ell+1}^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_{\ell+1}(\mathcal T_{\ell+1})^2 \le \rho_{\underline{\ell}} \left (\mathcal E_\ell^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)^2 \right ).
\end{align}
Here $1>\rho_{\underline{0}} \ge \rho_{\underline{1}} \ge ... \ge \underline{\rho}:=\lim_{\underline{\ell} \rightarrow \infty} \rho_{\underline{\ell}} >0$. $\rho_{\underline{\ell}}$ depends on $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|$ but not on other essential quantities, and $\underline{\rho}$ is independent of essential quantities. Finally, $0<\gamma_{\underline{\ell}} < C_2^{-1}$ with $C_2$ as in \eqref{eq:estred}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given $\underline{\ell} \ge 0$ and $\alpha$ as in \eqref{eq:estred}, let $\gamma_{\underline{\ell}}=\frac{1}{C_2(1+\alpha^{-1})}$. (Here we suppress the dependence of $\alpha$ on $\underline{\ell}$.) Then $0<\gamma_{\underline{\ell}} < C_2^{-1}$, as asserted. Combining \eqref{eq:estred} with \eqref{orth} then yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq4-100}
\mathcal E_{\ell+1}^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_{\ell+1}^2 \le \mathcal E_\ell^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} (1+\alpha)(1-\lambda \tilde{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}})\mu_\ell^2.
\end{align}
Let now $0<\rho_{\underline{\ell}}<1$. From \eqref{eq:apost} we have $(1-\rho_{\underline{\ell}})\mathcal E_\ell^2 \le C_1 (1-\rho_{\underline{\ell}}) \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|^2 \mu_\ell^2$, so that
\begin{align}
\label{eq4-101}
\mathcal E_{\ell+1}^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_{\ell+1}^2 \le \rho_{\underline{\ell}} \mathcal E_\ell^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \left [ (1+\alpha)(1-\lambda \tilde{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}}) + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1} C_1(1-\rho_{\underline{\ell}}) \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|^2 \right ] \mu_\ell^2.
\end{align}
We next set $\rho_{\underline{\ell}} = (1+\alpha)(1-\lambda \tilde{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}}) + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1} C_1(1-\rho_{\underline{\ell}}) \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|^2$ and solve for $\rho_{\underline{\ell}}$. Before doing so, we introduce the shorthand $K_{\underline{\ell}} = 1-\lambda \tilde{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}}$ and $M_{\underline{\ell}} = C_1 C_2 \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|^2$. Then
\begin{align}
\label{eq4-102}
\rho_{\underline{\ell}} = \frac{\alpha^2 K_{\underline{\ell}} + \alpha (K_{\underline{\ell}} + M_{\underline{\ell}}) + M_{\underline{\ell}}}{\alpha (1+ M_{\underline{\ell}}) + M_{\underline{\ell}}}.
\end{align}
Recalling that $\alpha>0$ is arbitrary, we minimize the above expression with respect to $\alpha$ to obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq4-103}
\rho_{\underline{\ell}} = \frac{2 \sqrt{M_{\underline{\ell}} K_{\underline{\ell}} (1+ M_{\underline{\ell}} -K_{\underline{\ell}})} + M_{\underline{\ell}}^2 + M_{\underline{\ell}} + K_{\underline{\ell}} - K_{\underline{\ell}} M_{\underline{\ell}}}{(1+M_{\underline{\ell}})^2}.
\end{align}
We now analyze the dependence of $\rho_{\underline{\ell}}$ on $\ell$. Recall that $M_{\underline{\ell}} = C_1 C_2 \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|^2$ and $K_{\underline{\ell}} = 1-\lambda \theta \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|^{-2}$ are decreasing in $\underline{\ell}$. Tedious but elementary calculations also show that for $0<K_{\underline{\ell}} <1$ and $M_{\underline{\ell}}>0$, $\rho_{\underline{\ell}}$ is increasing in both $M_{\underline{\ell}}$ and $K_{\underline{\ell}}$. Thus \eqref{eq:contraction} holds for all $\ell \ge 0$ with $\rho_{\underline{\ell}} = \rho_{\underline{0}}$. We in turn see that $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}\|, \|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\| \rightarrow 1$ as $\underline{\ell} \rightarrow \infty$, so $M_{\underline{\ell}} \downarrow C_1 C_2 :=M_\infty$. In addition, $K_{\underline{\ell}} \downarrow 1-\lambda \theta:=K_\infty$ as $\ell \rightarrow \infty$. Thus $\rho_{\underline{\ell}} \le \rho_{\underline{0}}$ and $\rho_{\underline{\ell}}$ decreases to
\begin{align}
\underline{\rho} = \frac{ 2 \sqrt{C_1C_1 (1-\lambda \theta)( C_1 C_2 + \lambda \theta)} + C_1^2 C_2^2 + C_1 C_2+(1-\lambda \theta)(1-C_1 C_2)} { (1+C_1 C_2)^2}
\end{align}
as $\underline{\ell} \rightarrow \infty$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} In Remark \ref{rem:theta} we established that the theoretical and practical AFEM mark the same elements for refinement when $P_\ell$ is isotropic, and in particular when $\beta=1$. We could sharpen the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:contraction} to take advantage of this fact by redefining $K_{\underline{\ell}} = 1-\lambda \bar{\theta}_{\underline{\ell}} = 1-\lambda \theta (\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\| \|P_{\underline{\ell}}\|)^{-2}$. However, doing so would compromise monotonicity of the sequence $\{\rho_{\underline{\ell}} \}$, and $M_{\underline{\ell}}$ depends on $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|$ and not on the product $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\| \|P_{\underline{\ell}}\|$ in any case.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Dependence of $\rho_{\underline{\ell}}$ on $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|$ seems unavoidable in our proofs. We prove a contraction by combining the orthogonality relationship \eqref{orth}, the estimator reduction inequality \eqref{eq:estred}, and the a posteriori estimate \eqref{eq:apost} in a canonical way \cite{CKNS08}. The orthogonality relationship \eqref{orth} indicates that the error $\mathcal E_\ell^2$ is reduced by $\sum_{j=1}^\beta \|(P_{\ell+1}-P_\ell) q^j\|^2$ at each step of the AFEM algorithm. This quantity is directly related to the theoretical indicators $\mu_\ell$ in the estimator reduction inequality \eqref{eq:estred}. Combining these relationships leads to an error reduction on the order of $\mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)$. On the other hand, $\mathcal E_\ell$ is uniformly equivalent to the practical estimator $\eta_\ell$. Because the theoretical and practical estimators are related by $\|P_\ell^{-1}\|^{-1} \eta_\ell \le \mu_\ell \le \|P_\ell\| \mu_\ell$, reducing $\mathcal E_\ell$ by $\mu_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell)$ is equivalent to a reduction lying between $\frac{1}{\|P_\ell^{-1}\|} \mathcal E_\ell$ and $\|P_\ell\|\mathcal E_\ell$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
For elliptic source problems, a contraction is obtained from the initial mesh with contraction factor independent of essential quantities \cite{CKNS08}. On the other hand, for elliptic eigenvalue problems such a contraction result holds only if the initial mesh is sufficiently fine \cite{Gal15, BD15}. The situation for harmonic forms is intermediate between those encountered in source problems and eigenvalue problems. No initial mesh fineness assumption is needed to guarantee a contraction, but we only show that the contraction constant is independent of essential quantities on sufficiently fine meshes. In the case of eigenvalue problems a similar transition state likely exists in which AFEM can be proved to be contractive, but with contraction constant improving as resolution of the target invariant space improves.
\end{remark}
\section{Quasi-Optimality}
\label{sec:optimality}
Our proof of quasi-optimality follows a more or less standard outline, simplified somewhat by lack of data oscillation but made more complicated by improvement in the contraction factor as the mesh is refined.
\subsection{Approximation classes}
Given rate $s>0$ and ${\bf r} \in [\mathfrak{H}]^\beta$, we let
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-120}
|{\bf r}|_{\mathcal A_s} = \sup_{N>0} \inf_{\# \mathcal T - \# \mathcal T_0 \le N} N^{-s} \left ( \sum_{j=1}^\beta \|r^j-P_\mathcal T r^j\|^2 \right ) ^{1/2}.
\end{align}
$\mathcal A_s$ is then the class of all ${\bf r} \in [\mathfrak{H}]^\beta$ such that $|{\bf r}|_{\mathcal A_s}<\infty$.
If we applied $\mathcal A_s$ to arbitrary ${\bf r} \in [H\Lambda^k(\Omega)]^\beta$, it would be natural to replace the projection $P_\mathcal T$ onto $\mathfrak{H}_T$ used in \eqref{eq6-120} by the $L_2$ projection onto the full discrete space $V_\mathcal T$. We show in Proposition \ref{lem:equiv} that best approximation over the full finite element space is equivalent up to a constant to best approximation over $\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T$ only. Thus our definition of $\mathcal A_s$ makes use of the full approximation strength of the finite element space $V_\mathcal T$, even though at first glance it may not seem that this is the case.
\begin{proposition}
\label{lem:equiv}
Given $\mathcal T \in \mathbb{T}$ and $q \in \mathfrak{H}^k$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-121}
\|q-P_\mathcal T q\| \lesssim \inf_{q_\mathcal T \in V_\mathcal T} \|q-q_\mathcal T\|.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From (27) of \cite{AFW10}, we have $\|q-P_{\mathfrak{H}_\mathcal T} q\| \le \|(I-\pi_\mathcal T) q\|$ with $\pi_\mathcal T$ a commuting cochain projection. Thus for $q \in \mathfrak{H}$, $q_\mathcal T \in V_\mathcal T^k$, we may use \eqref{CW_interp} to obtain
\begin{align}
\|q-P_\mathcal T q \| \le \|(q-q_\mathcal T) -\pi_{CW} (q-q_\mathcal T)\| \le (1+C)\|q-q_\mathcal T\|,
\end{align}
where $C$ is the $L_2$ stability constant for $\pi_{CW}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Rate optimality}
We first state and prove two lemmas which are more or less standard in this context. It is important, however, that the constants in these two lemmas are entirely independent of essential quantities.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:dorf}
Let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be the constants from \eqref{eq:practapost} and \eqref{eq6-101}, respectively, and assume that $\theta < \frac{1}{C_1 C_2}$. Then for $\mathcal T_\ell \subset \mathcal T$ with
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-105}
\|{\bf q}-P_\mathcal T {\bf q}\| \le [1-\theta C_1 C_2 ] \|{\bf q} - P_\ell {\bf q}\|,
\end{align}
there holds that
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-106}
\eta_\ell(\hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}) \ge \theta \eta_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Employing in turn \eqref{eq:practapost}, \eqref{eq6-105}, the triangle inequality, and \eqref{eq6-101} yields
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\theta C_2 \eta_\ell(\mathcal T_\ell) & \le \theta C_1 C_2 \|{\bf q} - P_\ell {\bf q}\|
\\ & \le \|{\bf q} - P_\ell { \bf q} \| - \|{\bf q} - P_\mathcal T {\bf q}\|
\\ & \le \|P_\ell {\bf q} - P_\mathcal T {\bf q} \|
\\ & \le C_2 \eta_\ell (\hat{R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Dividing through by $C_2$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
The collection of marked elements $\mathcal{M}_\ell \subset \mathcal T_\ell$ defined by the marking strategy \eqref{eq:bulkmarking} satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-123}
\# \mathcal{M}_\ell \lesssim |{\bf q}|_{\mathcal A_s}^{1/s} \mathcal E_\ell^{-1/s}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition of ${\mathcal A}^s$ there exists a partition $\mathcal T' \in \mathbb{T}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{6-124}
\# \mathcal T'-\# \mathcal T_0 \lesssim |{\bf q}|_{\mathcal A_s}^{1/s}\left [ ( 1-\theta C_1C_2) \mathcal E_\ell \right]^{-1/s}
\end{equation}
and
$$
\|{\bf q} - P_{\mathcal T'} {\bf q}\| \leq (1-\theta C_1 C_2) \mathcal E_\ell.
$$
The smallest common refinement $\mathcal T$ of $\mathcal T_\ell$ and $\mathcal T'$ is in $\mathbb{T}$ with $\# \mathcal T -\#\mathcal T_\ell \leq \# \mathcal T'-\#\mathcal T_0$ (cf. \cite{Ste07} last lines of the proof of Lemma 5.2).
Since $V_{\mathcal T'} \subset V_\mathcal T$, \eqref{eq6-121} and the last equation above yield
\begin{align*}
\|{\bf q}-P_{V_\mathcal T} {\bf q} \| \leq \|{\bf q} - P_{V_{\mathcal T'}} {\bf q}\| \leq (1-\theta C_1 C_2)\mathcal E_\ell.
\end{align*}
Thus $\eta(\hat{\mathcal R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T}) \geq \theta \eta_\ell$ by Lemma \ref{lem:dorf}. Since $\mathcal{M}_\ell$ is the {\em smallest} subset of $\mathcal T_\ell$ with $\eta(\mathcal{M}_{\underline{\ell}}) \geq \theta \eta_\ell$, we conclude that
$$
\# \mathcal{M}_\ell \leq \# \hat{\mathcal R}_{\mathcal T_\ell \rightarrow \mathcal T} \lesssim \# \mathcal T -\#\mathcal T_\ell \lesssim \# \mathcal T' -\# \mathcal T_0.
$$
\end{proof}
We finally state our optimality result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:optimality}
Assume as in Lemma \ref{lem:dorf} that $\theta<\frac{1}{C_1 C_2}$, and assume that ${\bf q} \in \mathcal A_s$. Given $\underline{\ell} \ge 0$, there exists a constant $C_{\underline{\ell}}$ depending on $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|$ and the constant $C_{ref,\underline{\ell}}$ from \eqref{numrefined} but independent of other essential quantities such that
\begin{align}
\label{optimality}
\mathcal E_\ell \le C_{\underline{\ell}} (\# \mathcal T_\ell -\# \mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}})^{-1/s} |{\bf q}|_{\mathcal A_s}, ~~\ell \ge \underline{\ell}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We first compute using Theorem \ref{th:equivalence}, \eqref{eq:practapost}, and the fact that $\gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \le C_2^{-1}$ that for $k \ge \underline{\ell}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-150}
\mathcal E_k^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_k(\mathcal T_k)^2 \le \mathcal E_k^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \eta_k(\mathcal T_k)^2 \lesssim (1+\gamma_{\underline{\ell}}) \mathcal E_k^2 \lesssim \mathcal E_k^2.
\end{align}
Thus
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-151}
\mathcal E_k^{-1/s} \lesssim (\mathcal E_k^2 + \gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_k(\mathcal T_k)^2)^{-1/2s}.
\end{align}
We then use \eqref{eq:contraction} to obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq6-152}
\mathcal E_k^{-1/s} \lesssim \rho_{\underline{\ell}}^{(\ell-k)/2s} (\mathcal E_{\ell}^2+\gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_{\ell}(\mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}})^2)^{-1/2s}.
\end{align}
From \eqref{numrefined}, it then follows that
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\# \mathcal T_\ell -\# \mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}} & = \sum_{k=\underline{\ell}}^{\ell-1} \# \mathcal R_{\mathcal T_{k} \rightarrow \mathcal T_{k+1}}
\le C_{ref, \underline{\ell}} \sum_{k=\underline{\ell}}^{\ell-1} \# \mathcal{M}_k
\lesssim C_{ref, \underline{\ell}} |{\bf q}|_{\mathcal A_s}^{1/s} \sum_{k=\underline{\ell}}^{\ell-1} \mathcal E_k^{-1/s}
\\ & \le C_{ref, \underline{\ell}} |{\bf q}|_{\mathcal A_s}^{1/s} \sum_{k=\underline{\ell}}^{\ell-1} \rho_{\underline{\ell}}^{(\ell-k)/2s} (\mathcal E_{\ell}^2+\gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_{\ell}(\mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}})^2)^{-1/2s}
\\ & \le C_{ref, \underline{\ell}} \left ( 1-\rho_{\underline{\ell}}^{1/2s} \right )^{-1} |{\bf q}|_{\mathcal A_s}^{1/s} ( \mathcal E_{\ell}^2+\gamma_{\underline{\ell}} \mu_{\ell}(\mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}})^2)^{-1/2s}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Setting $C_{\underline{\ell}}:=C C_{ref, \underline{\ell}} \left ( 1-\rho_{\underline{\ell}}^{1/2s} \right )^{-1}$ and rearranging the above expression completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} As is standard in AFEM optimality results, $\theta$ is required to be sufficiently small in order to ensure optimality. $\theta$ must however only be sufficiently small with respect to $\frac{1}{C_1 C_2}$, which is entirely independent of the dimension $\beta$ of $\mathfrak{H}$, $\|P_\ell^{-1}\|$, and other essential quantities. In contrast to elliptic eigenvalue problems \cite{Gal15, BD15}, we do not require an initial fineness assumption on $\mathcal T_0$ in order to guarantee that the threshold value for $\theta$ is independent of essential quantities.
The constant $C_{\underline{\ell}}$ does however depend on $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\|$, and it is not clear that this constant will improve (decrease) as the mesh $\underline{\ell}$ increases even though $\|P_{\underline{\ell}}^{-1}\| \rightarrow 1$. The factor $(1-\rho_{\underline{\ell}}^{1/2s})^{-1}$ is nonincreasing, but the factor $C_{ref, \underline{\ell}}$ arising from \eqref{numrefined} is not uniformly bounded in $\underline{\ell}$. According to \cite[Theorem 6.1]{Ste08} it may in essence depend on the degree of quasi-uniformity of the mesh $\mathcal T_{\underline{\ell}}$ and thus may degenerate as the mesh is refined. In order to guarantee a uniform constant, we apply Theorem \ref{th:optimality} with $\underline{\ell}=0$ and obtain a constant $C_{\underline{0}}$ which depends on $\|P_0^{-1}\|$ in addition to $\mathcal T_0$.
\end{remark}
\section{Extensions}
\label{sec:extensions}
In this section we briefly discuss possible extensions of our work.
\subsection{Essential boundary conditions.} Many of our results extend directly to the case of essential boundary conditions in which the requirement $\hspace{1pt}{\rm tr}\hspace{2pt} \star q=0$ in \eqref{eq2-1} is replaced by $\hspace{1pt}{\rm tr}\hspace{2pt} q =0$, with the latter condition imposed directly on the finite element spaces. The major hurdle in obtaining an immediate extension is the availability of quasi-interpolants which possess the necessary properties. The Christiansen-Winther interpolant in Section \ref{sec:interpolants} has been defined and analyzed also for essential boundary conditions, while the Falk-Winther interpolant was fully analyzed in \cite{FW14} only for natural boundary conditions. We used the properties of the Falk-Winther interpolant only to obtain the localized a posteriori upper bound (Lemma \ref{lem:locapost}), which is necessary to obtain a quasi-optimality result but not a contraction. The contraction result given in Theorem \ref{theorem:contraction} thus extends immediately to the case of essential boundary conditions. There is indication given in \cite{FW14} that the properties of the Falk-Winther interplant transfer naturally to essential boundary conditions, in particular by simply setting boundary degrees of freedom to 0. Assuming this extension our quasi-optimality results also hold for homogeneous essential boundary conditions. A suitable interpolant is also defined and analyzed in the paper \cite{ZCSWX11} for the practically important case $d=3$, $k=1$.
\subsection{Harmonic forms with coefficients} In electromagnetic applications the magnetic permeability $A$ is a symmetric, uniformly positive definite matrix having entries in $L_\infty(\Omega)$. If $A$ is nonconstant, then the space
\begin{align}
\label{eq700}
\mathfrak{H}_A(\Omega) =\{ {\bf v} \in L_2(\Omega)^3 : \mathop{\rm curl} {\bf v} = 0, ~ \mathop{\rm div} A {\bf v} = 0, ~ A{\bf v} \cdot {\bf n} = 0 \hbox{ on } \partial \Omega \}
\end{align}
is the natural space of harmonic forms, but differs from that in \eqref{eq0-1}. It is similarly possible to modify the more general definition \eqref{eq2-1} to include coefficients. As is pointed out in \cite[Section 6.1]{AFW10}, the finite element exterior calculus framework applies essentially verbatim to this situation once the inner products used in all of the relevant definitions are modified to include coefficients. Our a posteriori estimates and the contraction result of Section \ref{sec:contraction} similarly apply with minimal modification. Extension of the optimality results of Section \ref{sec:optimality} is possible but complicated by the presence of oscillation of the coefficient $A$ in the analysis; cf. \cite{BD15, CKNS08, DHZ15}.
\subsection{Approximation of cohomologous forms} \label{sec7-3} In some applications it is of interest to compute $P_\mathfrak{H} f$ for a given (non-harmonic) form $f$. This is for example the case in the finite element exterior calculus framework for solving problems of Hodge-Laplace type. There $f$ is the right-hand-side data. Because the Hodge-Laplace problem is only solvable for data orthogonal to $\mathfrak{H}$, it is necessary to compute $P_\mathfrak{H} f$ and solve the resulting system with data $f-P_\mathfrak{H} f$; cf. \cite{HiKaWaWa11} for other applications. A possible adaptive approach to this problem is to adaptively reduce the defect between $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$ as we do above and then project $f$ onto $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$. However, this approach requires computation of a multidimensional space, while the original problem only requires computation of a one-dimensional space (that spanned by $P_\mathfrak{H} f$). An alternate method would be to approximate the full Hodge decomposition. More precisely, one could compute $P_{\mathfrak{B}} f$ and $P_{\mathfrak{Z}^\perp} f$ by solving two constrained elliptic problems, but expense is an obvious disadvantage of this method also.
It may be desirable to instead adaptively compute $P_\mathfrak{H} f$ directly. It might for example be the case that some members of $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$ have singularities which are not shared by $P_\mathfrak{H} f$ (such situations arise in eigenfunction computations). The task of constructing an AFEM for approximating only $P_\mathfrak{H} f$ appears difficult, however. Assume for the sake of argument the extreme case where $P_\mathfrak{H} f \neq 0$, but $f \perp \mathfrak{H}_\ell$. The indirect approach of first controlling the defect between $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$ and then projecting $f$ would continue to function with no problems in this case. On the other hand, it is not clear how to directly construct an a posteriori estimate for $\|P_\mathfrak{H} f - P_\ell f\|$ which would be nonzero when $\mathfrak{H}_\ell \perp f$. In particular, it is not difficult to construct an estimator for $\|P_\ell f-P_\mathfrak{H} P_\ell f\|$ (cf. \cite{DH14}), but such an estimator would be 0 and thus not reliable in this case.
\subsection{Alternate methods for computing harmonic forms} \label{subsec:cutting} We have largely ignored the actual method for obtaining $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$ by simply assuming that we in some fashion produced an orthonormal basis for this space. This viewpoint is consistent with the finite element exterior calculus framework that we have largely followed. It also fits well with eigenvalue or SVD-based methods for computing $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$, which are general with respect to space dimension and form degree and which may be easily implemented using standard linear algebra libraries. Discussion of methods for producing such a basis consistent with the FEEC framework may be found in \cite{HiKaWaWa11}. However, the process of producing $\mathfrak{H}_\ell$ is in and of itself not entirely straightforward, and the method for producing it may affect the structure and properties of the resulting adaptive algorithm. Different methods with potentially advantageous properties have been explored especially in three space dimensions \cite{DST09, RBGV13}. The method of cutting surfaces is such an example.
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$, and assume that there exist $\beta$ regular and nonintersecting cuts (two-dimensional hypersurfaces) $\sigma_j$ such that $\Omega_0=\Omega \setminus \cup_{j=1}^\beta \sigma_j$ is simply connected. The assumption that such cuts exist is nontrivial with respect to domain topology and excludes for example the complement of a trefoil knot in a box \cite{BFG12}. The methodology we discuss here thus does not apply in all situations where our theory above applies. A domain for which such a set of cutting surfaces exist is called a Helmholtz domain. Determination of cutting surfaces on finite element meshes is also a nontrivial and possibly computationally expensive problem \cite{DST09}, although in an adaptive setting one could potentially compute the cutting surfaces at low cost on a coarse mesh and transfer them to subsequent refinements.
Assuming that $\Omega$ is Helmholtz, let $\varphi^j$ solve
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
-\Delta \varphi^j& =0 \hbox{ in } \Omega_0, ~~ \nabla \varphi^j \cdot {\bf n}=0 \hbox{ on } \partial \Omega,
\\ & \llbracket \varphi^j \rrbracket_{\sigma_i}= \delta_{ij} \hbox{ and } \llbracket \nabla \varphi_j \cdot {\bf n}_i\rrbracket_{\sigma_i}=0, ~~1 \le i \le \beta.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
The set $\{\nabla \varphi_j\}_{j=1}^\beta$ then serves as a basis for the space $\mathfrak{H}^1$ of vector fields defined in \eqref{eq0-1}. That is, the harmonic fields may be reclaimed from potentials consisting of $H^1$ functions.
Next assume that the cuts $\sigma_j$ each consist of unions of faces in a simplicial mesh $\mathcal T$. Let now $V^0$ be piecewise linear Lagrange elements on $\Omega$, and let $V_j^0$ be the set of functions which are continuous and piecewise linear in $\Omega \setminus \sigma_j$ and which satisfy $\llbracket v_h \rrbracket _{\sigma_j} =1$. The canonical finite element approximation to $\varphi^j$ is to find $\varphi_\mathcal T^j \in V_j^0$ such that $\int_{\Omega \setminus \sigma_j} \nabla \varphi_\mathcal T^j \nabla v=0$ for all $v \in V^0$. $\varphi_\mathcal T^j$ is only unique up to a constant, but since we are only interested in $\nabla \varphi_\mathcal T^j$ this has little effect on our discussion. One can also verify that $\nabla \varphi_\mathcal T^j$ is a discrete harmonic field lying in the lowest-degree N\'ed\'elec edge space. Thus as in the continuous case, the discrete harmonic fields can be recovered from potentials. The same procedure may be applied with other complex-conforming pairs of spaces. An analogous procedure also exists for essential boundary conditions.
An obvious adaptive procedure for approximating $\mathfrak{H}^1$ is to adaptively compute $\varphi_\mathcal T^j$, $j=1,...,J$, using standard AFEM for scalar Laplace problems. Convergence and optimality follows from standard results such as those found in \cite{CKNS08} with slight modification to account for boundary conditions. The basis $\{\nabla \varphi^j\}_{j=1}^\beta$ that we thus approximate is not orthonormal, but has the advantage of being fixed using criterion that are passed on to the discrete approximations. Also note that here the approximation map $\varphi^j \rightarrow \varphi_\mathcal T^j$ is clearly linear. If we however orthonormalized the vectors $\{\nabla \varphi_\mathcal T^j\}$ in order to produce $\{q_\mathcal T^j\}$ as in our previous assumptions, then the approximation $\{\nabla \varphi^j\} \rightarrow \{q_\mathcal T^j\}$ would be nonlinear. This discussion indicates that while producing an orthonormal basis of forms is a nonlinear procedure, the nonlinearity is mild and not intrinsic to the task of finding {\it some} basis for the space of harmonic forms.
\section{Numerical experiments}
\label{sec:numerics}
In this section we give brief numerical experiments which illustrate our theoretical results. We employed the MATLAB-based finite element toolbox iFEM \cite{Ch09PP}. Harmonic fields for two-dimensional domains were computed by first constructing the full system matrix for the Hodge (vector) Laplacian and then finding its kernel using the MATLAB \textsf{svds} command. This approach may be relatively inefficient from a computational standpoint, but allowed accurate computation of the discrete harmonic basis using off-the-shelf components. A more sophisticated algorithm for computing discrete harmonic fields, motivated by algebraic topology but only formulated for lowest-degree (Whitney) finite element forms, is available in \cite{RBGV13}.
We adaptively computed the space $\mathfrak{H}^1$ of harmonic forms on domains $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$. The de Rham complex in two space dimensions may be realized as
\begin{align}
\label{eq800}
H^1(\Omega) \overset{\nabla}{\rightarrow} H(\mathop{\rm rot};\Omega) \overset{\mathop{\rm rot}}{\rightarrow} L_2(\Omega),
\end{align}
where the rotation operator is given by $\mathop{\rm rot} {\bf v} = \partial_y v_1-\partial_x v_2$. The adjoint of $d=\mathop{\rm rot}$ is the two-dimensional curl operator $\delta = \mathop{\rm curl} \varphi=(-\partial_y, \partial_x)$. The corresponding space $\mathfrak{H}^1$ of harmonic forms consists of rotation- and divergence-free vector fields with vanishing normal component ${\bf v} \cdot \vec{n}$ on $\partial \Omega$.
Our computations were performed on (non-simply connected) polygonal domains. We briefly recall some standard facts about singularities of solutions to elliptic PDE on polygonal domains. Assume that $-\Delta u =f$ with homogenous Neumann boundary conditions, that is, assume that $u$ solves a 0-Hodge Laplace problem for the complex \eqref{eq800}. At a given vertex $v_i \in \partial \Omega$ with interior opening angle $\omega_i$, there generally holds $u(x) \sim r_i(x)^{\pi/\omega_i}$ with $r_i={\rm dist}(x,v_i)$. Solutions to the 1-Hodge Laplace problem $(d \delta + \delta d) u =(-\nabla \mathop{\rm div} + \mathop{\rm curl} \mathop{\rm rot}) u =f$ may generically be expected to have singularities one exponent stronger, that is, of the form $r_i^{\pi/\omega_i-1}$; cf. \cite{dauge_web, CD00} for related discussion of Maxwell's equations in three space dimensions.
Because harmonic forms satisfy $(-\nabla \mathop{\rm div} + \mathop{\rm curl} \mathop{\rm rot}) u =0$, one would expect a singularity structure similar to that for the corresponding Hodge Laplace problem. For $q^j \in H^1$, we thus expect
\begin{align}
\label{eq801}
q^j \sim r_i^{\pi/\omega_i-1}
\end{align}
Another way to see this is to consider the Hodge decomposition $\vec{v}=\nabla \varphi + q + \vec{z}$ of a smooth vector field $\vec{v}$. $\nabla \varphi$ solves $-\Delta \varphi=\mathop{\rm div} \vec{v}$, so we generally expect $\nabla \varphi \sim r_i^{\pi/\omega_i-1}$ near $v_i$. Because $\vec{v}$ is smooth, $q \in \mathfrak{H}^1$ and $z \in \mathfrak{Z}^{\perp}$ may be expected to have offsetting singularities. As a final note, if $\omega_i> \pi$ (that is, if the opening at $v_i$ is nonconvex), then the exponent of $r_i$ in \eqref{eq801} is negative and thus we expect $q^j$ to be unbounded near $r_i$.
In all of our experiments below we compute harmonic forms on polygonal domains in $\mathbb{R}^2$ using rotated Raviart-Thomas elements of lowest degree. These elements give an a priori convergence rate of order $O(h)$ for $\|q-P_\ell q\|_{L_2(\Omega)}$ assuming sufficiently smooth $q$. When $q$ has vertex singularities such as those described above, AFEM is able to recover a convergence rate of $(\# \mathcal T_\ell -\# \mathcal T_0)^{1/2}$, just as for standard piecewise linear Lagrange AFEM for computing gradients of solutions to $-\Delta u =f$.
\subsection{Experiment 1: $\beta=1$.} Our goals in this experiment are to demonstrate improved convergence rates for AFEM vs. quasi-uniform mesh refinement and also to confirm that harmonic forms blow up at reentrant corners, as predicted by \eqref{eq801}. Here $\Omega$ is a simple square annulus with reentrant corners having opening angle $\omega_j = 3 \pi/2$, so we expect $q^1 \sim r^{-1/3}$ near reentrant corners. We correspondingly expect an a priori convergence rate of order $h^{2/3-\epsilon} \sim DOF^{-1/3+\epsilon}$ on sequences of quasi-uniform meshes, and an adaptive convergence rate of order $DOF^{-1/2}$. These are in fact observed in the left plot of Figure \ref{fig1}. In the right plot of Figure 1 we show the increase in $\|q_\ell^1\|_{L_\infty(\Omega)}$ as the mesh as refined, which provides confirmation that $q^1$ is singular as expected. In Figure \ref{fig2} we display an adaptively-generated mesh showing refinement at the reentrant corners along with a representative harmonic form $q_\ell^1$ on a coarse mesh.
\setlength{\unitlength}{.75cm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.36]{betti1_err}
\includegraphics[scale=.36]{betti1_linf}
\caption{Error decrease under adaptive and uniform refinement (left); increase in $\|q_\ell^1\|_{L_\infty(\Omega)}$ under adaptive refinement (right).}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{.75cm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{sqmesh3448}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{betti1_q1}
\caption{Adaptive mesh with 2535 degrees of freedom (left); discrete harmonic form on a coarse mesh (right).}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experiment 2: $\beta=3$.}
In this experiment we investigate the case $\beta>1$. In Figure \ref{fig3}, an adaptively computed basis is displayed on a relatively coarse mesh $\mathcal T_\ell$ on a domain with $\beta=3$, while Figure \ref{fig4} displays the computed discrete harmonic basis on a finer mesh $\mathcal T_{\tilde{\ell}}$ ($\tilde{\ell} > \ell$). Comparing the two bases provides an illustration of the alignment problem discussed in the introduction. There is no correspondence between $q_\ell^i$ and $q_{\tilde{\ell}}^i$. Comparing two such forms in an estimator reduction inequality is not meaningful, as in the case of elliptic eigenvalue problems. Our second comment concerns the discussion in Section \ref{sec7-3}. There we noted that forms in a given cohomology class may not be singular at all reentrant corners. This is illustrated by for example $q_\ell^1$ in the upper left of Figure \ref{fig3}. The support of $q_\ell^1$ is mainly localized to the upper right quarter of $\Omega$. Here this localization occurred somewhat randomly, but can also be manufactured by design (cf. \cite{HiKaWaWa11}).
\setlength{\unitlength}{.75cm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{betti3_q1}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{betti3_q2}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{betti3_q3}
\caption{Discrete harmonic basis elements $q_\ell^1$ (upper left), $q_\ell^2$ (upper right), and $q_\ell^3$ (lower) computed on a coarse mesh.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{.75cm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{betti3_q1_finer}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{betti3_q2_finer}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{betti3_q3_finer}
\caption{Discrete harmonic basis elements $q_{\tilde{\ell}}^1$ (upper left), $q_{\tilde{\ell}}^2$ (upper right), and $q_{\tilde{\ell}}^3$ (lower) computed on a finer mesh.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $W : t \in[0,1]\mapsto (W_1(t), \ldots, W_d(t)) \in \mathbb{R}^d$ be a standard Brownian motion and introduce notation for the Brownian and L\'{e}vy area increments as follows: given $N\in\mathbb{N}$ (and $h=N^{-1}$), we set
\begin{align}
W^{(j)}_k :&= W_k(jh,(j+1)h) := W_k((j+1)h)-W_k(jh);\notag\\
A^{(j)}_{kl} :&= \frac{1}{2}\int^{(j+1)h}_{jh} \seq{W_k(jh,t)\, dW_l(t) - W_l(jh,t)\, dW_k(t)} = A_{kl}(jh,(j+1)h)\label{e-original-increment}
\end{align}
and write $A^{(j)} = \{A^{(j)}_{kl}\}_{1\leq k < l \leq d} \in \mathbb{R}^{\frac{d}{2}(d-1)}$.
Simulation of L\'{e}vy area increments is important for the numerical approximation of stochastic differential equations (for example, the $N$-step Milstein scheme \cite{mil1974approximate} requires $N$ L\'{e}vy area increments in order to achieve a strong approximation error of order $O(N^{-1})$).
In the case of $d=1$ it is a trivial exercise to generate iterated Brownian integrals but for $d\geq 2$, this task becomes a hard problem. In the case of $d=2$ efficient algorithms based on Fourier expansions are available for generating double integrals (that is, L\'{e}vy area increments $A^{(j)}$) but they involve a significant computational cost \cite{gaines1994random,ryden2001simulation,wiktorsson2001joint}. The general case of $d>2$ is still out of reach. The different coordinates of L\'{e}vy area are uncorrelated but not independent (as we will show in Lemma \ref{l-area-decomposition} below), which makes joint simulation extremely difficult.
As an approximation of L\'{e}vy area, in the recent preprint \cite{davie2014kmt} Davie substitutes each $A^{(j)}$ with a suitable quadratic polynomial of Gaussian random variables denoted by $B^{(j)}$. The construction is such that $A^{(j)}$ and $B^{(j)}$ share the same mean and covariance structure along with the same underlying Brownian increment $W^{(j)}$. To introduce $B^{(j)}$ we must first closely examine the original Brownian L\'{e}vy area increments. The following lemma gives a simple decomposition of $A^{(j)}$ into parts dependent and independent of the corresponding Brownian increment $W^{(j)}$.
\begin{Lemma}\label{l-area-decomposition}
For all $1\leq k < l \leq d$:
\begin{equation}\label{e-area-decomposition}
A^{(j)}_{kl} = \zeta^{(j)}_k W^{(j)}_l - \zeta^{(j)}_l W^{(j)}_k + K^{(j)}_{kl},
\end{equation}
where the $\zeta^{(j)}_k$: $k=1,\ldots,d$, $K^{(j)}_{kl}$: $1\leq k < l \leq d$, are mutually uncorrelated (but not independent), independent of $W^{(j)}$ and have mean zero. Moreover,
\[
\Var{\zeta^{(j)}_k} = \frac{1}{12N} \; \; \;\text{ and }\; \; \; \Var{K^{(j)}_{kl}}=\frac{1}{12N^2}.
\]
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
We suppose $j=0$ for simplicity and begin by decomposing the $A^{(0)}$ increment into parts dependent and independent of the Brownian increment $W(h)$. To this end, following \cite[\S7]{davie2014pathwise} we can write
\[
W_k(t)=h^{1/2}B_k(t/h)+th^{-1/2}Z_k \; \; \; t\in [0,h],
\]
where $B_1,\ldots,B_d$ are independent standard Brownian bridges on $[0,1]$ and $Z_k=h^{-1/2}W_k(h)$ are independent $N(0,1)$ random variables (which are independent of the $B_j$). Also write $B_0(t)=t$ and set
\[
K_\alpha := \int^1_0 \int^{t_l}_0 \ldots \int^{t_2}_0 dB_{j_1}(t_1)\ldots dB_{j_l}(t_l)
\]
for an index $\alpha=(j_1,\ldots,j_l) \in \{0,1\ldots,d\}^l$. For such an index it can be shown that (see \cite[\S7]{davie2014pathwise})
\[
I_\alpha := \int^h_0 \int^{t_l}_0 \ldots \int^{t_2}_0 dW_{j_1}(t_1)\ldots dW_{j_l}(t_l) = h^{(l(\alpha)+n(\alpha))/2}\sum_{\beta=(i_1,\ldots,i_l)} K_\beta \prod_{k:i_k<j_k} Z_{j_k},
\]
where the sum is over all $\beta=(i_1,\ldots,i_l)$ such that for each $k\in\seq{1,\ldots,l}$ we have either $i_k=j_k$ or $i_k=0<j_k$. Here we have used $l(\alpha)$ and $n(\alpha)$ to denote the length and number of zero entries of $\alpha$ respectively.
Noting the antisymmetry $K_{kl}=-K_{lk}$ for $0\leq k < l$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
A^{(0)}_{12}
&= \frac{1}{2}\bra{I_{12}-I_{21}} = h\bra{K_{10}Z_2 - K_{20}Z_1+K_{12}},
\end{align*}
where
\[
K_{12} = \int^1_0 B_1(t)\, dB_2(t) \textup{ and } K_{j0} = \int^1_0 B_j(t)\, dt \textup{ for } j\in\seq{1,2}.
\]
Thus $\zeta^{(0)}_j := h^{1/2}K^{(0)}_{j0}$ for $j=1,2$, and $K^{(0)}_{12} := hK_{12}$ gives the claimed decomposition.
The variances follow from It\^{o}'s isometry. For the calculations we refer to Lemma 7 of \cite{davie2014pathwise}.
\end{proof}
The fact that for fixed $j$, the increments $\zeta^{(j)}$ and $K^{(j)}$ are not independent makes them (and consequently $A^{(j)}$) very difficult to simulate numerically. A natural solution would be to approximate these two variables with normal random variables $z^{(j)}$, $\lambda^{(j)}$ with the correct mean and moments, to produce a Gaussian approximation $B^{(j)}$ for $A^{(j)}$. Since uncorrelated Gaussian random variables are necessarily independent, simulation is much easier. This is precisely what Davie proposes in \cite{davie2014kmt}; define the following independent normal random variables
\begin{align*}
W^{(j)} \sim N\bra{0,\frac{1}{N}I_d}, \,\,\,\, z^{(j)} &\sim N\bra{0,\frac{1}{12N}I_d},\notag\\
\lambda^{(j)} = (\lambda^{(j)}_{kl})_{1\leq k < l \leq d} &\sim N\Big(0,\frac{1}{12N^2}I_{\frac{d(d-1)}{2}}\Big),\label{e-normal}
\end{align*}
for each $j \in \{0,1,\ldots,N-1\}$. Then set $\{B^{(j)}\}_{1\leq k < l \leq d}$ to be quadratic polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{e-b-def}
B^{(j)}_{kl} := z^{(j)}_k W_l^{(j)} - z_l^{(j)}W_k^{(j)} + \lambda_{kl}^{(j)}.
\end{equation}
The main theorem of this paper constructs a coupling of the two random walks with respective increments $A^{(j)}$ and $B^{(j)}$ conditional on sharing the same underlying Brownian increments $W^{(j)}$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{t-coupling}
For every $p\in [1,\infty)$, there exists a constant $C_p>0$ such that the following holds: given $N\in\mathbb{N}$, we can construct a coupling between the i.i.d.~sequence $\{A^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ and i.i.d.~$\{B^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ random variables, with each pair $(A^{(j)}, B^{(j)})$ defined by (\ref{l-area-decomposition}) and (\ref{e-b-def}) using a common Brownian increment $W^{(j)} \sim N(0,N^{-1}I_d)$, such that
\[
\max_{r=1,\ldots,N} \abs{\norm{ \sum^{r-1}_{j=0} \bra{A^{(j)}-B^{(j)}}}_{\mathbb{R}^{\frac{d}{2}(d-1)}}}_{L^p} \leq C_p \frac{\log N}{N}.
\]
\end{Theorem}
The fact that the random walks share the same Brownian increments is exploited in the paper \cite{flintCoupling} in order to reduce the complexity of the computations involved with the iterated Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula.
\subsection*{Outline of the paper}
We begin in the next section by presenting the Wasserstein metric from optimal transport theory. We then give a short overview of polynomial perturbations of Gaussian measures. Utilising the main results of the recent preprint \cite{davie2015poly}, we then prove an extension of \cite[Corollary 3]{davie2014kmt} from quartics to higher order polynomial perturbations. The final section of the paper then uses this extension together with a central limit theorem to generalise the original coupling proof of \cite[Theorem 1]{davie2014kmt} from a bound in the $2$nd Wasserstein metric $\mathcal{W}_2$ to $\mathcal{W}_p$ for general $p\in [1,\infty)$, thereby establishing Theorem \ref{t-coupling}.
\section{Coupling and Wasserstein metrics}
We present a brief primer on the Wasserstein metric and couplings. For more details we refer to Villani's surveys in \cite{cedric2003topics,villani2008optimal}.
Since we only work with probability measures on Euclidean space throughout the paper, we restrict our study of the Wasserstein metric to the space of probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$, denoted by $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. The theory can be extended to general Polish spaces.
Given $p\in [1,\infty)$ let $\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d) \subset \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ denote the subspace of measures with finite $p$th moment:
\[
\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d) := \seq{\mu\in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^d) : \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \abs{x}^p \, \mu(dx) < \infty}.
\]
\begin{Definition}
Fix $p\in [1,\infty)$. Given $\mu,\nu \in \mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d)$, define the set of transport plans of $\mu$ to $\nu$ by
\[
\mathcal{M}(\mu,\nu) := \seq{ \Phi : \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}^d \mid \Phi \textup{ measurable and } \Phi_*(\mu) = \nu}.
\]
Here, $\Phi_*(\mu)$ denotes the pushforward measure of $\mu$ under $\Phi$:
\[
\Phi_*(\mu)(A) = \mu\bra{\Phi^{-1}\bra{A}} \textup{ for all Borel sets }A\subset \mathbb{R}^d.
\]
The $p$th Wasserstein distance on $\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ (using $\rho$) is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{e-def-was}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu,\nu} := \bra{ \inf_{\Phi \in \mathcal{M}(\mu,\nu)} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \abs{x-\Phi(x)}_\infty^p\, \mu(dx)}^{1/p}.
\end{equation}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}
Note the Wasserstein metric can be defined using any metric on $\mathbb{R}^d$. We have chosen the uniform metric $\abs{x-y}_\infty := \max_{i=1,\ldots,d} \abs{x_i-y_i}$ because it possesses the nice property that the size of the vector $z=(1,\ldots,1) \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ does not grow as $d\to\infty$.
\end{Remark}
Certainly we have $\mathcal{W}_q(\mu,\nu) \leq \mathcal{W}_p(\mu,\nu)$ for all $1\leq q \leq p <\infty$. This is analogous to the relation $L^q \subseteq L^p$ for Lebesgue $L^p$-spaces.
It can be shown that $\mathcal{W}_p$ is a genuine metric on $\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ (\cite[Theorem 7.3]{cedric2003topics}). Moreover, the infimum (\ref{e-def-was}) is actually a minimum under mild regularity conditions on the measures $\mu,\nu$ (for instance, a sufficient condition is that one of the measures is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure).
The minimizing transport plan $\hat{\Phi}$ is unique but it is difficult to explicitly find $\hat{\Phi}$ because $\mathcal{M} (\mu,\nu)$ possesses no convexity or linear structure in general. However, in the case of $d=1$ classical optimal transport theory reduces the Wasserstein distance to an elegant formulation. While we will not use this result in this paper, its inclusion may be useful for general orientation.
\begin{Proposition}\cite[Theorem 3.1.2]{rachev1998mass}
Let $F$ and $G$ be distribution functions on $\mathbb{R}$ corresponding to probability measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively. Suppose that $F$ is continuous with density $f$ and use $G^{-1}$ to denote the generalised inverse of $G$. Then for all $p\in [1,\infty)$,
\[
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu,\nu} = \bra{ \int_{\mathbb{R}} \abs{G^{-1} \circ {F(x)} - x}_\infty^p f(x)\, dx}^{1/p}.
\]
In particular, for each $p$ the minimizing transport plan $\hat{\Phi}\in\mathcal{M}(\mu,\nu)$ is given by $\hat{\Phi}:=G^{-1}\circ F$.
\end{Proposition}
An equivalent definition of
$\mathcal{W}_p$ is as follows.
\begin{Proposition}\cite[Theorem 9.4]{villani2008optimal}\label{p-was-eq}
Fix $p\in [1,\infty)$ and let $\mu,\nu \in \mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with one of the measures being absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure. Then
\[
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu,\nu} = \inf \seq { \abs{X-Y}_{L^p} : \mathcal{L}(X) = \mu, \mathcal{L}(Y) = \nu}.
\]
Specifically, the infimum is taken over all distributions of the $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued random variables $X$ and $Y$ with marginal distributions $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively.
\end{Proposition}
This proposition inspires the following definition.
\begin{Definition}[Coupling]
A pair of random variables $(X,Y)$ with the correct marginals $\mu$, $\nu$ is known as a coupling of the two probability measures.
\end{Definition}
Thus the Wasserstein distance is given by the $L^p$-distance between the optimal coupling. That is, if $\mathcal{L}(X)=\mu$, $\mathcal{L}(Y)=\nu$ then certainly $\mathcal{W}_p(\mu,\nu) \leq \abs{X-Y}_{L^p}$.
\begin{Remark}
The topology induced by $\mathcal{W}_p$ on $\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is slightly stronger than the weak topology; namely, convergence of a sequence $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \subset \mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ to a measure $\mu \in \mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ in $\mathcal{W}_p$ is equivalent to weak convergence plus a uniform bound on the $p$th moments of the measures $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ (\cite[Theorem 6.9]{villani2008optimal}). In symbols,
\[
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu_n,\mu} \to 0 \iff \mu_n \to \mu \textup{ weakly and } \sup_n \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \abs{x}^p\, \mu_n(dx) < \infty.
\]
\end{Remark}
\begin{Remark}
The metric $\mathcal{W}_p$ originates from the {Monge-Kantorovich mass transportation problem}, first introduced by Monge in 1781 \cite{monge1781memoire}, then rediscovered many times in various forms since by Kantorovich \cite{kantorovich_russian}, L\'{e}vy among others.
The first modern definition was given by the algebraic $K$-theorist Vaserstein in his sole paper in probability theory \cite{vaserstein}. Vaserstein, (anglicized as \textit{Wasserstein} from the Cyrillic alphabet), used the letter $\mathcal{K}$ for the Wasserstein metric in honour of Kantorovich's original contribution of \cite{kantorovich_russian}. (Amusingly, by total coincidence Kantorovich's work conversely used the letter $\mathcal{W}$). Throughout this paper we have used $\mathcal{W}$ and \textit{Wasserstein}, in agreement with the modern literature. For more historical details we refer to \cite{malrieu2003convergence,villani2008optimal} and \cite[\S12]{davie2014pathwise}.
\end{Remark}
We conclude the section with a useful lemma \cite[Proposition 7.10]{cedric2003topics}.
Given two measures $\mu,\nu$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with respective densities $f,g$ with respect to Lebesgue measure, we use the notation: $\abs{\mu-\nu}(x) := \abs{f(x)-g(x)}$.
\begin{Lemma}\label{l-useless-lemma}
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$. For $p\in [1,\infty)$,
\[
\mathcal{W}_p(\mu,\nu) \leq 2^{1- 1/p}\seq{\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \abs{x}^p\, d\abs{\mu-\nu}(dx)}^{1/p}.
\]
\end{Lemma}
As mentioned in \cite{davie2014pathwise}, this is quite a good bound for $p=1$ but less good for larger $p$. We will use this lemma in the subsequent sections in order to establish $\mathcal{W}_p$-estimates.
\subsection*{Notation}
Before proceeding further we establish some notation.\
\textbf{Constants.} Throughout the paper, $C,c,\ldots$ denote various deterministic constants (that may vary from line to line). Constants which are dependent upon a variable will have the dependency explicitly stated; for example, $C_p$ denotes a constant dependent on $p$. If a constant $C$ has many dependencies $\alpha,\beta,\gamma, \ldots,p,q$, we will simply write $C=C(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\ldots,p,q)$. If we are working in the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^d$ we will always ignore dependencies on the dimension $d$ (except for Section \ref{s-poly-perturb}, where we repeat results in \cite{davie2015poly}).\
\textbf{Gaussian measure.} Given a covariance matrix $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$, let $\phi_\Sigma$ denote the density function of $N(0,\Sigma)$:
\[
\phi_\Sigma(x) = \frac{1}{\bra{2\pi}^{d/2} \bra{\textup{det}\,{\Sigma}}^{1/2}} \exp\bra{-\frac{1}{2}x^t \Sigma^{-1} x}.
\]
In the case of $\Sigma=I_d$ (the identity matrix) we simply write $\phi(x)=\phi_{I_d}(x)$.
Given an arbitrary probability measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$, we will commit a slight abuse of notation by using $\mathcal{W}_p(\mu,\phi_\Sigma)$ to denote the Wasserstein distance $\mathcal{W}_p(\mu, \mathcal{L}\bra{Z})$ where $Z\sim N(0,\Sigma)$.\
\textbf{Polynomial spaces.} Let $P$ denote the space of all real-valued polynomials on $\mathbb{R}^d$ (which we will write as $P(\mathbb{R}^d)$ when we want to specify the dimension $d$) and define the subspace
\[
P_\Sigma := \seq{p\in P : \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} p(x)\phi_\Sigma(x)\, dx = 0}.
\]
Let $P^d$ denote the space of $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued polynomial functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$. To be precise, $p\in P^d$ means $p(x)=(p^1(x), \ldots,p^d(x))$ for some $p^j \in P$. Given a polynomial $p^j$, let $\textup{deg}(p^j)$ denote the highest degree of its terms. Similarly, for a polynomial function $p=(p^1,\ldots,p^d) \in P^d$, set $\textup{deg}(p):= \max_{j=1,\ldots,d} \textup{deg}(p^j)$.
Lastly, given the dimension $d$, we set $d_1:=\frac{d}{2}(d+1)$ and $d_2:= \frac{d}{2}(d-1)$ to avoid cumbersome sub/superscript notation.
\section{Polynomial perturbations of Gaussian distributions}\label{s-poly-perturb}
In this section we consider signed measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with a density given by a polynomial perturbation of the standard Gaussian distribution $\phi(x) = (2\pi)^{-d/2}e^{-\abs{x}^2 / 2}$. Our main aim is to prove that if such a signed measure is close to a probability measure $\mu$ (in the form of an estimate similar to that of Lemma
\ref{l-useless-lemma}), then we can expect the distance $\mathcal{W}_p(\mu,\phi)$ to be bounded by the magnitude of the perturbation. This is the content of the following proposition.
\begin{Proposition}\label{p-poly-perturb-bound}
Fix $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$. Suppose $\{S_j\}_{j=1}^n \subset P$ is a sequence of polynomials with the absolute values of its coefficients bounded by a universal constant $M>0$ and set $s:= \max_{j=1,\ldots,n} \textup{deg}(S_j)$. Fix some integer $1\leq n_0\leq n$ and let $\nu_{\varepsilon,n}$ denote the signed measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with density
\[
\phi(y)\bra{1+\sum_{j=n_0}^n \varepsilon^j S_j(y)}.
\]
If $\mu$ is a probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{e-hyp-estimate}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\mu - \nu_{\varepsilon,n}}(y)\, \leq \delta,
\end{equation}
then for all $p\in [1,\infty)$ we have
\[
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu, \phi} \leq C_{d,M,n,p,s}\bra{\varepsilon^{n_0} + {\delta}^{1/p} + \varepsilon^{\frac{n+1}{p}}}.
\]
\end{Proposition}
The proposition is a strengthened version of \cite[Corollary 3]{davie2014kmt}. Instead of dealing with only quartic perturbations, Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound} can handle polynomials of arbitrarily high order.
The proof was suggested to the author by Professor Davie in private communications and the argument relies upon the results in his preprint \cite{davie2015poly}. Thus before presenting its proof we summarise the work of the latter paper.
\begin{Remark}
To be precise, the original polynomial perturbation result of Davie actually considered quartic perturbations of $\phi_\Sigma$ for some arbitrary covariance matrix $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$. One may ask whether Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound} can also be generalised to the case of arbitrary $\phi_\Sigma$ rather than just $\Sigma=I_d$. The author conjectures that this is possible since the technical tools from \cite{davie2015poly} remain valid. However, the precise dependencies of the norms $\norm{\Sigma}$ and $\norm{\Sigma}^{-1}$ in the bound of $\mathcal{W}_p(\mu,\phi_\Sigma)$ are complicated and it is a non-trivial task to keep track of these quantities throughout the proof.
Fortunately we only need the case of $\Sigma=I_d$ for the coupling arguments of this paper.
\end{Remark}
We now summarise the main contributions of \cite{davie2015poly} and begin by characterising the subspace $P_\Sigma \subset P$ as follows.
\begin{Lemma}
Define the linear mapping $\mathcal{L}_\Sigma : P^d \to P$ by $\mathcal{L}_\Sigma p(x) = \nabla \cdot p(x) - x^t\Sigma^{-1} p(x)$.
The space $P_\Sigma$ is precisely the range of $\mathcal{L}_\Sigma$. Moreover, any element $p\in P_\Sigma$ can be expressed as $\mathcal{L}_\Sigma \nabla u$ for some $u\in P$ (and the $u$ is unique up to an additive constant).
\end{Lemma}
The proof is by induction and the divergence theorem (see \cite[Lemma 1]{davie2014pathwise}).
One consequence of the lemma is that if we define $P^d_G$ to be the set of $p\in P^d$ of the form $p=\nabla u$ with $u\in P$, we have that $\mathcal{L}_\Sigma$ is bijective from $P^d_G\to P_\Sigma$ and we can define the inverse linear mapping $\mathcal{L}_\Sigma^{-1} : P_\Sigma \to P^d_G$.
Next, suppose we have a sequence of polynomial functions $\{p_j\}_{j=1}^n \subset P^d_G$.
For each $\varepsilon>0$, we define the polynomial perturbation mapping $\rho_{\varepsilon} :\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}^d$ by
\begin{equation}\label{e-pp3}
\rho_{\varepsilon}(x)= x+\sum^n_{j=1} \varepsilon^j p_j(x).
\end{equation}
We are interested in the distribution of $\rho_{\varepsilon}(Z)$ for small $\varepsilon$, where $Z\sim N(0,\Sigma)$. If we assume that $\rho_{\varepsilon}$ is bijective then this distribution has a density given by
\begin{equation*}\label{e-pp1}
f_{\varepsilon}(y) = \textup{det}\bra{D \rho^{-1}_{\varepsilon}(y)}\phi_\Sigma\bra{\rho_{\varepsilon}^{-1}(y)}.
\end{equation*}
As Davie notes in the introduction of \cite{davie2015poly}, in general bijectivity will only hold on some bounded region of $\mathbb{R}^d$ (which will be large if $\varepsilon$ is small). It actually turns out that bijectivity is a sufficient condition for (\ref{e-pp3}) to imply the following asymptotic expansion of the density:
\begin{equation}\label{e-pp2}
f_{\varepsilon}(y) = \phi_\Sigma(y)\bra{1+\sum^\infty_{j=1} \varepsilon^j S_j(y)},
\end{equation}
for some sequence of polynomials $\{S_j\}_{j=1}^\infty \subset P_\Sigma$.
In fact, we can explicitly construct the sequence $\{S_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ from the polynomial functions $\{p_j\}_{j=1}^n$ via a bijection. We introduce the notation $\mathcal{P}$ for the set of all sequences $(u_1,u_2,\ldots,)$ with $u_j \in \mathcal{P}$ with similar definitions for $\mathcal{P}^d, \mathcal{P}_\Sigma, \mathcal{P}_G^d$.
By using the inverse linear mapping $\mathcal{L}_\Sigma^{-1} : P_\Sigma \to P^d_G$, Davie inductively constructs a bijection $\mathcal{S}_\Sigma : \mathcal{P}^d _G\to \mathcal{P}_\Sigma$ such that
\[
\mathcal{S}_\Sigma(p_1,\ldots,p_n, 0, 0,\ldots) = (S_1,S_2,\ldots).
\]
Since each $S_k$ is dependent only on $p_1,\ldots,p_k$, this can be rewritten in the more succinct form of the truncated mapping: $\mathcal{S}^{(n)}_\Sigma(p_1,\ldots,p_n) = (S_1,\ldots,S_n)$.
For the explicit definition of $\mathcal{S}_\Sigma$ we refer to \cite[Lemma 2]{davie2015poly}.
We are now in a position to state the main result of \cite{davie2015poly} in a simplified form for the special case of $\Sigma=I_d$.
\begin{Proposition}\cite[Proposition 1]{davie2015poly}\label{p-davie-poly-1}
Let $\{S_j\}_{j=1}^n \subset P_I$ and define the corresponding sequence $\{p_j\}_{j=1}^n \subset P^d_G$ via the truncated bijection
\[
\mathcal{S}^{(n)}_I(p_1,\ldots,p_n)=(S_1,\ldots, S_n).
\]
Set $R$ to be an upper bound on the absolute values of the coefficients of $p_1,\ldots,p_n$.
Using these sequences, define the mapping $\rho_{\varepsilon}$ as in (\ref{e-pp3}) and let $\nu_{\varepsilon,n}$ be the signed measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with density (\ref{e-pp2}). Finally, let $\mu_\varepsilon$ be the law of $\rho_\varepsilon(Z)$ where $Z\sim N(0,I)$. Then for all $p\in [1,\infty)$ we have
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\mu_{\varepsilon}-\nu_{\varepsilon,n}}(y) \leq C_p \varepsilon^{n+1},
\]
for some constant $C_p>0$ depending only on $d,n,R$ and the maximum degree of $p_1,\ldots,p_n$.
\end{Proposition}
Armed with the latter result, we are now able to present the proof of Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound}]
Following the same technique in \cite[Corollary 2]{davie2014kmt}, we first show that we may assume that $S_j \in P_\Sigma$ for all $j\in\{n_0,\ldots,n\}$. Indeed, let
\[
\beta_j:= \varepsilon^j\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} S_j(y) \phi(y)\, dy \textup{ and } \beta:=\sum_{j=n_0}^n \beta_j.
\]
Then we have
\begin{align*}
\abs{\beta}
= \abs{\sum_{j=n_0}^n \varepsilon^j \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} S_j(y) \phi(y)\, dy}
&= \abs{ \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \phi(y)\bra{1+\sum_{j=n_0}^n \varepsilon^j S_j(y)}\, dy - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \mu_\varepsilon(y)\, dy}\\
&= \abs{ \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{\nu_{\varepsilon,n}-\mu_\varepsilon}(y)\, dy}\\
&\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} d\abs{\nu_{\varepsilon,n}-\mu_\varepsilon}(y)
\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\nu_{\varepsilon,n}-\mu_\varepsilon}(y)
\leq \delta.
\end{align*}
Next, define a new signed measure $\tilde{\nu}_{\varepsilon,n}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with density
\[
\phi(y)\bra{1+\sum_{j=n_0}^n \bra{\varepsilon^j S_j(y)-\beta_j}} = \phi(y)\bra{1+\sum_{j=n_0}^n \varepsilon^j S_j(y)} - \beta\phi(y).
\]
Consequently,
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\tilde{\nu}_{\varepsilon,n}-\mu_\varepsilon}(y)
&\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p \seq{d\abs{\nu_{\varepsilon,n} - \mu_\varepsilon}(y) + \abs{\beta} \phi(y)\, dy}\\
& \leq \delta + \abs{\beta} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p \phi(y)\, dy
\leq C_p\delta.
\end{align*}
Therefore, by replacing each $S_j$ by $S_j-\beta_j$ we may assume that $S_j \in P_\Sigma$.
Since we can assume each $S_{j} \in P_I$, we can apply the bijection $\mathcal{S}_I$ of \cite[Lemma 2]{davie2015poly} to find a corresponding sequence $\{p_j\}_{j=1}^n \subset P^d_G$ such that
\[
\mathcal{S}_I^{(n)}(p_1,\ldots,p_n) = (S_1,\ldots,S_n).
\]
As stated in the proof of \cite[Corollary 3]{davie2014kmt}, if $g_0=\mathcal{L}_I p_0$ for $p_0 \in P^d$, $g_0 \in P$, then $\textup{deg}(p_0) \leq \textup{deg}(g_0)$ and the absolute values of the coefficients of $p_0$ are bounded by those of $g_0$ up to a universal multiplicative constant.
Thus by the recursive construction of the map $\mathcal{S}_I$ using $\mathcal{L}_I^{-1}$ in \cite{davie2015poly}, we can bound the absolute values of the coefficients of $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ by some function of those of $S_1,\ldots,S_n$. Similarly, the degree of each $p_j$ can be bounded by a function of $s=\max_{j} \textup{deg}(S_j)$. A simple consequence is the bound $\abs{p_j(Z)}_{L^p} \leq C_{d,M,p,s}$ for each $j$, where $Z\sim N(0,I)$. Taking the trivial coupling of $\mathcal{L}(Z)$ and $\mu_\varepsilon$, specifically $(Z,\rho_\varepsilon(Z))$, this leads to the estimate
\begin{align}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu_{\varepsilon},\phi}
\leq \abs{Z-\rho_{\varepsilon}(Z)}_{L^p}
\leq \sum_{j=n_0}^n \varepsilon^j \abs{p_j\bra{Z}}_{L^p}
&\leq C_{d,M,p,s} \sum_{j=n_0}^n \varepsilon^{j}\notag\\
&= C_{d,M,n,p,s}\varepsilon^{n_0}.\label{e-triangle-2}
\end{align}
As before, define the polynomial perturbation $\rho_{\varepsilon}$ by (\ref{e-pp3}) and let $\mu_{\varepsilon}$ be the law of $\rho_{\varepsilon}(Z)$ for $Z\sim N(0,I)$. Then Proposition \ref{p-davie-poly-1} guarantees that for all $p\in [1,\infty)$,
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\mu_{\varepsilon}-\nu_{\varepsilon,n}}(y) \leq C_{d,M,n,p,s} \varepsilon^{n+1}.
\]
Combined with (\ref{e-hyp-estimate}), this estimate gives
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\mu-\mu_{\varepsilon}}(y) \leq {\delta}+ C_{d,M,n,p,s} \varepsilon^{n+1},
\]
and so Lemma \ref{l-useless-lemma} yields the Wasserstein estimate
\begin{equation}\label{e-triangle-1}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu,\mu_{\varepsilon}} \leq C_{d,M,n,p,s}\bra{{\delta} + \varepsilon^{n+1}}^{1/p}
\leq C_{d,M,n,p,s} \bra{\delta^{1/p} + \varepsilon^{\frac{n+1}{p}}}.
\end{equation}
Finally, combining (\ref{e-triangle-2}) and (\ref{e-triangle-1}) via the triangle inequality, we conclude that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu,\phi}
&\leq \mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu,\mu_{\varepsilon}} + \mathcal{W}_p\bra{\mu_{\varepsilon},\phi}
\leq C_{d,M,n,p,s}\bra{ \varepsilon^{n_0} + {\delta}^{1/p} + \varepsilon^{\frac{n+1}{p}}}.
\end{align*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
The proof of Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound} reveals the reason why we insist on bounding the quantity $\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\mu-\nu}(y)$ rather than the simpler integral
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \abs{y}^p d\abs{\mu-\nu}(y).
\]
At first glance the latter quantity is all that is needed for Lemma \ref{l-useless-lemma} to bound $\mathcal{W}_p(\mu,\nu)$. However, in order to generalise the proof to polynomials not contained in $P_\Sigma$ we use the simple inequality
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} d\abs{\nu_{n,\varepsilon}-\mu}(y) \leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\bra{1+\abs{y}}^p d\abs{\nu_{n,\varepsilon}-\mu}(y).
\]
This bound does not remain true when we replace the right-hand side with $\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \abs{y}^p d\abs{\nu_{n,\varepsilon}-\mu}(y)$. For instance, consider the case when the supports of $\nu_{n,\varepsilon}$ and $\mu$ are contained within the open unit ball around the origin of $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{Remark}
\section{Main coupling theorem}
We restate the main coupling theorem of the paper. Then, after establishing some notation and performing a linear transformation, we show that it suffices to prove the simpler statement of Proposition \ref{p-coupling-y-z}.
\begin{Theorem}
For every $p\in [1,\infty)$, there exists a constant $C_p>0$ such that the following holds: given $N\in\mathbb{N}$, we can construct a coupling between the i.i.d.~sequence $\{A^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ and i.i.d.~$\{B^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ random variables, with each pair $(A^{(j)}, B^{(j)})$ defined by (\ref{l-area-decomposition}) and (\ref{e-b-def}) using a common Brownian increment $W^{(j)} \sim N(0,N^{-1}I_d)$, such that
\[
\max_{r=1,\ldots,N} \abs{\norm{ \sum^{r-1}_{j=0} \bra{A^{(j)}-B^{(j)}}}_{\mathbb{R}^{\frac{d}{2}(d-1)}}}_{L^p} \leq C_p \frac{\log N}{N}.
\]
\end{Theorem}
Before presenting the proof in the Section \ref{s-coupling-proof}, we first set up some notation, then consider a version of the central limit theorem in the next section. We fix a sequence of independent Brownian increments $\{W^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ with $W^{(j)} \sim N(0,N^{-1}I_d)$, and let $\mathcal{G}$ denote the $\sigma$-algebra generated by these variables.
For each $r\in \{0,1,\ldots,N-1\}$ define the random vector $X^{(r)} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_1}$ by
\begin{align*}
X^{(r)}_k &:= \sqrt{12N}\zeta^{(r)}_k \textup{ for } 1\leq k \leq d;\\
X^{(r)}_{\frac{k}{2}(2d-k-1)+l} &:= \sqrt{12N^2} K^{(r)}_{kl} \textup{ for } 1\leq k < l \leq d.
\end{align*}
Then, conditional on $\mathcal{G}$, $X^{(r)}$ has mean zero and covariance matrix $I_{d_2}$. We can then write $A^{(r)} = N^{-1} G_r X^{(r)}$, where $G_r$ is a $d_2 \times d_1$ matrix defined in terms of the $W^{(j)}$. Specifically,
\[
G_{r}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}\left(\begin{array}{c|c}
M_{r} & I_{d_2}\end{array}\right),
\]
where $M_r$ is the $d_2 \times d$ matrix defined by the rows
\[
\bra{M_r}_{\frac{k}{2}(2d-k-1)+(l-d)} = \sqrt{N}\bra{ W^{(r)}_l e_k - W^{(r)}_k e_l}.
\]
This makes $M_r$ have the form:
\[
M_r = \sqrt{N}
\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
W_{2}^{(r)} & -W_{1}^{(r)} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
W_{3}^{(r)} & 0 & -W_{1}^{(r)} & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & W_{d}^{(r)} & -W_{d-1}^{(r)}
\end{array}\right).
\]
In the same way we can write $B^{(r)} = N^{-1}G_r \tilde{X}^{(r)}$, where $\tilde{X}^{(r)}$ has the normal distribution $N(0,I_{d_1})$.
By scaling we can see that to complete the proof it is sufficient to construct a coupling of the random walks composed of the vectors $X^{(r)}$ and $\tilde{X}^{(r)}$, conditional on $\mathcal{G}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{e-g-x}
\max_{r=1,\ldots,N} \abs{ \norm{ \sum_{j=0}^{r-1} G_j\bra{X^{(j)} - \tilde{X}^{(j)} }}_{\mathbb{R}^{\frac{d}{2}(d-1)}}}_{L^p} \leq C_p\log N
\end{equation}
for some constant $C_p>0$.
To this end, we first note that without loss of generality we may assume $N=h^{-1}=2^m$ for some $m\in\mathbb{N}$. We define a dyadic set to be a subset $E\subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,2^m-1\}$ of the form
\[
E = \{k2^n, k2^n+1, \ldots, (k+1)2^n - 1\},
\]
for some integers $n\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$ and $k\in \{0,1,\ldots,2^{m-n}-1\}$. Since a consecutive set $F\subset \{0,1,\ldots,2^m-1\}$ can be expressed as the disjoint union of at most $\log_2 N$ dyadic subsets $E_1,\ldots,E_k$ of different sizes, we need only prove
\begin{equation}\label{e-g-x-2}
\mathbb{E}\bra{ \norm{\sum_{r\in E} G_r \bra{X^{(r)} - \tilde{X}^{(r)}}}_{\mathbb{R}^{\frac{d}{2}(d-1)}}^p} \leq C_p
\end{equation}
for all dyadic sets $E$ in order to establish (\ref{e-g-x}).
Next, for each dyadic set $E$ of size $2^n$ let us define the matrix
\begin{equation}\label{e-H-e-pos-def}
H_E := 2^{-n} \sum_{r\in E} G_r G_r^t
\end{equation}
along with the random variables
\[
Y_E:= 2^{-n/2} \sum_{r\in E} G_r X^{(r)} \textup{ and } Z_E:= 2^{-n/2}\sum_{r\in E} G_r \tilde{X}^{(r)}.
\]
Since, conditional on $\mathcal{G}$, the random variables $\{A^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ are independent, $H_E$ is the (conditional) covariance matrix of $Y_E$. Similarly, $H_E$ is also the (conditional) covariance matrix of $Z_E$. Note that $H_E^{-1}$ is well-defined since each product $G_rG_r^t$ is a positive-definite symmetric matrix. Indeed, block matrix multiplication confirms that
\[
G_r G_r^t = \frac{1}{12}\bra{I_{d_2} + M_r M_r^t}.
\]
It also follows that the eigenvalues of $G_rG_r^t$ are bounded below by $\frac{1}{12}$ and so $\norm{(G_rG_r^t)^{-1}} \leq 12$. Similarly, $\norm{H_E^{-1}} \leq 12$ for all dyadic $E$. Moreover, since $\sqrt{N}W^{(r)}_k \sim N(0,1)$, certainly $\mathbb{E}\bra{\norm{G_r}^p} \leq C_p$ for all $p\geq 1$. In fact, $\norm{G_r}^2$ possesses exponential tails (a property which we will exploit later in the coupling construction of Section \ref{s-coupling-proof}).
\begin{Lemma}\label{l-h-exp-tails}
For all $\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{48d})$ there exists a constant $C_{\alpha} >0$ such that
\[
\max_{r=0,1,\ldots,N-1}\mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha\norm{G_r}^2}} \leq C_{\alpha}
\]
Similarly, $\mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha\norm{H_E}}} \leq C_{\alpha}$ for all consecutive sets $E$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the matrix norm $\norm{M_r}$ is bounded by the $l_2$-norm of its entries $\{M_r(i,j)\}_{i,j}$. Hence,
\[
\norm{M_r}^2 \leq \sum_{i,j} \abs{M_r(i,j)}^2 = 2h^{-1}\sum^d_{k=1} \abs{W^{(r)}_k}^2,
\]
and so for all $\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{4d})$ we have
\[
\mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha \norm{M_r}^2}} \leq \prod_{k=1}^d \mathbb{E}\bra{e^{2\alpha h^{-1}\abs{W_k^{(r)}}^2}}
= \mathbb{E}\bra{e^{2\alpha dh^{-1} \abs{W^{(r)}_k}^2}} = C_{\alpha} < \infty.
\]
Thus for small enough $\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{48d})$,
\[
\mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha \norm{G_r}^2}}
\leq \mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\frac{\alpha}{12}\bra{\norm{M_r}+1}^2}}
\leq e^{\frac{\alpha}{6}}\mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\frac{\alpha}{6}\norm{M_r}^2}} \leq C_{\alpha}.
\]
The second statement then follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha \norm{H_E}}}
\leq
\mathbb{E}\,{\exp\bra{\alpha 2^{-n}\sum_{r\in E} \norm{G_r}^2}}
&=\prod_{r\in E} \mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha 2^{-n} \norm{G_r}^2}}
= \mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha \norm{G_r}^2}} = C_{\alpha}.\label{e-h-exp-tails}
\end{align*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
The aim is to prove the following proposition, from which (\ref{e-g-x-2}) follows immediately, thereby establishing Theorem \ref{t-coupling}.
\begin{Proposition}\label{p-coupling-y-z}
With the notation above, for every $p \in [1,\infty)$ there exists a constant $C_p>0$ and a coupling of $\{Y_E\}_{E \subseteq E_0}$ and $\{Z_E\}_{E \subseteq E_0}$, conditional on $\mathcal{G}$, such that
\[
\abs{ \norm{Y_E - Z_E}_{\mathbb{R}^{\frac{d}{2}(d-1)}}}_{L^p} \leq C_p 2^{-n/2}
\]
for every dyadic set $E$ of size $2^n$, where $n\leq m = \log_2N$.
\end{Proposition}
We copy the coupling construction of \cite[Theorem 1]{davie2014kmt} except for modifications which are needed to establish general $L^p$-estimates. This is because the original result only established the coupling for $p\in [1,4)$.
Thus we require the higher order polynomial perturbation result of Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound} along with Lemma \ref{l-davie-lemma-4-new} of the next section. Hence we postpone the proof of Proposition \ref{p-coupling-y-z} to Section \ref{s-coupling-proof}.
\begin{Remark}
It is a common practice in Gaussian rough path theory to use Wiener-It\^{o} chaos to establish general $L^p$-bounds from the $p=2$ case (\cite[Theorem D.8]{FV}).
Certainly each $B^{(j)}$ increment lives in the second inhomogeneous Wiener chaos (being a quadratic polynomial of Gaussian random variables), and it is well-known that L\'{e}vy area also lives in a (possibly different) second Wiener chaos \cite[Proposition 15.19]{FV}.
One could ask whether we could use this theory to immediately get all $L^p$-estimates from the $p=2\in [1,4)$ case. Alas our coupling argument does not necessarily guarantee that the random variables $\{A^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ and $\{B^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ belong to the same Wiener chaos and so we cannot apply the theory to their difference.
\end{Remark}
\section{A central limit theorem}
In light of the previous polynomial perturbation extension of Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound}, we need a modified version of \cite[Lemma 4]{davie2014kmt} for the proof of Proposition \ref{p-coupling-y-z} in the next section. This is contained in the following lemma. It can be viewed as a version of the central limit theorem, stating that the density of $Y_E$ is close to the (Gaussian) density of $Z_E$ as the size of the dyadic set $E$ increases.
\begin{Lemma}\label{l-davie-lemma-4-new}
Let $E$ be a dyadic set of size $2^n$ and let $f_E$ be the density function of $Y_E$, conditional on $\mathcal{G}$. Fix $\eta\in (0,\frac{1}{20})$ and an integer $\kappa\geq 2$.
Then, provided that $\norm{G_r} \leq 2^{n\eta}$ and $\norm{(G_rG_r^t)^{-1}} \leq 2^{2n\eta}$, there exists a constant $C_\kappa>0$ such that the following holds: for each $r\in E$ we have
\[
\abs{f_E - \phi_{H_E} \bra{1+ \sum_{k=2}^\kappa 2^{nk\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}} S_{E,2k}} }(v)
\leq C_\kappa2^{n\kappa\bra{10\eta -\frac{1}{2}}} \phi_{H_E}(v)
\]
for all $\abs{v}\leq 2^{n\eta}$. Here, each $S_{E,2k}\in P(\mathbb{R}^{d_2})$ is respectively a polynomial of degree $2k$ with coefficients whose absolute values are bounded by some universal constant $C>0$ independent of $E$ and $k$.
\end{Lemma}
Note the original \cite[Lemma 4]{davie2014kmt} can be recovered by setting $\kappa=2$.
\begin{proof}
The bounds on $G_r$ imply that $\norm{H_E} \leq 2^{2n\eta}$ and $ \norm{H_E^{-1}} \leq 2^{2n\eta}$.
Let $\psi$ be the characteristic function of $X^{(r)}$ (which is independent of $r$). An explicit expression for $\psi$ can be found in \cite{wiktorsson2001joint}. Note that $\psi$ is real-valued and even on $\mathbb{R}^{d_1}$ and extends to a complex-analytic function of a strip $\{x+iy : x,y\in \mathbb{R}^{d_1},\, \abs{y}< a\}$ for some $a>0$. In a neighbourhood of $0$ in $\mathbb{C}^{d_1}$, $\log \psi$ has a convergent expansion
\[
\log \psi(z) = -\frac{1}{2}\abs{z}^2 + c_4(z) + c_6(z) + \ldots,
\]
where $c_k(z)$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ satisfying $\abs{c_k(z)} \leq (C\abs{z})^k$ for even $k\geq 4$. Thus,
\[
\psi(z) = \exp\bra{-\frac{1}{2}\abs{z}^2 + \chi(z)} \textup{ where } \chi(z):= \sum_{k=2}^\infty c_{2k}(z).
\]
From this it follows that there exists some $\delta>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{e-davie-20}
\textup{if }
x,y\in \mathbb{R} \textup{ with } 2\abs{y} \leq \abs{x} < \delta \textup{ then } \abs{\psi(x+iy)} \leq e^{-\frac{1}{6}\abs{x}^2}.
\end{equation}
Using the decay of $\psi(z)$ as $x=\textup{Re}(z) \to \infty$ and the fact that $\abs{\psi(x)} < 1$ for $0\neq x\in \mathbb{R}^{d_1}$, we can find $\gamma \in (0,1)$ and $\delta^\prime >0$ so that
\begin{align}
\textup{if } x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{d_1} \textup{ with } \abs{x}\geq \delta &\textup{ and }
\abs{y} \leq \delta^\prime
\textup{ then } \abs{\psi(x+iy)} \leq \textup{min}\bra{\gamma, C\abs{x}^{-1}}.\label{e-davie-21}
\end{align}
Now let $\Psi$ be the characteristic function of $Y_E$; $\Psi(u) = \prod_{r\in E} \psi\bra{2^{-n/2}G_r^t u}$.
Recall that $\Psi$ is the Fourier transform of the density $f_E$ of $Y_E$, and taking the inverse Fourier transform we obtain the expression
\[
f_E(v) = \bra{2\pi}^{-d_2/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d_2}} e^{-iu^tv}\Psi(u)\, du.
\]
By translating the subspace of integration in $\mathbb{C}^{d_2}$ by $-iH_E^{-1}v$ we can rewrite this as
\begin{align*}
f_E(v) &= \bra{2\pi}^{-d_2/2} e^{-v^t H_E^{-1}v} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d_2}} e^{-iu^tv} \Psi\bra{u-iH_E^{-1}v}\, du\\
&= \bra{\textup{det}\, H_E}^{1/2} \phi_{H_E}(v) \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d_2}} e^{-iu^tv} \Psi\bra{u-iH_E^{-1}v}\, du.
\end{align*}
Note that
\begin{equation}\label{e-davie-prod}
\Psi\bra{u-iH_E^{-1}v} = \prod_{r\in E} \psi\bra{2^{-n/2}G_r^t u - i 2^{-n/2}G_r^t H_E^{-1}v}.
\end{equation}
If $\abs{u} \geq 2^{4n\eta + 1}$ then using (\ref{e-davie-20}) and (\ref{e-davie-21}) we see that each term in the product is bounded by either $\min\bra{\gamma, C2^{n(\eta+1/2)}\abs{u}^{-1}}$ or $\exp\bra{-\frac{1}{6}2^{-n(1+2\eta)}\abs{u}^2}$. Consequently, the product (\ref{e-davie-prod}) is bounded by
\[
\abs{\Psi\bra{u-iH_E^{-1}v}} \leq \min\bra{\gamma, C2^{n(\eta+1/2)}\abs{u}^{-1}}^{2^n} + \exp\bra{-\frac{1}{6}2^{-2n\eta }\abs{u}^2}
\]
for all $\abs{u} \geq 2^{4n\eta + 1}$. It then follows that
\[
\int_{\seq{\abs{u}\geq 2^{4 n\eta + 1}}} \abs{\Psi\bra{u-iH_E^{-1}v}}\, du
\leq C\seq{ 2^{nm}\gamma^{2^n} + \exp\bra{-2^{6 n\eta - 1} }}.
\]
To consider the case of $\abs{u}\leq 2^{4 n\eta + 1}$, we first set $w=u-iH_E^{-1}v$. We then have
\begin{align*}
e^{-iu^tv} \Psi(w)
&=
e^{-iu^tv} \prod_{r\in E} \psi\bra{2^{-n/2} G_r^t w}\\
&=
e^{-iu^tv} \exp\bra{\sum_{r\in E} \seq{-\frac{1}{2} 2^{-n} \abs{G_r^t w}^2 + \chi\bra{2^{-n/2}G_r^t w}}}\\
&= e^{-iu^t v}\exp\bra{\frac{1}{2}v^tH_E^{-1}v - \frac{1}{2}u^tH_E u + iu^tv + \Lambda(w)}\\
&=\exp\bra{\frac{1}{2}v^tH_E^{-1}v - \frac{1}{2}u^tH_E u + \Lambda(w)},
\end{align*}
where
\[
\Lambda(w)=\sum_{r\in E} \chi\bra{2^{-n/2}G_r^tw} = \sum_{k=2}^\infty T_{2k}(w) \textup{ with } T_{2k}(w)=2^{-kn} \sum_{r\in E} c_{2k}\bra{G_r^t w}.
\]
We see that $T_{2k}$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $2k$ and satisfies
\[
\abs{T_{2k}(w)} \leq C2^{n(1 + k(2\eta-1))}\abs{w}^{2k}.
\]
Next, we approximate $e^{\Lambda(w)}$ by an inhomogeneous polynomial of degree $2\kappa$ composed of $\{T_{2k}\}_{k=2}^\kappa$ and their powers (as mentioned previously, the original proof of \cite{davie2014kmt} set $\kappa=2$). First note that
\begin{align*}
\abs{\sum_{k=\kappa+1}^\infty T_{2k}(w)} \leq \sum^\infty_{k=\kappa+1} \abs{T_{2k}(w)}
&\leq C \sum^\infty_{k=\kappa+1} 2^{n(1 + k(2\eta-1))}\abs{w}^{2k}\\
&= C2^n\sum^\infty_{k=\kappa+1} \bra{2^{(2\eta-1)n}\abs{w}^2}^k\\
&\leq C2^n \bra{2^{(2\eta-1)n}\abs{w}^2}^{2(\kappa+1)}\\
&= C2^{n\bra{1+2(\kappa+1)(2\eta-1)}}\abs{w}^{4(\kappa+1)}
\end{align*}
and so the simple Taylor approximation $e^x = 1+ O(x)$ for small $x\geq 0$ gives
\begin{align}
e^{\Lambda(w)}
= \prod_{k=2}^\infty e^{T_{2k}(w)}
&= \prod_{k=2}^\kappa e^{T_{2k}(w)} \cdot \exp\bra{\sum^\infty_{k=\kappa+1} T_{2k}(w)}\notag\\
&= \prod_{k=2}^\kappa e^{T_{2k}(w)} \seq{ 1 + O\bra{2^{n\bra{1+2(\kappa+1)(2\eta-1)}}\abs{w}^{4(\kappa+1)}}}.\label{e-product-big}
\end{align}
We now consider each $e^{T_{2k}(w)}$ term in the product. For each $k$ and integer $l\geq 1$,
\begin{align*}
e^{T_{2k}(w)} -1 = \sum^\infty_{i=1} \frac{1}{i!}T_{2k}(w)^i
&= \sum_{i=1}^{l}
\frac{1}{i!}T_{2k}(w)^i + O\bra{\abs{T_{2k}(w)}^{l+1}}\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{l} \frac{1}{i!}T_{2k}(w)^i + O\bra{2^{n\bra{1+k(2\eta-1)}(l+1)} \abs{w}^{2k(l+1)}}.
\end{align*}
Since $k\geq 2$, $1-k\leq -\frac{k}{2}$ then $(1+k(2\eta-1)) \leq k\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}$. Hence, if for each $k$ we choose $l_k$ to be the smallest integer such that $k(l_k+1)\geq \kappa$, we have
\begin{align}
e^{T_{2k}(w)} &= 1 + \sum^{l_k}_{i=1} \frac{1}{i!} T_{2k}(w)^i
+ O\bra{2^{nk\bra{2\eta - \frac{1}{2}}(l_k+1)}\abs{w}^{2k(l_k+1)}}\notag\\
&= 1 + \sum^{l_k}_{i=1} \frac{1}{i!} T_{2k}(w)^i
+ O\bra{2^{n\kappa\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}\abs{w}^{2\kappa}}.\label{e-little-exp}
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{e-product-big}) and (\ref{e-little-exp}), it follows that
\[
e^{\Lambda(w)} = 1 + \sum^{\kappa}_{k=2} q_{2k}(w) + O\bra{2^{n\kappa \bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}\abs{w}^{2\kappa}}
\]
for some homogeneous polynomials $\{q_{2k}\}_{k=2}^{\kappa}$, where each $q_{2k}$ has degree $2k$ and coefficients bounded by $C2^{nk \bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}$.
Consequently, setting $Q_{2\kappa}(w):= \sum^\kappa_{k=2} q_{2k}(w)$, we have
\begin{align*}
&e^{-\frac{1}{2}v^tH_E^{-1}v} \int_{\seq{\abs{u}\leq 2^{4 n\eta +1}}}
\abs{ e^{-iu^tv}\Psi\bra{u-iH_E^{-1}v} - \bra{1+Q_{2\kappa}\bra{u-iH_E^{-1}v}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}u^t H_E u}}\, du\\
&\; \; \;\gap
= e^{-\frac{1}{2}v^tH_E^{-1}v} \int_{\seq{\abs{u}\leq 2^{4 n\eta +1}}}
\abs{e^{\Lambda(u-iH_E^{-1}v)} - 1 - Q_{2\kappa}(u-iH_E^{-1}v)}e^{-\frac{1}{2}u^tH_E u}\, du\\
&\; \; \;\gap
\leq C2^{n\kappa\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}v^tH_E^{-1}v}
\int_{\seq{\abs{u}\leq 2^{4 n\eta +1}}}
e^{-\frac{1}{2}u^tH_Eu} \abs{u-iH_E^{-1}v}^{2\kappa}\, du\\
&\; \; \;\gap=
C2^{n\kappa\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}} + 8n\kappa}
= C2^{n\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}
\end{align*}
where we have used the inequality $\abs{iH_E^{-1}v} \leq \norm{H_E^{-1}}\abs{v} \leq 12\abs{v}$.
Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\int_{\seq{\abs{u}\geq 2^{4 n\eta + 1}}} \abs{1+Q_{2\kappa}(u-iH_E^{-1}v)}
e^{-\frac{1}{2}u^tH_Eu}\, du
&\leq Ce^{-2^{n\eta}}.
\end{align*}
Collecting these bounds, the lemma then follows by setting
\begin{align*}
S_{E,2k} := 2^{-nk\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}R_{E,2k}
\textup{ where }
R_{E,2k}(v):= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d_2}} q_{2k}(u-iH_E^{-1}v)e^{-\frac{1}{2}u^tH_E u}\, du,
\end{align*}
for each $k\in\{2,\ldots,\kappa\}$.
The polynomial $R_{E,2k}$ is of degree $2k$ with coefficients bounded by $C2^{nk\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}$.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the coupling construction}\label{s-coupling-proof}
We are now in a position to prove Proposition \ref{p-coupling-y-z}, which in turn establishes Theorem \ref{t-coupling}.
Throughout the proof we replace the bulky notation of $\abs{\norm{Y_E-Z_E}}_{L^p}$ with $\abs{Y_E-Z_E}_{L^p}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p-coupling-y-z}]
The idea of Davie's original proof in \cite{davie2014kmt} is to construct a coupling of $Y_E$ and $Z_E$ recursively, starting with the base case $E_0 = \{0,1,\ldots,2^m-1\}$ and proceeding by successive bisection to smaller dyadic sets.
To begin the construction, we fix a constant $\eta\in (0,\frac{1}{44})$ and let $\kappa$ be the smallest integer such that $\kappa\geq 2p$. It follows that any constant dependent upon both $\kappa$ and $p$ can be made solely dependent on $p$. Intuitively, the inequality $\kappa\geq 2p\geq 2$ makes sense. If we desire a stronger $L^p$-bound, the degree ($2\kappa$) of the polynomial approximation produced by Lemma \ref{l-davie-lemma-4-new} will have to increase.
\textbf{Initial step.}
We start the construction by finding a coupling between $Y_{E_0}$ and $Z_{E_0}$.
To this end, let $\mathcal{E}_0$ be the event $\{ \norm{G_r} \leq 2^{m\eta} : \textup{ for all } r\in E_0\}$. Note that under $\mathcal{E}_0$, $\norm{H_{E_0}} \leq 2^{2m\eta}$ (and recall that $\norm{H_{E_0}^{-1}} \leq 12$ regardless). Thus provided $\mathcal{E}_0$ holds, we apply Lemma \ref{l-davie-lemma-4-new} to find that for all $\abs{y} \leq 2^{m\eta}$,
\begin{equation}\label{e-davie-est}
\abs{\frac{f_{E_0}(y)}{\phi_{H_{E_0}}(y)} - \seq{1+r_{E_0}}(y)} \leq C_\kappa2^{m\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}},
\end{equation}
where
\[
r_{E_0}:=\sum_{k=2}^\kappa 2^{nk\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}S_{E_0,2k}.
\]
Here, each $S_{E_0,2k} \in P(\mathbb{R}^{d_2})$ is a polynomial of degree $2k$ for which the absolute values of its coefficients are bounded by some constant independent of $\eta,H_{E_0},k$.
We write $y=H_{E_0}^{1/2}u$ and define the probability density $h(u)=(\textup{det} \,H_{E_0})^{1/2} f_{E_0}(H^{1/2}_{E_0} u)$. To convince ourselves that $h$ is a probability density, we observe that the Jacobian matrix of the linear transformation $y\mapsto H_{E_0}^{-1/2}y$ is the matrix $H_{E_0}^{-1/2}$ itself and so the chain rule gives
\[
f_{E_0}(y)= \bra{\textup{det}\, H_{E_0}^{-1/2}} h\bra{H^{-1/2}_{E_0}y} =
(\textup{det}\, H_{E_0}^{1/2})^{-1} h(u)
= \bra{\textup{det}\, H_{E_0}}^{-1/2} h(u).
\]
The matrix transformation also gives
\begin{align*}
\phi_{H_{E_0}}\bra{y}
&= \bra{\textup{det} \, H_{E_0}}^{-1/2} \frac{1}{\bra{2\pi}^{d_2/2}}\exp\bra{-\frac{1}{2}y^t H_{E_0}^{-1} y}
= \bra{\textup{det} \, H_{E_0}}^{-1/2} \phi(u)
\end{align*}
and this change of variables immediately implies the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{e-great-bound}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{f_{E_0}, \phi_{H_{E_0}}} \leq \norm{H_{E_0}^{1/2}}\mathcal{W}_p\bra{h, \phi}.
\end{equation}
Setting $\mathcal{A}=\{u\in \mathbb{R}^{d_2} : \abs{H^{1/2}_{E_0}u}\leq 2^{m\eta}\}$, it follows from (\ref{e-davie-est}) that
\begin{align}
\int_{\mathcal{A}} \abs{h(u)-\seq{1+r_{E_0}\bra{H^{1/2}_{E_0}u}}\phi(u)}\, du
&\leq C_\kappa2^{m\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}} \int_{\mathcal{A}} \bra{1+\abs{u}^p} \phi(u)\, du\notag\\
&\leq C_p 2^{m\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}.\label{e-a-est}
\end{align}
The exponential tail property of the Gaussian distribution ensures
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathcal{A}^c} \bra{1+\abs{u}}^p \seq{1+r_{E_0}\bra{H^{1/2}_{E_0}u}}\phi(u)\, du
&\leq C_p \bra{1 + \norm{H_{E_0}}^{\kappa}} \int_{\mathcal{A}^c} \abs{u}^{2\kappa} \phi(u)\, du\\
&\leq C_p 2^{2m\kappa\eta} e^{-\alpha 2^{m\eta}}
\leq C_p 2^{-\beta2^{m\eta}}
\end{align*}
for some constants $\alpha>\beta>0$. Similarly, the density $h$ conditional on $\mathcal{G}$ possesses exponential tails and so
$\int_{\mathcal{A}^c} \bra{1+\abs{u}}^p h(u)\, du \leq C_p2^{-\beta 2^{m\eta}}$. Thus the integral of (\ref{e-a-est}) can be taken over all of $\mathbb{R}^{d_2}$ with the inequality remaining true.
In light of (\ref{e-a-est}), (now taken over $\mathbb{R}^{d_2}$), we now apply Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound} with $\Sigma=I_{d_2}$, $\delta=C2^{m\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}$, $K\leq C$, $n_0=2$, $n=\kappa$ and $\varepsilon=2^{m\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}$ to find that conditional of $\mathcal{E}_0$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{h,\phi} &\leq C_{\kappa,p} \bra{ 2^{2m\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}} + 2^{m\frac{\kappa}{p}\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}} + 2^{m\frac{\kappa+1}{p}\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}}
\leq C_{\kappa,p} 2^{m\bra{21\eta-1}}.
\end{align*}
Here, we have used the fact that $\frac{\kappa}{p}\geq 2$. Recalling (\ref{e-great-bound}), we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{e-new-was-bound-2}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{f_{E_0}, \phi_{H_{E_0}}} \leq \norm{H_{E_0}^{1/2}} \mathcal{W}_p\bra{h,\phi} \leq C_{\kappa,p} 2^{m\bra{22\eta-1}}
\end{equation}
since under $\mathcal{E}_0$ we have $\norm{H_{E_0}} \leq 2^{2m\eta}$.
To finish the initial step, we recall the exponential tail bounds of $\norm{G_r}^2$ given by Lemma \ref{l-h-exp-tails} to deduce that for all $\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{48d})$:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\bra{\mathcal{E}_0^c}
\leq \sum_{r\in E_0} \mathbb{P}\bra{\norm{G_r} \geq 2^{ m\eta}}
&\leq 2^m\mathbb{P}\bra{e^{\alpha\norm{G_0}^2} \geq e^{\alpha 2^{2 m\eta}}}\\
&\leq 2^m e^{-\alpha 2^{2m\eta}} \mathbb{E}\bra{e^{\alpha \norm{G_0}^2}}\\
&= C_{\alpha}\exp\bra{-\alpha 2^{2 m\eta} + m\log 2}.
\end{align*}
If $\mathcal{E}_0$ fails we simply construct independent copies of $Y_{E_0}$ and $Z_{E_0}$. Hence, from (\ref{e-new-was-bound-2}) and H\"{o}lder's inequality, we can find a coupling of $Y_{E_0}$ and $Z_{E_0}$ such that unconditionally
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} \bra{\abs{Y_{E_0}-Z_{E_0}}^p}
&\leq \mathbb{E} \bra{\abs{Y_{E_0}-Z_{E_0}}^p\textbf{\textup{1}}_{\mathcal{E}_0}} + \mathbb{E}\bra{ {\abs{Y_{E_0} + Z_{E_0}}^p}\textbf{\textup{1}}_{\mathcal{E}_0^c}}
\leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{mp\bra{22\eta-1}}
\end{align*}
for some constant $C_{\kappa,p}>0$.
\textbf{Recursive step.}
Let $E$ be a dyadic set of size $2^n$. Then we can write $E=F\cup G$ where $F$ and $G$ are disjoint dyadic sets of size $2^{n-1}$. Note that
\[
Y_F + Y_G = 2^{1/2}Y_E \textup{ and } Z_F+Z_G=2^{1/2}Z_E.
\]
We suppose a coupling between $Y_E$ and $Z_E$ has been defined, conditional on $\mathcal{G}$. In other words, for each choice of $\{W^{(j)}\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$, we have a joint distribution of $Y_E$ and $Z_E$ with the correct conditional marginal distributions. We wish to extend this coupling to a coupling between $(Y_F,Y_G)$ and $(Z_F,Z_G)$.
For each $x\in \mathbb{R}^{d_2}$, let $f_x$ denote the the density of $Y_E$ conditional on $Y_E=x$ and on $\mathcal{G}$. Similarly, let $g_x$ be the corresponding density for $Z_E$. As noted in \cite{davie2014kmt}, the conditional distribution of $Z_F$, given $Z_E=x$ and $\mathcal{G}$, is $N(Jx,H)$ where $J=H_FH_E^{-1}$ and $H=\frac{1}{2}H_FH_E^{-1}H_G$. Thus $g_x$ is the density of $N(Jx,H)$.
We need to find a coupling between $Y_F$ and $Z_F$ conditional on $Y_E=x$ and $Z_E=\tilde{x}$. To do this we need a coupling between the distributions with densities $f_x$ and $g_{\tilde{x}}$. However, we shall instead construct a coupling between $f_x$ and $g_x$, then use the fact that $g_{\tilde{x}}$ is just $g_x$ translated by $J(x-\tilde{x})$.
We begin by noting that $f_x(y)=\frac{2^{1/2}f_F(y)f_G(2^{1/2}x-y)}{f_E(x)}$. Then provided the event $\mathcal{E} = \{\norm{G_r} \leq 2^{n\frac{\eta}{2p}} : \textup{for all } r\in E\}$ holds, we apply Lemma \ref{l-davie-lemma-4-new} to each of $E,F,G$ to find:
\begin{equation}\label{e-davie-28}
\abs{\frac{f_x(y)}{g_x(y)} - \seq{1+r_x(y)}g_x(y)} \leq C_\kappa2^{n\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}} \textup{ for all } \abs{x},\abs{y} \leq 2^{n{\eta}/{p}},
\end{equation}
where $r_x(y)= r_F(y)+r_G(2^{1/2}x-y)-r_E(x)$. Note that
\[
r_E(y)=\sum^\kappa_{k=2} 2^{nk\bra{2\eta-\frac{1}{2}}} S_{E,2k},
\]
where each $S_{E,2k}\in P(\mathbb{R}^{d_2})$ is a polynomial of degree $2k$ with the absolute value of its coefficients bounded by some constant independent of $\eta,H,k$.
Corresponding decompositions and associated properties hold for $r_F$ and $r_G$.
Next, we define the set
\[
\Omega := \seq{x\in \mathbb{R}^{d_2} : \mathbb{E}\bra{\abs{Y_F}^p \textbf{\textup{1}}_{\seq{\abs{Y_F}\geq 2^{n\eta/p }}} \big| \,Y_E=x \textup{ and } \mathcal{G}} > 2^{-n\kappa/2 }}.
\]
Utilising the inequalities of Markov and H\"{o}lder gives
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\bra{Y_E\in\Omega \big| \mathcal{G}}
&\leq 2^{n\kappa/2}\mathbb{E}_\mathcal{G}\bra{\abs{Y_F}^p \textbf{\textup{1}}_{\seq{\abs{Y_F}\geq 2^{n\eta /p}}}}\\
&\leq2^{n\kappa/2 } \mathbb{E}_\mathcal{G}\bra{\abs{Y_F}^{pq}}^{1/q} \mathbb{P}\bra{\abs{Y_F}^{s} \geq 2^{n\eta \frac{s}{p}} \big| \mathcal{G}}^{1/r}\\
&\leq2^{n\kappa/2} \mathbb{E}_\mathcal{G}\bra{\abs{Y_F}^{pq}}^{1/q} 2^{-n\eta \frac{s}{pr}}\mathbb{E}_\mathcal{G}\bra{\abs{Y_F}^s}^{1/r}
\leq
C2^{n\bra{\frac{\kappa}{2}-\eta\frac{s}{pr}}} \norm{H_F}^{\frac{1}{2}(p+\frac{s}{r})}.
\end{align*}
where $s\geq 1$ and $q,r> 1$ satisfy $q^{-1}+r^{-1}=1$.
Under the assumption of $\mathcal{E}$ we have $\norm{H_F} \leq 2^{\frac{n}{2}\cdot\frac{\eta}{p}}$ (recall $F$ is of size $2^{n/2}$), and so,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\bra{Y_E \in \Omega \big| \mathcal{G}}
&\leq C2^{n\bra{\frac{\kappa}{2}-\eta\frac{s}{pr}} +\eta\frac{n}{4}\bra{1 + \frac{s}{pr}}}
= C2^{\frac{n}{4}\bra{2\kappa+\eta\bra{1-\frac{3s}{pr}}}}.
\end{align*}
Taking $s\geq \frac{pr}{3}(1+\frac{2}{\eta}(\kappa+4p))$ ensures that $\frac{n}{4}(2\kappa+\eta(1-\frac{3s}{pr})) \leq -2pn$ and we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{e-calculating-prob}
\mathbb{P}\bra{Y_E \in \Omega \big| \mathcal{G}} \leq C2^{-2np}.
\end{equation}
Define the event $\hat{\mathcal{E}}:=\mathcal{E} \cap \{Y_E \notin \Omega\}$. Note that under $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$, we have
\[
\norm{H} \leq \frac{1}{2}\norm{H_F}\norm{H_E^{-1}}\norm{H_G} \leq \frac{12}{6}\bra{2^{\frac{n}{2}\cdot \frac{\eta}{p}}}^2 = C2^{n\eta/p}.
\]
Let us write $x=Y_E$ for shorthand.
In contrast to the initial step, we cannot directly apply the polynomial perturbation result of Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound} to the conditional distribution of $Y_F$ because $g_x \sim N(Jx,H)$ is not centred. Instead, we need need to make the change of variable $y:=Jx+H^{1/2}u$, so that now we have $g_x(y)=(\textup{det}\, H)^{-1/2} \phi(u)$.
Similarly, we define $h_x(u):= (\textup{det}\, H)^{1/2}f_x(Jx+H^{1/2}u)$.
Then provided $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ holds, (\ref{e-davie-28}) implies the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathcal{A}} \bra{1+\abs{u}}^p \abs{h_x(u) - \seq{1+r_x\bra{Jx+H^{1/2}u}}\phi(u)}\, du \leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{n\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{A}=\{u\in \mathbb{R}^{d_2} : \abs{Jx+H^{1/2}u} \leq 2^{n{\eta}/{p}}\}$.
If $u\notin \mathcal{A}$, that is $\abs{y} \geq 2^{n{\eta}/{p}}$, then $\abs{H^{1/2}u} \leq 2\abs{y}$ and so $\abs{u}\leq C2^{n\frac{\eta}{2p}}\abs{y}$.
As previously argued in \cite{davie2014kmt}, using the fact that $x\notin \Omega$ under $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ it follows that
\[
\int_{\mathcal{A}^c} \bra{1+\abs{u}}^p h_x(u)\, du \leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{n\bra{\eta-\frac{\kappa}{2}}}.
\]
Moreover, the exponential tail property of the Gaussian distribution ensures that
\[
\int_{\mathcal{A}^c} \bra{1+\abs{u}}^p \abs{1 + r_x\bra{Jx+H^{1/2}u}}\phi(u)\, du \leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{-n\kappa/2}.
\]
Combining the last three estimates yields
\begin{equation*}\label{e-davie-31}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d_2}} \bra{1+\abs{u}}^p \abs{h_x(u) - \seq{1+r_x\bra{Jx+H^{1/2}u}}\phi(u)}\, du \leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{n\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}.
\end{equation*}
As in the initial case, in light of the previous estimate we apply Proposition \ref{p-poly-perturb-bound} with $\Sigma=I_{d_2}$, $\delta=C2^{n\kappa\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}$, $K\leq C$, $n_0 = 2$, $n=\kappa$ and $\varepsilon=2^{n\bra{10\eta-\frac{1}{2}}}$ to find that, conditional on $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{h_x, \phi}
&\leq C_{\kappa,p} 2^{n\bra{21\eta-1}}.
\end{align*}
Again we have used the fact $\kappa\geq 2p$. Assuming $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$, $\norm{H^{1/2}} \leq C2^{n\frac{\eta}{2p}}$ and so
\[
\mathcal{W}_p\bra{f_x,g_x} \leq \norm{H^{1/2}}\mathcal{W}_p\bra{h_x,\phi} \leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{n\bra{22\eta-1}}.
\]
As Davie writes in \cite{davie2014kmt}, the situation can be summarised as follows: conditional on $Y_E=x$ and assuming $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$, we can find a random variable $Z_F^*$ with density $g_x$ such that $\abs{Z_F^* - Y_F}_{L^p} \leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{n\bra{22\eta-1}} $. If $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ fails then we generate an independent random variable $Z^*$ with density $g_x$ and set $Z_F^*:=Z^*$.
As in the initial case, the exponential tail bounds of Lemma \ref{l-h-exp-tails} imply that $\mathbb{P}\bra{\mathcal{E}^c} \leq C2^{-2np}$ and so together with (\ref{e-calculating-prob}) we certainly have $\mathbb{P}\bra{\hat{\mathcal{E}}^c} \leq C2^{-2np}$.
Thus taking expectations over $\mathcal{G}$ and $Y_E$ and applying the tower property, we find that unconditionally,
\begin{equation}\label{e-d1}
\mathbb{E}\bra{\abs{Z_F^*-Y_F}^p} \leq C_{\kappa,p}2^{np\bra{22\eta-1}} .
\end{equation}
We can now complete the recursive step by defining
\begin{equation}\label{e-d2}
Z_F:= Z_F^* + H_F H_E^{-1} (Z_E - Y_E),
\end{equation}
which has the correct conditional density $g_{\tilde{x}}$ with $\tilde{x}=Z_E$. Then we must have $Z_G= 2^{1/2}Z_E - Z_F$. Moreover, setting $Z_F^* := 2^{1/2}Y_E - Z_F^*$, (\ref{e-d1}) and (\ref{e-d2}) hold with $F$ replaced with $G$.
\textbf{Conclusion of the proof.}
Consider a given dyadic set $E$ of size $2^n$. We can uniquely write the expansion $E=E_k \subseteq E_{k-1} \subseteq \ldots \subseteq E_0$ where $k=m-n$ and, for each $j$, $E_j$ is a dyadic set of size $2^{m-j}$. From (\ref{e-d2}) we obtain
\[
Z_E - Y_E = \sum_{j=1}^k H_{E_k}H^{-1}_{E_j} (Z^*_{E_j} - Y_{E_j}) + H_{E_k}H_{E_0}^{-1}(Z_{E_0}-Y_{E_0}).
\]
By the H\"{o}lder inequality, the exponential tail estimates of $\norm{H_E}$ and the fact that $\norm{H_E^{-1}}\leq 12$, for all $r \in [1,p)$ we have
\begin{align*}
\abs{{Z_E - Y_E}}_{L^r}
&\leq 12\sum^k_{j=1} \abs{\norm{H_{E_k}}}_{L^{q}} \abs{{Z^*_{E_j}-Y_{E_j}}}_{L^{p}} + 12\abs{\norm{H_{E_k}}}_{L^{q}}\abs{{Z_{E_0}-Y_{E_0}}}_{L^{p}}\\
&\leq C_{\kappa,p}\sum_{j=0}^k 2^{(m-j)\bra{22\eta-1}}
\leq C_{\kappa,p} 2^{(m-k)\bra{22\eta-1}} = C_{\kappa,p} 2^{n\bra{22\eta-1}}.
\end{align*}
Here, $q=\frac{pr}{p-r}$ (so that $q^{-1}+r^{-1}=1$).
Taking suitably small $\eta\in (0,\frac{1}{44})$ ensures that $22\eta-1<-\frac{1}{2}$ and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Prof.~Sandy Davie of Edinburgh for answering many questions about his original proofs in \cite{davie2014kmt, davie2014pathwise, davie2015poly}.
The research is supported by the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-IDEAS-ERC, ERC grant agreement nr. 291244).
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The polarization anisotropy and temperature inhomogeneities of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) can provide a way for exploring the physics of the early universe. The light polarization can be parameterized in terms of
the Stokes parameters ($Q, U$ and $V$). A nonzero values for $Q$ and/or $U$ show linearly polarized radiations while a circular polarized radiation has a non vanishing value for
the Stokes parameter $V$\cite{jackson}. An anisotropic Thomson scattering due to the temperature inhomogeneity around the recombination phase leads to the linear polarization about $10\%$ of CMBR
\cite{kosowsky,Hu}. Meanwhile, according to the standard model of cosmology there is no physical mechanism to
generate a circular polarized radiation at the last scattering
surface or $V=0$. However, a linearly polarized radiation through its propagation in a magnetic field can be partially circular polarized, a property known as the Faraday effect. The Stokes
parameter $V$ in this mechanism evolves as
\begin{equation}
\dot{V}=2\:U\frac{d\Delta\phi_{FC}}{dt},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\phi_{FC}$ is the Faraday conversion phase shift \cite{Cooray:2002nm}.
Linear polarization of the CMB radiation from the last scattering can be converted to the circular polarization due to effects of background fields, particle scattering and temperature fluctuations. The conversion probability of the CMB linear polarization to the circular polarization has been discussed in many papers \cite{gio1,gio2,cmbpol,Roh,xue}. Furthermore, since $Q$ and $U$ are frame-dependent, by decomposing the linear polarization into the $E$ and $B$ components one can extract more information from the polarization pattern on the sky. The Thomson scattering at the last scattering surface only produces the $E$ mode which can be converted to the $B$ mode through the vector and tensor perturbations. Meanwhile, the gravitational waves, if exist,
due to the tensor mode perturbation arising from the inflation epoch generate the B-mode polarization for
the CMB radiation.
In early 2014, the BICEP2 team announced a nonzero measurement on the B-mode polarization for
the CMB radiation as an evidence for the primordial gravitational wave\cite{BICEP2}. This result is not consistent with the Planck limit, $r<0.11 ( 98 \% CL)$. However, at this time there is no conclusive evidence of primordial gravitational waves from a joint analysis of data provided Planck and BICEP2 experiments. The recent
Bicep/Keck Array observation reported upper bounds on the tensor-to-scalar
ratio, $r_{0.05}<0.09$ and $r_{0.05}<0.07$ at $( 95\%)$ C.L. by using B-modes alone and combining the B-mode results
with Planck temperature analysis, respectively \cite{keck}. In fact, to distinguish the tensor and scalar components, a tensor-to-scalar ratio can be calculated by measuring the polarization angles on the sky, which Plank has been reported this ratio to be about $r\sim 0.12$. Therefore, to find out the contribution of the gravitational wave on the $B$-mode one should consider all contribution from the other sources. Although, in the standard model of cosmology the B-mode dose not receive contribution from the scalar mode one can consider the B-mode as a result of Faraday rotation of the E-mode polarization \cite{14,Giovannini}. Furthermore, the Compton
scattering in presence of a background can potentially lead to a B-mode polarization for the CMB even for the scalar perturbation. The contribution to the observed B-mode spectrum from the interaction between CMB photon and the Cosmic Neutrino Background(CNB) in the scalar perturbation background has been considered in \cite{roh}.
Here we would like to explore the effects of non-commutative background on the B-mode polarization.
In ref.\cite{20Tev} the energy scale of the non-commutativity of space-time has been constrained by using CMB data from PLANCK.
They find that PLANCK data put the lower bound on the non-commutativity energy scale to about
20 TeV, which is about a factor of 2 larger than the previous bound that was obtained using data from WMAP, ACBAR and CBI.\\
In this paper we study the possibility of generating circular
polarization of CMB radiation by considering Compton scattering
on Non-Commutative background. In Sec II we review the Stokes
parameters and Boltzmann equation formalism. In Sec. III we give a
brief introduction on Non-Commutative standard model. In Sec. IV
the time evolution of Stokes parameters by using the scalar mode
perturbation of metric and the generation of circular polarization
on NonCommutative space is computed. Then We calculate circular,
E- and B- modes spectrum of CMB. By comparing our results with
experimental data the lower limit of non-commutative energy scale
is obtained.
\section{Stokes parameters and Boltzmann equation}
For a monochromatic electromagnetic wave propagating in the $\hat{z}$ direction, the electric field components can be given as
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{x}=a_{x}\cos(\omega t-\theta_{x}), \hspace{2cm} E_{y}=a_{x}\cos(\omega t-\theta_{y}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_{x}$ and $a_{y}$ are the amplitudes and $\theta_{x}$ and $\theta_{y}$ are the phase angles.
The electromagnetic field can be parameterized in terms of the Stokes parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
I=\langle a_{x}^{2}\rangle+\langle a_{y}^{2}\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
which is the total intensity and
\begin{eqnarray}
Q=\langle a_{x}^{2}\rangle-\langle a_{y}^{2}\rangle,\hspace{1cm} ; \hspace{1cm} U=\langle 2a_{x}a_{y}\cos(\theta_{x}-\theta_{y})\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
for the linear polarization. $Q$ and $U$ are defined as the difference in brightness between the two linear polarization at $90^{o}$ and $45^{o}$, respectively, and the circular polarization is
\begin{eqnarray}
V=\langle 2a_{x}a_{y}\sin(\theta_{x}-\theta_{y})\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
One can see that under a right handed rotation of the coordinate axes perpendicular to the direction $\hat{n}$ on the sky, $Q$ and $U$ with a rotation's angle $\psi$ transform to
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
Q'=Q\cos(2\psi)+U\sin(2\psi),
\nonumber
\\
&&
U'=-Q\sin(2\psi)+U\cos(2\psi),
\end{eqnarray}
and the Stokes parameters $I$ and $V$ remain unchanged.
The density matrix in terms of the Stokes parameters is defined as
\begin{equation}
\rho=\frac{1}{2}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I+Q & U-iV\\
U+iV & I-Q \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
Meanwhile, a system of photons can be described by the density operator \cite{kosowsky}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat\rho=\frac{1}{\rm {tr}(\hat \rho)}\int\frac{d^3 \textbf k}{(2\pi)^3}
\rho_{ij}(\textbf k)a^\dagger_i(\textbf k)a_j(\textbf k),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{ij}(\textbf k)$ is the general density-matrix which is related to the photon number operator $D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)\equiv a_i^\dag (\textbf k)a_j(\textbf k)$.
The canonical commutation relations of the creation and annihilation operators for photons and electrons are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{commutation}
&&
[a_s(p),a_{s'}^\dagger(p')]=2\pi^32p^0\delta^3(\bold p-\bold p')\delta_{ss'},
\nonumber
\\
&&
\{b_r(q),b_{r'}^\dagger(q')\}=2\pi^3\frac{q^0}{m}\delta^3(\bold q-\bold q')\delta_{rr'},
\label{comm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $s$ and $r$ show the photon polarization and electron spin while the bold and plain momenta represent the three dimensional vectors and the four-momentum vectors, respectively. For the expectation value of the number operator one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\, D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)\,\rangle\equiv {\rm tr}[\hat\rho
D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)]=(2\pi)^3 \delta^3(0)(2k^0)\rho_{ij}(\textbf k),\label{t1}
\end{eqnarray}
and in the Heisenberg picture, the time evolution of the operator $D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)$ can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)= i[H,D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)],\label{heisen}
\end{equation}
where $H$ is the total Hamiltonian. Therefore, the time evolution of the density-matrix can be written as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bo}
\hspace{-1cm}
(2\pi)^3 \delta^3(0)(2k^0)
\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{ij}(\textbf k)& =& i\langle \left[H^0_I
(t);D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)\right]\rangle \\ \nonumber
& &-\frac{1}{2}\int dt\langle
\left[H^0_I(t);\left[H^0_I
(0);D^0_{ij}(\textbf k)\right]\right]\rangle,
\hspace{1cm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H^0_I(t)$ is the interacting
Hamiltonian at the lowest order. The first term on the right-hand side of (\ref{bo}) is a forward scattering term that is called
damping term, while the second term is the higher order collision term. To calculate the right hand side of (\ref{bo}) one needs the operator expectation values as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle a_1a_2...b_1b_2...\rangle=\langle a_1a_2...\rangle \langle b_1b_2...\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where for the two point functions using the the commutation relations (\ref{commutation}) one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle a_{m}^\dagger(p')a_n(p)\rangle=2p^0(2\pi)^3\delta^3(\bold p-\bold p')\rho_{mn}(\bold p),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\langle b_{m}^\dagger(q')b_n(q)\rangle=\frac{q^0}{m}(2\pi)^3\delta^3(\bold q-\bold q')\delta_{mn}\frac{1}{2}n_f(\bold q),
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_f(\textbf q)$ represents the number density of fermions (electrons and protons) with momentum $\textbf q$ per unit volume. Meanwhile, the distribution of fermions in the $x$ space are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{nd-n0}
n_f(\mathbf{x})=\int \frac{d^3 \bf{q}}{(2\pi)^3} \,\,n_f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{q}),\quad m_fv_i(\mathbf{x})n_f(\mathbf{x})=\int\frac{ d^3\bf{q} }{(2\pi)^3}\, q_i\,n_f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{q}).
\end{equation}
\section{Noncommutative standard model}
The noncommutative space-time is one of the consequence of the string theory.
Indeed, as is predicted in \cite{ardalan} and shown by Seiberg and
Witten \cite{seiberg}, endpoints on D-branes in a constant B-field
background live on a noncommutative space-time. In the canonical form one has
\begin{equation}
\theta^{\mu\nu}=-i\left[\hat{x}^\mu,\hat{x}^\nu\right],
\end{equation}
where $\theta^{\mu\nu}$ is a real, constant and antisymmetric
matrix; $\theta^{\mu \nu} \propto 1/\Lambda^2_{\tiny{NC}}$, and
$\Lambda_{\tiny{NC}}$ is the noncommutative scale. The noncommutative parameter, $\theta^{\mu\nu}$, can be divided into two parts:
the time-space components $(\theta^{01},\theta^{02},\theta^{03})$ which denote the electric-like part and the magnetic-like
part which contains the space-space components
$(\theta^{23},\theta^{31},\theta^{12})$. To construct noncommutative filed theories, one should replace
the ordinary products between fields in the corresponding commutative versions with the Moyal-$\star$
product which is defined as follows
\begin{equation}
(f\star
g)(x)=f(x)\exp(\frac{i}{2}\overleftarrow{\partial_\mu}
\theta^{\mu\nu}\overrightarrow {\partial_\nu})g(x).
\label{a3}
\end{equation}
By applying this correspondence, there would be two approaches to
construct the noncommutative standard model. The first one is based on the Moyal-$\star$ product and the Seiberg-Witten maps in which the gauge group is $SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$, the number of
particles and gauge fields are the same as the ordinary standard
model\cite{Calmet}. Furthermore, matter fields, gauge fields and gauge parameters should be expanded via the Seiberg-Witten map as a power series of $\theta$\cite{Calmet} in terms of the commutative fields as
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{\psi}&=&\psi+\frac{1}{2}\theta_{\mu\nu}A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}\psi+\mathcal{O}(\theta^2), \\ \nonumber
\widehat{A}_{\mu}&=&A_{\mu}+\frac{1}{4}\theta^{\rho\nu}\{A_{\nu},(\partial_{\rho}A_{\mu}+F_{\rho\mu})\}+\mathcal{O}(\theta^2),\\ \nonumber
\widehat{\Lambda}&=&\Lambda+\frac{1}{4}\theta^{\mu\nu}\{A_{\nu},\partial_{\mu}\Lambda\}+\mathcal{O}(\theta^2),
\label{gaie}
\end{eqnarray}
Where the hats show the noncommutative fields which reduce to their counterparts in the ordinary space in the limit $\theta \rightarrow 0$.\\
In the second approach the noncommutative fields and the ordinary fields are the same while the gauge group is $U(3)\times U(2)\times U(1)$ which is reduced
to $SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ by an appropriate symmetry breaking\cite{ncf2}.
In the both versions, besides corrections on the usual standard model interactions, many new interactions would appear. For instance, in the QED part of the NCSM through the first approach there is a correction on the photon-fermion vertex $ff\gamma$ that can be derived up to the first order of $\theta$ as \cite{melic}
\\
\\
\begin{picture}(55,45) (30,-30)
\SetWidth{0.5}
\ArrowLine(30,-30)(50,-10)
\ArrowLine(50,-10)(30,11)
\Photon(80,-10)(50,-10){2}{4}
\Vertex(50,-10){1.5}
\Text(40,11)[lb]{$f$}
\Text(40,-40)[lb]{$f$}
\Text(75,-5)[lb]{$A_{\mu}(k)$}
\end{picture}
\\
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{i \, e \, Q_{f}\,
\left[
\gamma_{\mu}
- \frac{i}{2} \, k^{\nu}
\left( \theta_{\mu \nu \rho}
\, p_{\mbox{\tiny in}}^{\rho}-
\theta_{\mu \nu}\, m_f\,\right)
\right]}
\nonumber \\[0.2cm]
& = &
i \, e \, Q_{f}\,
\gamma_{\mu}
\nonumber \\
& &
+ \frac{1}{2} \, e \, Q_{f}\,
\left[
(p_{\mbox{\tiny out}} \theta p_{\mbox{\tiny in}}) \gamma_\mu
-
(p_{\mbox{\tiny out}}\theta)_\mu(\slash \!\!\! p_{\mbox{\tiny in}}-m_f)
-
(\slash \! \! \! p_{\mbox{\tiny out}}-m_f)(\theta p_{\mbox{\tiny in}})_\mu
\right]\,.
\nonumber \\
\label{eq:ffgamma}
\end{eqnarray}
Meanwhile, in the noncommutative QED there are vertices which have not any counterpart in the ordinary QED. For example, two photons can directly couple to two fermions in NC space as follows
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\begin{picture}(55,45) (30,-30)
\SetWidth{0.5}
\ArrowLine(30,-30)(50,-10)
\ArrowLine(50,-10)(30,11)
\Photon(70,-30)(50,-10){2}{4}
\Photon(70,11)(50,-10){2}{4}
\Vertex(50,-10){1.5}
\Text(40,11)[lb]{$f$}
\Text(40,-40)[lb]{$f$}
\Text(77,-40)[lb]{$A_{\nu}(p)$}
\Text(77,8)[lb]{$A_{\mu}(p')$}
\end{picture}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{-\,e^2\, Q^2_f}{2} \,
\theta_{\mu\nu\rho} \, (p'^{\rho}-p^{\rho}) \,,
\label{eq:ffgammagamma}
\end{eqnarray}\\
\\
\\
where photons momenta are taken to be incoming and $\theta^{\mu
\nu \rho}$ is a totally antisymmetric quantity which is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta^{\mu \nu \rho}=
\theta^{\mu \nu} \gamma^{\rho}
+ \theta^{\nu \rho} \gamma^{\mu}
+ \theta^{\rho \mu} \gamma^{\nu}\,.
\label{eq:theta3}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Compton scattering in NC space-time}
The photons in the cosmic Microwave background can be scattered from all charged
particles with the scattering rate proportional to the
inverse mass squared. Therefore, in the ordinary space as a good approximation the Compton scattering on the
electrons is usually considered. There are 5 diagrams in the NCSM to describe the Compton scattering on noncommutative
space-time. By replacing the ordinary couplings with the NC vertices, four diagrams can be obtained which is shown in Fig \ref{Compton}. The fifth diagram in which two fermions directly couple to two photons is given in (\ref{eq:ffgammagamma}). Therefore, the amplitude of the Compton scattering in the NCQED can be given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{M_{NCQED}}=\mathcal{M_{QED}}+\mathcal{M}^{\theta},
\label{mnc}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
i \mathcal{M}^{\theta}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&=i\mathcal{M}^{\theta}_1+i\mathcal{M}^{\theta}_2+i\mathcal{M}^{\theta}_3
+i\mathcal{M}^{\theta}_4+i\mathcal{M}^{\theta}_5 \nonumber\\&&=\frac{\:e^2Q_f^2}{4p\cdot
q}\bar{u}_{\acute{r}}(q')\Big[\Big(\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}\!\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(\acute{p})\acute{q}\cdot\theta\cdot
(q+p)-\acute{q}\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}(\acute{p})\acute{p}\!\!\!\!/\:\Big)(q\!\!\!/+p\!\!\!/+m_f)\varepsilon_{s}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(p)\nonumber\\&&+
\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}\!\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(\acute{p})(q\!\!\!/+p\!\!\!/+m_f)\Big(\varepsilon_{s}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(p)(q+p)\cdot\theta\cdot
q -q\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{s}(p)p\!\!\!/\:\Big)\Big]u_{r}(q)\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\:e^2Q_f^2}{4\acute{p}\cdot
q}\bar{u}_{\acute{r}}(\acute{q})\Big[\Big(\varepsilon_{s}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(p)\acute{q}\cdot\theta\cdot
(q-\acute{p})+\acute{q}\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{s}(p)p\!\!\!/\:\Big)(q\!\!\!/-p'\!\!\!\!/+m)\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}\!\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(\acute{p})\nonumber\\&&+
\varepsilon_{s}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(p)(q\!\!\!/-\acute{p}\!\!\!\!/+m_f)\Big(\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}\!\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(\acute{p})(q-\acute{p})\cdot\theta\cdot
q +q\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}(\acute{p})\acute{p}\!\!\!/\:\Big)\Big]u_{r}(q)\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{e^2Q_f^2}{2} \bar{u}_{\acute{r}}(q') \varepsilon_{\acute{s}}^\mu (p') (p+p')^\rho \theta_{\mu\nu\rho} \varepsilon_s ^\nu (p) u_r(q),
\label{m} \end{eqnarray}
and $p\cdot\theta\cdot q\equiv p_{\mu}\theta^{\mu\nu}q_{\nu}$. Now the leading-order interacting Hamiltonian can be obtained as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
H^0_I &=& \int d\mathbf{q} d\mathbf{q'} d\mathbf{p} d\mathbf{p'} (2\pi)^3\delta^3(\mathbf{q'} +\mathbf{p'} -\mathbf{p} -\mathbf{q} ) \nonumber \\
&\times& \exp[it(q'^0+p'^0-q^0-p^0)]\left[b^\dagger_{r'}a^{\dagger}_{s'}(\mathcal{M^{\theta}})a_sb_r\right],\label{h0}
\label{H}
\end{eqnarray}
where $d\mathbf{q}\equiv \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{m_f}{q^0}$ and $d\mathbf{p}\equiv \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^32p^0}$, and the similar expressions for $d\mathbf{p'}$ and $d\mathbf{q'}$, respectively.\\
\begin{figure}
\begin{picture}(55,45) (30,-30)
\SetWidth{0.5}
\hspace{-.5cm}
\Photon(50,-25)(75,-50){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(50,-75)(75,-50)
\Vertex(75,-50){2.0}
\ArrowLine(75,-50)(105,-50)
\Photon(105,-50)(130,-25){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(105,-50)(130,-75)
\Text(45,-70)[lb]{$q$}
\Text(45,-40)[lb]{$p$}
\Text(80,-70)[lb]{$q+p$}
\Text(127,-40)[lb]{$p'$}
\Text(127,-70)[lb]{$q'$}
\end{picture}
\hspace*{1.25cm}
\begin{picture}(55,45) (30,-30)
\SetWidth{0.5}
\Photon(50,-25)(75,-50){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(50,-75)(75,-50)
\Vertex(105,-50){2.0}
\ArrowLine(75,-50)(105,-50)
\Photon(105,-50)(130,-25){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(105,-50)(130,-75)
\Text(45,-70)[lb]{$q$}
\Text(45,-40)[lb]{$p$}
\Text(80,-70)[lb]{$q+p$}
\Text(127,-40)[lb]{$p'$}
\Text(127,-70)[lb]{$q'$}
\end{picture}
\hspace*{1.25cm}
\begin{picture}(55,45) (30,-30)
\SetWidth{0.5}
\Photon(110,-30)(75,-50){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(50,-75)(75,-50)
\Vertex(75,-50){2.0}
\ArrowLine(75,-50)(110,-50)
\Photon(110,-50)(75,-30){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(110,-50)(135,-75)
\Text(45,-70)[lb]{$q$}
\Text(65,-40)[lb]{$p$}
\Text(80,-70)[lb]{$q-p'$}
\Text(115,-40)[lb]{$p'$}
\Text(130,-70)[lb]{$q'$}
\end{picture}
\hspace*{1.25cm}
\begin{picture}(55,45) (30,-30)
\SetWidth{0.5}
\Photon(110,-30)(75,-50){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(50,-75)(75,-50)
\Vertex(110,-50){2.0}
\ArrowLine(75,-50)(110,-50)
\Photon(110,-50)(75,-30){2}{7}
\ArrowLine(110,-50)(135,-75)
\Text(45,-70)[lb]{$q$}
\Text(65,-40)[lb]{$p$}
\Text(80,-70)[lb]{$q-p'$}
\Text(115,-40)[lb]{$p'$}
\Text(130,-70)[lb]{$q'$}
\end{picture}
\vspace*{1.75cm}
\caption{Compton scattering in NC space}
\label{Compton}
\end{figure}
\section{Density matrix elements and CMB Polarization on NC space-time}
In the preceding section we found the amplitude for the Compton scattering in the NCQED. Now substituting the NC interacting Hamiltonian ($\ref{H}$) in ($\ref{bo}$) leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
i\left<[\mathcal{\hat H}_{int}(0),\mathcal{D}_{ij}(\textbf{k})]\right>\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&=-\frac{e^2Q_f^2}{2}\:\delta^{3}(0)\int
d\textbf{q}\:(2\pi)^3 n_f(\textbf{x},\textbf{q})(\delta_{is}\rho_{s'j}(\textbf{k})-\delta_{js'}\rho_{is}(\textbf{k}))\nonumber\\&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\times
\bar{u}_{r}(q)\{ \frac{1}{4 k\cdot q} \Big[q.\theta.\varepsilon_{s'}(k)\Big(k\!\!\!\!/\:\:(q\!\!\!/+k\!\!\!/+m_f)\varepsilon_{s}(k)\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:
+\varepsilon_{s}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(k)(q\!\!\!/-k\!\!\!/+m_f)
k\!\!\!/\Big)\nonumber\\&&
\hspace{-3cm}+q.\theta.\varepsilon_{s}(k)\Big(\varepsilon_{s'}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(k)(q\!\!\!/+k\!\!\!/+m_f)
k\!\!\!/+k\!\!\!\!/\:\:(q\!\!\!/-k\!\!\!/+m_f)\varepsilon_{s'}(k)\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:\Big)
\Big] \nonumber\\&& \hspace{-3cm} + \Big[\varepsilon_{s'}(k)\cdot
\theta\cdot \varepsilon_s(k)\:\: k\!\!\!\!/\:\:- k \cdot\theta \cdot
\epsilon_s(k) \:\:\varepsilon_{s'}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(k)\!\!\!\!\!\:\:\: + k
\cdot\theta \cdot \varepsilon_{s'}(k)
\:\:\varepsilon_{s}\!\!\!\!\!/\:\:(k)\Big] \}u_{r}(q). \hspace{1cm}\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the time evaluation of the density matrix after a little algebra can be obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}{\rho}_{ij}(\textbf{k})=-\frac{e^2Q_f^2}{4m_fk^0}\int d\textbf{q}
\:n_f(\textbf{x},\textbf{q})(\delta_{is}
\rho_{\acute{s}j}-\delta_{j\acute{s}}
\rho_{is})\Big(A+B\Big),
~~~~~~~~\label{rho01} \end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A=q\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}~q\cdot\varepsilon_{s}+q\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{s}~q\cdot\varepsilon_{\acute{s}},\label{A}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
B= \Big(\varepsilon_{s'}(k)\cdot \theta\cdot
\varepsilon_s(k)\:\: k\cdot q - k \cdot \theta\cdot
\varepsilon_{s}(k)\:\: \varepsilon_{s'}(k).q + k\cdot \theta\cdot
\varepsilon_{s'}(k)\:\: \varepsilon_{s}(k).q \Big).\label{B}
\end{eqnarray}
It should be noted that $A$ and $B$ are related to the NC contribution on
the time evaluation of the density matrix from the vertices given in (\ref{eq:ffgamma} ) and
(\ref{eq:ffgammagamma}), respectively. As we show below the first contribution depends on the time-like component of the NC
parameter $\theta^{0i}$ while the second contribution depends on the
space-like component of the NC parameter
$\theta^{ij}$. To this end we individually evaluate the contribution of each part on the time evolution of the stokes parameters as follows\\
{\bf{Part A:}}
For the $A$ term of (\ref{rho01}) which is due to the diagrams given in Fig.(\ref{Compton}) the time evolution of the density matrix is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}{\rho}_{ij}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&&=
-\frac{e^2Q_f^2}{4m_fk^0}\int d\textbf{q}
\:n_f(\textbf{x},\textbf{q})(\delta_{is} \rho_{\acute{s}j}-\delta_{j\acute{s}} \rho_{is})A.
~~~~~~~~\label{rho1}
\end{eqnarray}
By using Eq.(\ref{nd-n0}) and assuming
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta^{01}=\theta^{02}=\theta^{03}=\frac{1}{\Lambda^2},\,\,\,\,\,\hat{\theta}^{0i}=\Lambda^2\theta^{0i},\label{ass1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta^{ij}=\frac{1}{\Lambda^2},\,\,\,\,\,\hat{\theta}^{ij}=\Lambda^2\theta^{ij},\label{ass1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta^{ij}$ ; $i,j\in \{1,2,3\}$ are the space-like components of the NC-parameter, one can rewrite (\ref{rho1}) as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}{\rho}_{ij}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&=&
\frac{e^2Q_f^2}{4}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{1}{\Lambda^2}
\:\bar{n}_f(\textbf{x})(\delta_{is} \rho_{\acute{s}j}-\delta_{j\acute{s}} \rho_{is})\nonumber\\
&\times&\Big[
\,\Big(\hat{\theta}^{0i}\varepsilon_{\acute{s}i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_{s}+\hat{\theta}^{0i}\varepsilon_{si}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big(\varepsilon_{s}\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}+\varepsilon_{\acute{s}}\cdot\theta\cdot\varepsilon_{s}\Big)
+\bigcirc(v_f^2)\Big],~~~~~~~~\label{rho2} \end{eqnarray}
where the polarization four-vectors $\varepsilon_{\mu i}(k)$ with $i, j, s$ and $s'$ run over $1,
2$, represent two transverse polarization of photon,
$\bar{n}_f$ represents the number density of Fermions and $v_f$
is the Fermion bulk velocity which is a small quantity. Note that the first term in the third line of (\ref{rho2}) vanishes due to the anti-symmetric property of
$\theta$ and the second one depends on $v_f^2$ which is negligible in comparison with the first term. Therefore, the time
derivative of the components of the density matrix can be cast into
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{11}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&&=
\frac{3}{8}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\bar{n}_f\,\hat{\theta}^{0i}\,
\Big(\,\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2\Big)(\rho_{21}-\rho_{12}),\label{rho11}\\
\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{22}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&&=\frac{3}{8}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\bar{n}_f\,\hat{\theta}^{0i}
\Big(\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2\Big)(\rho_{12}-\rho_{21}),\label{rho22}\\
\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{12}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&&=
\frac{3}{8}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\bar{n}_f\,\hat{\theta}^{0i}\,
\Big(2(\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2)\rho_{12}
\nonumber\\&& \hspace{-1.5cm}
-(\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2)\rho_{11}
+(\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1
+\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2)\rho_{22}\Big)\label{ro1},\hspace{1cm},\label{rho12}\\
\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{21}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&&=-\frac{3}{8}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}
\,\bar{n}_f\,\hat{\theta}^{0i}\,
\Big(2(\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2)\rho_{21}\nonumber\\&&
\hspace{-1.5cm}
-(\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2)\rho_{11}
+(\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1
+\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2)\rho_{22}\Big)\label{ro2},
\hspace{1cm}\label{rho21}\end{eqnarray}
where $m_e$ is the mass of electron,
$\sigma^T$ is the Thomson cross section, $\alpha=e^2/4\pi$ and
$Q_f^2=1$. Using the density operator matrix elements, time
variation of the stokes parameters, linear polarization intensities $Q$ and $U$ and the difference between the left and right handed polarization $V$ in the NC space can be obtained as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\dot{V}(\textbf{k})=i\frac{3}{4}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\bar{n}_f(CQ+DU),\label{V}
\\
&&
\dot{Q}(\textbf{k})=i\frac{3}{4}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\bar{n}_f(-CV),\label{Q}
\\
&&
\dot{U}(\textbf{k})=i\frac{3}{4}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\bar{n}_f(-DV);\label{U}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
C = -\hat\theta^{0i}\Big(\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_{2} + \varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_{1}\Big),
\nonumber
\\
&&
D = \hat\theta^{0i}\Big(\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_{1} - \varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_{2}\Big) .\label{CD}
\end{eqnarray}
These equations show that the contribution of the $A$ term on the time evolution of the stokes parameters depends on the mass and
bulk velocity of Fermion and the time-like components of the NC-parameter $\theta^{0i}$ and as is already claimed there is not any contribution from the space-space part of the NC-parameter. In contrast with the usual Compton
scattering which has a larger cross section for the particles with lower masses the evolution of the stokes parameters in the NC space are directly proportional to the Fermion masses which leads to the larger values for the
scattering from Fermions with larger masses, see (\ref{V}-\ref{U}). In fact, since
the average number of electrons
$\bar{n}_e$ approximately equals to the average number of protons $\bar{n}_p$ due to electric neutrality in cosmology, in the NC space-time the contribution of photon-proton forward scattering is larger
than photon-electron scattering on the evolution of the Stokes parameters by a factor $m_p/m_e$.
Nevertheless,
to have any significant effects from the $A$ term on the CMB polarization, the factor
$\frac{3}{8}\frac{m_f}{k^0}\frac{1}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}$ should be comparable to one. It should be noted that $\frac{m_f}{k^0}$ is much larger than unity which can compensate the smallness of $\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}$.
{\bf Part B:}
For the $B$ term of (\ref{rho01}) which is coming from the direct vertex (\ref{eq:ffgammagamma}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}{\rho}_{11}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&&= - \frac{d}{dt}{\rho}_{22}(\textbf{k})=
-\frac{e^2}{4m_f k^0}\int d\textbf{q}
\:n_f(\textbf{x},\textbf{q})~ (\rho_{12}(\textbf{k})+\rho_{21}(\textbf{k}))\times
\nonumber\\&&
\Big[\varepsilon_{2}(k)\cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_1(k)\:\: k\cdot q - k \cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_{1}(k)\:\: \varepsilon_{2}(k)\cdot q
+ k\cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_{2}(k)\:\: \varepsilon_{1}(k)\cdot q
\Big],\nonumber\\
\frac{d}{dt}{\rho}_{12}(\textbf{k})\!\!\!\!\!\!&& = \frac{d}{dt}{\rho}_{21}(\textbf{k})=
-\frac{e^2}{4m_fk^0}\int d\textbf{q}
\:n_f(\textbf{x},\textbf{q}) ~(\rho_{22}(\textbf{k})-\rho_{11}(\textbf{k})),\label{SL-rho}\\&&
\Big[\varepsilon_{2}(k)\cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_1(k)\:\: k\cdot q - k \cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_{1}(k)\:\: \varepsilon_{2}(k)\cdot q
+ k\cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_{2}(k)\:\: \varepsilon_{1}(k)\cdot q
\Big],\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which after some calculations, lead to
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{I}(\textbf{k})&=&0,~~~~~~~~~~~\dot{V}(\textbf{k})=0,\nonumber\\
\dot{Q}(\textbf{k}) \pm i~\dot{U}(\textbf{k}))&=& \pm ~ 2~i~F~(Q(\textbf{k}) \pm i~U(\textbf{k})),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
F &=& \sigma|_{_{NC dv}}\,\bar{n}_f\,\,
\Big\{\hat{\theta}^{0i} \Big(\,\varepsilon_{1i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_{2i}~v_f\cdot\varepsilon_1\Big)
\nonumber\\
&+& \hat{\theta}^{ij}\big[\varepsilon_{2}\cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_1(k)\:\: (1 - v_f \cdot \hat{k}) + \hat{k} \cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_{1}\:\: v_f\cdot \varepsilon_{2}
- \hat{k}\cdot \theta\cdot \varepsilon_{2}\:\: v_f\cdot \varepsilon_{1} \big]\Big\},
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma|_{_{NC dv}}=\frac{3}{8}\frac{\sigma_T}{\alpha}\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the time evolution of the stokes parameters depend on the space-space part of the NC-parameter as well. However, in order to have any significant effect on the CMB polarization, the value of $\sigma|_{_{NC dv}}$ should be comparable to $\sigma_{T}$. For the photon-proton scattering one has
\begin{equation}\label{dirct-vertex1}
\sigma|_{_{NC dv}}/\sigma_{T}\propto\frac{1}{\alpha}(\frac{m_e}{\Lambda})^2< 10^{-10}(\frac{TeV}{\Lambda})^2,
\end{equation}
which is too small to be considered. Therefore, we can neglect the $B$ term with respect to the $A$ term to evaluating the CMB
polarization in the next sections.
\section{Time-evolution of polarized CMB photons}
In this section we expand the primordial scalar perturbations $(S)$ in the Fourier modes which is characterized by a wave-number $\mathbf{K}$. For a given
Fourier mode $\mathbf{K}$, one can select a coordinate system
where $\mathbf{K} \parallel \hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and
$(\hat{\mathbf{e}}_1,\hat{\mathbf{e}}_2)=(\hat{\mathbf{e}}_\theta,
\hat{\mathbf{e}}_\phi)$. We consider the electron and baryon
bulk velocity directions as $\vec{v}_e =\vec{v}_b \parallel
\mathbf{K}$ and the photon polarization vectors are taken to be
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\hat{\varepsilon}_{1x}=\cos{\theta}\cos{\varphi},
\hspace{0.2cm}
\hat{\varepsilon}_{1y}=\cos{\theta}\sin{\varphi},
\hspace{0.2cm}
\hat{\varepsilon}_{1z}=-\sin{\theta},
\nonumber
\\
&&
\hat{\varepsilon}_{2x}=-\sin{\varphi},
\hspace{0.2cm}
\hat{\varepsilon}_{2y}=\cos{\varphi},
\hspace{0.2cm}
\hat{\varepsilon}_{2z}=0.\label{condition}
\end{eqnarray}
Meanwhile, temperature anisotropy (I) and
polarization (Q,U) of the CMB radiation can be expanded in an
appropriate spin-weighted basis as follows\cite{zal}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\Delta^{(S)}_{I}(\mathbf{K},\mathbf{k},\tau)=\sum_{\ell m}a_{\ell m}(\tau,K)Y_{lm}(\mathbf{n}),\label{AA0}\\
&&
\Delta^{\pm (S)}_{P}(\mathbf{K},\mathbf{k},\tau)=\sum_{\ell m}a_{\pm2,\ell m}(\tau,K) _{\pm2}Y_{lm}(\mathbf{n}),\label{AA}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta^{(S)}_I(\mathbf{K},\mathbf{k},\tau)=\left(4k\frac{\partial I_0}{\partial k}\right)^{-1} \Delta^{(S)}_ I(\mathbf{K},\mathbf{k},t),\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)}=Q^{(S)}\pm iU^{(S)}.
\end{eqnarray}
For each plane wave, the scattering can be described as the
transport through a plane parallel medium \cite{chandra,kaiser}, which leads to the
Boltzmann equations as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{d}{d\eta}\Delta_I^{(S)} +iK\mu \Delta_I^{(S)}+4[\dot{\psi}-iK\mu \varphi]
=C^I_{e\gamma} , \label{Boltzmann}\\
&&\frac{d}{d\eta}\Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)} +iK\mu \Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)} = C^\pm_{e\gamma}- \, iv_b\kappa_{NC}^{\pm}\,\Delta _{V}^{(S)},\label{Boltzmann0}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{d\eta}\Delta _{V}^{(S)} +iK\mu \Delta _{V}^{(S)} = C^V_{e\gamma}+ i\frac{v_b}{2}\Big[\kappa_{NC}^{-}\,\Delta _{P}^{+(S)}+\kappa_{NC}^{+}\,\Delta _{P}^{-(S)}\Big],
\label{Boltzmann1}
\end{eqnarray}
here $C^I_{e\gamma}$, $C^\pm_{e\gamma}$ and $C^V_{e\gamma}$ indicate the contributions from the usual
photon-electron Compton scattering to the time evaluation of $I$,
$\Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)}$ and $V$ parameters,
respectively, their expressions can
be found for example in
\cite{kosowsky,zal,hu}. In (\ref{Boltzmann}-\ref{Boltzmann1}) $\mu=\hat{\bf n}\cdot
\hat{\mathbf{K}}=\cos\theta$, $\theta$ is the angle between the direction of the CMB photon $\hat{\bf n}={\bf k}/|{\bf k}|$ and the wave-vectors $\mathbf{K}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{kappa}
\kappa_{NC}=a(\eta)\frac{3}{4}\frac{\sigma^T}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\bar{n}_e\sum_{f=e,p}\frac{m_f}{k^0},\,\,\,\,\,\,
\kappa_{NC}^{\pm}=\kappa_{NC}(C\pm iD),
\end{equation}
where $C$ and $D$ are given in (\ref{CD}) and $a(\eta)$ is the normalized scaling factor. The values of
$\Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)}(\hat{n})$ and $\Delta _{V}^{(S)}$ at
the present time $\tau_0$ and the direction $\hat{n}$ are obtained by integrating the Boltzmann equation (\ref{Boltzmann1}) along the line of sight \cite{zal} and summing over all the Fourier modes $K$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)}(\hat{\bf{n}})
&=&\int d^3 \bf{K} \xi(\bf{K})e^{\pm2i\phi_{K,n}}\Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)}
(\mathbf{K},\mathbf{k},\tau),\,\,\,\,\,\label{Boltzmann03}\\
\Delta _{V}^{ (S)}(\hat{\bf{n}})
&=&\int d^3 \bf{K} \xi(\bf{K})\Delta _{V}^{(S)}
(\mathbf{K},\mathbf{k},\tau),\,\,\,\,\,\label{Boltzmann3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_{K,n}$ is the angle needed to
rotate the $\bf{K}$ and $\hat{\bf{n}}$ dependent basis to a fixed
frame in the sky, $\xi(\bf{K})$ is a random variable using to
characterize the initial amplitude of the mode, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta _{P}^{\pm (S)}
(\mathbf{K},\mu,\tau_0)&=&\int_0^{\tau_0} d\tau\,\dot\tau_{e\gamma}\,
e^{ix \mu -\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\,\Big[ {3 \over 4}(1-\mu^2)\Pi(K,\tau)\nonumber\\
&-& iv_b\frac{\kappa_{NC}^{\pm}}{\dot\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\Delta _{V}^{(S)}\Big],
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta _{V}^{(S)}
(\mathbf{K},\mu,\tau_0)&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{\tau_0} d\tau\,
\dot\tau_{e\gamma}\,e^{ix \mu -\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\,\Big[ 3\mu\Delta _{V1}^{(S)}\nonumber\\
&+&iv_b(\frac{\kappa_{NC}^{-}}{\dot\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\Delta _{P}^{+(S)}+\frac{\kappa_{NC}^{+}}{\dot\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\Delta _{P}^{-(S)})\Big],\nonumber\\
&\approx&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{\tau_0} d\tau\,
\dot\tau_{e\gamma}\,e^{ix \mu -\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\,\Big[ 3\mu\Delta _{V1}^{(S)}+2iv_b\,C\,\frac{\kappa_{NC}}{\dot\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\Delta _{P}^{(S)}\Big],
\end{eqnarray}
in which $x=K(\tau_0 - \tau)$, $C$ is defined in (\ref{CD}) and
\begin{equation}\label{DP}
\Delta _{P}^{(S)}
(\mathbf{K},\mu,\tau)=\int_0^{\tau} d\tau\,\dot\tau_{e\gamma}\,
e^{ix \mu -\tau_{e\gamma}}\,\,\Big[ {3 \over 4}(1-\mu^2)\Pi(K,\tau)\Big],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Pi=\Delta_{T2}^{(S)}+\Delta_{P2}^{(S)}+\Delta_{P0}^{(S)}
\end{equation}
The differential optical depth $\dot\tau_{e\gamma}(\tau)$ and total optical depth $\tau_{e\gamma}(\tau)$ due to the Thomson scattering at time $\tau$ are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{optical}
\dot{\tau}_{e\gamma}=a\,n_e\,\sigma_T,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\tau_{e\gamma}(\tau)=\int_\tau^{\tau_0}\dot{\tau}_{e\gamma}(\tau) d\tau.
\end{equation}
As is shown in (\ref{Boltzmann}), the temperature anisotropy
$\Delta_I^{(S)}$ doesn't have any source due to the forward
Compton scattering in the NC space-time therefore, we only focus on the other equations to explore the NC effects. Meanwhile, (\ref{Boltzmann03}) and
(\ref{Boltzmann3}) indicate that the effect of non-commutativity on the linear and circular polarization can be valuable for a significant value of $\frac{\kappa_{NC}}{\dot\tau_{e\gamma}}$ which is defined as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\tilde{\kappa}= \frac{\kappa_{NC}}{\dot\tau_{e\gamma}}=\frac{3}{4}\frac{1}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\sum_{f=e,p}\frac{m_f}{k^0},
\end{equation}
which leads to larger values for Protons than the electrons.
\section{CMB power spectrum in NC space-time}
In the preceding section we found that the Compton scattering in the NC space changes the Boltzmann equations for the time evolution of the polarized CMB photons. Here, we are ready to find the power spectra of $I$, $B$, $E$ and $V$ in the NC background. To this end, we consider the power spectrum as
\begin{equation}\label{PS1}
C_{Xl}=\frac{1}{2l+1}\sum_m\Big<a^*_{X,lm}\,a_{X,lm}\Big>,\,\,\,\,\,\, X=\{I,E,B,V\},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{E,lm} &=& -(a_{2,lm}+a_{-2,lm})/2 ,\label{ae}\\
a_{B,lm} &=& i(a_{2,lm}-a_{-2,lm})/2 ,\label{ab} \\
a_{V,lm} &=& \int\,d\Omega Y^*_{lm} \Delta_V, \label{av}
\end{eqnarray}
which for the circularly polarized part of the CMB photons by using (\ref{Boltzmann3}) in the power spectrum $C_{Vl}$, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
& & C_{Vl}=\frac{1}{2l+1}\sum_m\Big<a^*_{V,lm}\,a_{V,lm}\Big>, \label{CVl}\\
&\approx&\frac{1}{2l+1}\int d^3KP_{v}(\bf{K})\sum_m\Big|\int d\Omega Y^*_{lm}\int_0^{\tau_0} d\tau\,
\dot\tau_{e\gamma}\,e^{ix \mu -\tau_{e\gamma}}\,A\,\,\tilde{\kappa}\,\Delta _{P}^{(S)}\Big|^2 ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
& & P_{v}(\bf{K})\delta(\bf{K'}-\bf{K})=\Big<(\xi(\bf{K})v_b)(\xi(\bf{K'})v_b)\Big>,
\end{eqnarray}
and $P_{v}(K)$ is the velocity power spectrum which can
be expressed in terms of the primordial scalar spectrum $P_{\phi}^{(S)}$ as \cite{book-gor}
\begin{equation}\label{PSV}
P_{v}(\bf{K},\tau)\sim P_{\phi}^{(S)}(\bf{K},\tau).
\end{equation}
Now (\ref{CVl}) and (\ref{PSV}) can provide an estimate on $C_{Vl}$ in terms of the linearly polarized power spectrum $C_{Pl}$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{CVl1}
\tilde{\kappa}_{min}^2\, C_{Pl}\,\le C_{Vl}\, \le \,\tilde{\kappa}_{max}^2\, C_{Pl},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde\kappa_{max}&=&\frac{3}{4}\frac{m_e+m_p}{T^0}\frac{1}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\simeq\, 1 (10TeV/\Lambda)^2, \\
\tilde\kappa_{min}&=&\frac{3}{4}\frac{m_e+m_p}{T^{lss}}\frac{1}{\alpha}\,\frac{m_e^2}{\Lambda^2}\simeq\, 10^{-3}\, (10TeV/\Lambda)^2,\label{kappa-min}
\end{eqnarray}
in which $k^0=T^0$ and $k^0=T^{lss}$ are the energies of the CMB photons at the present time and the last scattering epoch, respectively. Using the experimental value for the linearly polarized power spectrum of the CMB photons which is of the order of $0.1\mu K^2$ for $l<250$ \cite{plank}, one finds from (\ref{CVl1})-(\ref{kappa-min}) an estimation on the range of $C_{Vl}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{CVl2}
0.1 nK^2\,\le C_{Vl}\, \le \,\,0.1\mu K^2,
\end{equation}
for a conservative value of the NC scale of the order of
$\Lambda\sim10TeV$. Meanwhile, for the more or less accepted value $\Lambda\sim 1TeV$ \cite{Haghighat}, the circular polarization power spectrum $C_{Vl}$ can be obtained in a range as follows
\begin{equation}\label{CVl2}
10^{-3}\mu K^2\,\le C_{Vl}\, \le \,\,10^3\mu K^2,
\end{equation}
which is in the range of achievable experimental values.
In addition to $C_{Vl}$ the Compton scattering in the NC space, in contrast with the ordinary space, can also generate the B-mode polarization.
To explore such a property we give the CMB
polarization in terms of the divergence-free part (B-mode
$\Delta_{B}^{(S)}$) and the curl-free part (E-mode $\Delta_{E}^{(S)}$)
which are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Emode}
\Delta_{E}^{(S)}(\hat{n})&\equiv&-\frac{1}{2}[\bar{\eth}^{2}\Delta_{P}^{+(S)}(\hat{\bf{n}})+\eth^{2}\Delta_{P}^{-(S)}(\hat{\bf{n}})],\\
\label{Bmode}\Delta_{B}^{(S)}(\hat{n})&\equiv&\frac{i}{2}[\bar{\eth}^{2}\Delta_{P}^{+(S)}(\hat{\bf{n}})-\eth^{2}\Delta_{P}^{-(S)}(\hat{\bf{n}})],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eth$ and $\bar{\eth}$ are spin raising and lowering
operators respectively \cite{hu}. As Eqs.(\ref{Boltzmann3}), (\ref{Bmode}) and (\ref{PS1}) show the B-mode
power spectrum $C_{Bl}$ due to the forward
electron and proton Compton scattering in the NC space-time depends on
the circular polarization power spectrum which can be estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{Bmode1}
C^S_{Bl}\propto \bar{\tilde\kappa}^2 C_{Vl},\,\,\,\,\,\,\tilde\kappa_{min}\, <\,\bar{\tilde\kappa}\,<\,\tilde\kappa_{max},
\end{equation}
where $S$ indicates the scalar mode of the matter perturbation. Furthermore, the B-mode power spectrum depends on the scale of NC parameter $\Lambda$, through $\bar{\tilde\kappa} $ which can have a significant effect
on the value of the $r$-parameter even for $\Lambda\sim 10 TeV$.
In fact, by using Eqs. (\ref{CVl1}) and (\ref{Bmode1}) one has
\begin{equation}\label{Bmode2}
\tilde{\kappa}_{min}^4\, C_{Pl}\,\le C^S_{Bl}\, \le \,\tilde{\kappa}_{max}^4\, C_{Pl},
\end{equation}
where for $\Lambda\sim 10TeV$ leads to
\begin{equation}\label{Bmode3}
0.1 pK^2\,\le C^S_{Bl}\, \le \,0.1\mu K^2,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Bmode4}
10~nK^2\,\le C^S_{Bl}\, \le \,10~m K^2,
\end{equation}
for $\Lambda\sim 1TeV$ which is comparable with the value of $C^{ob}_{Bl}\sim 0.01\mu
K^2$ for $l<250$ \cite{plank}.
\section{Conclusion}
We considered the time evolution of the Stokes parameters in the
NC-space-time. We showed that the NC corrections on the Compton
scattering can lead to the circular polarization for the CMB
radiation. It is also shown that the B-mode spectrum in contrast
with the usual production via the tensor mode perturbation,
can be generated by the scalar mode perturbation in the
NC-space-time. The obtained result shows that
to fully understand the origin of the reported r parameter
\cite{BICEP2,plank}, one should consider all the alternative
sources for the B-mode spectrum of polarized CMB photons.
Furthermore, we found the V-mode power spectrum in the range of
Nano-kelvin squared and higher for the NC-scale $1TeV$ to $10TeV$
which is in the range of the accuracy of observational data
\cite{plank,act,pix,spider}. We also showed that the B-mode
power spectrum $C_{Bl}$ due to the forward
electron and proton Compton scattering in the NC space-time depends on
the circular polarization power spectrum for the scalar mode of the matter perturbation.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent Non-trivial rational families $(f_t)$ normally contain specific maps of different character with most interesting and unexpected Julia sets:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] totally disconnected Julia sets (Cantor sets) occur in any family $z\mapsto z^d+t$;
\item[-] Julia sets consisting of uncountably many (a Cantor set of) quasi-circles occur in the McMullen family $z\mapsto z^m+t/z^n$, which was introduced in \cite{McMullen}. The number of papers on various features of this family is legion; \cite{Devaney} marks the preliminary end of a long list of papers.
\item[-] Julia sets that are Sierpi\'nski curves (Tan Lei and J.\ Milnor~\cite{TLMilnor} were the first to construct examples with this property) again in the McMullen family \cite{Ste1},
the Morosawa-Pilgrim family $z\mapsto t\big(1+\frac{(4/27)z^3}{1-z}\big)$ \cite{DFGJ,Ste3}, and the family $t\mapsto-\frac t4\frac{(z^2-2)^2}{z^2-1}$ \cite{JS}.
\item[-] In any reasonable family, copies of the Mandelbrot sets of the families $z\mapsto z^d+t$ are dense in the bifurcation locus -- the Mandelbrot set is universal \cite{McMullen00}.
\end{itemize}
Each of these families has just one {\it free} critical point (or several free critical points which have the same dynamical behaviour, this happens, for example, in the McMullen family; the quasi-conjugate family $F_t(z)=z^m(1+t/z)^d$ has just one free critical point). In contrast to this the rational maps
\begin{equation}\label{TheFamily}
f_t(z)=tz^m\Big(\frac{1-z}{1+z}\Big)^n\quad(m\ge 2,~n\in\N,~d=m+n,~t\ne 0)
\end{equation}
in the family under consideration have two free critical points. In this paper we will give a complete description of the parameter plane and the various dynamical planes.
For basic notations and results the reader is referred to the texts \cite{Bea,Cal,Mil,McMullen,Ste}.
\section{Notation}
\noindent The rational map (\ref{TheFamily}) has
\begin{itemize}
\item[-]
two super-attracting fixed points $0$ and $\infty$ with corresponding basins $\A_t$ and $\scr B_t$, respectively. Then either $\A_t$, say, is completely invariant or else has a single pre-image $\A_t^*$ that is mapped in a $(n:1)$-manner onto $\A_t$, which will be written as
$$\A_t^*\kzu1{n:1}\A_t;$$
\item[-] two free critical points
$$\qquad\alpha=-\frac nm+\sqrt{1+\Big(\frac nm\Big)^2}\quad{\rm and}\quad \beta=-\frac nm-\sqrt{1+\Big(\frac nm\Big)^2}$$
and critical values
$$v^\alpha_t=f_t(\alpha)=tv^\alpha_1\quad{\rm and}\quad v^\beta_t=f_t(\beta)=t v^\beta_1;$$
\item[-] two {\it escape loci} $\OM^\alpha$ and $\OM^\beta$, with $t\in\OM^\alpha$ and $t\in\OM^\beta$ if and only if $f^k_t(\alpha)\to 0$ and $f^k_t(\beta)\to \infty$, respectively, as $k\to\infty$;
\item[-] two {\it residual sets} $\OM_{\rm res}^\alpha$ and $\OM_{\rm res}^\beta$, with $t\in\OM_{\rm res}^\alpha$ and $t\in\OM_{\rm res}^\beta$ if and only if $v^\beta_t\in\A_t$
and $v^\alpha_t\in\scr B_t$, respectively.
\end{itemize}
The notation of the residual sets indicates that $\OM_{\rm res}^\alpha$ is related to $\OM^\alpha$ rather than $\OM^\beta$.
The open sets $\OM^\alpha$ and $\OM^\beta$ are in a natural way sub-divided into
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $\OM_0^\alpha$ resp. $\OM_0^\beta$: $v^\alpha_t\in\A_t$ resp. $v^\beta_t\in\scr B_t$, and
\item[-] $\OM_k^\alpha$ resp. $\OM_k^\beta$: $f^k_t(v^\alpha_t)\in\A_t$, but $f^{k-1}_t(v^\alpha_t)\notin\A_t$ resp.\\
\phantom{$\OM_k^\alpha$ resp. $\OM_k^\beta$:} $f^k_t(v^\beta_t)\in\scr B_t$, but $f^{k-1}_t(v^\beta_t)\notin\scr B_t$ ($k\ge 1)$.
\end{itemize}
Hitherto, $f_t$ is hyperbolic and the Fatou set of $f_t$ consists of the basins $\A_t$ and $\scr B_t$, and their pre-images, if any. However, there may and will be
also other hyperbolic components. By $\mathbf{W}_k^\alpha$ and $\mathbf{W}^\beta_k$ we denote the open sets such that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ belongs to some
(super-)attracting cycle of Fatou domains $U_1,\ldots,U_k$, respectively, not containing $0$ and $\infty$.
The {\it bifurcation} locus $\mathbf{B}$ of the family $(f_t)_{0<|t|<\infty}$ is the set of $t$ such that the Julia set $\J_t$ does not move continuously over any neighbourhood of $t$, see McMullen~\cite{McMullen}. In order that $t\in\mathbf{B}$ it is necessary and sufficient that at least one of the free critical points
is {\it active}. Thus $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}^\alpha\cup\mathbf{B}^\beta$, where $t\in\mathbf{B}^\alpha$ resp. $t\in\mathbf{B}^\beta$ means that $\alpha$ resp. $\beta$ is active. It is {\it a priori} not excluded that $\mathbf{B}^\alpha$ and $\mathbf{B}^\beta$ overlap. Although there is just one parameter plane, each point of this plane carries at least two pieces of information, so one could also speak of the $v^\alpha_t$- and $v^\beta_t$-plane.
We also set
$$Q_0(t)=v^\alpha_t=tv^\alpha_1\quad{\rm and}\quad Q_k(t)=f_t^k(v^\alpha_t)=f_t(Q_{k-1}(t))\quad(k\ge 1)$$
and note that $Q_k$ is a rational function of degree $1+d+\cdots +d^k=\frac{d^{k+1}-1}{d-1}$ with a zero of order $\frac{m^{k+1}-1}{m-1}$ at the origin.
From
$$-1/f_t(-1/z)=f_{(-1)^{d+1}/t}(z)\quad(d=m+n)$$
it follows that $f_t$ is conjugate to $f_{1/t}$ if $d$ is odd, and to $f_{-1/t}$ if $d$ is even, hence $\OM^\alpha=\pm 1/\OM^\beta$, and this is also is true for $\OM^\alpha_{k}$ and $\OM^\beta_{k}$, $\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}$ and $\OM^\beta_{\rm res}$, $\mathbf{W}_k^\alpha$ and $\mathbf{W}_k^\beta$, and $\mathbf{B}^\alpha$ and $\mathbf{B}^\beta$. This also indicates that the circle $|t|=1$ plays a distinguished role
with strong impact on what follows.
\begin{lem}\label{TRENNUNG}For every $m\ge 2$, $n\ge 1$ there exists some $r>0$, such that for $0<|t|\le 1$ the disc $\triangle_{r|t|}:|z|<r|t|$ contains $f_t(\overline\triangle_{r|t|}\cup [0,1])$, but does not contain $v^\beta_t$.\end{lem}
\proof We will first consider $f_1$ and show that there exists some disc $\triangle_{r}:|z|<r$ such that $f_1(\overline\triangle_r\cup [0,1])\subset\triangle_r$
holds. This is easy to show if $n<m$ for $r=\frac 13$:
$$|f_1(z)|\le 3^{-m}2^n<\textstyle\frac13$$
holds if $|z|\le \frac13$ and $m>n\ge 1$, and from
$$0\le f_1(x)\le x^2\frac{1-x}{1+x}\le\textstyle \frac12(5\sqrt 5-11)<\frac1{10}\quad(0\le x\le 1)$$
the assertion follows.\\
We now consider the case $n\ge m$. Then $f_1(\overline\triangle_r)\subset\triangle_r$ holds as long as
$$g(r)=r^{m-1}\Big(\frac{1+r}{1-r}\Big)^n<1,$$
and $f_1$ maps $[0,1]$ into $\triangle_r$ provided
$$v^\alpha_1=\max_{0\le x\le 1}x^m\Big(\frac{1-x}{1+x}\Big)^n<r.$$
Since $g$ is increasing this may be achieved if $g(v^\alpha_1)<1$ holds. To prove this we note that
$\sqrt{1+\tau}-1=\frac\tau{2\sqrt{1+\theta\tau}}$ $(0<\theta<1,$ $\tau=\frac{m^2}{n^2}\le 1)$
implies $\frac m{2\sqrt 2n}<\alpha<\frac m{2n}$, while from $\log\frac{1-x}{1+x}< -2x$ ($0<x<1$) it follows that
$$v^\alpha_1<\Big(\frac m{2n}\Big)^me^{-2\frac{m}{2\sqrt 2}}=\Big(\frac{m}{2e^{\frac1{\sqrt 2}} n}\Big)^m<\Big(\frac m{4n}\Big)^m=\mu^m.$$
Moreover, from
$$\log\frac{1+x}{1-x}=2x\Big(1+\frac 13x^2+\frac15x^4+\cdots\Big)\le 2x\Big(1+\frac{x^2}3\frac 1{1-x^2}\Big)\le\textstyle 2x(1+\frac1{45}),$$
which holds for $x=\big(\frac m{4n}\big)^{m-1}\le \frac 1{4}$, we obtain
$$\left(\frac{1+\mu^m}{1-\mu^m}\right)^n=\left(\frac{1+\frac m4\frac{\mu^{m-1}}{n}}{1-\frac m4\frac{\mu^{m-1}}{n}}\right)^n\le e^{\frac{23}{45}m\mu^{m-1}}<\Big(e^{(\frac m{4n})^{m-1}}\Big)^m.$$
Thus $g(v^\alpha_1)<1$ follows from $\big(\frac m{4n}\big)^{m-1}e^{(\frac m{4n})^{m-1}}\le \frac 1{4}e^{\frac 14}<1$.
With this choice of $r\in(0,1)$ it is clear that $v^\beta_t$ belongs to $\triangle_r$ if $|t|$ is small. For individual $0<|t|\le 1$, $f_t(z)=tf_1(z)$ maps $\overline\triangle_{r|t|}\cup[0,1]$ into $\triangle_{r|t|}$, while $v^\beta_t\notin\triangle_{r|t|}$ follows from $|v^\beta_t|=|t|/v^\alpha_1>|t|>r|t|$.
\hfill$\Box$
\section{The escape loci}
\noindent The purpose of Lemma~\ref{TRENNUNG} is twofold. First of all it shows that the critical points $\alpha$ and $\beta$ cannot be simultaneously active, and the bifurcation sets $\mathbf{B}^\alpha$ and $\mathbf{B}^\beta$ are separated by the unit circle $|t|=1$.
Secondly, the condition $v^\beta_t\notin\triangle_{r|t|}$ ($0<|t|\le 1)$ ensures that in an exhaustion $(D_\kappa)$ of $\A_t$ starting with $D_0=\triangle_{r|t|}$, $D_\kappa$ is simply connected
as long as $\beta\notin D_\kappa$, and $f_t:D_{\kappa}\kzu1{d:1} D_{\kappa-1}$ has degree $d=m+n$. In particular, for $t\in\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}$ there exists some simply connected and forward invariant domain $D_\kappa\subset\A_t$ that contains $v^\beta_t$.\medskip
We note some more simple consequences of Lemma~\ref{TRENNUNG}; our focus is on the critical point $\alpha$ and the ${}^\alpha$-sets.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $\{t:0<|t|\le 1\}\subset\OM^\alpha_0$;
\item[-] $\overline{\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}}\subset\mathbb{D};$
\item[-] $\alpha$ is inactive on $0<|t|\le 1$;
\item[-] $\overline{\bigcup_{k\ge 1}(\OM^\alpha_k\cup\mathbf{W}^\alpha_k)}\subset\{t:1<|t|<T\}$ for some $T=T_{mn}>1$;
\item[-] $\mathbf{B}^\alpha\subset\{t:1<|t|<T\}$ for some $T=T_{mn}>1$.
\end{itemize}
The consequences for the dynamical planes are as follows.
\begin{thm}\label{OM0capOMinfty}For $t\in\OM^\alpha_0$, the basin $\A_t$ is completely invariant, and any other Fatou component is simply connected. Moreover,
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] for $t\in\OM^\alpha_0\cap\OM^\beta_0$ also $\scr B_t$ is completely invariant, the Julia set $\J_t=\partial\A_t=\partial\scr B_t$ is a quasi-circle, and $f_t$ is quasi-conformally conjugate
to $z\mapsto z^d$;
\item[-] for $t\in\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}$, $\A_t$ is infinitely connected and the Fatou set consists of $\A_t$, $\scr B_t$, and the predecessors of $\scr B_t$ of any order.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\proof To prove complete invariance of $\A_t$ we first assume $0<|t|\le 1$. Then $\A_t$ contains the interval $[0,1]$ by Lemma~\ref{TRENNUNG}, hence is completely invariant.
If, however, $|t|>1$, then $\scr B_t$ is completely invariant, and any other Fatou component is simply connected.
Assuming $1\not\in\A_t$ ($t\in\OM^\alpha_0$, $|t|>1$) we obtain either $f_t:\A_t^*\kzu1{n:1}\A_t$ with $n=(n-1)+1$ critical points if $\alpha\in\A_t^*$ or else
$f_t:\A_t\kzu1{m:1}\A_t$ with $m=(m-1)+1$ critical points if $\alpha\in\A_t$, this contradicting simple connectivity of both domains $\A_t$ and $\A_t^*$ by the Riemann-Hurwitz formula.
The first assertion is obvious since $\scr B_t$ shares the properties of $\A_t$ and $f_t$ is hyperbolic.
The second assertion follows from the Riemann-Hurwitz formula, since $f_t:\A_t\kzu1{d:1} \A_t$
has degree $d$ and $r=(m-1)+(n-1)+1+1=d$ critical points $0$, $1$ (if $n>1$), $\alpha$, and $\beta$.\hfill$\Box$
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.133]{Parameter-a-plane21neu.jpg}~
\includegraphics[scale=0.1526]{Parameter-ab-plane21.jpg}
\medskip\footnotesize {\sc Figure~1}-left: The $\alpha$-parameter plane for $\displaystyle f_t(z)=tz^2\frac{1-z}{1+z}$ displaying the unit circle, $\OM^\alpha$ in gray, $\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}$ and $\OM^\beta_{\rm res}$ in black (in- and outside the unit circle), and $\mathbf{W}^\alpha$ (coloured).
{\sc Figure~1}{-right:} A neighbourhood of the origin displaying $\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}$ surrounded by points of $\OM^\alpha_0$ (black), $\OM^\beta_k$ ($k\ge 1$, black, small), and $\mathbf{W}^\beta$ (coloured). \end{center}
\begin{thm}\label{SimpleConn}$\OM^\alpha_0\cup\{0\}$, $\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}\cup\{0\}$, and the connected components of $\OM^\alpha_k$ $(k\ge 1)$ are simply connected domains.
Riemann maps onto $\mathbb{D}$ are given by any branch of $\sqrt[m]{E_0(t)}$, $\sqrt[m]{E_{\rm res}(t)}$, and $\sqrt[n]{E_{k}(t)}$, respectively.\end{thm}
For the proof we need two auxiliary results on the maps
\begin{equation}\label{FunctionsE}\begin{array}{rcll}
E_0(t)&=&t(\Phi_t(v^\alpha_t))^{m-1}&(t\in\OM^\alpha_0),\cr
E_{\rm res}(t)&=&t(\Phi_t(v^\beta_t))^{m-1}&(t\in\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}), {\rm ~and}\cr
E_k(t)&=&t^{\frac 1{m-1}}\Phi_t(f^k(v^\alpha_t))&(t\in\OM^\alpha_k,~k\ge 1),
\end{array}\end{equation}
where $\Phi_t$ denotes the B\"ottcher function to the fixed point $z=0$.
In the first step (Lemma~\ref{Lemma2}) of the proof of Theorem~\ref{SimpleConn} we will show that the functions (\ref{FunctionsE}) provide proper maps on $\mathbb{D}\setminus\{0\}$ and $\mathbb{D}$, respectively, which are only ramified over the origin. In the second step (Lemma~\ref{Lemma3}) this will be used to show that the corresponding domains (with $0$ included, if necessary) are simply connected.
The solution to B\"ottcher's functional equation
\begin{equation}\label{BFEQ}\Phi_t(f_t(z))=t\Phi_t(z)^m\quad(\Phi_t(z)\sim z {\rm~as~}z\to 0)\end{equation}
is locally given by
$$\Phi_t(z)=\lim_{k\to\infty}\sqrt[m^k]{f_t^k(z)/t^{1+m+\cdots +m^{k-1}}}=t^{-\frac 1{m-1}}\lim_{k\to\infty}\sqrt[m^k]{f_t^k(z)};$$
it conjugates $f_t$ to $\zeta\mapsto \zeta^m$. This conjugation holds throughout $\A_t$ in the third case, when $\Phi_t$ maps $\A_t$ conformally onto the disc $|z|<|t|^{-\frac1{m-1}}$; the maps $E_k$ are analytic and well-defined on the components of $\OM^\alpha_k$, $k\ge 1$.
In the first case the conjugation holds on some simply connected neighbourhood of $z=0$ that contains $z=0$ and $z=v^\alpha_t$, but does not contain $z=1$.
The analytic continuation of $\Phi_t$ causes singularities
at $z=1$ and its preimages under $f_t^k$, nevertheless $|\Phi_t(z)|$ is well-defined on $\A_t$ and $|\Phi_t(z)|\to |t|^{-\frac 1{m-1}}$ as $z\to\partial\A_t$ holds anyway.
Thus $E_0(t)=t\Phi_t(v^\alpha_t)^{m-1}$ is holomorphic on $\OM^\alpha_0$ and zero-free, with $E_0(t)\sim t(v^\alpha_t)^{m-1}=f_1(\alpha)^{m-1}t^m$ as $t\to 0$.
In the second case we construct an exhaustion $(D_\kappa)$ of $\A_t$ such that $f_t:D_\kappa\kzu1{d:1} D_{\kappa-1}$ has degree $d$ and $D_\kappa$ is simply connected for $\kappa\le \kappa_0$ with $v^\beta_t\in D_{\kappa_0}$ and $\beta\in D_{\kappa_0+1}\setminus D_{\kappa_0}$. This is possible by Lemma~\ref{TRENNUNG}, and the procedure applied to $t^{-\frac 1{m-1}}\Phi_t(v^\alpha_t)$ on $\OM^\alpha_{0}$ also applies to
$t^{-\frac 1{m-1}}\Phi_t(v^\beta_t)$ on $\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}$.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma2}The functions in (\ref{FunctionsE}) are well-defined and provide proper maps from $\OM^\alpha_0\cup\{0\}$, $\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}\cup\{0\}$, and the connected components of $\OM^\alpha_k$ with $k\ge 1$, respectively, onto the unit disc $\mathbb{D}$.
\end{lem}
\proof To prove that $|E_0(t)|\to 1$ as $t\in\OM^\alpha_0$ tends to $\partial\OM^\alpha_0\setminus\{0\}$ we choose any disc $\triangle:|z|<r$ that is invariant under $f_t$ for every $t\in\OM^\alpha_0$. This is possible since $\OM^\alpha_0$ is contained in some disc $|t|<T$, hence we may choose $r<1$ such that $Tr^{m-1}\big(\frac{1+r}{1-r}\big)^n=1$ holds. By $k=k(t)$ we denote the largest integer such that $f_t^k(v^\alpha_t)\not\in\triangle$. Then $k(t)\to\infty$ as $t\to\partial\OM^\alpha_0\setminus\{0\}$, and $|f_t^{k(t)}(v^\alpha_t)|\ge r$ implies
$$\liminf_{t\to\OM^\alpha_0\setminus\{0\}} |\Phi_t(v^\alpha_t)|\ge\lim_{t\to\OM^\alpha_0\setminus\{0\}} |t|^{-\frac{1}{m-1}}\sqrt[m^{k(t)}]{r}=|t|^{-\frac{1}{m-1}},$$
while $|\Phi_t(z)|<|t|^{-\frac{1}{m-1}}$ is always true. Thus $E_0$ maps each connected component of $\OM^\alpha_0$ properly onto $\mathbb{D}\setminus\{0\}$.
It follows that the origin is removable for (a zero of) $E_0$, and $\OM^\alpha_0\cup\{0\}$ is a domain which is mapped by $E_0$ properly with degree $m$ onto the unit disc $\mathbb{D}$.
If $t\in\OM^\alpha_k$ for some $k\ge 1$, then again $|E_k(t)|$ tends to $1$ as $t\to\partial\Omega$, where $\Omega$ is any component of $\OM^\alpha_k$. Thus $E_k$ is a proper map of $\Omega$ onto $\mathbb{D}$. We will prove that $E_k$ is ramified only over zero even for $k\ge 0$, that is $E_k'(t)=0$ implies $E_k(t)=0$. This is a well-known procedure, the idea of which is due to Roesch~\cite{Roesch}, and outlined in detail for the Morosawa-Pilgrim family $z\mapsto t\big(1+\frac{(4/27)z^3}{1-z}\big)$ in \cite{Ste3}, Lemma~2.
We take any $t_0\in\OM^\alpha_k$ and choose
$\varepsilon>0$ such that for $t$ sufficiently close to $t_0$, the closed disc $\triangle_{3\epsilon}:|w-v^\alpha_{t_0}|\le 3\varepsilon$ belongs to the
Fatou component $D_{t_0}$ of $f_{t_0}$ containing $v^\alpha_{t_0}$ ($D_{t_0}$ is a predecessor of $\A_{t_0}$ of order $\ell\ge 0$). Furthermore let
$\eta_t:\widehat\C\longrightarrow \widehat\C$ be any
diffeomorphism such that $\eta_t(w)$ depends analytically on $t$,
$\eta_t(w)=w$ holds on $|w-v^\alpha_{t_0}|\ge 3\varepsilon$ and $\eta_t(w)=w+(v^\alpha_t-v^\alpha_{t_0})$ on
$|w-v^\alpha_{t_0}|<\varepsilon.$ Then
$g_t=\eta_t\circ f_{t_0}:\widehat\C\longrightarrow\widehat\C$
is a quasi-regular map which equals $f_{t_0}$ on $\widehat\C\setminus f^{-1}_{t_0}(\triangle_{3\epsilon})$, and is analytic on $\widehat\C\setminus f_{t_0}^{-1}(A)$ with $A=\{w:\varepsilon\leq|w-v^\alpha_{t_0}|\leq3\varepsilon\}$. To apply Shishikura's qc-lemma \cite{Shi} we need to know that $g_t$ is uniformly $K$-quasi-regular, that is, all iterates $g_t^p$ are $K$-quasi-regular
with one and the same $K$.
This is obviously true if the sets $f_{t_0}^{-p}(A)$ ($p=1,2,\ldots$) are visited at most once by any iterate of $g_t$. This is trivial if $k\ge 1$: the sets $f_{t_0}^{-p}(A)$
belong to different Fatou components, namely predecessors of $D_{t_0}$ of order $p$. If $k=0$ the argument is different. Let $\triangle_0:|z|<\delta$ be such that $f_{t_0}(\overline{\triangle}_0)\subset\triangle_0$ and set $\triangle_\nu=f_{t_0}^{-1}(\triangle_{\nu-1})$. Then choosing $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small we have
$A\subset\triangle_{\ell}\setminus\overline{\triangle_{\ell-1}}$ for some $\ell$ and $f_{t_0}^{-p}(A)\subset\triangle_{\ell+p}\setminus\overline{\triangle_{\ell+p-1}}$.
By the above mentioned qc-lemma, $g_t$ is quasi-conformally conjugate to some rational function
$$R_t=h_t\circ g_t\circ h_t^{-1}.$$
The quasi-conformal mapping $h_t:\widehat\C\longrightarrow\widehat\C$ is uniquely determined by the normalisation $h_t(z)=z$ for $z=0,\alpha,1$, and depends
analytically on the parameter $t$. Also $h_t$ is analytic on $\widehat\C\setminus\overline{\bigcup_{p\ge 0}f_{t_0}^{-p}(A)}$, which, in particular, contains the points $0$, $v^\alpha_t$, and $v^\alpha_{t_0}$. We set $z_0=h_t(-1)$ to obtain $R_t(z)=a(t)z^m\big(\frac{1-z}{z-z_0}\big)^n.$
Since $h_t(\alpha)=\alpha$, $R_t$ has a critical point at
$z=\alpha$, and solving $R_t'(\alpha)=0$ for $z_0$ yields $z_0=-1$,
thus
$$R_t(z)=a(t)z^m\Big(\frac{1-z}{1+z}\Big)^n.$$
From $R_t=h_t\circ\eta _t\circ f_{t_0}$ and $h_t(\alpha)=\alpha$,
however, it follows that
$$a(t)v^\alpha_1=R_t(\alpha)=h_t\circ\eta_t\circ f_{t_0}(\alpha)=h_t\circ\eta_t(v^\alpha_{t_0})=h_t(v^\alpha_t),$$
hence $R_t(z)=f_\tau(z)$ with
$\tau=\tau(t)={h_t(v^\alpha_t)}/{v^\alpha_1}$ and $v^\alpha_\tau=h_t(v^\alpha_t);$
in particular, $\tau$ depends analytically on $t$. On some neighbourhood of $z=0$ we have
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle(t_0/\tau)^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1}\circ f_\tau &=&\displaystyle(t_0/\tau)^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ
g_t\circ h_t^{-1}\cr
&=&\displaystyle(t_0/\tau)^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ\eta_t\circ f_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1}\cr
&=&\displaystyle(t_0/\tau)^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ f_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1}\cr
&=&\displaystyle (t_0/\tau)^{\frac{1}{m-1}}t_0(\Phi_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1})^{m}\cr&=&\displaystyle \tau((t_0/\tau)^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1})^{m},
\end{array}$$
hence $\phi_\tau=(t_0/\tau)^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1}$ solves B\"ottcher's functional equation
$$\phi_\tau\circ f_\tau(z)=\tau(\phi_\tau(z))^m.$$
Since $\tau$ and $h_t$ depend analytically on $t$, this is also true for $h_t^{-1}$, which is not self-evident.
Also from $h_t(g_t(z))=f_\tau(h_t(z))\sim\tau h_t(z)^m$ and $g_t(z)=f_{t_0}(z)\sim t_0z^m$ as $z\to 0$ it follows that $h_t(t_0z^m)\sim \tau h_t(z)^m$, hence
$h_t(z)\sim\sqrt[m-1]{t_0/\tau}z$, $h^{-1}_t(z)\sim\sqrt[m-1]{\tau/t_0}z$ and $\phi_\tau(z)\sim \lambda z$ as $z\to 0$, with $\lambda^{m-1}=1$. This implies $\phi_\tau=\lambda\Phi_\tau$
by uniqueness of the B\"ottcher coordinate, and from $\tau(t_0)=t_0$ and analytic dependence on $t$ it follows that $\lambda=1$ and $\phi_\tau=\Phi_\tau$, hence
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
E_k(\tau)&=&\tau^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_\tau(Q_k(\tau))=\tau^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_\tau(f^k_\tau(v^\alpha_\tau))\cr
&=& t_0^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1}(f^k_\tau(v^\alpha_\tau))=t_0^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}\circ
f^k_{t_0}\circ h_t^{-1}(v^\alpha_\tau)\cr
&=&t_0^{\frac{1}{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}(f^k_{t_0}(v^\alpha_t))\quad{\rm if~} k\ge 1,~{\rm and}\cr
E_0(\tau)&=&t_0(\Phi_{t_0}(v^\alpha_t))^m.
\end{array}$$
Since $t\mapsto\tau$ is locally univalent, $E_k$ is univalent at $t_0$ if and only if the map $t\mapsto t_0^{\frac1{m-1}}\Phi_{t_0}(f_{t_0}^k(v^\alpha_t))$ is univalent on some neighbourhood of $t_0$. If $k\ge 1$, $\Phi_{t_0}$ is univalent on $\A_{t_0}$, and $f_{t_0}^k$ is univalent on $|z-v^\alpha_{t_0}|<\delta$ provided $Q_k(t_0)=f^k_{t_0}(v^\alpha_{t_0})\ne 0$, while $f_{t_0}^k$
is $n$-valent at $v^\alpha_{t_0}$ if $Q_k(t_0)=0$.
In case of $k=0$ we note that $\Phi_{t_0}$ is locally univalent on some forward invariant domain $D$ that contains $0$ and $v^\alpha_{t_0}$,
and $v^\alpha_t=tv^\alpha_1\ne 0$ is trivially univalent.\hfill$\Box$
\medskip The proof of Theorem~\ref{SimpleConn} will be finished by
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma3}Let $h$ be a proper map of degree $m$ of the domain $D$ onto the unit disc $\mathbb{D}$, and assume that $h$ is ramified exactly over zero, that is, $h'(z)=0$ implies $h(z)=0$.
Then $D$ is simply connected and $h$ has a single zero on $D$.\end{lem}
\proof Assume that $h$ has zeros with multiplicities $m_\nu$ ($1\le\nu\le n)$. Then $h$ has degree $d=m_1+\cdots+m_n$ and $r=d-n$ critical points. The Riemann-Hurwitz formula
then yields $\# D-2=-d+r=-n$, hence $\#D=2-n$, which only is possible if $n=1$ and $\# D=1$.\hfill$\Box$
\medskip{\sc Remark.} Each connected component of $\OM^\alpha_k$ contains a zero of $Q_k(t)=tf_1(Q_{k-1}(t))$ which is not a zero of $Q_{k-1}$, hence is a zero of $Q_{k-1}(t)-1$.
Thus $\OM^\alpha_k$ consists of at most $\frac{d^k-1}{d-1}$ connected components.
\section{The hyperbolic loci}
\noindent The bifurcation locus $\mathbf{B}^\beta$ is contained in some annulus $\delta<|t|<1$, and this also holds for $\mathbf{W}^\beta$. Hence (super-)attracting cycles $U_1,\ldots,U_k$
that contain the critical point $\beta$ may occur only if $\delta<|t|<1$.
\begin{thm}\label{polylike}For $0<|t|<1$, $f_t$ is quasi-conformally conjugate to some polynomial
$$P_c(z)=cz^m(z+1)^n\quad(c=c_t\ne 0)$$
with free critical point $-\frac{m}{m+n}$. The basin $\A_t$ is completely invariant, and simply connected if and only if $t\not\in\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}.$
For $t\not\in\OM^\beta_0$, the Fatou set consists of $\A_t$, the simply connected basin $\scr B_t$ and
its pre-images and, additionally, of some (super-)attracting cycle of Fatou components and their pre-images if $t\in\mathbf{W}^\beta$; the cycle absorbs the critical point $\beta$.
\end{thm}
\proof To prove the second assertion we note that by Lemma~\ref{TRENNUNG} the pre-image $D$ of the disc $\triangle=\triangle_{r|t|}$ is a simply connected Jordan domain that contains $\overline\triangle\cup[0,1]$, but does not contain $v^\beta_t$. Then $D_2=\widehat\C\setminus\overline\triangle$ is a backward invariant domain, and
$$f_t:D_1\kzu1{d:1}D_2\quad(D_1=f_t^{-1}(D_2))$$
is a polynomial-like mapping in the sense of \cite{DouHub}, of degree $d=m+n$, hence is hybrid equivalent to some polynomial $P$ of degree $d$. We may assume that the quasi-conformal conjugation $\psi_t$ with
$$\psi_t\circ f_t=P\circ \psi_t$$
maps $\infty, 0,$ and $ -1$ onto $0,\infty,$ and $-1$, respectively. Thus $P$ is given by $P(z)=P_c(z)=cz^m(z+1)^n$, and $\psi_t$, hence also $c=c_t$ depends analytically on $t$.
\hfill$\Box$
\medskip{\sc Remark.} We note that $D_2=D_2(|t|)=\{z:|z|>r|t|\}$ increases if $|t|$ decreases, while $D_1=f_t^{-1}(\widehat\C\setminus\overline\triangle_{r|t|})=f_1^{-1}(\widehat\C\setminus\overline\triangle_r)$ is independent of $t$. Thus the conformal modulus $\mu(|t|)$ of $D_2(|t|)\setminus\overline{D_1}$
satisfies $\mu(1)\le\mu(|t|)-\log\frac1{|t|}\le\log\frac{\inf_{z\in D_1}|z|}{r}$.
The bifurcation locus of $P_c$ corresponds conformally to the bifurcation locus $\mathbf{B}^\beta$, and the hyperbolic components are just quasi-conformal images of the hyperbolic components of the quadratic family $z\mapsto z^2+\xi$.
For $t\in\mathbf{W}_k$, the multiplier map $t\mapsto\lambda_t$ is an algebraic function of $t$. This is easily seen by writing the equations $f^k_t(z)=z$ and $\lambda=(f^k_t)'(z)$ as polynomial equations $q_1(z,t)=0$ and $q_2(z,t,\lambda)=0$, and computing the resultant $R_f(t,\lambda)$ of $q_1$ and $q_2$ with respect to $z$. For example, in case of $k=1$, $m=2$, and $n=1$ we obtain
$$R_f(t,\lambda)=[-2+14t-2t^2]+[1-10t+t^2]\lambda+2t\lambda^2=0.$$
For $P_c(z)=cz^2(z+1)$ we obtain in the same manner (multiplier $\mu$)
$$R_P(c,\mu)=9+2c-(c+6)\mu+\mu^2=0.$$
Since the quasi-conformal conjugation respects multipliers ($\lambda_t=\mu_{c_t})$, $c_t$ is an algebraic function of $t$ by the identity theorem; in the present case we obtain
$(1+2t+t^2+2tc)^2=0$ by computing the resultant of $R_f(t,\lambda)$ and $R_P(c,\lambda)$ with respect to $\lambda$, hence
$$t\mapsto c=c_t=-{\textstyle\frac12}\Big(t+2+\frac1t\Big)\quad(\textstyle c=-\frac 92\leftrightarrow t=\frac12(\sqrt{49}-\sqrt{45}))$$
maps $0<|t|<1$ conformally onto $\C\setminus[-2,0]$.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.17]{Parameter-Pc-plane21.jpg}~\includegraphics[scale=0.17]{Parameter-Pc_t-plane21.jpg}
\medskip\footnotesize{\sc Figure 2}-left: The parameter plane of $P_c(z)=cz^2(z+1)$. The escape region for $P_c$ (gray), the white region with slit, and the coloured domains correspond to $\OM^\alpha_{\rm res}$, $\OM^\beta\cap\mathbb{D}$, and $\mathbf{W}^\beta$, respectively. The punctured disc $0<|t|<1$ corresponds to $\C\setminus[-2,0]$ in the $c$-plane. {\sc Figure 2}{-right:} The parameter plane of $P_{-\frac12(t+2+\frac1t)}$ in $-0.2<\Re t<0.25,$ $-0.25<{\rm Im}\; t<0.25$ (see also Figure 1-right).
\end{center}
The following result was not explicitly stated but proved in \cite{Ste3}. The proof is an adaption of the procedure due to Douady \cite{Douady},
applied to the hyperbolic components of the quadratic family $R_t(z)=z^2+t$ with one free critical point. The occurrence of several critical points requirers a slightly more sophisticated argument. The present version applies to a wider class of functions like $R_t(z)=z^d+t$, $R_t(z)=z^m+t/z^n$, $R_t(z)=t\big(1+\frac{((d-1)^{d-1}/d^d)z^d}{1-z}\big)$ ($d\ge 3$), $R_t(z)=-\frac t4\frac{(z^2-2)^2}{z^2-1}$, the present family, and many others, to show that the hyperbolic components are simply connected and are mapped properly onto the unit disc by the multiplier map $t\mapsto\lambda_t$.
\begin{thm}Let $(R_t)_{t\in T}$ be any family of rational maps that is analytically parametrised over some domain $T$. Suppose that each $R_t$ has a {(super-)}attracting cycle
$U_0\kzu1{m_1:1}U_1\kzu1{m_2:1}\cdots\kzu1{m_{n-1}:1}U_{n-1}\kzu1{m_{n}:1}U_{n}=U_0,$
such that $R_t^n$ has a single critical point $c_t\in U_0$ of multiplicity $m-1$, where $m=m_1\cdots m_n$ is the degree of $R^n_t:U_0\kzu1{m:1} U_0$. Assume also that the multiplier $\lambda_t$
satisfies $|\lambda_t|\to 1$ as $t\to\partial T$.
Then the multiplier map $t\mapsto\lambda_t$ provides a proper map $T\kzu1{(m-1):1}\mathbb{D}$ which is ramified just over $w=0$, and $T$ is simply connected.\end{thm}
|
\section{Introduction and Background}
Because of their utility for studying star and planet formation and
evolution, a great deal of effort has been directed towards
identifying and characterizing samples of nearby young stars. These
samples have been indispensible for direct imaging of brown dwarf and
planetary-mass companions \citep[e.g.,][]{kraus2012}, imaging debris disks
in scattered light \citep[e.g.,][]{kalas2015}, exploring the
star-disk interaction in young stars \citep[e.g.,][]{nguyen2009}, and
studying the evolution of gas-rich and dusty debris disks as a
function of age \citep[e.g.,][]{mamajek2009,chen2011}.
The nearest of these samples are small, diffuse, nearby associations
of kinematically related stars, (e.g., the $\beta$ Pictoris moving
group, TW Hya Association; \citealt{zuckerman2004};
\citealt{torres2008}). These typically have tens of known members,
with masses $\sim$0.02-2~\ts M$_\odot$. While these are extremely useful due
to their proximity, studies based on these samples may be subject to
small number statistics. Fortunately, there exist large collections
of young stars, only slightly more distant, in nearby OB associations.
OB associations contain members across the mass spectrum, including
the hot and massive O- and B-type stars for which they are named,
intermediate-mass A/F stars, lower-mass G/K/M stars, and very low-mass
free-floating substellar objects. Though the lower-mass ($<$ 1.5
\ts M$_\odot$) stars blend in with the Galactic field population and are
therefore much more difficult to identify than the OB stars, they
comprise the dominant stellar component of OB associations, typically
present in the thousands \citep{briceno2007}.
Scorpius-Centaurus (Sco-Cen), the nearest OB association, has been the
subject of several efforts to identify its lower-mass population
\citep[e.g.,][]{dezeeuw1999,preibisch1999,mamajek2002,rizzuto2011,rizzuto2015}.
Sco-Cen harbors a barely explored population of thousands of low-mass
K and M-type stars \citep{preibisch2008}. The association consists of
three classic subregions first defined by \citet{blaauw1946}, and later
refined by \citet{dezeeuw1999}: Upper Scorpius (US), Upper
Centaurus-Lupus (UCL), and Lower Centaurus-Crux (LCC). The subgroups
have mean distances of 145~pc, 140~pc, and 118~pc, respectively
\citep{dezeeuw1999}. Though many K/M type members of US have been
identified in surveys by
\cite{walter1994}, \cite{preibisch1998}, \cite{preibisch1999},
\cite{preibisch2001}, \cite{preibisch2002}, and \cite{rizzuto2015},
UCL and LCC occupy larger regions of the sky, and have received less
attention, with only $\sim$90 K/M stars identified in both subgroups,
mostly in \citet{mamajek2002}, \citet{preibisch2008},
\citet{song2012}, and a few new M-type members discovered by
\cite{rodriguez2011} and \cite{murphy2015} using Galaxy Evolution
Explorer (GALEX) UV observations. A deep DECam imaging survey of UCL
and LCC is underway which is yielding dozens of members down to the
deuterium-burning limit (Moolekamp et al., in prep).
In this study, we identify and characterize a new sample of K/M-type
($\sim$0.7-1.3~\ts M$_\odot$) members of Sco-Cen selected through their X-ray
emission and proper motions. We describe the results of a
low-resolution spectroscopic survey to identify new low-mass K- and
M-type members of Sco-Cen. We combine our newly identified members
with members discovered by previous surveys to estimate the accretion
disk fraction, and probe the star-formation history of each subgroup.
Finally, we place these results in context with the results from other
stellar populations.
\section{Sample Selection}
We aim to find new K- and M- type members of all three subgroups of
Sco-Cen. Low-mass pre-main sequence stars are X-ray luminous, with
log(L$_x$/L$_{bol}$) $\simeq$ -3, due to their strong magnetic dynamos
and coronal X-ray emission \citep{feigelson1999}. To build our
candidate star list, we cross-referenced the PPMX proper-motion
catalog \citep{roser2008} with X-ray sources within 40\arcsec\, in the
ROSAT Bright Source \citep{voges1999} and Faint Source
\citep{voges2000} catalogs. We restricted our search to the
\citet{dezeeuw1999} boundaries for Sco-Cen and adopted their proper
motion limits with an extra 10~\ts mas~yr$^{-1}$\, to allow for larger proper
motion uncertainties and possible kinematic sub-structure. For
objects at a distance of $\sim$140~pc, this extra 10~\ts mas~yr$^{-1}$\,
translates to $\simeq 7$~km~s$^{-1}$. For US, UCL, and LCC this gives
limits of $\mu$ $<$ 47~\ts mas~yr$^{-1}$, 12~\ts mas~yr$^{-1}$ $<$ $\mu$ $<$ 55~\ts mas~yr$^{-1}$, and
15~\ts mas~yr$^{-1}$ $<$ $\mu$ $<$ 55~\ts mas~yr$^{-1}$, respectively, with $\mu_{\alpha} <$
10 \ts mas~yr$^{-1}$\, and $\mu_{\delta} <$ 30 \ts mas~yr$^{-1}$\, for all three subgroups.
We also required that our proper motions were less than 50\% uncertain,
$\sigma_{\mu} < 0.5 \mu$, to avoid candidates with poorly constrained
proper motions. The mean proper motion magnitude varies across the
association due to its large extent on the sky and will also vary
for stars of different distances, this being the principle behind
kinematic parallaxes.
The intrinsic J-K$_S$ color of an unreddened K0V dwarf is 0.48 mag
\citep{pecaut2013}, and we aimed to find low-mass K- or M-type members
of Sco-Cen so we further made color-magnitude cuts and required our
candidates to have color J-K$_S$ $>$ 0.5 mag and magnitude
7.0 $<$ J $<$ 11.0 from the 2MASS Point Source Catalog
\citep{skrutskie2006}. To avoid very large integration times on the
SMARTS 1.5m telescope, we chose $J < 11.0$ mag, which corresponds to
$V \sim 12.5$ mag for an unreddened K0V dwarf. Stars brighter than
$J \sim 7.0$ mag would have been covered by previous surveys
(e.g., \citealt{mamajek2002}), so we chose $J > 7.0$ mag. At the time
we performed our sample selection, accurate V-band magnitudes were not
available for most stars in our parent sample, so we used J-band
magnitudes to filter the brighter and fainter ends of our parent
sample. We removed candidates located in UCL just below US, in
$343 < l < 350$ and $0 < b < 10$ in galactic coordinates. This region
overlaps with ``Lower Sco''
\citep{mamajek2013aas,nguyen2013ppvi,mamajek2013ppvi}, and will be
discussed in forthcoming papers (Mamajek et al., in prep.;
Nguyen et al., in prep). This left us with 677 candidates, listed in
\autoref{tbl:inputdata}. Before assembling a list of targets for
observation, we searched the literature to record those stars which had
been studied in previous surveys from which spectral type, Li or
H$\alpha$ measurements were available in sufficient detail to make a
membership determination. We then omitted stars which were studied in
\citet{mamajek2002},
\citet{preibisch1998}, \citet{preibisch2001}, \citet{preibisch2002},
\citet{ardila2000}, \citet{koehler2000}, \citet{slesnick2006},
\citet{krautter1997}, \citet{wichmann1997}, \citet{riaz2006}, and
\citet{torres2006}. This left us with 365 candidates in our
spectroscopic target list. Objects PPMX~J121431.8-511015,
PPMX~J134751.4-490148, PPMX~J143751.3-545649, and
PPMX~J154348.8-392737 were not observed because they were within
60$\arcsec$ of known Sco-Cen members. The first two may constitute new
companions to Sco-Cen members MML~9 and MML~38, respectively (listed
in \autoref{tbl:binary}). The status of the third (PPMX~J143751.3-545649)
with respect to MML~47 is unclear. The fourth, PPMX~J154348.8-392737,
is a previously catalogued companion to HD~140197 \cite[listed as SEE
247 AB in the Washington Double Star catalog;][]{mason2001}. This
finally leaves 361 candidates which were spectroscopically observed.
\input{tbl_input_data.tex}
\onecolumn
\begin{table}
\caption{New Candidate Double Stars in Sco-Cen}\label{tbl:binary}
\begin{tabular}[cb]{llllllll}
\hline
Primary & Primary & Secondary & J & PA & sep. & epoch & Notes\\
Name & PPMX & PPMX & mags & deg & \arcsec & yr & \\
\hline
MML 9 & 121434.0-511012 & 121431.8-511015 & 8.7,10.0 & 261.34 & 21.17 & 2010.5589 & 1,2\\
MML 38 & 134750.5-490205 & 134751.4-490148 & 9.3,10.1 & 27.36 & 19.01 & 2010.5589 & 2\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
Notes:
(1) The RAVE 4th data release \citep{kordopatis2013} reports radial
velocities of 12.6\,$\pm$\,3.5 km\,s$^{-1}$ and 11.3\,$\pm$\,3.6
km\,s$^{-1}$ for the primary and secondary, respectively, supporting
the notion that they constitute a physical pair.
(2) Astrometry from AllWISE positions \citep{cutri2014}.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\twocolumn
\section{Observations and Data}
\subsection{Spectra}
Low-resolution red ($\sim$5600\textrm{\AA}--6900\textrm{\AA}) optical
spectra were obtained from the SMARTS 1.5m telescope at Cerro Tololo
Inter-American Observatory (CTIO), Chile. Observations were made in
queue mode with the RC spectrograph between July 2009 and October
2010, and in classical mode during the nights of UT 7-17 April 2010.
The spectra were taken with the ``47/Ib'' setup, which consists of a
grating with groove density of 831 grooves~mm$^{-1}$, blaze wavelength
7100\textrm{\AA}, a GG495 filter and a slit width of 110.5$\mu$m, giving
a spectral resolution of $\sim$3.1~\textrm{\AA}\, in the red optical.
One comparison arc of Ne was taken immediately before three
consecutive exposures of each target. The data were reduced using the
SMARTS RC Spectrograph IDL pipeline written by Fred
Walter\footnote{\url{http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/SMARTS/smarts_15msched.html\#RCpipeline}}.
The three object images are median filtered, bias-trimmed, overscan-
and bias-subtracted, and flat-fielded. The spectrum is
wavelength-calibrated using the Ne comparison frames. Finally, we
normalize the spectra to the continuum with a low order spline in
preparation for spectral classification.
In addition, we reanalyzed the low resolution spectra from the \citet{mamajek2002}
study. These blue and red spectra were taken at Siding Springs
Observatory in UT 20-24 April 2000. The blue spectra have spectral resolution of
$\sim$2.8\textrm{\AA}\, with spectral coverage of $\sim$3850-5400\textrm{\AA}. The red
spectra have spectral resolution of $\sim$1.3\textrm{\AA}\, with spectral coverage of
$\sim$6200-7150\textrm{\AA}. Further details regarding these spectra are described
in \cite{mamajek2002}.
\subsection{Photometry}
Our compiled photometry is listed in \autoref{tbl:inputdata}.
Six of our candidates have $BV$ photometry available from the {\it Hipparcos}
catalog, and we adopted it where possible. For $\sim$130 candidates, we
adopted $BV$ photometry from the Tycho-2 Catalog \citep{hog2000}, converted
to the Johnson system using the conversions in \cite{mamajek2002,mamajek2002e}.
For $\sim$350 candidates, we adopted $BV$ photometry from the AAVSO Photometric
All-Sky Survey\footnote{\url{http://www.aavso.org/apass}} (APASS) Data Release
6 and Data Release 7 \citep{henden2012}.
and the Search for Associations Containing Young stars catalog
\cite[SACY;][]{torres2006} for $\sim$100 candidates. For stars
with V$\simless$12~mag, conservative estimates for SACY photometric uncertainties
are 0.01~mag (C.A.O. Torres, 2012 private communication).
We adopt JHK$_S$ photometry from the Two Micron All-Sky Survey Point Source
Catalog \citep[2MASS;][]{skrutskie2006}. We adopt 2MASS aperture photometry when
the PSF is poorly fit as indicated by the quality flags (``qflg'' other than `A')
in the 2MASS catalog. These data are indicated in the notes of
\autoref{tbl:inputdata}.
For candidate members, we use mid-IR photometry from the Wide-field Infrared
Survey Explorer \citep[{\it WISE};][]{wright2010,cutri2012b}. We visually
examined all images of members which exhibit infrared excesses (identified in
section~\ref{sec:irexcesses}) in one or more WISE bands. We flagged photometry
which could be affected by blends with adjacent objects, unresolved binaries,
or extended emission from nearby bright stars. We exclude photometry with
unreliable detections or uncertainties exceeding 0.25~mag. We followed the
scheme for evaluating the photometry in \cite{luhman2012}. Our mid-IR WISE
photometry is listed in \autoref{tbl:irdata}.
A few stars in our sample had WISE photometry contaminated by nearby objects.
PDS~415 and CD-23~12840 are a $\sim$4\arcsec\, binary, but only CD-23~12840 is in the
PPMX catalog and thus only CD-23~12840 is in our sample. Both components of the pair
are listed in the WISE All-Sky catalog but CD-23~12840 has $K_S - W1 < 0.0$.
Examination of the WISE images shows the two are blended. PDS~415 is detected as an
infrared source in the AKARI catalog \citep{ishihara2010} but CD-23~12840 is not
detected. Thus we conclude that PDS~415 is the source of the infrared excess and
the CD-23~12840 $K_S$ band excess may be spurious. We exclude the CD-23~12840 WISE
photometry. HD~326277 is blended with a nearby object in $W1$ and $W2$ and had
no reliable detection in $W3$ and $W4$. HD~326277 has {\it Spitzer} 3.6$\mu$m and
4.5$\mu$m IRAC photometry in {\it GLIMPSE}
([3.6]=8.165$\pm$0.040~mag, [4.5]=8.178$\pm$0.044~mag; \citealt{churchwell2009})
which differs from the WISE $W1$ and $W2$ by $\sim$0.5~mag.
This suggests that the WISE photometry for this star is contaminated by
blends and therefore we exclude the WISE photometry for HD~326277.
\subsection{Astrometry}
Although our original selection scheme utilized proper motions from
the PPMX catalog, we adopt proper motions for our analysis from
several catalogs, including the {\it Hipparcos} catalog
\citep{vanleeuwen2007}, the Tycho-2 catalog \citep{hog2000}, the PPMX
catalog \citep{roser2008} and the UCAC4 catalog \citep{zacharias2013}.
At the time we performed our sample selection, the PPMX catalog
the most complete homogeneous proper motion catalog with absolute
proper motions (i.e., on the International Celestial Reference
System, or ICRS; \citealt{roser2008}). However, for our analysis we
make use of proper motions for kinematic distance estimates, and
therefore desire the most precise and well-constrained proper motions
available. Therefore, for our calculations, we select the source
catalog on a case-by-case basis, adopting the proper motions which
have the smallest uncertainties. The majority of our adopted proper
motions listed in \autoref{tbl:inputdata} are from the UCAC4
catalog.
\section{Analysis}
\subsection{Spectral Classification} \label{sec:MK}
The optical spectra were visually classified against a dense grid of carefully
chosen spectral
standards\footnote{see \url{http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~emamajek/spt/}}
with spectral coverage from $\sim$5600\textrm{\AA}--6900\textrm{\AA}. We use
the same spectral standards and classification criteria as described in
\cite{pecaut2013}. The G/K stars are on the classification system of
\citet{keenan1989} and the M-type stars are on the classification system of
\citet{kirkpatrick1991}.
While estimating temperature types for our sample we ignored the Na~I
doublet at $\sim$5889/5896\textrm{\AA}\, because it increases in strength
with surface gravity, and is thus useful in discriminating between
dwarfs and giants. For those pre-main sequence (pre-MS) members of
Sco--Cen, we expected these to have a Na~I doublet line similar to but
weaker than dwarfs \citep{spinrad1962,lawson2009,schlieder2012b}.
Once a temperature type had been established, we compared the Na~I
doublet to that of a dwarf and a giant of the same temperature
subclass, assigning an appropriate luminosity class. In a few cases
the star had a Na~I doublet feature which closely resembled a giant
(luminosity class III) but the relative strength of the Ca~I at
$\lambda$ 6102, $\lambda$6122 and $\lambda$6162 lines relative to the
Fe~I line at $\lambda$6137 resembled that of a dwarf (luminosity class
V). In these cases we assigned the intermediate luminosity class of a
subgiant (luminosity class IV).
For the early to mid G-type stars, the Na~I doublet for subgiants is
nearly indistinguishable from that of dwarfs (see
\autoref{fig:teff_na}), so the Na~I doublet was only used to assign
luminosity classes from spectral type $\sim$G5 to $\sim$M3.
\input{tbl_irdata.tex}
We also revised the spectral classifications for Sco-Cen members
studied in \citet{mamajek2002}.
The spectral types from \citet{mamajek2002} were tied very closely to
those of the Michigan Spectral Survey \citep{houk1978, houk1982}. The
\citet{mamajek2002} spectra were re-classified by M. Pecaut during the
survey of \citet{pecaut2013} using the standards of \citet{keenan1989},
and systematic differences were noted. In \autoref{tbl:membership}
we adopt the revised classifications for the \citet{mamajek2002} stars.
There are clearly systematic differences between the Michigan types
and those on the modern MK system \cite[as noted in Appendix C.1 of
][]{pecaut2013}. Put simply, a G2V star classified in the Michigan
survey corresponds more closely to a G0.5V on the modern grid of
G-dwarf standards \citep{keenan1989}, as classified by Gray and
collaborators \citep[e.g.][]{gray2003, gray2006}. This is verified by
comparison of the colors and effective temperatures of stars
classified both by Houk and Gray et al. While the Michigan survey
mostly relied on the MK system of \citet{johnson1953} (including changes
up through early 1970s), there were minor shifts to the MK system for
stars hotter than G0 by Morgan \citep{morgan1973a,morgan1978}, and for
GK-type stars by \citet{keenan1989} after the Michigan survey was
initiated in the late 1960's. The modern M dwarf classifications rely
on the standard sequence of \citet{kirkpatrick1991} and its later
additions \citep[e.g.][]{henry2002}. The spectral classification surveys
of bright stars undertaken by Gray and collaborators \citep{gray2001a,
gray2003, gray2006} are based on the last generations of Morgan's and
Keenan's hot and cool star spectral sequences (\citealt{morgan1978},
\citealt{keenan1989}) which are in common modern use. We compared stars
of given spectral type in the Michigan survey to those of
\citet{gray2001a, gray2003, gray2006}, and in \autoref{tbl:MK} we
provide an estimate of the modern dwarf spectral type for given Michigan
spectral types. Very few of the Michigan spectral classes appear to
correspond closely to the same type of star on the modern MK grid (e.g.
F6V, K0V, K3V being rare exceptions). Unfortunately, the differences are
most pronounced in the early G-type dwarfs, where Michigan G2V
corresponds to Gray's G0.5V, Michigan G3V corresponds to G1.5V, etc.
This is partially due to Houk's choice of G dwarf standards (e.g.
using $\beta$ Com as their G2V standard, despite it being considered a
G0V or F9.5V standard elsewhere), but also due to Keenan's minor
adjustments to the G dwarf standards throughout the 1980's. As the
\citet{keenan1989} grid defines the modern GK dwarf sequence and is
common use, classifications that used this grid are to be considered
on the modern MK system following \autoref{tbl:MK}. For
intercomparison of samples of stars classified in the Michigan survey
with samples classified on the modern MK system, we recommend
converting the Michigan spectral types to the modern MK system using
the conversions in \autoref{tbl:MK}. None map exactly to G2V.
\input{tbl_membership.tex}
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparing Michigan Spectral Types to Gray MK Spectral Types}\label{tbl:MK}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
\begin{tabular}{lll|lll|lll}
\hline
{(1)} & & {(2)} & {(3)} & &{(4)} &{(5)} & &{(6)} \\
{SpT} & & {SpT} & {SpT} & &{SpT} &{SpT} & &{SpT} \\
{Houk}& & {Gray} & {Houk}& &{Gray}&{Houk}& &{Gray} \\
\hline
F0V & $\rightarrow$ & F1V & G0V & $\rightarrow$ & F9.5V & K0V & $\rightarrow$ & K0V \\
F1V & $\rightarrow$ & F2V & G0/1V & $\rightarrow$ & F9.5V & K0/1V & $\rightarrow$ & K1V \\
F2V & $\rightarrow$ & F3.5V & G0/2V & $\rightarrow$ & G3:V & K1V & $\rightarrow$ & K1.5V \\
F2/3V & $\rightarrow$ & F3.5V & G1V & $\rightarrow$ & G0+V & K1/2V & $\rightarrow$ & K2V \\
F3V & $\rightarrow$ & F4V & G1/2V & $\rightarrow$ & G0V & K2V & $\rightarrow$ & K2.5V \\
F3/5V & $\rightarrow$ & F5V & G2V & $\rightarrow$ & G0.5V & K2/3V & $\rightarrow$ & K3V \\
F5V & $\rightarrow$ & F5.5V & G2/3V & $\rightarrow$ & G1V & K3V & $\rightarrow$ & K3V \\
F5/6V & $\rightarrow$ & F6V & G3V & $\rightarrow$ & G1.5V & K3/4V & $\rightarrow$ & K4V \\
F6V & $\rightarrow$ & F6V & G3/5V & $\rightarrow$ & G4V & K4V & $\rightarrow$ & K4+V \\
F6/7V & $\rightarrow$ & F6.5V & G5V & $\rightarrow$ & G4.5V & K4/5V & $\rightarrow$ & K5V \\
F7V & $\rightarrow$ & F7.5V & G5/6V & $\rightarrow$ & G6V & K5V & $\rightarrow$ & K6-V \\
F7/8V & $\rightarrow$ & F8V & G8V & $\rightarrow$ & G8.5V & K5/M0V & $\rightarrow$ & K7V \\
F8V & $\rightarrow$ & F8.5V & & & & M0V & $\rightarrow$ & K6.5V \\
F8/G0V & $\rightarrow$ & F9V & & & & & & \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\twocolumn
\subsection{Distance Calculation\label{sct:dist}}
Very few of our candidate members have measured trignometric
parallaxes, so we estimate distances to each candidate by calculating
a ``kinematic'' or ``cluster'' parallax
\citep[e.g.,][]{debruijne1999a}. This method uses the centroid space
motion of the group with the proper motion of the candidate member and
the angular separation to the convergent point of the group to
estimate the distance to the individual member, with the assumption
that they are co-moving. We emphasize that kinematic parallaxes are
only meaningful for true members and meaningless for non-members.
Kinematic parallaxes have been shown to reduce the scatter in the H-R
diagram for cluster members over trignometric parallaxes
\citep{debruijne1999b}. We adopt the formalism and methods of
\cite{mamajek2005} and adopt the updated Sco-Cen subgroup space
motions listed in \citet{chen2011}. In addition to providing improved
distance estimates over simply adopting the mean subgroup distances,
the kinematic parallaxes allow us identify non-members and assess the
likelihood that the candidate member is a bona-fide member.
\subsection{Membership Criteria}\label{sec:membership}
In order to identify likely members from our sample, we demand that
all available data paint a consistent picture of association
membership, and therefore consider several indicators to discriminate
against interlopers. Based on previous surveys \citep[see][and
references therein]{preibisch2008}, we expect the K and M-type stars
to be pre-MS, and therefore have Li absorption stronger, on average,
than that of a $\sim$30-50~Myr-old population. We also expect that
they will exhibit surface gravities intermediate between dwarfs and
giants. We identify those stars which have the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Appropriate levels of Li absorption in their spectra, using the
Li~6708\textrm{\AA}\, line,
\item Dwarf or subgiant surface gravities, using the Na~I doublet at
5889/5896\textrm{\AA},
\item Kinematic distances consistent with Sco--Cen,
\item H-R diagram positions broadly consistent with membership in
Sco-Cen (e.g., neither below the main sequence nor above a 1~Myr
isochrone).
\end{enumerate}
We discuss these criteria in detail in the following sections.
Borderline cases were examined closely.
\subsubsection{Lithium}
Pre-MS stars transition from fully convective to having deep
convective envelopes with radiative interiors during their
contraction. These stars can mix Li from the stellar photosphere
throughout the convection zone down to interior regions of the star
where it is destroyed at $T\simgreat$2.6 MK \citep{bodeheimer1965,
strom1994}. Thus, for $\sim$0.7-1.3~\ts M$_\odot$\, stars like those
targeted in this study, a high photospheric Li abundance is only
present when the star is very young. Based on the published ages
\citep{degeus1989,preibisch1999,mamajek2002,pecaut2012}, we
expect members of Sco-Cen to exhibit stronger Li absorption lines
at a given T$_{\rm eff}$, on average and within some acceptable scatter,
than a $\sim$30-50~Myr sample.
We measured the equivalent width of the 6708\textrm{\AA}\, Li feature for
all stars in our spectroscopic sample. The values were measured with
IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National
Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association
of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under cooperative
agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
with Vogt profiles after the spectrum was normalized to the continuum.
Given our spectral resolution and the repeatability of our
measurements, we estimate that our reported EW(Li) values are accurate
to $\sim$0.05\textrm{\AA}. The 6708\textrm{\AA}\, feature is a blend with a
nearby Fe~I line at 6707.44\textrm{\AA}, unresolved at our resolution,
and thus our EW(Li) values are probably overestimated by
$\sim$0.02\textrm{\AA}. However, this is smaller than our uncertainties
and we do not attempt to correct for this blend. Many stars in our
parent sample were not observed because they had EW(Li) values
available in the literature; for these stars we simply adopted the
previously published values.
We compare our EW(Li) measurements at a given T$_{\rm eff}$\, to those in
nearby open clusters. In \autoref{fig:teff_li} we plot T$_{\rm eff}$\,
versus EW(Li) for our sample along with data for the young open
clusters IC~2602 \citep{randich1997} and the Pleiades
\citep{soderblom1993,jones1996}. Most stars in our sample exhibit
much larger EW(Li) at a given T$_{\rm eff}$\, than either IC~2602
($\sim$45~Myr; \citealt{dobbie2010}) or the Pleiades ($\sim$125~Myr;
\citealt{stauffer1998}). These data suggest that Li is largely
undepleted for the $\sim$10-16 Myr-old stars in Sco-Cen hotter than
spectral type $\sim$K3, but the Li depletion becomes very strong
for stars cooler than $\sim$K3 ($\sim$1.1~\ts M$_\odot$). We fit low-order
polynomials to the
IC~2602 and Pleiades T$_{\rm eff}$\, versus EW(Li) data; the polynomial
coefficents are listed in \autoref{tbl:lipoly}. For our Li-based
membership criterion, if the EW(Li) was above the polynomial fit to
IC~2602 we marked that star as `Y' in \autoref{tbl:membership}; if
EW(Li) was below the IC~2602 polynomial fit but above the Pleiades
polynomial fit, we marked it as `Y?', and if the EW(Li) is below the
Pleiades polynomial fit we marked it as `N'. Stars studied in
\citet{preibisch1999}, \citet{koehler2000} and \citet{krautter1997}
were confirmed as Li-rich but the measurements were not reported. We
marked these candidates as `Y' in \autoref{tbl:membership}. In total,
we marked 482 candidates as `Y', 153 as `N', and 38 as `Y?'.
\begin{table}
\caption{Polynomial fits to Li vs T$_{\rm eff}$\, data}\label{tbl:lipoly}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\hline
Polynomial & & & \\
Coefficient & IC 2602 & Pleiades & Sco-Cen \\
\hline
$a_0$ & -1.869522 $\times$ 10$^6$ & -1.639425 $\times$ 10$^6$ & -3.576491 $\times$ 10$^6$ \\
$a_1$ & 1.472855 $\times$ 10$^6$ & 1.290057 $\times$ 10$^6$ & 2.890342 $\times$ 10$^6$ \\
$a_2$ & -3.862308 $\times$ 10$^5$ & -3.379855 $\times$ 10$^5$ & -7.778982 $\times$ 10$^5$ \\
$a_3$ & 3.371432 $\times$ 10$^4$ & 2.948343 $\times$ 10$^4$ & 6.972998 $\times$ 10$^4$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
Note: $EW(Li) [m\textrm{\AA}] = a_0 + a_1 ($$\log({\rm T_{eff}})$$) + a_2 ($$\log({\rm T_{eff}})$$)^2 + a_3 ($$\log({\rm T_{eff}})$$)^3$ \\
Polynomial fit is valid from $\log({\rm T_{eff}})$=3.800~dex to 3.580~dex.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{teff_li.pdf}
\caption{
Measured EW(Li) from the 6708\textrm{\AA}\, line plotted against $\log({\rm T_{eff}})$\,
for our X-ray sample.
Plotted dashed lines are polynomial fits to data from surveys in IC~2602
\citep{randich1997} and the Pleiades \protect\citep{soderblom1993,jones1996}.
The location of the EW(Li) for our Sco-Cen candidate members is used to
determine the membership indicator in \autoref{tbl:membership}. Those above
the IC~2602 curve are marked ``Y'', those above the Pleiades curve are marked
``Y?'', while candidates below the Pleiades are marked ``N''. The solid curve
is a polynomial fit to the Sco-Cen candidates marked ``Y''; the polynomial
coefficients are listed in \autoref{tbl:lipoly}.
}
\label{fig:teff_li}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Surface Gravity}
Based on previous nuclear and pre-MS age determinations of the
subgroups of Sco--Cen \citep{mamajek2002,pecaut2012}, the low-mass
stars in Sco-Cen are expected to be pre-main sequence with surface
gravities intermediate between dwarfs and giants. For candidates in
our spectroscopic sample we can examine spectral features sensitive to
surface gravity, primarily the Na~I doublet at
5889\textrm{\AA}/5896\textrm{\AA}. Details on using Na~I as a surface
gravity indicator for identifying young stars is discussed in detail
in \cite{schlieder2012b}. The Na~I doublet decreases in strength at a
given T$_{\rm eff}$\, as surface gravity decreases. However, the observed
strength of the Na~I doublet in subgiants among G-type stars is
difficult to distinguish from dwarfs. The differences in the Na~I
doublet strength between dwarfs and subgiants becomes more useful in
mid-K-type spectra, as shown in \autoref{fig:teff_na}. For this
reason we are fairly conservative in our surface gravity membership
criterion, marking G-type stars with luminosity classes of `IV' with
`Y', `V' with `Y?' and `III' with `N'. Note that we only use this
criterion for stars which we have observed spectroscopically;
luminosity classifications from other authors for stars in our parent
sample are not used for this criterion. We assigned 345 stars
into these two categories, with 300 marked as `Y?' and 45 marked
as `N'.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{teff_na.pdf}
\caption{Measured EW(Na) from the Na~I doublet at
5889\textrm{\AA}/5896\textrm{\AA}\, line plotted against $\log({\rm T_{eff}})$\, for
our spectroscopic sample. Plotted are polynomial fits to dwarf
and giant spectral standard stars used for classification.}
\label{fig:teff_na}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Distances}
As mentioned previously, the majority of our sample lack trigonometric
distance estimates. However, if we calculate a kinematic parallax
estimate using the best available proper motion, we can then estimate
distances for each star in our sample and verify that this lies within
the range of expected distances for the association. Stars with
discrepant kinematic distances are identified as non-members. We use
the results of the membership study of \citet{rizzuto2011}, which
makes use of the revised {\it Hipparcos} trignometric parallaxes
\citep{vanleeuwen2007}, to establish our distance criteria. Based on
the spatial distribution of their candidate members,
\citet{rizzuto2011} concluded that strict boundaries between the
subgroups are somewhat arbitrary, so we do not use distinct kinematic
distance criteria for each subgroup. To establish parallax ($\varpi$)
limits based on galactic longitude and latitude $(l, b)$, we fit a
plane to the B-type members with membership probabilities $>$50\% from
the \cite{rizzuto2011} study, obtaining:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\varpi & = & (-0.0208 \pm 0.0061) \times (l - <l>)\\
& & + (-0.0299 \pm 0.0158) \times (b - <b>) \\
& & + (7.7761 \pm 0.0969)
\end{eqnarray*}
with mean galactic coordinates $<l>=328.579^{\circ}$, $<b>=13.261^{\circ}$.
The 1$\sigma$ dispersion in the fit is $\sigma_{\varpi} \simeq 1.25$\,mas.
Therefore we model the shape of Sco-Cen with a continuous plane and
depth characterized by 1$\sigma$ dispersion of $\sim$1.25~mas. For
our kinematic distance criteria, we mark stars with `Y' in
\autoref{tbl:membership} if their kinematic parallaxes are within
the 2$\sigma$ (95\% C.L.) dispersion from the plane described above,
and `Y?' if they are between 2$\sigma$ and 3$\sigma$. We mark stars
with `N' if they are beyond 3$\sigma$ of the dispersion from the
plane. This criteria effectively provides different distance limits
as a function of galactic longitude and latitude, giving typical
2$\sigma$ distance limits of 141$^{+77}_{-37}$~pc,
130$^{+62}_{-32}$~pc, and 117$^{+49}_{-27}$~pc for US, UCL and LCC,
respectively. 677 stars in our sample have been placed in these
categories, with 495 marked as `Y', 80 as `Y?', and 102 as `N'.
\subsubsection{HRD position}
As a final membership check, we place these stars on the H-R diagram
using their kinematic distances, which, for this purpose, {\it
assumes} they are co-moving with other members in the association.
Objects that have H-R diagram positions inconsistent with membership,
e.g., below the main sequence, are rejected. Below we discuss the few
stars which were Li-rich and fell inside our kinematic distance
criteria but were rejected because they had discrepant H-R diagram
positions. Two stars were rejected since they fell below the main
sequence and two stars were rejected since they were well above the
1~Myr isochrone. Unresolved binarity is insufficient to account for
these discrepant positions. Further analysis can be found in
section~\ref{sec:hrd_km}.
\subsubsection{Interlopers}
{\it US:} HD~144610 is a Li-rich K1IV-III which has a kinematic
parallax of $\pi_{\rm kin}$=3.41$\pm$0.69~mas which is consistent with
a H-R diagram position of $\log({\rm T_{eff}})$=3.70$\pm$0.01, $\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$=1.42$\pm$0.18,
well above the 1~Myr isochrone, so we reject it.
{\it UCL}: 2MASS~J14301461-4520277 is a Li-rich K3IV(e) which, using
the kinematic parallax of $\pi_{\rm kin}=10.92\pm0.92$~mas, has an H-R
diagram position well below the main sequence ($\log({\rm T_{eff}})$=3.66$\pm$0.02,
$\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$=-0.91$\pm$0.08), so we reject its membership to UCL.
2MASS~J16100321-5026121 is a Li-rich K0III \citep{torres2006} which
lies well above the 1~Myr isochrone ($\log({\rm T_{eff}})$=3.70$\pm$0.01,
$\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$=1.16$\pm$0.08), calculated using the kinematic parallax of
$\pi_{\rm kin}=4.19\pm0.38$~mas, so we consider a UCL interloper.
{\it LCC:} 2MASS~J10111521-6620282, lies well below the main sequence,
with $\log({\rm T_{eff}})$=3.70$\pm$0.01, $\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$=-0.86$\pm$0.09, calculated using the
predicted kinematic parallax of $\pi_{\rm kin}$=9.63$\pm$0.94~mas.
This is puzzling because it is a Li-rich K0IV, with a proper motion in
excellent agreement with membership in LCC. It does not exhibit an
infrared excess which could be a signature of an edge-on disk, and the
$B-V$ and $V-K_S$ colors are consistent with a negligibly reddened
young K0. However, it is $\sim$0.4~dex underluminous for the main
sequence, so we consider it a likely LCC interloper.
\subsubsection{Final Membership Assessment}
Though we require the Li, surface gravity indicators, kinematic
distance criterion, and H-R diagram criterion to indicate membership,
the Li and kinematic distance criteria are the most restrictive and
are responsible for identifying most non-members. Stars with `Y' or
`Y?' in each of the four membership categories have been identified
members of Sco-Cen. Though we have made every effort to remove
interlopers, our list of candidate members may still contain a few
non-members, though it will be dominated by true members. From our
current sample, we identify 493 stars as likely members, listed in
\autoref{tbl:member_properties}. The 180 stars rejected as Sco-Cen
members are listed in \autoref{tbl:rejected}. 156 are newly
identified young stars.
\input{tbl_stellar_properties.tex}
\input{tbl_rejected.tex}
\subsection{Extinction}
We estimate the reddening and extinction for Sco-Cen members using the
spectral type-intrinsic color sequence for pre-MS stars described in
\citet{pecaut2013}. These intrinsic colors are calibrated using
low-mass members of nearby moving groups which have negliglible
extinction, and bracket the age range of the Sco-Cen subgroups
(5-30~Myr). Many of the stars in our sample have very low reddening,
and where we obtained a non-physical negative extinction we set the
extinction to zero. We used a total-to-selective extinction of
R$_V$=3.1 and calculated E(B-V), E(V-J), E(V-H), and E(V-K$_S$) with
A$_J$/A$_V$=0.27, A$_H$/A$_V$=0.17, A$_{K_S}$/A$_V$=0.11
\citep{fiorucci2003} which allowed us to estimate extinctions to each
star individually using as many as four different colors. We adopted
the median A$_V$, and adopted the standard deviation of the A$_V$
values as a conservative estimate of their uncertainty. For the stars
which lack reliable $V$ band photometry, we estimate their extinctions
using E(J-K$_S$). Our extinction estimates are listed in
\autoref{tbl:member_properties}.
\subsection{H-R Diagram for Sco-Cen Members}\label{sec:hrd_km}
We place our Sco-Cen members on a theoretical H-R diagram in order to
compare with theoretical models and obtain individual isochronal age
estimates. We adopt the effective temperature scale (T$_{\rm eff}$) and
bolometric correction (BC$_V$) scale from the \cite{pecaut2013}
study\footnote{
\citet{pecaut2013} adopted an absolute bolmetric magnitude for the
Sun of ${\rm M_{\odot}=4.755~mag}$, $\sim 0.015$~mag higher than
the recently drafted IAU bolometric magnitude scale (2015 IAU resolution
B2). Thus the BC scale in \citet{pecaut2013} should be shifted
down by $\sim$0.02~mag to conform to the IAU scale. The luminosity
estimates in this present work are on the 2015 IAU scale.
},
which was constructed specifically for 5-30~Myr old pre-MS stars.
This T$_{\rm eff}$\, and BC$_V$ scale was derived by fitting the spectral
energy distributions of members of young, nearby moving groups to the
BT-Settl theoretical atmospheric models \citep{allard2012}. Though
this T$_{\rm eff}$\, and BC scale is dependent on model atmospheres, the
method used to develop the resultant T$_{\rm eff}$\, scale is in good
agreement with T$_{\rm eff}$\, values derived from angular diameter
measurements \citep[e.g.,][]{boyajian2012b}. We combine our
individual extinction estimates together with our kinematic parallaxes
and 2MASS J-band magnitudes to estimate the bolometric luminosities of
our stars and place them on a theoretical H-R diagram. We compare our
data to the pre-MS models of \cite{dotter2008} in
\autoref{fig:hrd}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{hrd_kstars.pdf}
\caption{H-R diagram for X-ray selected Sco-Cen members with
$J$--$K_S > 0.50$ as described in the text. Circles, triangles and
star symbols are US, UCL and LCC candidate members, respectively.
Plotted for comparison are 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 Myr isochrones from
\protect\citet{dotter2008}. Artificial scatter of
$\delta$T$_{\rm eff}$=$\pm$0.001~dex has been introduced for plotting
purposes.}
\label{fig:hrd}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{hrd_kstars_iso.pdf}
\caption{H-R diagram with empirical isochrones for US (solid), UCL
(dashed) and LCC (dotted). All three subgroups exhibit a
mass-dependent age trend.}
\label{fig:hrd_iso}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
There is considerable scatter in the H-R diagram so we construct
empirical isochrones by plotting the median luminosity along the H-R
diagram. Though there is some scatter, the relative age rank of the
three groups is consistent with that found in \citet{mamajek2002},
\citet{preibisch2008}, \citet{pecaut2012}; from oldest to youngest:
LCC, UCL and US, with UCL and LCC approximately coeval. The other
striking feature of the empirical isochrones is the mass-dependent age
trend. The lower mass stars appear younger against the theoretical
isochrones than the higher mass stars. This is the same
mass-dependent age trend seen in other studies
\citep[e.g.,][]{hillenbrand1997,hillenbrand2008,bell2012,bell2013,bell2014}.
The likely origin of the mass-dependent age trend is difficulties in
handling convection with magnetic fields in young, low-mass stars in
the evolutionary models, perhaps due to missing physics
\citep[see e.g.,][]{feiden2016}. At an age of 10~Myr and 15~Myr, our
observational uncertainties yield individual age uncertainties of
$\pm 3$~Myr and $\pm 4$~Myr, respectively.
\subsection{Ages}
The presence of massive stars in OB associations also allows for the
opportunity for a comparison of ages obtained through different parts
of the H-R diagram. As massive stars burn through their nuclear fuel,
they will expand and leave the main sequence. At the same time, the
pre-main sequence members of the OB association will be contracting
towards the main sequence. The evolutionary models will predict ages
for each of these segments of the H-R diagram, but different aspects
of stellar physics are important in each of these segments. In this
section, we examine the ages for both the low-mass pre-MS stars as well
as the massive main sequence turn-off stars.
\subsubsection{Pre-MS Ages}
We estimate individual ages for our pre-MS Sco-Cen members by linearly
interpolating between theoretical model isochrones. We use the
Dartmouth models \citep{dotter2008}, the Pisa models
\citep{tognelli2011}, the PARSEC models \citep{chen2014}, and the
Exeter/Lyon models \citep{baraffe2015}. These models each assume
slightly different stellar compositions, but are each calibrated to
reproduce the H-R diagram position of the Sun at its current age. The
Dartmouth evolutionary models adopt the \citet{grevesse1998} solar
composition with a protosolar He fraction of Y=0.2740, while the Pisa
evolutionary models adopt the \citet{asplund2005} solar composition
with a protosolar He fraction of Y=0.2533. The PARSEC models adopt the
\citet{caffau2008,caffau2009} solar abundances with a initial He
fraction of Y=0.284, whereas the Exeter/Lyon models use the
\citet{caffau2011} solar abundances, Y=0.271. The distributions of
ages we obtain with the Dartmouth evolutionary models is shown in
\autoref{fig:agehist}. We obtain median ages of 5$\pm$2~Myr,
9$\pm$1~Myr and 8$\pm$1~Myr (standard error of the median) for US, UCL
and LCC, respectively. Surprisingly, these ages are half the mean
ages obtained from the F-type members of Sco-Cen \citep{pecaut2012}.
Given the large T$_{\rm eff}$-dependent trend with age
(\autoref{fig:hrd_iso}), we decide against adopting mean subgroup
ages based on the K- and M-type members of Sco-Cen. A detailed
discussion of our reasoning is available in
section~\ref{sec:discuss_ages}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{agehist.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of raw isochronal ages obtained for the Sco-Cen
members of our sample using the \protect\cite{dotter2008} evolutionary
models.}
\label{fig:agehist}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In order to extract useful age estimates for the subgroups, we
re-examine the G-type pre-MS ages as well as the main-sequence
turn-off ages. We do this for two reasons, other than the obvious
desire to quote reliable mean ages. The first reason is that
estimating realistic intrinsic age spreads requires a reliable age as
free of systematic uncertainties as possible. We use Monte Carlo
simulations to constrain our intrinsic age spreads, taking into
account realistic binarity statistics and observational uncertainties,
the details of which are described in section~\ref{sec:age_spreads}.
Because isochrones evenly spaced in age will not generally be evenly
spaced in luminosity, a large intrinsic spread in luminosity at a
young age could still be consistent with a small age spread, whereas
the same intrinsic spread in luminosity at an older age would imply a
larger intrinsic age spread. The second reason we reevalute the
G-type ages and nuclear ages is that updated T$_{\rm eff}$\, and bolometric
corrections (BCs) have been made available since the ages were last
estimated in \citet{mamajek2002}. For the hot stars,
\citet{nieva2013} used modern non-local thermodynamic equilibrium
(NLTE) spectral synthesis models to re-evaluate the T$_{\rm eff}$\, and BC
scale for the massive OB stars (34,000~K $>$ T$_{\rm eff}$ $>$ 15,800~K).
Their results for dwarfs and subgiants are 1500-6000~K hotter than
the scale of \citet{napiwotzki1993} that was adopted in the study of
\citet{mamajek2002}. As previously mentioned, \citet{pecaut2013} have
constructed an updated T$_{\rm eff}$\, and BC scale applicable to the Sco-Cen
G-type stars. Both of these studies should allow us to place Sco-Cen
members on the H-R diagram with reduced systematic uncertainties.
\subsubsection{Isochronal Ages for G-type Pre-MS Stars}
To estimate the ages of the G-type pre-MS stars, we collect the G-type
members from this study together with those in \citet{walter1994},
\citet{preibisch1999}, \citet{mamajek2002}, and \citet{preibisch2008}.
We supplement this with G-type stars studied in \cite{torres2006} in
the Sco-Cen field which are Li-rich and have proper motions consistent
with membership; G-type stars identified as members here conform to
the membership criteria discussed in section~\ref{sec:membership}.
The stellar properties for these stars are listed in
\autoref{tbl:member_properties} and \autoref{tbl:scocen_gstars},
together with the median mass and age obtained through a comparison of
their H-R diagram positions with the evolutionary models of
\cite{dotter2008}, \citet{tognelli2011}, \citet{chen2014}, and
\citet{baraffe2015}.
\input{tbl_scocen_gstars.tex}
\subsubsection{Isochronal Turn-off Ages for Massive Stars}
To estimate nuclear ages, we collect membership lists for the most
massive stars from \citet{dezeeuw1999}, \citet{mamajek2002},
\citet{rizzuto2011} and \citet{pecaut2012}. We collect Stromgren
$ubvy\beta$ and Johnson $UBV$ photometry from \citet{hauck1998} and
\citet{mermilliod1994}. We estimate the extinction towards each early
B-type member with both the Q-method (\citealt{johnson1953}; updated
in \citealt{pecaut2013}) using Johnson $UBV$ photometry, and the
prescription of \citet{shobbrook1983}, using Stromgren $ubvy\beta$
photometry. For all the massive stars these two methods give similar
$A_V$ within the uncertainties, so we adopt the mean value. We
calculate the T$_{\rm eff}$\, and BC$_V$ for each star using the calibrations
with $Q$, $[u-b]$, $[c1]$ and $\beta$ in \citet{nieva2013}; we adopt
the median T$_{\rm eff}$\, when available. We note that the calibrations
derived by \citet{nieva2013} give systematically hotter T$_{\rm eff}$\, than
the calibrations of \citet{napiwotzki1993} and \citet{balona1994},
which were used in \citet{mamajek2002} and \citet{pecaut2012},
respectively, in the most recent estimation of Sco-Cen nuclear ages.
Because of this we expect to obtain younger turn-off ages than
previously estimated.
Our stellar parameters for the main-sequence turn-off in Sco-Cen are
listed in \autoref{tbl:scocen_turnoff}, along with an individual age
estimate of each object from a comparison the rotating tracks of
\citet{ekstrom2012}, rotating at $v_{eq}=0.4v_{crit}$, with the H-R
diagram position of the stars. A plot of the main-sequence turnoff
for all three subgroups is shown in \autoref{fig:hrd_turnoff}. To
estimate the turnoff age of Upper Sco we use $\tau$~Sco, $\omega$~Sco,
$\sigma$~Sco, $\beta^1$~Sco, $\pi$~Sco, and $\delta$~Sco. We obtain a
median turn-off age for US of $\sim$7~Myr. We concur with
\citet{dezeeuw1999} that $\omicron$~Sco is unlikely to be a US
member.\footnote{
$\omicron$~Sco is an A5II \citep{graygarrison1989} with a parallax of
3.71$\pm$0.54~mas \citep{vanleeuwen2007}. Its evolutionary status,
proper motion, and distance ($\sim$270~pc) are inconsistent with
membership in Upper Sco.}
For Upper Centaurus-Lupus,
we use $\mu$~Cen, $\delta$~Lup, $\alpha$~Lup, $\mu^1$~Sco,
$\mu^2$~Sco, $\beta$~Lup, $\gamma$~Lup, $\nu$~Cen, $\eta$~Cen,
$\eta$~Lup, $\phi$~Cen, $\epsilon$~Lup, $\kappa$~Cen, and HR~6143. We
obtain a median age for UCL of $\sim$19~Myr. For Lower
Centaurus-Crux, we use $\alpha^1$~Cru, $\beta$~Cru, $\beta$~Cen,
$\delta$~Cru and $\alpha$~Mus. We obtain a median age of
$\sim$11~Myr. Note that these are all in the southern part of LCC,
for which \citet{preibisch2008} estimated $\sim$12~Myr. There are no
turnoff stars in the northern part of LCC, the hottest of which
appear to be older ($\sim$20~Myr).
Our nuclear median subgroup ages are summarized in
\autoref{tbl:median_ages}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{hrd_turnoff.pdf}
\caption{Theoretical H-R diagram for the upper main sequence members
of Sco-Cen with isochrones from the rotating evolutionary models of
\protect\citet{ekstrom2012} with solar metallicity (Z = 0.014).}
\label{fig:hrd_turnoff}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\input{tbl_scocen_turnoff.tex}
We summarize our derived nuclear, F-type pre-MS and G-type pre-MS ages
in \autoref{tbl:median_ages} with our adopted values for each
subregion.
\begin{table}
\caption{Adopted subgroup ages}\label{tbl:median_ages}
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
\hline
Method &
US &
UCL &
LCC \\
&
(Myr) &
(Myr) &
(Myr) \\
\hline
MS Turnoff & 7$\pm$2 & 19$\pm$2 & 11$\pm$2 \\
G-Type Pre-MS & 10$\pm$1 & 15$\pm$1 & 15$\pm$1 \\
F-Type Pre-MS$^a$ & 13$\pm$1 & 16$\pm$1 & 17$\pm$1 \\
\hline
Adopted & 10$\pm$3 & 16$\pm$2 & 15$\pm$3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}Uncertainties reported above are the standard
error of the mean which represents the uncertainty in how well
the mean value is characterized; these numbers do not
represent the spread in ages.
Median ages are derived considering the
B-type main-sequence turn-off, the F-type pre-MS turn-on
and the pre-MS G-type stars in each subgroup. \\
$^a$ Adopted F-type Pre-MS ages from \citet{pecaut2012}.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\subsection{Intrinsic Age Spreads \label{sec:age_spreads}}
The H-R diagram positions of Sco-Cen members have a large degree of
scatter, and hence a large apparent scatter in inferred ages. Some of
this scatter is due to observational uncertainties and unresolved
multiplicity, but some scatter may be due to true age spreads within
the subgroups. Previous studies have found very small intrinsic age
spreads in US, but larger age spreads in UCL and LCC
\citep{preibisch2002,slesnick2006,mamajek2002,preibisch2008,pecaut2013}.
We perform Monte Carlo simulations in order to model the scatter
caused by the observational uncertainties, the effects of unresolved
binarity, and an intrinsic age spread. We create many populations of
10$^4$ simulated members with a gaussian distribution of ages,
assuming a \cite{kroupa2001b} initial mass function (IMF), a spot
filling factor from 0\% to 50\%, a multiplicity fraction of 0.44 and
companion mass ratio distribution given by a flat power law distribution
with $\gamma$=0.3 (using multiplicity properties for 0.7\ts M$_\odot$ $\simless$
M$_* \simless$ 1.3\ts M$_\odot$\, population~I main sequence stars as summarized
in \citealt{duchene2013} and \citealt{raghavan2010}). To create the
simulated population, each star is assigned a mass and an age,
determined to be either binary or single, assigned a companion mass if
binary, and assigned a spot coverage ratio from a random uniform
distribution ranging from 0\% to 50\%, which alters its H-R diagram
position according to the \cite{somers2015b} correction factors.
We then introduce dispersion in their H-R diagram positions
with the median observational uncertainties from our sample. This is
designed to simulate a population with a given mean age, an intrinsic
age spread, the effects of unresolved binarity, cool spots, and
observational uncertainties. Following \citet{hillenbrand2008}, we
compare the the observed luminosity spreads around the empirical
isochrones in Sco-Cen members to the simulated luminosity spreads.
We emphasize that in
this comparison, we only compare the distributions of luminosities
around the median. We do not compare the median ages obtained since
we observe a mass-dependent age trend. However, unlike
\citet{hillenbrand2008}, we only model star formation with a given
mean age and intrinsic (gaussian) spread, rather than consider
accelerating star formation or other distributions of ages.
We compare our observed luminosity spread with the luminosity spread
from the simulations using a Anderson-Darling goodness-of-fit test
\citep[e.g.,][]{hou2009}, and adopt the age spread which best matches the
simulated luminosity spreads for each Sco-Cen subgroup. We adopted
the median subgroup ages listed in \autoref{tbl:median_ages} as the
mean age of our simulated populations to compare the luminosity
spreads in our simulations to those from our observations. We adopt
1$\sigma$ gaussian age spreads of $\pm$7~Myr, $\pm$7~Myr and
$\pm$6~Myr for US, UCL and LCC, respectively. A plot showing the
best matches to the observed luminosity spreads is shown in
\autoref{fig:luminositydist}. Our results are summarized in
\autoref{tbl:age_spreads}. These age spreads indicate that 68\%
of star formation in each subgroup occured over a period of
$\sim$14~Myr for US and UCL, and over a period of $\sim$12~Myr for
LCC.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{luminositydist.pdf}
\caption{Observed luminosity spreads around the empirical isochrone
(solid line) compared with the same for a simulated population
(dashed line). The simulations used mean ages of 10~Myr, 16~Myr and
15~Myr for US, UCL, and LCC, respectively. We obtained best-fit
intrinsic age spreads of $\pm$7~Myr, $\pm$7~Myr, $\pm$6~Myr for
US, UCL and LCC, shown above with simulations made with the
\protect\citet{baraffe2015} evolutionary models.}
\label{fig:luminositydist}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Subregion intrinsic age spreads}\label{tbl:age_spreads}
\begin{tabular}{ @{\hspace{0mm}}l @{\hspace{1.0mm}}l @{\hspace{1.0mm}}l @{\hspace{1.0mm}}l }
\hline
Evolutionary &
US at 10~Myr &
UCL at 16~Myr &
LCC at 15~Myr \\
Models &
(Myr) &
(Myr) &
(Myr) \\
\hline
Exeter/Lyon & $\pm$8 & $\pm$8 & $\pm$6 \\
Parsec & $\pm$6 & $\pm$7 & $\pm$6 \\
Pisa & $\pm$8 & $\pm$8 & $\pm$6 \\
Dartmouth & $\pm$6 & $\pm$7 & $\pm$5 \\
\hline
Adopted Intrinsic Age Spreads & $\pm$7 & $\pm$7 & $\pm$6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
Age spreads were estimated comparing observed luminosity
spreads to simulated populations with a given intrinsic age
spread, taking into account multiplicity, spots and observational
uncertainties. Adopted median ages are listed in
\autoref{tbl:median_ages}.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\subsection{Spatial Variation of Ages}\label{sec:age_map}
\cite{blaauw1964} divided Sco-Cen into the subgroups Upper Scorpius,
Upper Centaurus-Lupus and Lower Centaurus Crux. However,
\cite{rizzuto2011} notes that, based on their updated membership study
of Sco-Cen, the distribution of probable members indicates that the
subgroups cannot be defined in a non-arbitrary manner. US has
consistently been shown to be younger than the other two subgroups,
and UCL and LCC have typically been assigned similar ages
\citep{preibisch2008,mamajek2002,pecaut2012}. Given the large spatial
extent of UCL and LCC, however, it is too simplistic to place them
into two groups, each characterized by a single mean age. For
example, the $\sim50$~pc size of LCC and adopted mean age of
$\sim17$~Myr leads to an expected individual age uncertainty of
$\sim$50\%, or $\sim$8~Myr, based on a star formation
timescale-size relation \citep[see discussion in][]{soderblom2014}.
Here we attempt to examine the age structure of the entire association
to discern if we see evidence for spatial substructure based on
systematic differences in age as a function of position on the sky.
One possible method to investigate spatial variations of ages would be
to simply evaluate the age of each member against pre-MS evolutionary tracks
and spatially average their ages to create an age map. However, given
the strong mass-dependent age trend we find with all the evolutionary
tracks, this would tend to show regions with large numbers of low-mass
stars as younger regions, when in fact this may be a systematic effect
due to the evolutionary tracks. Therefore we do not use
this method.
Systematically younger regions will tend to be more luminous than the
mean association luminosity as a function of T$_{\rm eff}$. This is
comparison does not depend on {\it any} theoretical models.
To probe for statistically significant spatial variations of ages,
{\it independent} of any evolutionary tracks, we look for concentrations
of stars which lie above or below the average luminosity as a function of
T$_{\rm eff}$. We use all the pre-MS members which have been studied
spectroscopically. We place all stars from all three subgroups together
on the H-R diagram and construct an empirical isochrone for the entire
association, by fitting a line to $\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$\, as a function of T$_{\rm eff}$. This is
plotted in \autoref{fig:agemaphrd}. Each star lies on the H-R diagram
above or below this empirical isochrone. For each star we calculate
this offset in units of the luminosity spread $\sigma$ above or below
the linear fit:
offset = $($$\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$$ - <$$\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$$>) / \sigma_{\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})}$
We then spatially average their {\it offset}, above or below the empirical
isochrone, in galactic coordinates, shown in \autoref{fig:agemap}.
Regions on the sky with stars which are systematically more luminious than
the average of the association will lie systematically above the empirical
isochrone and will appear on the age map as younger. Likewise, stars in
older regions will tend to be less luminous on average than the average of
the association. In \autoref{fig:agemap}, we plot a spatial intensity map
of the median offset from the empirical isochrone. The colored regions in
\autoref{fig:agemap} correspond to the same colored regions above
or below the empirical isochrone in \autoref{fig:agemaphrd}. Spatially
averaging their offset from the empirical isochrone allows us to determine
which regions have concentrations of systematically younger or older stars,
relative to the age of the entire association, and independent of any
theoretical models. This method avoids biases due to any mass-dependent
age trends, and can identify younger or older regions without reference to
any evolutionary tracks. The median distance of the F- and G-type stars is
within $\sim$4~pc of the median distance of the K-type stars in each
subgroup, and is not systematically biased nearer or farther. Furthermore,
the variable extinction across the association ranges from $\sim 0.0-0.5$~mag
(25\% to 75\% interquartile range), which would not significantly bias the
spatial distribution of ages. Thus it is likely that our selection methods
do not exhibit any systematic spatial biases for younger or older ages
across the association that would bias the age map.
We wish to assign mean isochronal ages of these regions using evolutionary
models. In order to assign ages to the regions shown on the map, we use
the F5 through G9 stars to anchor the regions to an age. For example, the
F5 through G9 stars that lie $0.33\sigma$ to $0.66\sigma$ {\it below} the
median isochrone, irrespective of their location in the association, have
a median age of 18~Myr. Therefore, any region with a median offset of
$0.33\sigma$ to $0.66\sigma$ below the empirical isochrone is assigned an
age of $\sim$18~Myr. The age map makes use of 657 F-M pre-MS stars to
establish {\it relative} ages from the mean Sco-Cen empirical isochrone,
but the ages are adopted from the F5-G9 stars. We discuss our motivations
for adopting the F- and G-type ages in section~\ref{sec:discuss_ages}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{age_map_hrd.pdf}
\caption{Empirical isochrone for 657 F/G/K-type members of all
subgroups of Sco-Cen. We fit a line to create the empirical
isochrone. We use individual stars' offsets above or below this
empirical isochrone to create a relative age map, shown in
\autoref{fig:agemap}. The colored regions shown here correspond
to the ages on the map in \autoref{fig:agemap}.
}
\label{fig:agemaphrd}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.67]{age_map.pdf}
\caption{Spatial distribution of 657 F/G/K/M-type pre-MS members
(solid dots) with spatially averaged median ages plotted on a
``age map''. The map is created by evaluating the median
luminosity offset relative to the spread in luminosity
$($$\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$$ - <$$\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})$$>) / \sigma_{\log({\rm L/L_{\odot}})}$
of stars in a 5$^{\circ}$ radius each $(l, b)$.
These offsets are then correlated with ages using the F5 through G9
stars that fall in those offset bins. We have masked the age map
over regions cospatial with the Ophiuchus and Lupus clouds.}
\label{fig:agemap}
\end{figure}
\end{landscape}
\clearpage
\subsection{Circumstellar Disks}
\subsubsection{Spectroscopic Accretion Disk Fraction}
Giant planet formation is fundamentally limited by the lifetimes of
gas-rich protoplanetary disks surrounding the host star
\citep{pollack1996}. The gas disk dissipation timescale therefore
provides an upper limit to the giant planet formation timescale.
Differences in disk dissipation timescales for stars in different
mass bins can provides critical data for inferring how the planet
formation process differs around stars of
various masses. Additionally, a census for gas-rich circumstellar
disks allows for follow--up studies of the gas disk itself
\citep[e.g.,][]{zhang2013} or the star--disk interaction
\citep[e.g.,][]{bouvier2007,nguyen2009}.
Here we perform a census of accretion disks for our sample using
H$\alpha$ emission as an accretion diagnostic. Various criterion have
been proposed using H$\alpha$ as an accretion indicator, and we adopt
the spectral type dependent empirical criterion of \cite{barrado2003}.
If our measured or adopted EW(H$\alpha$) (see
\autoref{tbl:member_properties} ) exceeds the \cite{barrado2003}
criterion, we count the object as an accretor. Our accretion disk
fraction excludes the 28 Sco-Cen members in our sample which lack
H$\alpha$ measurements. Sample spectra for Sco-Cen members with
H$\alpha$ in emission consistent with accretion are shown in
\autoref{fig:spectra}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{spectrum.pdf}
\caption{Representative spectra of new Sco-Cen members with strong
H$\alpha$ emission consistent with accretion.}
\label{fig:spectra}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{hk_jh.pdf}
\caption{$H$--$K_S$ versus $J$--$H$ colors for new candidate Sco-Cen
members. The dwarf and pre-MS stellar locus from
\protect\cite{pecaut2013} are included shown as the dashed and solid
lines, respectively.}
\label{fig:hk_jh}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{spt_hk.pdf}
\caption{Spectral type versus dereddened $H$--$K_S$ color for Sco-Cen
members. The solid line is the pre-MS photospheric colors from
\protect\cite{pecaut2013}. The dashed line is the 3$\sigma$
dispersion in the photospheric colors. Members with color excesses
above the 3$\sigma$ dispersion in the photospheric colors in this
and all bands at longer wavelength are identified as having a $K_S$
band excess (gray stars).}
\label{fig:spt_hk}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Using the \citet{barrado2003} criteria, we identified 10/108 accretors
in US, or a spectroscopic accretion disk fraction of
9.3$^{+3.6}_{-2.1}$\%. In UCL and LCC we have 5/154 and 4/127
accretors, or spectroscopic accretion disk fractions of
3.2$^{+2.1}_{-0.9}$\% and 3.1$^{+2.4}_{-0.9}$\%, respectively.
These disk fractions include all K and M-type members in our sample
with EW(H$\alpha$) measurements, and therefore have masses
predominantly $\sim$0.7-1.3\ts M$_\odot$, with a few M-type stars as low as
$\sim$0.5\ts M$_\odot$; for statistics on the K-type members {\it only}, refer
to \autoref{tbl:excess_stats}.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Infrared excess and spectroscopic accretion disk fractions for K-Type ($\sim$0.7-1.3\ts M$_\odot$) members in Sco-Cen}\label{tbl:excess_stats}
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
\hline
Band/Criteria/Disk Type &
US &
UCL &
LCC \\
\hline
EW(H$\alpha$) & 6/84 (7.1$^{+3.9}_{-1.9}\%$) & 5/145 (3.4$^{+2.2}_{-1.0}\%$) & 4/119 (3.4$^{+2.5}_{-1.0}\%$) \\
$K_S$ & 6/89 (6.7$^{+3.7}_{-1.8}\%$) & 6/158 (3.8$^{+2.2}_{-1.0}\%$) & 2/119 (1.7$^{+2.1}_{-0.5}\%$) \\
$W1$ & 11/89 (12.4$^{+4.3}_{-2.7}\%$) & 9/157 (5.7$^{+2.4}_{-1.3}\%$) & 4/119 (3.4$^{+2.5}_{-1.0}$\%) \\
$W2$ & 14/89 (15.7$^{+4.6}_{-3.1}\%$) & 9/157 (5.7$^{+2.4}_{-1.3}\%$) & 4/119 (3.4$^{+2.5}_{-1.0}$\%) \\
$W3$ & 24/89 (27.0$^{+5.2}_{-4.1}\%$) & 17/157 (10.8$^{+3.0}_{-2.0}\%$) & 8/118 (6.8$^{+3.1}_{-1.6}\%$) \\
$W4$ & 25/36 (69.4$^{+6.5}_{-8.5}\%$) & 33/72 (45.8$^{+5.9}_{-5.6}\%$) & 8/86 (9.3$^{+4.1}_{-2.2}\%$) \\
\hline
Full & 8/89 (9.0$^{+4.0}_{-2.2}$\%) & 8/157 (5.1$^{+2.4}_{-1.2}$\%) & 4/118 (3.4$^{+2.5}_{-1.0}$\%) \\
Transitional & 2/89 (2.2$^{+2.8}_{-0.7}$\%) & 0/157 ($<$2.3\%; 95\% C.L.) & 0/118 ($<$3.0\%; 95\% C.L.) \\
Evolved & 2/89 (2.2$^{+2.8}_{-0.7}$\%) & 1/157 (0.6$^{+1.4}_{-0.2}$\%) & 0/118 ($<$3.0\%; 95\% C.L.) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
Spectroscopic Accretion and IR Excess fractions shown above for K-type members of Sco-Cen only, with masses $\sim$0.7-1.3\ts M$_\odot$.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Infrared Excess Disk Fraction}\label{sec:irexcesses}
Infrared photometry can be used to identify the presence of
circumstellar matter with different wavelengths used to probe matter
at different temperatures. To probe cooler, dusty debris around young
stars, 20$\mu$m and longer wavelengths are useful. We examine Sco-Cen
members for excesses in $H$--$K_S$, $K_S$--$W1$, $K_S$--$W2$,
$K_S$--$W3$, and $K_S$--$W4$ colors, shown in \autoref{fig:spt_hk}
and \autoref{fig:spt_kwise}, in order to identify Sco-Cen members
exhibiting IR excesses which may indicate the presence of a disk and
allow us to infer its evolutionary state. These stars are also
plotted against H$\alpha$ equivalent width (EW(H$\alpha$)) in
\autoref{fig:kw2_halpha}, demonstrating that accreting stars
identified with the \cite{barrado2003} EW(H$\alpha$) criteria also
typically exhibit a $W1$ band excess due to the presence of a warm
circumstellar gas disk. We identify stars above the 3$\sigma$
dispersion in the young stellar locus, as defined in
\cite{pecaut2013}, as having an excess in that band. We use
3$\sigma$ as a conservative criterion, to avoid reporting excesses
with a small confidence level. To avoid reporting false excesses
due to scatter in the photometry, we only report an infrared excess
if that object is also above the 3$\sigma$ dispersion in the young
stellar locus for that band {\it and} all bands at longer wavelengths.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{kw2_halpha.pdf}
\caption{$K_S$--$W2$ color versus EW(H$\alpha$) for Sco-Cen members.
Members spectroscopically identified as accretors with the
\protect\cite{barrado2003} criteria are shown as stars. Members
exhibiting a $K_S$--$W2$ color excess are shown as large circle.}
\label{fig:kw2_halpha}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{spt_montage.pdf}
\caption{Spectral type versus infrared colors $K_S$--$W1$,
$K_S$--$W2$, $K_S$--$W3$, and $K_S$--$W4$ for Sco-Cen members. The
solid lines are the pre-MS photospheric colors from
\protect\cite{pecaut2013}. Members with color excesses above the
3$\sigma$ dispersion of photospheric colors in that band and all
bands at longer wavelength are identified as having excess emission
from circumstellar disks. Objects with color uncertainties greater
than 0.25~mag are not shown.}
\label{fig:spt_kwise}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Disks in young populations such as Sco-Cen may be found in a variety
of stages of evolution. Here we attempt to classify the disks into
the disk classification scheme described by \citet{espaillat2012},
using the observational criteria described by \citet{luhman2012}.
Based on the boundary between the full disks and transitional, evolved
and debris disks for the stars classified in \citet{luhman2012}, we
identify ``full disks'' as those with E($K_S$--$W3$) $>$ 1.5 and
E($K_S$--$W4$) $>$ 3.2, ``transitional disks'' as those with
E($K_S$--$W4$) $>$ 3.2 but have E($K_S$--$W3$) $<$ 1.5. We then
identify ``evolved disks'' as those with E($K_S$--$W4$) $>$ 3.2 and
E($K_S$--$W3$) $>$ 0.5 and ``debris disks'' as those with
E($K_S$--$W4$) $<$ 3.2 and E($K_S$--$W3$) $<$ 0.5. Color excesses and
classifications are shown in \autoref{fig:diskclasses}. Four stars
had excesses in $W1$, $W2$ or $W3$ but no reliable $W4$. We classify
them as evolved or debris disks based on their lack of spectroscopic
signatures of accretion and their E($K_S$--$W2$) and E($K_S$--$W3$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{color_excess.pdf}
\caption{Color excesses above the photosphere for stars in Sco-Cen
exhibiting an infrared excess.}
\label{fig:diskclasses}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Disks classified using this method are listed in
\autoref{tbl:member_properties}. Our sample contains a small number
of G- and M-type members of Sco-Cen. Therefore, in
\autoref{tbl:excess_stats} we summarize infrared excess fractions
for only K-type ($\sim$0.7-1.3~\ts M$_\odot$) Sco-Cen members in the 2MASS
$K_S$ band and the four WISE bands.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Which Ages are Reliable?}\label{sec:discuss_ages}
Depending on which isochronal ages we examine, we obtain different
mean subgroup ages. However, given the {T$_{\rm eff}$}-dependent age trend
present in \autoref{fig:hrd_iso}, we see several reasons to
distrust ages from M-type stars. The most obvious reason is that
evolutionary models have difficulty predicting the radii of
main-sequence M-type stars, systematically underestimating their radii
by $\sim$5-20\% (\citealt{torres2002,boyajian2012b}; see also
\citealt{kraus2011}). \citet{hillenbrand2004} have compared
dynamically constrained masses with predictions from pre-MS
evolutionary models and found that the models systematically
underpredict the masses of stars 5\%-20\% for masses under
0.5~M$_{\odot}$. On the other hand, they found that for masses above
1.2~M$_{\odot}$, dynamical masses and predicted masses from all models
are consistent. As stated in \citet{hillenbrand2008}, the likely
source for the poor performance of models in the low-mass regime is
incomplete knowledge of opacity sources and the difficulty in modeling
convection. One of the large sources of uncertainty particularly
applicable to modeling low-mass stars is the role magnetic fields play
in convection, as discussed in \citet{feiden2016}. Strong magnetic
fields can give rise to large star spots on the surface of the star,
which will may cause the star to exhibit more than one surface
temperature \citep{stauffer2003}. \citet{somers2015b} have studied
the effect of star spots on inferred
ages and masses in pre-main sequence stars, and find that spots will
tend to inflate the radii of young stars and shift them to a cooler
T$_{\rm eff}$. The effect is that spots will make older stars appear to be
younger and less massive than implied by the evolutionary models.
\citet{somers2015b} offer age and mass correction factors which can be
used to estimate less biased, more accurate masses and ages from
published evolutionary tracks. Given the problems with radii and mass
discrepancies from models as well as the potential influence of spots,
and that there are higher-mass F- and G-type isochronal ages
available, it is preferable to avoid the adopting ages from the K- and
M-type members.
What about kinematic ages? Kinematic ``expansion'' or ``traceback''
ages are not dependent on stellar interior models and therefore offer
the prospect of nearly model-free ages. \cite{song2012} argues that
kinematic expansion ages can function as model-independent age
benchmarks which can then be used to establish a model-indepedent age
scale. Age indicators such as Li can then be used to establish
relative ages among different stellar populations. This is an
interesting idea in principle, however there are a few major issues
with kinematic traceback ages.
One major problem is that one must assume that the association was in
a physically smaller configuration at some time in the past. The
data presented in section~\ref{sec:age_map} indicates substantial
substructure in Sco-Cen. This is consistent with work in other OB
associations, for example, Cygnus OB2 also exhibits substantial
substructure \citep{wright2014,wright2016}, and was never a compact, bound
cluster. The presences of substantial substructure invalidates the
assumption that the members of these associations were in more
compact configurations in the past, which prevents the determination
of a meaningful kinematic age.
Another major issue is that the results from kinematic ages are
very sensitive to the implementation. A recent example
is that in the TW Hydra Association (TWA). A commonly quoted age for
TWA is 8~Myr based on the kinematic traceback of \cite{delareza2006}.
However, their kinematic traceback was based on a sample of only four
stars, which was contaminated by TWA~19, a member of LCC
\citep{mamajek2002}. \cite{mamajek2005} calculated a kinematic
expansion age for TWA using kinematic parallaxes and a vetted list of
members and obtained a lower limit of $\sim$10~Myr on the expansion
age at 95\% confidence, though the data were only weakly consistent
with expansion. More recently, \cite{weinberger2012} performed a
kinematic traceback of TWA using a vetted list of members and
trignometric parallaxes. The \cite{weinberger2012} traceback result
indicated the members were never in a significantly more compact
configuration. Another TWA study, \cite{ducourant2014}, independently
obtained trignonmetric parallaxes for 13 stars, identify 31 as a
co-moving association, 25 of which had radial velocity and
trignometric parallax data. This study obtained a traceback age for
TWA of 7.5$\pm$0.7~Myr. However, this result was based on a sample
of 16 stars with converging motions, obtained after removing 9 stars
which systematically drifted from the center of the association when
traced back in time. Similarly, an often-quoted age for Upper Sco is
the 5~Myr expansion age derived from proper motion data by
\cite{blaauw1978}. However, it was demonstrated by \cite{brown1997a},
using simulations of expanding OB associations, that expansion ages
inferred from proper motions alone all converged to $\sim$4~Myr, no
matter the actual kinematic age. A recent examination of the
expansion age in Upper Sco by \cite{pecaut2012}, using radial velocity
data, gave a lower limit of $\sim$10~Myr at 95\% confidence, though
the data were consistent with no expansion.
Finally, we mention that the adopted kinematic expansion age of the
$\beta$ Pictoris moving group (BPMG) of 12~Myr, estimated by
\citet{song2003}, has been re-evaluated by \citet{mamajek2014}. The
\citet{mamajek2014} study found the modern BPMG kinematic data was
only weakly indicitave of expansion, and that the age is only weakly
constrained by the kinematic data, giving a 95 confidence limit of
13-58 Myr. We conclude that the there is no well-constrained
kinematic traceback age for either Sco-Cen or the groups used to
bracket its age (e.g., TWA, BPMG) that has withstood the scrutiny of
improved data, and that they simply do not yield useful age
constraints given the current precision of the available data.
Another relevant chronometric technique is the use of the lithium
depletion boundary (LDB) to determine the age of a stellar population.
By detecting the stellar T$_{\rm eff}$\, or luminosity above which all the
stars have exhibit Li depletion and comparing this with evolutionary
model predictions, one can obtain an age which is independent of
distance. LDB ages have been calculated for several of the nearby,
young moving groups \citep{mentuch2008,binks2014} but the subgroups of
Sco-Cen do not yet have a reliable LDB age. The results of
\cite{cargile2010} suggests that lithium depletion boundary ages and
modern nuclear main sequence turn-off ages are in agreement when
convective core overshooting is included in the models of high-mass
stars \citep[e.g.,][]{ekstrom2012}. However, LDB ages are typically
much older than pre-MS contraction ages, and it has been suggested
that this problem is related to the radii discrepancy in M-type stars
\citep{yee2010,somers2015b}.
Recent discoveries of eclipsing binaries, particularly in Upper Scorpius
using the data obtained using the Kepler K2 mission, should help
evolutionary models significantly by providing well-constrained radii
and masses at these young ages. Particularly, the recently published
discoveries by \citet{david2015}, \citet{alonso2015}, \citet{lodieu2015},
and \citet{kraus2015}, will add a signifcant number of benchmark
eclipsing binaries with tightly constrained, nearly model-independent
parameters for objects in Upper Scorpius. Masses and radii for the
eclipsing binary UScoCTIO~5 from \citet{kraus2015}, when compared to
the \citet{baraffe2015} evolutionary models, already provide some
concordance with the older $\sim$10~Myr ages from the F- and G-type
stars, though more theoretical work remains to be completed.
\subsection{How ``Coeval'' are the Sco-Cen Subgroups?}
Previous studies of Sco-Cen have attempted to quantify the observed
age spread in the subgroups. In Upper Sco, \cite{preibisch2002},
adopting an age of 5~Myr, concluded that the age spread was
$\simless$1-2~Myr. Their results account for the effects of binarity,
a distance spread, and observational uncertainties. This is
consistent with the results of \citet{slesnick2006}, who similarly
constrained the age spread in the northern part of Upper Sco to be
less than $\pm$3~Myr (uniform distribution) using similar assumptions.
In their study of UCL and LCC, \citet{mamajek2002} have examined age
spreads in the older subgroups and have constrained the star formation
to have occurred over a time period of $\pm$3~Myr and $\pm$2~Myr
(1$\sigma$) for UCL and LCC, respectively.
Our age spreads are larger than those previously reported, with
1$\sigma$ age spreads of $\pm$7~Myr, $\pm$7~Myr, and $\pm$6~Myr for
US, UCL and LCC, respectively. Our age spread of $\pm$7~Myr for Upper
Sco is much larger than the age spreads detected by
\citet{preibisch2002} and \citet{slesnick2008}. However, the age map
in \autoref{fig:agemap} indicates that there is an age gradient
from the southeastern part of US to the northwest, with the
northwestern part being younger. The \citet{slesnick2008} and
\citet{preibisch2002} low-mass samples were drawn from smaller regions
($\sim$150~deg$^2$ and $\sim$160~deg$^2$, respectively) than our
sample in Upper Sco (drawn from the entire $\sim$320~deg$^2$), which
could be responsible for the smaller detected age spreads. However,
the likely reason our inferred age spreads in US are larger than
previous results is that we adopt a mean age of 10~Myr, twice as old
as the \citet{slesnick2008} or \citet{preibisch2002} studies. A given
luminosity spread at a younger age corresponds to a smaller inferred
dispersion in ages than the same luminosity spread at an older age,
simply because the younger isochrones are spaced farther apart in
luminosity than those at older ages.
\citet{slesnick2008} suggests that spreads in H-R diagram positions
may not be an accurate proxy for spreads in age. They demonstrate
this by comparing two nearly identical spectra for members in US, with
spectroscopic surface gravity indicators which are indicitive of
nearly identical surface gravity. However, their H-R diagram
positions suggests their ages differ by more than 10~Myr!
\citet{jeffries2011} use constraints on the disk lifetime to show that
the age spread in the Orion Nebula Cluster must be less than 0.14~dex
in $\log$(Age), though the age spreads inferred from the H-R diagram
show a 0.4~dex dispersion in $\log$(Age). These results suggest that
scatter in the H-R diagram may not be a reliable indicator of age
spreads. However, the H-R diagram remains the best observational
indicator available at the present time for revealing any intrinsic
age spreads. See \citet{soderblom2014} for a more detailed and
complete discussion regarding age spreads.
As stated previously, our age map does indicate there is a clear age
gradient in US as it merges into UCL. The southern part of LCC is
also noticably younger than other parts of LCC, confirming the
suggestion first raised in \citet{preibisch2008}. We note that there
are no main-sequence turnoff stars in northern LCC, which, considering
the younger age of southern LCC, accounts for the turn-off age of LCC
being much younger than UCL. The star formation history of Sco-Cen,
as inferred from the H-R diagram positions, appears to be more complex
than previously treated. The spatial distribution of ages is
suggestive that the current division of three distinct, coeval
subgroups is overly simplistic and a separation into smaller units may
be warranted. We avoid speculating further on scenarios of triggered
star formation here, leaving that discussion to a future study.
\subsection{Circumstellar Disk Census}
Observations of young clusters and associations of ages from $\sim$1
to $>$100~Myr have given strong indication that the protoplanetary
disk dispersal timescale is very short, with an e-folding time of
$\sim$ 2.5~Myr \citep{mamajek2009,fedele2010}. This is qualitatively
consistent with what we seen in Sco-Cen: 9\% of Upper Sco K-type stars
host an optically thick protoplanetary disk (``Full Disk'' in the
\citealt{espaillat2012} nomenclature) at an age of $\sim$10~Myr,
whereas $\simeq$4\% of the K-type stars in the older subgroups UCL and
LCC host a full disk (\autoref{tbl:excess_stats}). However, the
e-folding time of 2.5~Myr was estimated adopting an Upper Sco age of
5~Myr, along with many other young clusters. \citet{naylor2009} has
argued that pre-MS ages systematically underestimate cluster ages, and
that ages based on high-mass stars, typically double the ages estimated
from the low-mass stars, are more likely to be correct \citep{bell2013}.
Using the ages we adopt for the Sco-Cen subgroups, what disk dispersal
timescale does this imply? We plot the primordial disk fractions
(``Full Disk'' from \autoref{tbl:excess_stats}) as a function of age in
\autoref{fig:disk_decay} and, following \citet{mamajek2009}, fit an
exponential decay curve to the data ($f_{disk}=e^{-t/\tau_{disk}}$).
We obtain a mean protoplanetary disk e-folding timescale of 4.7~Myr
for K-type stars ($\sim$0.7-1.3\ts M$_\odot$). This is $\sim$2~Myr longer
than the timescale estimated in \citet{mamajek2009}, and would imply
a longer timescale available for planet formation, but consistent with
the findings of \cite{bell2013}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{disk_decay.pdf}
\caption{Mean subgroup age versus disk fraction (``Full Disk''; see
\autoref{tbl:excess_stats}) for K-type stars, $\sim$0.7-1.3\ts M$_\odot$,
from the three subgroups of Sco-Cen. The best-fit exponential
decay curvey $f_{disk}=e^{-t/\tau_{disk}}$ has
$\tau_{disk}$=4.7~Myr.}
\label{fig:disk_decay}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, we note that our K-type disk fraction is larger than what is
observed for the higher mass-stars in the same subgroups
\citep{mamajek2002,pecaut2012,carpenter2009,luhman2012}. This is
consistent with the mass-dependent trend first identified by
\citet{carpenter2006} and further confirmed by \citet{luhman2012} in
Upper Sco, as well as the results of \citet{hernandez2007} from the
younger $\sigma$~Ori association at $\sim$6 Myr \citep{bell2013}.
\citet{ribas2015} have summarized these mass-dependent disk fraction
trends using the nearby young stellar associations within $\sim$500 pc,
and have come to a similar conclusion -- that the disk dispersal time
depends on stellar mass, with the low-mass stars retaining their disks
longer. For Sco-Cen, however, we still have very poor statistics for
M-type stars in the older subgroups, which highlights the need for
future surveys to push the membership census to cooler spectral types
in UCL and LCC \citep[e.g.,][]{murphy2015}.
\section{Conclusions}
We can summarize the findings from our survey as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have performed a survey for new, low-mass K- and M-type
members of all three subgroups of Sco-Cen. Using Li, X-ray, and
proper motion data, we identify 156 new pre-MS members of Sco-Cen.
\item Using our newly identified members together with previously
known members of Sco-Cen, we utilize H$\alpha$ as an accretion
diagnostic and identify stars with H$\alpha$ emission levels
consistent with accretion. We estimate a spectroscopic accretion
disk fraction of 7.1$^{+3.9}_{-1.9}$\%, 3.4$^{+2.2}_{-1.0}$\% and
3.4$^{+2.5}_{-1.0}$\% for solar analog pre-MS K-type stars
($\sim$0.7-1.3~\ts M$_\odot$) in US, UCL and LCC, respectively, consistent
with a protoplanetary disk decay e-folding timescale of
$\sim$4.7~Myr, or half-life of $\sim$3.3~Myr.
\item Similar to previous results in other star-forming regions
\citep[e.g.,][]{hillenbrand1997,hillenbrand2008,bell2013}, we
observe a T$_{\rm eff}$-dependent age trend in all three subgroups of
Sco-Cen, for all sets of evolutionary tracks.
\item We adopt median ages of 10$\pm$3~Myr, 16$\pm$2~Myr and
15$\pm$3~Myr for US, UCL and LCC, respectively, when considering the
revised nuclear ages as well as the pre-MS contraction ages from the
F- and G-type stars.
\item We obtain estimates for the intrinsic age spread in each
subgroup through a grid of Monte Carlo simulations which take into
account binarity, spots, and observational uncertainties. Assuming the
median ages obtained above, and modeling the age distribution as a
gaussian, we find that 68\% of the star formation in US, UCL, and
LCC occured over timescales of $\pm$7~Myr, $\pm$7~Myr, and
$\pm$6~Myr, respectively. Thus when adopting an age of $\sim$10~Myr
for Upper Sco, we detect an intrinsic age spread of $\pm$7~Myr
(1$\sigma$).
\item Using members from our X-ray sample as well as F- and G-type
members of Sco-Cen, we create an age map of the Sco-Cen complex. We
find that the star-formation histories of the UCL and LCC, the older
subgroups, are indicitative of substructure and are not consistent
with a simple triggered star-formation scenario. The groups are not
each monolithic episodes of star formation, but likely an ensemble of
small subgroups, exhibiting significant substructure.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank the anonymous referee, whose comments and
suggestions improved the quality of this work.
This work has been supported by funds from the School of Arts and
Sciences at the University of Rochester and NSF grants AST-1008908 and
AST-1313029. EEM acknowledges support from the NASA Nexus for
Exoplanet System Science program (NExSS).
We thank Fred Walter for the use of his SMARTS
RC-spectrograph pipeline for reducing the data obtained at the SMARTS
1.5m telescope at Cerro Tololo, Chile, as well as Jose Velasquez and
Manuel Hernandez for their help and advice at the telescope. This
research was made possible through the use of the AAVSO Photometric
All-Sky Survey (APASS), funded by the Robert Martin Ayers Sciences
Fund. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron
All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of
Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
Foundation. This publication makes use of data products from the
Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, which is a joint project of the
University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Objective realism means that all physical quantities (e.g. field and currents) have well-defined values at all times and positions, although they may be random. The values are independent of the fact of being observed. Objective realism in the macroscopic world is obvious, but in the microworld it is at best ambiguous due to conceptual problems of the quantum description.
Moreover, practical and useful physics relies on free choice -- an ability to affect the system in real time.
Freedom of choice means that we are not mere spectators of the world's evolution but can actively change its fate.
Free choice localized in time and space is important in the interpretation of tests of local realism \cite{bell,chsh,eber}.
Incorporating free choice into theory is done by adding some variable parameters (usually localized), meaning a variety of choices.
However, observations for different choices are not always compatible in quantum realism, as shown by Bell theorem (for a particular state and choices) \cite{bell}. The Bell's argument relies on several important assumptions, depicted in Fig. \ref{be1}:
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Entanglement: existence and stability of a special, nonlocal entangled state, that can be observed by two (or more) separate parties
\item No-signaling: observations are freely chosen and are completed (become sufficiently sharp, with negligible error) before a signal about the other party's choice reaches the observation point
\end{enumerate}
Bell's conclusion is that it is impossible to find a common probability distribution (equivalent to quantum realism) of all outcomes depending only on those choices that can be signaled to them. Both assumptions cannot be directly derived from fully relativistic quantum field theory because the Bell argument works in simplified Hilbert space and reduces to a few basis states. No-signaling could indeed follow from at least axiomatic quantum field theory \cite{wight} but the point of choice and readout is arbitrary in general. One can easily invalidate the Bell's conclusion by delaying actual observation (or its sharpening) until signals reach its point. Bell theorem has been recently confirmed experimentally \cite{hanson,zein,saew} but of course for no-signaling one assumes special relativity combined with the trust in the times of choices and readouts.
Here we try to assign joint objective realism for all choices by asking if a common joint positive probability exists and basing it directly on relativistic quantum field theory \cite{peskin}, not Bell's assumptions (so we e.g. do not need to trust the time of choice and readout). We will show that indeed objective realism with free choice cannot stand with both relativistic invariance and quantum theory. It will turn out that it is possible but violating relativistic invariance.
If relativity is to drop, then binding the assumption of the Bell theorem about compatibility with relativistic no-signaling may be false and there might be signaling faster than light. We show that trying to preserve the speed of light as the signaling speed in a relativity violating theory is misleading if one tries to do it perturbatively. The relativistic signaling limit is simply a nonperturbative property of quantum field theory, and may get falsified in future experiments.
The paper is organized as follows. We start with the general construction of quantum mechanics and field theory with free choice. Next, we state the problem of realism and attempts of quantum construction, insisting on agreement with relativity. Finally, we show that relativistic invariance must be broken, by a perturbative example, and discuss possible consequences, including superluminal signaling. We close the paper with conclusions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{bel-ar.pdf}
\caption{Spacetime picture of Bell's assumption. If the two parties, here Alice and Bob, share an entangled state the observation must be completed, before the reach of the signal about the other party's choice (color cones bound by signaling speed -- light in special relativity).}
\label{be1}
\end{figure}
\section{QUANTUM FREEDOM OF CHOICE}
A general construction of quantum observations, satisfying the principle of objective realism, will be completed if the observations depend on free-to-choose options, readouts for all options simultaneously are represented by a positive probability.
All events, free choices and measurements will be referred to by time position $x=(x^0=t,\vec{x}=(x^1,x^2,x^3))$
(time $t$, spatial coordinates $\vec{x}$). Speed of light $c$ and Planck constant $\hbar$ are $1$ in our units.
Given the initial state of the system (the Universe) and it dynamics, Hermitian Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$,
the free choice $a$ means a parametric decision to modify the dynamics by an extra term in the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_a(x)$. If this term is nonzero only around a specific point in spacetime, then we can claim it as localized which is important e.g. in the Bell theorem. However, for our considerations $\hat{H}_a(x)$ will be completely general. There can be many such defined choices, $a,b,c,...$
We denote $\hat{O}(x)$ an observable (Hermitian) in the Heisenberg picture with respect to the original Hamiltonian, while for $\hat{O}_a(x)$, $\hat{O}_b(x)$, $\hat{O}_{ab}(x)$ we add the choice-dependent Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_a$, $\hat{H}_b$, or $\hat{H}_a+\hat{H}_b$, respectively.
We can assign $a=0$ for the null passive choice, $\hat{H}_a=0$,
meaning only an internal system's dynamics without changes due to active choices, $a\neq 0$. In field theory, it is convenient to define
an auxiliary field, e.g. $a(x)$ controlling free choice. The choice is realized by adding to the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_a=\int \mathrm d^3 x a(x^0,\vec{x})\hat{V}(x)$,
where $\hat{V}$ is some local operator. Quantum field theory works equivalently in the Lagrangian path integral framework, where we deal with integrals
\begin{equation}
\int D\phi\exp\int\mathrm d^4x \mathrm i\mathcal L(\phi(x),\partial\phi(x),...)
\end{equation}
with the local form of $\mathcal L$ and field $\phi$. Then the local choice can be realized by adding $\mathcal L\to\mathcal L+a(x)V(\phi(x))$. Relativistic invariant choice means no changes of choice-dependent $\mathcal L$ under Lorentz transformations, applied to both $a$ and $V$. We can take
$V=\phi$ for a scalar field and $a\to a^\mu$, $V\to j^\mu$ or $A^\mu$ in the case of quantum electrodynamics, with current $j$ and potential $A$.
\subsection{Operational invariance}
According to the Wightman axiom \cite{wight}, a relativistic-invariant Lagrangian should imply invariant quantum correlations of the form
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{O}_1(x)\hat{O}_2(y)\hat{O}_3(z)\cdots\rangle,
\end{equation}
where the average is defined as $\langle\hat{X}\rangle=\mathrm{Tr}\hat{X}\hat{\rho}$, in the normalized, Hermitian, and positive definite state $\hat{\rho}$ ($=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ for a pure state). Invariance requires Lorentz transformation of
all $\hat{O}$'s and $\hat{\rho}$. For free choices the invariance axiom extends to
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{O}_{1a}(x)\hat{O}_{2b}(y)\hat{O}_{3c}(z)\cdots\rangle\label{frein}
\end{equation}
The axiom of invariance is not straightforward to prove in general, except free theories.
For interacting theories only in vacuum at zero temperature and perturbatively it has been shown in detail elsewhere \cite{ab13}.
Finite temperature states are certainly not invariant themselves which makes the analysis quite hard. Nevertheless, for our purposes the perturbative case of zero temperature is sufficient so we can take the operational invariance for granted.
\section{REALISM AND RELATIVITY}
Realism means a construction of observations described by a set of random functions $o_i(x)$. In the usual quantum mechanics the probability is given by positive operator-valued measure (POVM) \cite{povm}, as
$\langle\hat{K}^\dag\hat{K}\rangle$ with the set of Kraus operators $\hat{K}$ \cite{kraus}.
The use of POVM is here both ambiguous and obscure, because no single POVM can be reliably distinguished and even if we determine one any calculations will be tedious. Even worse, every POVM (even apparently those that are invariant with respect to relativity) makes the dynamics disturbed and is irreversible, which is a common problem of objective collapse theories \cite{grw,csl}. Here we do not accept such a disturbance in objective realism and demand strict noninvasiveness of observations. Irreversibility is still possible due to largeness and openness of the system but not the observations themselves.
A better approach requires the framework of weak measurements \cite{weak} which are a special limit of a POVM corresponding to a weakly disturbing observation, so that invasiveness disappears in the limit\cite{bb10,abn,bfb}. The price to pay is a large additional Gaussian noise convoluted with the internal statistics. The latter alone must be described by quasiprobability $Q$ (sometimes negative, like the Wigner function \cite{wigner}, in contrast to normal probability) so it is alone insufficient for realism. In standard quantum measurement theory \cite{povm}, any measurement of finite strength, even weak, leads to some (although tiny) disturbance. On the other hand, the only perfectly nondisturbing standard quantum measurement is trivial -- not measuring anything at all. Therefore, to define noninvasive observations and realism, we have to make a step beyond standard measurement. Namely, we take $Q$ obtained from the noninvasive limit and convolute some extra noise $N$ (but finite) to lift the negativity, which is possible within the experimental regime, discussed in detail in \cite{ab15}. The advantage of such a step is that no collapse is necessary at all, while the noise $N$ reduces the observations to standard projections for sufficiently macroscopic observation (when the noise $N$ becomes irrelevant). In this way we stay as close to standard measurement as possible, yet preserve noninvasiveness. This is consistent, e.g., with the condensed matter approach to quantum noise \cite{clerk}. The real probability $P$ of an observable $o$ localized in spacetime and choice dependent is expected in the form
\begin{equation}
P[o]=N\ast Q=\int \mathrm{D}o' N[o']Q(o-o'),\label{conv}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is an external noise (positive probability) and $Q$ is an internal quasiprobability.
The main point of this work is to check if such a construction is possible to include free choice. Namely, all readouts will be choice conditioned, e.g. $o\to o_a,o_{ab}$. This means that readouts for all choices, also those not just realized, are measurable. One can extend this idea naturally to continuous fields and choices, and then $\alpha[x,a]$ is a function of $x$ and functional of $a$. We assume that $N$ is an independent choice and state of the system. Otherwise we would have additional choice-controlled dynamics. In that case we will rather incorporate all such dependence in the quantum description alone. This is a reasonable minimalist approach, where quantum mechanics essentially captures all the dynamics.
The quasiprobability statistics can be conveniently written in the form for correlations \cite{bfb,bbrb},
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle o_1(x_1)\cdots o_n(x_n)\rangle_Q=\nonumber\\
&&\int \mathrm{d}^nx'\:\mathcal T\langle\check{O}_n^{x_n-x'_n}(x'_n)
\cdots\check{O}_1^{x_1-x'_1}(x'_1)\rangle.
\label{avgabs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal T$ denotes time ordering, with respect to $x^{\prime 0}$, and
\begin{equation}
\check{O}^{x-x'}(x')
=\delta(x-x')\check{O}^c(x')+f(x-x')\check{O}^q(x')/2\:.\label{avg2}
\end{equation}
The superoperators $\check{O}^{c/q}$ \cite{zwanzig} act on any
operator $\hat{X}$ as an anticommutator/commutator:
$\check{O}^c\hat{X}=\{\hat{O},\hat{X}\}/2$ and
$\mathrm i\check{O}^q\hat{X}=[\hat{O},\hat{X}]$. Alternatively $2\check{O}^c=\check{O}^++\check{O}^-$ and $\mathrm i\check{O}^q=\check{O}^+-\check{O}^-$ with $\check{O}^+\hat{X}=\hat{O}\hat{X}$ and $\check{O}^-\hat{X}=\hat{X}\hat{O}$.
The function $f$ is in principle arbitrary but it turns out that only two choices are reasonable, in particular $f=0$ (no memory) \cite{bb10,bfb} or
$f(x)=\delta^3(\vec{x})/\pi x^0$ (no correlations in zero temperature equilibrium) \cite{bbrb}.
The operators $\hat{O}$ are given in the Heisenberg picture including the free part governed by the field $a$. In principle in (\ref{avgabs})
one could define correlations for different $a$ and $a'$ (or more) but they are not directly measurable. For our goal it is sufficient to consider a single $a$.
In quantum field theory, the above can be written in terms of path integrals, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle X\rangle\int D\phi\exp\int \mathrm i\mathrm d^4x \mathcal L(\phi,\partial\phi)\nonumber\\
&&=\int D\phi\exp\int \mathrm i\mathrm d^4x \mathcal L(\phi,\partial\phi)X
\end{eqnarray}
with Lagrangian density $\mathcal L$ and integration over $x^0$ along the Schwinger-Keldysh-Kadanoff-Baym contour \cite{ctp0,ctp}, shown in Fig. \ref{kel}(a), where the state is described by properly defining $\mathcal L$ and the path of $x^0$ before the earliest $x^0$ with an active choice or observation.
For instance a thermal state of temperature $T$ means simply extending $x^0$ to complex values with a jump of $\mathrm i\beta$ ($\beta=1/k_BT$, becomes $\mathrm i\infty$ at $T\to 0_+$) as shown in Fig.\ref{kel}(b). It is important to discriminate between forward, $+\mathrm i\rm\epsilon$0 , and backward, $-\mathrm i\epsilon$, times $x^0_\pm$, respectively, with $\epsilon\to 0_+$ (the spatial position is unaffected) . In such description $\check{O}^\pm(x)\to O(x_\pm)$ and time order is dropped (except the fact that fermion fields are anticommuting Grassmann numbers). Free field $a(x_\pm)=a(x)$ is the same for forward and backward time.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{kel.pdf}
\caption{Schwinger-Keldysh time contour (a) in general with the left part unspecified and (b) for a thermal state with $\beta=1/k_BT$. The shape of the left line is arbitrary. The time window for observations is bounded by the horizontal part}\label{kel}
\end{figure}
To proceed with the problem of relativistic invariant realism, we have to recall the relativistic framework.
We shall use standard relativistic quantum field notation with four-vectors $A^\mu$ (e.g., field); $x^\mu$ (position in
spacetime); a flat metric $g^{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$; summation convention and
index shifting
$X\cdot Y=X^\mu Y_\mu=\sum_\mu X^\mu Y_\mu=X^\mu g_{\mu\nu}Y^\nu=X_\mu g^{\mu\nu}Y_\nu$,
$X^\mu=g^{\mu\nu}X_\nu$, $X_\mu=g_{\mu\nu}X^\nu$, with
derivatives $\partial_\mu=\partial/\partial x^\mu$. Along the Schwinger-Keldysh contour we parametrize $x^0(s)$ by real $s$ with $\mathrm d x^0=(\mathrm d x^0/\mathrm d s)\mathrm d s$ and \newline $\partial_0=(\mathrm d x^0/\mathrm d s)^{-1}\partial_s$. We shall often switch to momentum or Fourier space with $X(p)=\int\mathrm d^4x\mathrm e^{\mathrm i p\cdot x}X(x)$,
which needs us to specify $x$ along either the $+$ or $-$ part.
Then the equilibrium $f$ gives Fourier transform $f(p)=\mathrm i\;\mathrm{sgn}p^0$ \cite{bbrb}.
However, if we want relativistic invariance, the proper choice is $f(p)=\mathrm i\;\mathrm{sgn}p^0\theta(p\cdot p)$ \cite{ab15}. In any reasonable choice we have $f(p)=0$ for spacelike $p$, $p\cdot p<0$. It essentially means $\check{O}(p)\to (O_+(p)+O_-(p))/2$ for spacelike $p$ or $f=0$
and $\check{O}(p)\to O_\pm(p)$ for the other $f$ and timelike $p$, $p\cdot p>0$, with $\pm p^0>0$.
The invariance of $Q$ follows then from the Wightman axiom (\ref{frein}), so it remains to check if $N$ also can be invariant.
\section{AN ATTEMPT OF INVARIANT REALISM}
A simple convolution with positive $N$ makes it impossible to construct relativistic invariant realism even without free choice, because of zero-temperature counterexamples \cite{ab15}. However we can avoid the zero-temperature problems by simply subtracting zero-temperature statistics. It can be achieved in the following way. The convolution (\ref{conv}) is equivalent to a simple sum of generating functions, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&S_P[\chi]=S_N[\chi]+S_Q[\chi],\nonumber\\
&&\mathrm e^{S_X[\chi]}=\int Do X[o]\exp\int\mathrm i\mathrm d^4x o(x)\chi(x).\label{choice}
\end{eqnarray}
Generating functions can be used as a formal series with cumulant expansion in $\chi$, e.g.,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&S(\chi_1,\chi_2)=\mathrm i \chi_1C_{10}+\mathrm i \chi_2C_{01}\\
&&-\chi_1^2C_{20}/2-\chi_1\chi_2C_{11}-\chi_2^2C_{02}/2+\dots\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with cumulants $C_{10}=\langle o_1\rangle$, $C_{01}=\langle\chi_2\rangle$, $C_{20}=\langle (\delta o_1)^2\rangle$,
$C_{02}=\langle(\delta o_2)^2\rangle$, $C_{11}=\langle\delta o_1\delta o_2\rangle$, $\delta o=o-\langle o\rangle$, etc. There is a one-to-one correspondence between cumulants e.g. $C_{ijk}$ and moments $M_{ijk}=\langle o_1^i o_2^j o_3^k\rangle$ up to a given $i+j+k$, the order of cumulants/moments.
We assume that only cumulants/moments up to a given order are interesting. It is reasonable because
(a) high order cumulants/moments correspond to low experimental accuracy and complicated unreliable theoretical predictions and (b) for almost all practical purposes (both high and low energy physics) it is sufficient to consider only low order moments (also in tests of locality or contextuality \cite{bbb}). Instead of the full form of $N$ we can only take $S_N$ and even split into some pieces, e.g. $\sum_k S_{N_k}$. For any positive probability the second cumulant $C_{20}$ must be positive. However, this is only necessary only for the sum of all pieces, including $S_Q$. For sufficiently large second order cumulants (correlations), a real positive probability $P$ can be constructed when the cumulants are known up to a given order \cite{ab15}. Therefore we can postulate the arbitrary forms of $S_{N_k}$, as long as the overall $S$ corresponds to a positive probability, in particular second order correlations.
\subsection{Problem of zero-point correlations}
To show that the construction of objective realism cannot be at all straightforward, let us repeat the conflict caused by zero-point correlations \cite{ab15}. In quantum electrodynamics vacuum current-current correlation must take the form
$\langle j^\mu(p)j^\nu(q)\rangle=(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p+q)G^{\mu\nu}(p)$, where the function $G$ must be positive and invariant so it must be of the form $p^\mu p^\nu\xi+g^{\mu\nu}\eta$ and both $\xi$ and $\eta$ depend only on $p\cdot p$. Positivity leads to $0>(p\cdot p)\eta >-\xi$ for $p\cdot p>0$ and $\eta=0$, $\xi>0$ for $p\cdot p<0$. However, one can find nonzero correlations involving $j(p)$ for $p\cdot p<0$, while $j\cdot p=0$ and the other product of observables $A$, violating Cauchy Schwarz inequality $\langle j(p)j(-p)\rangle\langle|A|^2\rangle\geq|\langle j(p)A\rangle|^2$. Even the scalar field correlation $\langle \phi(p)\phi(q)\rangle=(2\pi)^2\delta(p+q)G(p)$ must be zero if we apply the fluctuation-dissipation theorem \cite{fdt}, leading to analogous violation. To resolve this conflict we
take one particular piece $S_{N_0}=-S_{Q,vac}$ where $S_{Q,vac}$ is the quantum generating function of the zero-temperature vacuum. This will get rid of any zero-temperature counterexamples because we get null statistics $o=0$ at $T=0$. We shall see later, however, that the vanishing of correlations for spacelike $p$ cannot be resolved if we include freedom of choice.
\subsection{Nonzero temperatures}
Certain problems arise at nonzero temperature, since the correlation function $G$ must be positive. It will be indeed true for $p\cdot p<0$ (spacelike), because the vacuum contribution vanishes and the nonzero-temperature one must be positive. However, for an electron of the mass $m$ and $p\cdot p>m^2$ (timelike) we shall find a negative contribution.
We have $j^\mu(p)j^\nu(q)\to j^\mu_+(p)j^\nu_-(q)$ for $p^0>0$ in the case of $f=\mathrm i\;\mathrm{sgn}p^0\theta(p\cdot p)$ and $j^\mu(p)j^\nu(q)\to
(j^\mu_+(p)+j^\mu_-(p))(j^\nu_+(q)+j^\nu_-(q))/4$ for $f=0$. Due to unitarity, we have $\langle\check{X}^q \check{Y}^q\rangle=0$ for
every $X$ and $Y$ which means that we can subtract $(j^\mu_+(p)-j^\mu_-(p))(j^\mu_+(q)-j^\nu_-(q))/4$ to get
$(j^\mu_+(p)j^\nu_-(q)+j^\mu_-(p)j^\nu_+(q))/2$ for $f=0$. In terms of fields $j^\mu=\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi$ with $4\times 4$ Dirac
matrix $\gamma$ ($\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu+\gamma^\nu\gamma^\mu=2g^{\mu\nu}$) and Grassmann (anticommuting) fields $\psi$ and
$\bar\psi=\psi^\dag\gamma^0$. By the standard methods \cite{peskin,ctp,ab13}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle j^\mu_+(p)j^\nu_-(q)\rangle=-(2\pi)^6\delta(p+q)\int\mathrm d^4k\times\nonumber\\
&&\delta((k+p/2)\cdot(k+p/2)-m^2)\times\nonumber\\
&&\delta((k-p/2)\cdot(k-p/2)-m^2)\times\nonumber\\
&&\left(\frac{\theta(-k^0-p^0/2)}{1+\mathrm e^{-\beta|k^0+p^0/2|}}-\frac{\theta(k^0+p^0/2)}{1+\mathrm e^{\beta|k^0+p^0/2|}}\right)\times\nonumber\\
&&\left(\frac{\theta(k^0-p^0/2)}{1+\mathrm e^{-\beta|k^0-p^0/2|}}-\frac{\theta(p^0/2-k^0)}{1+\mathrm e^{\beta|k^0-p^0/2|}}\right)\times\nonumber\\
&&\mathrm{Tr}\gamma^\mu(\gamma\cdot(k+p/2)+m)\gamma^\nu(\gamma\cdot (k-p/2)+m).
\end{eqnarray}
Evaluating the trace (last line) gives $8k^\mu k^\nu-2p^\mu p^\nu-g^{\mu\nu}(4k\cdot k-p\cdot p-4m^2)$.
Combining $(k\pm p/2)\cdot(k\pm p/2)=m^2$ we get additionally $k\cdot p=0$ and $k\cdot k+p\cdot p/4=m^2$, so the trace becomes
$8k^\mu k^\nu+2(g^{\mu\nu}p\cdot p-p^\mu p^\nu)$.
The difference between finite and zero temperature has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle j^\mu_+(p)j^\nu_-(q)\rangle_{T-0}=(2\pi)^6\int\mathrm d^4k\times\nonumber\\
&&\delta(k\cdot p)\delta(k\cdot k+p\cdot p/4-m^2)\nonumber\\
&&\left[(1+\mathrm e^{\beta|k^0+p^0/2|})^{-1}
(1+\mathrm e^{\beta|k^0-p^0/2|})^{-1}\vphantom{frac{\theta k^0}{\mathrm e^{\beta k^0}}}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.
-\frac{\theta(-k^0-p^0/2)}{1+\mathrm e^{\beta|k^0-p^0/2|}}
-\frac{\theta(k^0-p^0/2)}{1+\mathrm e^{\beta|k^0+p^0/2|}}\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times(2(p^\mu p^\nu-g^{\mu\nu} p\cdot p)-8k^\mu k^\nu).\label{corx}
\end{eqnarray}
The last line is positive definite for timelike $p$ and negative definite for spacelike $p$.
For the timelike case, let us take the frame where $p=(P,0,0,0)$ and then $k=(0,K,0,0)$, and $K^2=P^2/4-m^2$. Then we get only nonzero elements $8m^2$ for $\mu=\nu=1$ and $2P^2$ for $\mu=\nu=2,3$. For the spacelike case we take $p=(0,P,0,0)$ so $k=(K_0,0,K,0)$
with $K_0^2=m^2+P^2/4+K^2$. The only nonzero elements are $-8(K^2+m^2)$ for $\mu=\nu=0$, $-2P^2-8K^2$ for $\mu=\nu=2$, $-8K_0K$ for $\mu\nu=20,02$ and $-2P^2$ for $\mu=\nu=3$. The negativity is confirmed by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $(P^2+4K^2)(K^2+m^2)- 4K_0^2K^2=P^2m^2\geq 0$.
Now, the middle line in (\ref{corx}) is always negative. This is because either $p^0>0$ which leaves only one $\theta$ while all
Fermi factors $(1+\mathrm e^{\beta q})^{-1}<1$ or we symmetrize contributions from $p$ and $q=-p$, which turns both $\theta$ into $1/2$ and the same argument applies. Therefore $G$ is positive definite for spacelike $p$ but negative definite for timelike $p$ with
$p\cdot p>4m^2$ and zero for $4m^2>p\cdot p>0$. To fix the problem of positivity we need to add another $S_{N_1}$ with positive definite correlation for $p\cdot p>0$. To this end, we can take, e.g., the bosonic Proca field $B^\mu(x)$ with the Lagrangian
$2\mathcal L=B_{\mu\nu}B^{\nu\mu}+M^2B\cdot B+\xi(\partial\cdot B)^2$ with $B_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu B_\nu-\partial_\nu B_\mu$
and $\xi\to+\infty$ (Lorentz gauge fixing $\partial\cdot B=0$). Then
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle B^\mu_+(p) B^\nu_-(q)\rangle=\nonumber\\
&&(2\pi)^5\delta(p+q)(p^\mu p^\nu-g^{\mu\nu}p\cdot p)
\delta(p\cdot p-M^2)\times\nonumber\\
&&\left(\frac{\theta(-p^0)}{\mathrm e^{\beta|p^0|}-1}+\frac{\theta(p^0)}{1-\mathrm e^{-\beta|p^0|}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
We can now redefine the observable current \newline $j^\mu\to j^\mu+\int \mathrm d M \eta_M B^\mu_M$ with some form factor $\eta$. Alternatively, we can take an abstract field $B^\mu$ with the correlation $\langle B^\mu(p)B^\nu(q)\rangle=(2\pi)^4\delta(p+q)(p^\mu p^\nu-g^{\mu\nu}p\cdot p)X(p\cdot p)$ with some positive function $X$, which is zero for negative arguments.
For a maximally spacelike case in (\ref{corx}), $p^0=0$, the middle line reads $-(2\cosh(\beta|K_0|/2)^{-2}$, while
$K_0^2>m^2+P^2/4$. At low temperatures (large $\beta$) it vanishes exponentially at least $\sim \mathrm e^{-\beta m}$, but the same behavior applies to all correlation functions. Therefore we cannot construct (at least easily) an example against realism in this case, because of the positivity of second order correlations, without freedom of choice.
\section{FAILURE OF INVARIANT FREE CHOICE}
Now we will show that relativistic invariant realism breaks down when we introduce freedom of choice. Let us add a free part to the Lagrangian density (at some point $x$) of either the scalar field $\phi$ or electron spinor $\psi$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&2\mathcal L=(\partial\phi)\cdot(\partial\phi)-m^2\phi^2+\lambda\phi^4/12+2a\phi,\nonumber\\
&&\mathcal L=\bar\psi(\mathrm i\gamma\cdot\partial-m+\gamma\cdot A)\psi,\label{fre}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ and $A$ are freely chosen external fields. Here $\lambda$ introduces nonlinear interaction because the linear scalar case is trivial and agrees with realism, so the distribution at $a=0$ will be simply shifted by $\phi\to\phi+a$.
All correlations in $S_Q$ start to depend on $a$ or $A$ but not those in $S_N$ in (\ref{choice}) as the choice applies only to the standard quantum part. The invariance condition is that, in the limit of zero temperature, they stay invariant under simultaneous change of the frame for $\phi$, $a$, $j=\bar{\psi}\gamma\psi$ and $A$, according to Lorentz rules.
To show that this is impossible, we take $a$ and $A$ as small parameters and expand all correlations in their powers, e.g.,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle \phi(x)\phi(y)\rangle=G_0(x,y)+\int \mathrm d^4z G_1(x,y;-z)a(z)\nonumber\\
&&+\int\mathrm d^4 z\mathrm d^4 w G_2(x,y;-z,-w)a(z)a(w)+...
\end{eqnarray}
Certainly $G_0$ corresponds to the zero-temperature vacuum limit of the previous case. We have already learned that $G_0(p,q)=0$ for spacelike $p$ (or $q$). We assume that $a$ is sufficiently small so that we can perform perturbative analysis, comparing correlations expanded to the same maximal power of $a$.
Let us consider the function $\langle\phi(p)\phi(q)\phi(k)\rangle$ in equilibrium vacuum for spacelike $p$, $q$, $k$ and any sum of them. Then $2\phi\to \phi_++\phi_-$
and
\begin{equation}
\langle\phi(p)\phi(q)\phi(k)\rangle=\int \mathrm d^4 s\langle \phi^c(p)\phi^c(q)\phi^c(k)\phi^q(s)\rangle b(s).\label{pp1}
\end{equation}
We shall focus on the expression $\langle \phi^c(p)\phi^c(q)\phi^c(k)\phi^q(s)\rangle$ (also called susceptibility). From unitarity we can add
$\langle \phi^q(p)\phi^q(q)\phi^q(k)\phi^q(s)\rangle/8\mathrm i$ (which is zero). We shall obtain various combinations of the Schwinger-Keldysh parts of the contour ($+$ or $-$), but in particular there will be
$++++$ but not $----$ [because crossings $+-$ or $-+$ must be timelike; see also (\ref{fdt1}) and the discussion below]. The expectations will also contain $\delta(p+q+k+s)$. We can take, e.g., vertices of the regular tetrahedron, $p^0=q^0=k^0=s^0=0$ and $\vec{p}=C(1,1,1)$, $\vec{q}=C(1,-1,-1)$, $\vec{k}=C(-1,1,-1)$, and $\vec{s}=(-1,-1,1)$. Then only the term $++++$ will contribute, which is at zero temperature
\begin{equation}
\lambda[(p\cdot p-m^2)(q\cdot q-m^2)(k\cdot k^2-m^2)(s\cdot s-m^2)]^{-1},
\end{equation}
which is $\lambda/(m^2+3C^2)^4$ for the tetrahedron.
On the other hand, realism requires the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
\begin{equation}
|\langle\phi(p)\phi(q)\phi(k)\rangle|^2\leq \langle|\phi(p)|^2\rangle\langle|\phi(q)\phi(k)|^2\rangle\label{csch}
\end{equation}
with regularization $\phi(w)\to \int \mathrm d^4v \delta_\epsilon(v-w)\phi(v)$.
However, the left-hand side is nonzero and proportional to $\lambda^2 |b(s)|^2$ while on the right-hand side
$\langle|\phi(p)|^2\rangle$ disappears if, for $a(s)$, $p+ns$ is spacelike for all integer $n$ and the inequality is obviously violated in zero temperature vacuum. Note that the example has no proper classical limit, at least at zero temperature. This is because time-resolved observation is burdened with time-frequency uncertainty and even the simple vacuum fluctuations (zero-point quantum noise) do not contain the Planck constant (tracing back the dimension) and the only comparison scale is the mass of a (charged) particle , which is combined with the Planck constant and speed of light to get the frequency dimension.
It is interesting to understand why there is no contribution from $a(s)$. Let us expand
\begin{equation}
\langle\phi(p)\phi(p')\rangle=\int\mathrm d^4 s\mathrm d^4 s' G_2(p,p',s,s')a(s)a(s')+...\label{ppp}
\end{equation}
The zero order term vanishes because $p,p'$ are spacelike and because of arguments analogous to those in \cite{ab15}, repeated here in Sec. IVA and the first order one from parity.
The remaining $G_2$ corresponds to \newline $\langle \phi^c(p)\phi^c(p')\phi^q(s)\phi^q(s')\rangle$. From unitarity we add \newline
$\langle\phi^q\phi^q\phi^q\phi^q\rangle/4$, which leaves only the terms $+-\ast\ast$ and $-+\ast\ast$, so $p$ and $p'$ lie on the opposite
branches of Schwinger-Keldysh contour. They are spacelike, also with added $s,s'$, so there is no possibility to go between branches -- there is always $\delta_+(w\cdot w-m^2)$ from $+$ to $-$ so the sum of all transfer variables $w$'s, must be timelike but also equal $p$, $p+s$, or $p+s'$, which is a
contradiction. The argument extends analogously to higher orders with the restriction that the sum $p+\sum_i s_i$ cannot become timelike. However, instead of showing that (\ref{ppp}) vanishes, it is sufficient to show that it is at least $\sim |a|^4$.
Alternatively, we can use a generalized form of quantum fluctuation theorem for thermal states \cite{fdt}, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left\langle \prod_i O_{i-}(p_i)\prod_jO_{j+}(p_j)\right\rangle\exp\sum_j\beta p^0_j=\nonumber\\
&&\left\langle \prod_j O_{j-}(p_j)\prod_iO_{i+}(p_i)\right\rangle^\ast_{r},
\label{fdt1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r$ denotes the time reversal of fields and of the Lagrangian. Here $\phi_r= \phi$, $X^\mu_r=(-1)^\mu X^\mu$, with $(-1)^0=1$ and \newline $(-1)^{1,2,3}=-1$ for $X=A,B,p,j$. It can be easily proved by modifying the Schwinger-Keldysh-Kadanoff-Baym contour as shown in Fig. \ref{fdt} where we separate the horizontal part by $\mathrm i\beta$, which results in additional factors $\mathrm e^{\beta p^0_j}$. Note also that $\sum_ip^0_i+\sum_jp^0_j=0$ because of time shift invariance.
In the last step we have to reverse time, which is accompanied by conjugation because time reversal is antiunitary.
Now, in the zero-temperature limit averages are relativistic invariant but also the exponent $\sum_j \beta p^0_j$ diverges unless
$\sum_j p^0_j=0$. Therefore these averages must vanish if $\sum_j p_j$ is spacelike because we can find a frame where $\sum_j p^0_j\sim 0$, i.e. minimal changes will reverse the sign. For timelike $\sum_j p_j$ the average on the right-hand side of (\ref{fdt1}) must vanish if $\sum_j p^0_j<0$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{fdt.pdf}
\caption{Transformation of the Schwinger-Keldysh-Kadanoff-Baym contour leading to the generalized fluctuation-dissipation theorem (\ref{fdt1}). In the first stage the flat parts are moved away; in the second stage the contour is cut on the right and glued on the left.}
\label{fdt}
\end{figure}
An analogous example involves current, namely, \newline $\langle j^\mu(p)j^\nu(q)j^\sigma(k)\rangle$ at free choice $A^\tau(s)$.
Then (\ref{pp1}) for spacelike $p,q,k,s$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
\int\mathrm d^4s \langle j^\mu_+(p)j^\nu_+(q)j^\sigma_+(k)j^\tau_+(s)\rangle A_\tau(s),
\end{equation}
which is a four-point Green function discussed a long time ago \cite{g44}. We recall the calculation in the Appendix with the lowest order limit, for
$p,q,k,s\ll m$. Let us take $\mu=\nu=\sigma=\tau=0$ and again vertices of regular tetrahedron. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int\mathrm d^4s \langle j^0_+(p)j^0_+(q)j^0_+(k)j^0_+(s)\rangle=\nonumber\\
&&-(2\pi)^4\delta(p+q+k+s)
16\pi^2 C^4/15m^4,
\end{eqnarray}
which is clearly nonzero, contradicting an analogue of (\ref{csch}) with $\phi\to j^0$ because $\langle j^\mu(p)j^\nu(-p)\rangle$ will be zero (or $\sim |A|^4$; the zeroth order vanishes as shown in \cite{ab15} and Sec. IVA).
We have shown that an attempt to build free choice into quantum mechanics fails when trying to reconcile with relativity.
If we abandon relativistic invariance we can make $\langle|\phi(p)|^2\rangle$ positive for every $p$, not only timelike. The failure is generic as it occurs both for scalar and vector (spinor) fields.
\section{RELATIVISTIC INVARIANCE AND NO-SIGNALING}
One of the consequences of relativistic invariance is the principle of no-signaling. It states that the correlations \newline
$\langle\prod_j\phi_i(x_i)\rangle$ cannot depend on free choices $a_j$ localized at $y_j$ so that $x_i-y_j$ is spacelike for all $i,j$. Plainly,
it forbids superluminal, faster than light, communication. It is justified by the relativistic invariance of correlations because the
influence associated with $a(y)$ is associated with $\check{\phi}^q(y)$. Because $x-y$ is spacelike, we can find a frame where $y^0=x^0$
when $\hat{\phi}'(x)\hat{\phi}(y)=\hat{\phi}(y)\hat{\phi}'(x)$,
so $\check{\phi}^q(y)$ gets eliminated. As already stressed, the invariance itself can be
proved at least perturbatively \cite{ab13} but it is rather accepted as part of Wightman axioms (\ref{frein}), which in fact state both
invariance (of the vacuum ground state) and no-signaling, also called microcausality \cite{wight}.
However, once relativistic invariance is put in doubt, no-signaling loses its obvious justification.
One can still ask if adding noninvariant corrections to an invariant theory may lead to the violation of no-signaling.
We shall demonstrate that indeed it can be violated, but nonperturbatively while the perturbative approach is misleading. Let us look at a counterexample, depicted in Fig. \ref{ccc}.
Let us take a real scalar field $\phi$ with the Lagrangian density analogous to (\ref{fre})
\begin{equation}
2\mathcal L=(\partial_0\phi)^2-c^2(\nabla\phi)^2/2-m^2\phi^2+2b(x)\phi(x).
\end{equation}
It is clear that the signaling speed is $c$ and the causal Green function (commutator) $G(x-y)=\langle\phi^q(x)\phi^c(y)\rangle$ can be written as
\cite{peskin}
\begin{equation}
G(x)=\mathrm{Re}\int\frac{2 d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{e^{\mathrm i q_0 x^0-\mathrm i\vec{q}\cdot\vec{x}}}{(q_0+\mathrm i\epsilon)^2-c^2|\vec{q}|^2-m^2}
\end{equation}
with $\epsilon\to 0_+$
and can be evaluated exactly as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{m\theta(c|x^0|-|\vec{x}|)}{4\pi c^2}\frac{J_1(m\sqrt{|x^0|^2-|\vec{x}/c|^2})}{\sqrt{|cx^0|^2-|\vec{x}|^2}}\nonumber\\
&&
-\delta(|cx_0|^2-|\vec{x}|^2)\frac{\mathrm{sgn}{x^0}}{2\pi c},
\end{eqnarray}
where $J$ is the Bessel function. In quantum field theory we need to subtract the renormalizing Green function with a large mass $M^2\gg m^2$, giving effectively
\begin{equation}
G_{r}(x)=\frac{\theta(|cx^0|-|\vec{x}|)}{4\pi c^2}\frac{J_1(mc^2\sqrt{|x^0|^2-|\vec{x}/c|^2})}{\sqrt{|cx^0|^2-|\vec{x}|^2}/m}- m\to M.
\end{equation}
The Green function is not zero only inside the causal cone given by $|\vec{x}|<c|x^0|$, defining the signaling speed as $c$.
Now, let us solve the problem perturbatively, rewriting
\begin{equation}
c^2(\nabla\phi)^2=(\nabla\phi)^2+\lambda(\nabla\phi)^2,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda=c^2-1$ is a (small) perturbative parameter.
The perturbative solution leads to changing $c$ at constant $x$ and reads
\begin{equation}
G_{r}^{p}(x)=\frac{\theta(|x^0|-|\vec{x}|)}{4\pi c^2}\frac{J_1(m\sqrt{|x^0|^2-|\vec{x}/c|^2}}{\sqrt{|cx^0|^2-|\vec{x}|^2}/m}- m\to M,
\end{equation}
while for negative $\lambda$ and $|x^0|>|\vec{x}|>c|x^0|$ we substitute $J_1(is)=iI_1(s)$, an analytic continuation at $s=0$.
This is of course different from the exact solution and the reason is that the boundary of the signaling cone limits the validity of perturbative expansion.
The root of the problem is the Fourier representation
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[(q_0+\mathrm i\epsilon)^2-c^2Q^2-m^2]^{-1}=\nonumber\\
&&[(q_0+\mathrm i\epsilon)^2-Q^2-m^2-\lambda Q^2]^{-1}=\\
&&[(q_0+\mathrm i\epsilon)^2-Q^2-m^2]^{-1}+\nonumber\\
&&\lambda Q^2[(q_0+\mathrm i\epsilon)^2-Q^2-m^2]^{-2}+\nonumber\\
&&\lambda^2 Q^4[(q_0+\mathrm i\epsilon)^2-Q^2-m^2]^{-3}+\dots\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for $Q=|\vec{q}|$. Due to the pole, the geometric series is convergent only at $\lambda Q^2<q_0^2-m^2$, despite leading to a finite contribution at each order of $\lambda$. Beyond the convergence region, summation is only formal and interpreted rather as an analytic continuation.
Therefore, this reasoning is certainly nonperturbative. In principle one could include the analytic continuation of such a series in one of the rules of quantum field theory; all dangerous examples in interacting theories, e.g., bound states and higher order correlation functions, are impossible to check.
We conclude that no-signaling is a nonperturbative principle inherently related to relativistic invariance. This means that
relativistic invariance may be renounced either by a direct experiment in different frames \cite{kost} or indirectly by testing no-signaling.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{cc1.pdf}
\caption{Problem of perturbative no-signaling. The exact result gives the signaling speed $c$, bounding the blue area. Starting from a field with signaling velocity $1$ (bounding the red area) with perturbative expansion the boundary of signaling remains the same (red area).}
\label{ccc}
\end{figure}
No-signaling can be simply tested by checking if a free choice can change a spacelike readout. It a necessary assumption of every Bell test \cite{bell,chsh,eber} and therefore it is tested there simultaneously. Although in recent experiments \cite{hanson,zein,saew} the signature of superluminal signaling based on the reported data seems to be yet insignificant, in all of them both random choices and readouts are machine made so fair time tagging and choice is a matter of trust in electronics, not humans -- the choice is not free in the human sense \cite{wise}. Further and improved experiments should be continued to resolve the question of possible superluminal signaling.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
The presented direct conflicts of freedom of choice in quantum realism with relativity demonstrates incompleteness of the present quantum framework without using the assumption of the Bell theorem. The easiest way seems to abandon relativistic invariance. This can be tested experimentally, especially by no-signaling in the test of local realism, which is different from the direct search for violations of relativistic invariance \cite{kost}. Theoretical and experimental development of such tests is critical for finding a way to reconcile quantum realism with free choices. Finally, the freedom of choice remains a matter of trust in electronics, with human choice yet to be considered \cite{wise}.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
W. Belzig, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza\'nski, and P. Chankowski are acknowledged for motivation, discussion, and suggestions.
\section*{APPENDIX FOUR-POINT GREEN FUNCTION}
We shall recall the calculation of the four-point electron Green function \cite{g44} defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
G^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(x_ax_bx_cx_d)=\langle j^\alpha_+(x_a)j^\beta_+(x_b)j^\gamma_+(x_c)j^\delta_+(x_d)\rangle.
\end{equation}
We will rather refer to the Fourier transform of $G(a,b,c,d)$ equal to $\langle j_+(a)j_+(b)j_+(c)j_+(d)\rangle$ with
the Fourier transform $j(a)=\int \mathrm d^4 x j(x_a)\mathrm e^{\mathrm i x_a\cdot a}$. Thanks to translational invariance $G=\delta(a+b+c+d)\tilde G$.
The calculation of $\tilde{G}$ by standard methods (Wick decomposition into propagators -- two-point Green functions) reduces to three integrals (differing by permutation), corresponding to the box Feynman diagram depicted in Fig. \ref{gabcd}:
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{gabcd.pdf}
\caption{One of three (or six when directions are counted) diagrams $T$ contributing to $G$. Gamma matrices are inserted in vertices and propagators in lines}\label{gabcd}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(abcd)=T^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(abcd)+T^{\beta\alpha\gamma\delta}(bacd)
T^{\delta\beta\gamma\alpha}(dbca)
\end{equation} with
\begin{eqnarray}
&&T^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(abcd)=-2\int \mathrm d^4 p
\mathrm{Tr}(\slashed{p}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{-1}\gamma^\alpha\times\nonumber\\
&&(\slashed{p}+\slashed{a}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{-1}\gamma^\beta
(\slashed{p}+\slashed{a}+\slashed{b}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{-1}\times\nonumber\\
&&\gamma^\gamma(\slashed{p}-\slashed{d}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)\gamma^\delta,
\label{ttt}
\end{eqnarray}
where the minus is due to anticommuting, $\slashed{p}=\gamma\cdot p$, the factor $2$ due to opposite directions and $\epsilon\to 0_+$ due to the limits of $x^0$. It is important that $G$ (not $T$) be invariant with respect to the permutation of pairs $(a,\alpha)$, $(b,\beta)$, $(c,\gamma)$, $(d,\delta)$; relativistically invariant; and gauge invariant, namely $a_\alpha G^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(abcd)=0$ (and analogously for other pairs). It is easily proved by the identity
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(\slashed{p}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{-1}-(\slashed{p}+\slashed{a}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{-1}=\nonumber\\
&&(\slashed{p}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{-1}\slashed{a}(\slashed{p}+\slashed{a}-m+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{-1}
\end{eqnarray}
used at every occurrence of $\slashed{a}$, and by telescoping the cancellation of the left-hand sides from all parts of the integral, with a shift of $p$ when appropriate.
From relativistic invariance $G$ must consist of three types of terms, $k^\alpha q^\beta r^\gamma s^\delta$ (heads), $g^{\alpha\beta}r^\gamma s^\delta$ (and permutations), and $g^{\alpha\beta}g^{\gamma\delta}$ (and two other permutations) multiplied by scalar functions of $abcd$.
Here $kqrs$ are equal to some of $abcd$ but from the condition $a+b+c+d=0$ we can exclude $a$ from $k$, $b$ from $q$, $c$ from $r$, and $d$ from $s$ (by substituting $a=-b-c-d$, etc.). From gauge invariance the heads determine all other terms, because the terms with $g$ cannot exist without heads. It is clear when e.g. we combine $g^{\alpha\beta}r^\gamma s^\delta$ with $a_\alpha$, which gives $a^\beta r^\gamma s^\delta$. Without heads this term can be canceled only by $g^{\alpha\gamma}q^\beta s^\delta$ or $g^{\alpha\delta}q^\beta r^\gamma$.
This is impossible if $r,s\neq a$. By interchanging $\alpha\leftrightarrow \beta$ we find that $rs$ must correspond to $ab$ or $ba$.
However, then $g^{\alpha\gamma}q^\beta s^\delta$ implies $q=c$ and $g^{\alpha\delta}q^\beta r^\gamma$ implies $q=d$, which again makes the cancellation impossible. Terms $g^{\alpha\beta}g^{\gamma\delta}$ left alone have nothing to cancel with.
Heads can be classified into six types:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&1:\:b^\alpha a^\beta d^\gamma c^\delta,\:2:\:d^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma c^\delta,\:3:\:b^\alpha a^\beta a^\gamma a^\delta,\label{hea}\\
&&4:\:b^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma a^\delta,
\:5:\:b^\alpha c^\beta a^\gamma a^\delta,
\:6:\:b^\alpha a^\beta d^\gamma a^\delta,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
depicted in Fig. \ref{heads}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.45]{heads.pdf}
\caption{All types of heads described in (\ref{hea}). The arrow points from the greek index $\alpha\beta\gamma\delta$ to the latin one $abcd$.}
\label{heads}
\end{figure}
Gauge invariance should allow us to write \newline $H=A_\alpha B_\beta C_\gamma D_\delta G^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ in terms of fields
$A_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu$ or in the Fourier representation $i(a_\nu A_\mu-a_\mu A_\nu)$ (similarly for $BCD$).
In each combination we get some heads
There are plenty of possible types and combinations of fields that may contribute to $H$, but we shall classify five of them (the only relevant ones as we shall see in the end) with corresponding heads in $G$. We shall use compact notation, $k\cdot F\cdot q=k_\mu F^{\mu\nu}q_\nu$ and
$(\cdot X \cdot)=X^\mu_\mu$.
The list is
\begin{eqnarray}
1:&&(\cdot A\cdot B\cdot)(\cdot C\cdot D\cdot)\to b^\alpha a^\beta d^\gamma c^\delta, \nonumber\\
2:&&(\cdot A\cdot B\cdot C\cdot D\cdot)\to d^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma c^\delta +b^\alpha c^\beta d^\gamma a^\delta,\label{ten}\\
3:&&(\cdot A\cdot B\cdot)(a\cdot C\cdot D\cdot a)\to \nonumber\\
&&2b^\alpha a^\beta ((a\cdot c)d^\gamma a^\delta+(a\cdot d)a^\gamma c^\delta-(c\cdot d)a^\gamma a^\delta),\nonumber\\
4:&&(\cdot A\cdot B\cdot)(b\cdot C\cdot D\cdot a)\to \nonumber\\
&&2b^\alpha a^\beta((b\cdot c)d^\gamma a^\delta+(a\cdot d)b^\gamma c^\delta-(c\cdot d)b^\gamma a^\delta),\nonumber\\
5:&&(b\cdot D\cdot a)(\cdot A\cdot B\cdot C\cdot)\to\nonumber\\
&&(b^\alpha c^\beta a^\gamma-c^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma)((b\cdot d)a^\delta-(a\cdot d)b^\delta).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It is clear that the type number matches the head type except for head type 6 which contributes to 3 and 4 here. The tensor 5 is a simplified form of that of \cite{g44} due to the Bianchi identity $c_{\mu}C_{\nu\tau}+c_{\nu}C_{\tau\mu}+c_{\tau}C_{\mu\tau}=0$.
To continue the calculation, we rewrite in (\ref{ttt})
\begin{equation}
(\slashed{p}-m+i\epsilon)^{-1}=\frac{\slashed{p}+m}{p\cdot p-m^2+\mathrm i\epsilon}
\end{equation}
and analogously other factors. Then we use the Feynman identity
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(X_{ab}X_{bc}X_{cd}X_{da})^{-1}=\int_0^1 6\mathrm d^4\lambda\times\nonumber\\
&& \delta(1-\lambda_{ab}-\lambda_{bc}-\lambda_{cd}-
\lambda_{da})\times\nonumber\\
&&(\lambda_{ab}X_{ab}+\lambda_{bc}X_{bc}+\lambda_{cd}X_{cd}+\lambda_{da}X_{da})^{-4}
\end{eqnarray}
applied to $X_{da}=p\cdot p-m^2+\mathrm i\epsilon$, $X_{ab}=(p+a)\cdot(p+a)-m^2+\mathrm i\epsilon$, $X_{bc}=(p+a+b)\cdot(p+a+b)-m^2+i\epsilon$, and
$X_{cd}=(p-d)\cdot(p-d)-m^2+\mathrm i\epsilon$.
Moreover, we make the shift $p\to p-\lambda_{ab}a-\lambda_{bc}(a+b)+\lambda_{cd}d$. Using the fact that $a+b+c+d=0$ and $\sum\lambda=1$, we can rewrite (\ref{ttt}) in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-12\int \mathrm d^4p\mathrm d^4\lambda\delta(1-\lambda_{ab}-\lambda_{bc}-\lambda_{cd}-
\lambda_{da})\times\nonumber\\
&&(p\cdot p-m^2+Q+i\epsilon)^{-4}\times\nonumber\\
&&\mathrm{Tr}(\slashed{p}-\slashed{p}_{da}+m)\gamma^\alpha(\slashed{p}-\slashed{p}_{ab}+m)\gamma^\beta
(\slashed{p}-\slashed{p}_{bc}+m)\times\nonumber\\
&&\gamma^\gamma(\slashed{p}-\slashed{p}_{cd}+m)\gamma^\delta,\label{tt1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q$ is equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(a\cdot a)\lambda_{da}\lambda_{ab}+(b\cdot b)\lambda_{ab}\lambda_{bc}\nonumber\\
&&+(c\cdot c)\lambda_{bc}\lambda_{cd}+
(d\cdot d)\lambda_{cd}\lambda_{da}\\
&&-(a+b)\cdot(c+d)\lambda_{bc}\lambda_{da}-(d+a)\cdot(b+c)\lambda_{ab}\lambda_{cd}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&p_{da}=\lambda_{ab}a+\lambda_{bc}(a+b)-\lambda_{cd}d,\nonumber\\
&&p_{ab}=\lambda_{bc}b+\lambda_{cd}(b+c)-\lambda_{da}a,\nonumber\\
&&p_{bc}=\lambda_{cd}c+\lambda_{da}(c+d)-\lambda_{ab}b,\\
&&p_{cd}=\lambda_{da}d+\lambda_{ab}(d+a)-\lambda_{bc}c.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In heads we need four factors of $abcd$ so, for their determination, we can drop $p$ and $m$ in the numerator. Then we can perform the trace in the numerator, leaving only heads. We can drop $p$ because it cannot appear in heads as from relativistic invariance we have $4p^\alpha p^\beta\to (p\cdot p)g^{\alpha\beta}$ and
$24p^\alpha p^\beta p^\gamma p^\delta\to (p\cdot p)^2(g^{\alpha\beta}g^{\gamma\delta}+g^{\alpha\gamma}g^{\beta\delta}+g^{\alpha\delta}g^{\beta\gamma})$.
We get the head part of the trace in (\ref{tt1}) in the form $4\times$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(p_{ab}^\alpha p_{bc}^\beta+p_{bc}^\alpha p_{ab}^\beta)(p_{cd}^\gamma p_{da}^\delta+p_{da}^\gamma p_{cd}^\delta)\nonumber\\
&&
+(p_{ab}^\alpha p_{cd}^\beta+p_{cd}^\alpha p_{ab}^\beta)(p_{bc}^\gamma p_{da}^\delta-p_{da}^\gamma p_{bc}^\delta)+\nonumber\\
&&(p_{ab}^\alpha p_{da}^\beta+p_{da}^\alpha p_{ab}^\beta)(p_{bc}^\gamma p_{cd}^\delta+p_{cd}^\gamma p_{bc}^\delta)\nonumber\\
&&+
(p_{bc}^\alpha p_{cd}^\beta-p_{cd}^\alpha p_{bc}^\beta)(p_{da}^\gamma p_{ab}^\delta-p_{ab}^\gamma p_{da}^\delta)\\
&&+(p_{da}^\alpha p_{bc}^\beta-p_{bc}^\alpha p_{da}^\beta)(p_{ab}^\gamma p_{cd}^\delta+p_{cd}^\gamma p_{ab}^\delta)\nonumber\\
&&+
(p_{cd}^\alpha p_{da}^\beta-p_{da}^\alpha p_{cd}^\beta)(p_{ab}^\gamma p_{bc}^\delta-p_{bc}^\gamma p_{ab}^\delta).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Expanding the above expression we can find all heads. We shall only find heads of type 1 and 2. Type 1 is
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&32b^\alpha a^\beta d^\gamma c^\delta\lambda_{ab}\lambda_{cd}(1-\lambda_{ab})(1-\lambda_{cd}),32d^\alpha c^\beta b^\gamma a^\delta\lambda_{bc}\lambda_{da}(1-\lambda_{bc})(1-\lambda_{da}),\nonumber\\
&&\label{ty1}32c^\alpha d^\beta a^\gamma b^\delta
(\lambda_{ab}+\lambda_{bc})(\lambda_{bc}+\lambda_{cd})(\lambda_{cd}+\lambda_{da})(\lambda_{da}+\lambda_{ab}),
\end{eqnarray}
and type 2 is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&4(b^\alpha c^\beta d^\gamma a^\delta+d^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma c^\delta)
(((1-\lambda_{da})(1-\lambda_{cd})+\lambda_{cd}\lambda_{da})((1-\lambda_{ab})(1-\lambda_{bc})+\lambda_{ab}\lambda_{bc})\nonumber\\
&&+((1-\lambda_{da})
\lambda_{cd}+(1-\lambda_{cd})\lambda_{da})((1-\lambda_{bc})\lambda_{ab}+(1-\lambda_{ab})\lambda_{bc}))-4(c^\alpha a^\beta d^\gamma b^\delta+b^\alpha d^\beta a^\gamma c^\delta)(((\lambda_{bc}+\lambda_{cd})(\lambda_{cd}+\lambda_{da})\nonumber\\
&&+(\lambda_{da}+\lambda_{ab})(\lambda_{ab}+\lambda_{bc}))(\lambda_{ab}\lambda_{cd}+(1-\lambda_{ab})(1-\lambda_{cd}))+
((\lambda_{cd}+\lambda_{da})(\lambda_{da}+\lambda_{ab})+(\lambda_{ab}+\lambda_{bc})(\lambda_{bc}+\lambda_{cd}))\nonumber\\
&&\times(\lambda_{ab}(1-\lambda_{cd})+\lambda_{cd}(1-\lambda_{ab}))),\label{ty2}\\
&&-4(d^\alpha c^\beta a^\gamma b^\delta+c^\alpha d^\beta b^\gamma a^\delta)
(((\lambda_{cd}+\lambda_{da})(\lambda_{da}+\lambda_{ab})+(\lambda_{ab}+\lambda_{bc})(\lambda_{bc}+\lambda_{cd}))(\lambda_{bc}\lambda_{da}+(1-\lambda_{bc})(1-\lambda_{da}))\nonumber\\
&&+
((\lambda_{bc}+\lambda_{cd})(\lambda_{cd}+\lambda_{da})+(\lambda_{da}+\lambda_{ab})(\lambda_{ab}+\lambda_{bc}))(\lambda_{bc}(1-\lambda_{da})+\lambda_{da}(1-\lambda_{bc}))),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
depicted in Fig. \ref{hour}. We also find that heads 5 appear in antisymmetric pairs, e.g., $(b^\alpha c^\beta a^\gamma-c^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma)a^\delta$ and $(b^\alpha d^\beta a^\delta-d^\alpha a^\beta b^\delta)a^\gamma$, depicted in Fig. \ref{hour}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.35]{hour.pdf}
\caption{Three contributions to the head types 1 and 2 and two to type 5, as in Fig. \ref{heads}, inscribed in the box diagram, Fig. \ref{gabcd}.}
\label{hour}
\end{figure}
To show that only tensors in (\ref{ten}) appear in $H$, note that (a) we can take away heads 1 and 2 by tensors 1 and 2 leaving the rest invariant,
(b) heads 3 and 4 can be taken away by tensors 3 and 4 leaving only heads 5 and 6, (c) heads 6, e.g., $b^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma c^\delta$,
must get canceled when multiplied by $d_\delta$, which cannot be achieved either by terms with $g$ (they will contain $d$) or by other heads 6 or 5 (they give different terms). Therefore we only have to show that heads 5 alone must combine to the tensor 5. Let us focus first focus on a subgroup of these heads
$
(Ra^\delta+Sb^\delta+Tc^\delta)(b^\alpha c^\beta a^\gamma-c^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma)
$.
Multiplied by $d$ cycles $b^\alpha c^\beta a^\gamma-c^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma$ must get canceled from gauge invariance, which cannot be done by terms with $g$ ($d$
will appear) or other groups (we cannot get the same cycles). Hence $R(a\cdot d)+S(b\cdot d)+T(c\cdot d)=0$ and we can rewrite the group
multiplied by $(c\cdot d)$ in the form
$(R((c \cdot d)a^\delta-(a\cdot d)c^\delta)+S((c\cdot d)b^\delta-(b\cdot d)c^\delta))(b^\alpha c^\beta a^\gamma-c^\alpha a^\beta b^\gamma)$. which corresponds to a combination of tensors 5.
Making the Wick rotation $p^0\to \mathrm i p^0$, we can also integrate (\ref{tt1}) over $p$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int \frac{\mathrm d^4p}{(p\cdot p-m^2+Q+\mathrm i\epsilon)^{4}}=\int_0^\infty \frac{2\pi^2\mathrm i P^3\mathrm d P}{(P^2+m^2-Q-\mathrm i\epsilon)^4}
\nonumber\\
&&=\int_0^\infty\frac{\pi^2\mathrm i u\mathrm d u}{(u+m^2-Q-\mathrm i\epsilon)^4}=\frac{\mathrm i\pi^2}{6(m^2-Q-\mathrm i\epsilon)^2}.\label{tt2}
\end{eqnarray}
At small values of $abcd$ we can neglect $Q$ in the denominator of (\ref{tt2}).
It remains to integrate (\ref{ty1}) and (\ref{ty2}) (the other tensors appear only at large values as they must contain additional Fourier variables $abcd$ from $Q$) over $\lambda$, and the final result is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&H=-\frac{8\mathrm i\pi^2}{9m^4}((\cdot A\cdot B\cdot)(\cdot C\cdot D\cdot)+\nonumber\\
&&(\cdot A\cdot C\cdot)(\cdot B\cdot D\cdot)+(\cdot A\cdot D\cdot)(\cdot C\cdot B\cdot))\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{28\mathrm i\pi^2}{45m^4}((\cdot A\cdot B\cdot C \cdot D\cdot)+\nonumber\\
&&(\cdot A\cdot C\cdot B \cdot D\cdot)+(\cdot A\cdot B\cdot D \cdot C\cdot)).
\end{eqnarray}
|
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
With the launch of new crowdsourced live streaming service like Facebook live, its popularity keeps soaring. In this paper, we proposed BASS, a deployable edge network bandwidth aggregation system for improving the uplink bandwidths of broadcasters.
We first presented our measurement studies based on a extensive dataset collected by a popular Wi-Fi association mobile app in China. We then presented the BASS architecture, designed an aggregation server allocation strategies, and implemented a prototype on a Raspberry Pi 2 device and Amazon EC2 servers. We evaluated the feasibility and performance on Planet-Lab testbed. The results show stable and promising performance gain.
For future work, we plan to implement our system for real-world services, and evaluate its performance in the wild. We plan to (1) extend our system by adding more functions including scheduling video chunk packets according to path characteristics, (2) optimize our system for multiple objectives including cost, Wi-Fi interference and energy consumption.
\section{System Components and Architecture of \emph{BASS}} \label{sec:design}
In this section, we provide a detailed description of the BASS system.
\subsection{System Components}
The BASS system has three main components. Firstly, a portable device B-box which can be treated as a special mobile Wi-Fi hotspot with several network interfaces and a built-in lightweight linux operating system (e.g., OpenWrt). Secondly, a group of aggregation servers with MPTCP enabled, usually allocated as cloud instances (e.g., Amazon EC2). Finally, a scheduling server which monitors aggregation servers' status and allocates aggregation servers to enable MPTCP.
\subsubsection{B-box: Bandwidth Aggregation Box}
B-box has a built-in lightweight linux operating system, equipped with several types of network interfaces including Wi-Fi and cellular. Thus, B-boxes are able to connect to multiple networks at the same time. The number of each kind of network interface is not fixed and can be adjusted according to user requirement when developed in the real world. B-box is deployed with MPTCP, therefore it can connect to a MPTCP-enabled server via multiple network interfaces. B-box also sets up a Wi-Fi hotspot using one of its Wi-Fi interfaces for users to connect. A B-box runs a proxy program that will receive video chunks uploaded by users via TCP and then upload them to the aggregation server via MPTCP. These proxy programs can be regular proxy programs like Shadowsocks, Squid or protocol converters\cite{detal2013multipath} designed specifically for MPTCP.
\subsubsection{Aggregation Server: Bandwidth Aggregation in the Cloud}
To avoid any modification to the crowdsource live streaming system and make BASS practical for today's crowdsource live streaming systems, we propose to allocate aggregation servers as a middleware to transfer data between original servers and B-boxes via MPTCP. Thus the data between B-box and the aggregation server can be delivered by several sub-flows via multiple paths. With bandwidth aggregation, B-box can obtain an aggregated bandwidth to provide a higher upload capacity for the users.
\subsubsection{Scheduling Server: Centralized Aggregation Scheduler}
Scheduling server is the coordinator between B-boxes and aggregation servers. Aggregation servers report their current loads (e.g., bandwidth consumed by served broadcasters) to scheduling server regularly. The scheduling server keeps track of the status and resource usages of all aggregation servers. When user starts a B-box, the B-box retrieves available aggregation server list from scheduling server and requests one aggregation server from scheduling server. Scheduling server assigns aggregation server to B-box and decides how much resource on this aggregation server will be allocated.
\subsection{Architecture}
Fig. \ref{fig:scenario} illustrates the architecture of BASS. In a nutshell, a broadcaster starts B-box which automatically requests aggregation server from scheduling server and sets up connection. Broadcaster uploads video streams to B-box. B-box then transmits the data via multiple interfaces to the aggregation server which will continually pass the data to the original server. The original servers are often dedicated streaming servers, for example, RTMP (Real Time Messaging Protocol over HTTP Tunnel) streaming servers deployed by Twitch.tv\cite{zhang2015crowdsourced}.
Since the original servers and users of a crowdsource live streaming system can be distributed in different locations, we propose to use a geo-distributed cloud solution to allocate aggregation servers at different locations accordingly, such that the aggregated bandwidth and latency can both be improved\cite{wuscaling2012}.
To optimize network performance and provide good latency and throughput performance, a deployment limited to 11 locations for North America or a total between 36 and 72 cloud-service locations with good peering connections on a global scale will be sufficient\cite{wang2011estimating}.
In our detailed design later, we will present how aggregation servers are allocated and how B-boxes are matched with different aggregation servers.
\section{Experiments and Performance Evaluation} \label{sec:evaluation}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/distribution.png}
\caption{Locations of testing servers
\label{fig:serverdistribution}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/distanceAndBw.pdf}
\caption{Relation between bandwidth and distance.}
\label{fig:disandbw}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.33\textwidth}
\raggedright
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/allocation.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of aggregation server allocation.}
\label{fig:allocationtest}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{20pt}
\begin{minipage}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/cdf.pdf}
\caption{CDF of Hit Rate $\gamma$}
\label{fig:cdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/realwordTest.pdf}
\caption{Bandwidth achieved at a local client
\label{fig:realworldTest}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/bdgaincdf.pdf}
\caption{CDF of bandwidth gain.}
\label{fig:bdgaincdf}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our system strategies by real-world experiments on $8$ Amazon EC2 instances and $60$ Planet-Lab nodes. We begin with the evaluation of the feasibility of selecting nearby aggregation servers to provide high network throughput. Then we evaluate the dynamical allocation of aggregation servers.
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
In our experiments, we implemented a B-box prototype on a Raspberry Pi 2 device with kernel version 3.18, which has two Wi-Fi interfaces and runs our own proxy program.
We use Amazon EC2 nodes (micro type) to install MPTCP and act as candidate aggregation servers. We use $60$ Planet-Lab nodes to act as B-boxes or original servers. The locations of these servers are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:serverdistribution}. Each B-box will be scheduled to upload video data to a randomly selected original server, and an aggregation server will be selected to perform the aggregation and traffic proxy. We deploy bandwidth measurement tools including \textsf{iperf} on the EC2 and Planet-Lab nodes and run the measurements using a Python script.
\subsection{Experiment Results}
\subsubsection{Effectiveness of Distance-based Candidate Aggregation Servers}
In Fig. \ref{fig:disandbw}, we plot the bandwidth between B-boxes and aggregation servers versus the distance between them. We observe that most PlanetLab servers that obtained higher bandwidth are closer to the Amazon EC2 servers, indicating that the candidate aggregation servers selection step is promising to choose proper aggregation servers.
\subsubsection{Effectiveness of the Aggregation Server Selection}
We compare our algorithm with a random aggregation server selection algorithm, in which aggregation servers are randomly assigned to B-boxes. We define the hit rate $\gamma$ when selecting an aggregation server as follows:
$$
\gamma = \frac{b}{B},
$$
where $b$ is the bandwidth achieved using this aggregation server, and $B$ is the optimal bandwidth that can be achieved among all the aggregation servers. $\gamma=1$ if the algorithm selects the aggregation server with highest bandwidth. The experiment result is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:allocationtest}. We observe that our algorithm can find the best aggregation servers for the B-boxes and provide the maximum bandwidth most of time. We further plot the CDF of the hit rates in our design in Fig. \ref{fig:cdf}. We observe that for over $77\%$ of the tests, the hit rate $\gamma$ is 1, indicating that our server allocation performs as well as the optimal solution.
\subsection{Bandwidth Experienced by Clients}
Finally, we set up a local PC as the crowdsourced streaming client, which uploads data via B-box prototype. The bandwidths of both interfaces are limited to $8$Mits/s. We first measure the bandwidth between client to all possible original servers (i.e., the $60$ Planet-Lab nodes). Then we measured the bandwidths achieved by using our BASS system. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:realworldTest}, the bars are bandwidth achieved in the original TCP paradigm and in BASS, respectively. We observe that BASS system can significantly improve the network performance. The bandwidth can be improved by up to $14$ times.
In particular, we measure the improvement in all the tests. We plot the CDF of bandwidth improvement in Fig. \ref{fig:bdgaincdf}. The bandwidth gain rate varies between $1.14$ and $14.59$ with an average of $5.11$. For over $50\%$ of the tests, an improvement of $6$X is achieved in our design.
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Recent years have witnessed a dramatic increase of user-generated video services, enabled by the popularity of online video service and online social network service, and their cross pollination\cite{li2013two}. Among such user-generated video services, \emph{crowdsourced} live streaming(e.g., Periscope, Twitch), which allows individuals to broadcast \emph{live} video streams to millions of users on the move, basks in surge of interest. For instance, users collectively watch over $40$ years worth of live streaming content on Periscope \cite{periscopemilestone}, one of the representative crowdsourced live streaming apps.
In live streaming service, we distinguish \emph{broadcasters} (i.e., users who generate and upload the video streaming) and \emph{viewers} (i.e., users who watch the live streaming). Fig. \ref{fig:conventional} illustrates the conventional approach for crowdsourced live streaming: the original stream from a broadcaster will be transferred to streaming servers, usually via TCP; then the video stream will be delivered to the viewers by the streaming servers.
Although many researchers have been working on this topic, most of these studies \cite{pires2014dash,zhang2015crowdsourced, chen2015crowdsourced} only focused on the video delivery part (i.e., how video data is delivered to users), and left the uploading (i.e., how video data is effectively uploaded to the servers) side unexplored.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{figures/traditional.pdf}
\caption{Crowdsourced live video streaming: users upload live video streaming
via edge networks, e.g., 3G.}
\label{fig:conventional}
\end{figure}
Given the fact that today's mobile devices can take high-resolution videos,
e.g., iPhone 6s supports 30 fps 4K High Definition video recording\footnote{
According to Apple, a minute of video with 1080p HD at 30 fps is approximately
130MB and a minute of video with 4K higher resolution is approximately 375MB.},
it is challenging for today' edge network infrastructure to fulfill the large
bandwidth requirement: to effectively online stream a 1080P HD video, the
bandwidth required is at least 5 Mbit/s, and 15 Mbit/s for 4K streaming with
efficient video compression methods. For live broadcasting which is unable to
compress video data efficiently, the bandwidth requirement would be inevitably much larger.
Wi-Fi networks along with cellular networks (e.g., 3G, 4G) and other networks compose
the common edge networks. The bandwidths of current edge
networks, however, often fail to satisfy the requirement:
almost 60\% of users have less than 1 Mbits/s upload bandwidth according to our measurement
study on Wi-Fi quality in representative cities.
One of the reasons is that local carrier often configures the upload rate
much lower than the download rate, since most people have more of a need to download data.
And according to Akamai's research, only 21\% of U.S. homes have more than 15 Mbits/s bandwidths\footnote{http://www.fiercecable.com/story/akamai-only-21-us-homes-have-enough-bandwidth-stream-4k/2015-09-23},
which also confirms that uplink capacity is relatively limited due to the same reason.
The upload capacity of 4G cellular network is insufficient for 4K live streaming and the cost is rather
high. Therefore the gap between bandwidth requirement and reality significantly
challenged today's wireless infrastructure.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.333\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={1cm 7cm 2cm 8cm},clip, width=\linewidth]{figures/around-ap-cdf.pdf}
\caption{Number of Wi-Fi access point sensed by the devices.}
\label{fig:aroundAp}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.333\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={1cm 7cm 2cm 8cm},clip, width=\linewidth]{figures/ap-bandwidth-cdf.pdf}
\caption{Upload bandwidth of Wi-Fi hotspots.}
\label{fig:apBandwidthCdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.333\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0.5cm 7cm 2cm 8cm},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/ap-speed-diff.pdf}
\caption{Upload speeds of Wi-Fi hotspots in the same cellular cell selected from a popular region.}
\label{fig:apSpeed}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
By analyzing a massive data set collected by a crowdsourced Wi-Fi association mobile application which has more than $13$ million users, we observed that when users try to connect to a Wi-Fi hotspot, the chance of having more than $10$ other Wi-Fi networks around is over $50\%$. A promising idea to address this problem is to utilize all available edge networks simultaneously including Wi-Fi networks and cellular networks. Several previous efforts \cite{saeed2010dnis,habak2013optimal,habak2012g,tang2015application} have been devoted to using aggregated network resources to improve bandwidth capacity; however, they fail to increase the throughput for applications that originally use single-TCP connections to deliver data, e.g., most of the crowdsourced live streaming services.
In this paper, we propose \emph{BASS} (Bandwidth Aggregation SyStem), a multi-objective and deployable bandwidth aggregation system. The BASS system streams crowdsourced video data using \emph{aggregated} edge network resource via a portable device equipped with multiple network interfaces. BASS dynamically allocates \emph{aggregation servers} that receive video data from users and pass it to the original server, to enable MPTCP (i.e., Multi-path TCP \cite{ford2013tcp, barre2011experimenting, raiciu2012hard, honda2011still}) for today's representative crowdsourced live streaming platforms.
In our design of the BASS system, we try to fulfill the following requirements. (1) The system should be easy to deploy without any modifications to existing network infrastructure, servers and applications. (2) The design should be able to exploit multiple available edge networks including both Wi-Fi and cellular networks. (3) The strategies should dynamically allocate aggregation servers to provide satisfactory QoS for broadcasters.
Our contributions below provide a system design and strategies that satisfy these requirements.
First, we carry out measurement studies on $13$ million users connecting to $17$ million Wi-Fi hotspots in a time span of one month, to investigate (1) the availability of Wi-Fi resources in representative metropolitan areas (i.e., more than $50\%$ of the Wi-Fi sessions record that there are over $10$ other Wi-Fi hotspots around available), and (2) the insufficiency of most Wi-Fi hotspots' uplink bandwidths (i.e., over $60\%$ of the Wi-Fi sessions have an upload capacity lower than $1$ Mbit/s).
Second, we propose a practical aggregation network framework, which makes use of geo-distributed cloud resources for bandwidth aggregation for servers/users located at different places. Today's mobile devices usually do not support using multiple wireless interfaces simultaneously. As opposed to previous study \cite{habak2014oscar} that modifies the client devices, the adoption of middle-box and aggregation server in our design makes no modification to current operating system on mobile devices and makes \emph{BASS} more practical to be deployed for real-world devices and applications. Our design features: (1) The framework works transparently, i.e., broadcasters can use the original apps on their smart phones to upload high-bitrate video streams to the original servers. (2) Dynamical aggregation strategies, including i) a geo-distributed cloud aggregation server allocation algorithm that allocates cloud servers best matching the users and original servers (i.e., large bitrates can be achieved in the aggregation), and ii) a heuristic algorithm to maximize the whole system's overall bandwidth gain.
Third, we implement a prototype on EC2/PlanetLab to verify the effectiveness of our design. In particular, $8$ Amazon EC2 and $60$ Planet-Lab nodes are employed in our design to evaluate its performance. Compared with traditional TCP based uploading, our design can significantly improve the bandwidth by up to $5$ times.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:measurement} presents our measurement results and motivation. Section \ref{sec:design} discusses the overall architecture of BASS system. Section \ref{sec:strategy} presents the dynamic allocation algorithm. In Section \ref{sec:evaluation}, we evaluate our algorithm via both simulations and experiments. Finally, Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes this paper and provides our plan for future work.
\section{Motivation: Measurement Studies} \label{sec:measurement}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{.3\textwidth}
\vspace{4pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/bw.pdf}
\vspace{4pt}
\caption{Effectiveness of MPTCP for upload bandwidth aggregation.}
\label{fig:bdTest}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.7\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/system.pdf}
\caption{System architecture of BASS: Videos are uploaded using aggregated edge networks with portable B-box and cloud-based aggregation servers.}
\label{fig:scenario}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Availability of Multiple Wi-Fi Networks}
To understand the availability of Wi-Fi resources, in this paper we analyzed a large dataset collected by a popular online crowdsourced Wi-Fi association mobile app in China. This app has over $200$ million downloads. It allows users to discover nearby crowdsourced free Wi-Fi hotspots. Every succeed connection is considered as a session, in which QoS statistics (e.g., measure of upload bandwidth of the Wi-Fi AP) will be reported to a trace server. In this paper, we use over $460$ million collected sessions of $13$ million users connecting to $17$ million Wi-Fi hotspots in a time span of one month to evaluate the availability of Wi-Fi resource.
In the traces collected, users report the available Wi-Fi hotspots around, based on which we are able to estimate the number of Wi-Fi hotspots available to a user. Fig. \ref{fig:aroundAp} presents the CDF of the number of Wi-Fi hotspots available to users. We observe that over $50\%$ of these sessions have more than $10$ Wi-Fi hotspots around users when they try to connect to a Wi-Fi network. This observation suggests that today's Wi-Fi deployment is highly promising for aggregation usage, i.e., using multiple Wi-Fi networks to aggregation the bandwidth capacity.
In Fig. \ref{fig:apBandwidthCdf}, we present the CDF plot of collected upload bandwidth test results. From this plot, we can observe that almost 60\% of collected bandwidth records are lower than 1 Mbit/s, which confirms that the bandwidth of today's edge network are very limited.
We next study the upload bandwidth of Wi-Fi hotspots inside a $100\times 100$m grid. Each sample shows the upload speed distribution of different APs located in the same cellular cell. From Fig. \ref{fig:apSpeed}, We observe significant difference of the median upload speeds among these APs, varying from 0.4 Mbit/s to 11 Mbit/s. The quality diversity in nearby hotspots suggests scheduling video chunk packets according to the status of the Wi-Fi interfaces is in demand.
\subsection{Bandwidth Improvement via MPTCP}
We verify the effectiveness of MPTCP in utilizing multiple wireless interfaces. MPTCP is a modification of the classical TCP that allows end-to-end data traffic to be split across multiple paths, while maintaining TCP connections at the end points (applications). Upper layers of the protocol stack only need to deal with a logical ``master'' TCP socket. Fig. \ref{fig:bdTest} illustrates a simple experiment conducted to measure the performance of MPTCP. We measured the bandwidth between local client and remote server under different network interface and bandwidth combinations. Both client and server are installed with MPTCP. The network interfaces we used in these experiments are two Wi-Fi interfaces and two 4G cellular interfaces. We observe that MPTCP is able to aggregate bandwidth resources from multiple networks.
To summarize, apart from the constant availability of cellular networks, users often have access to several Wi-Fi networks in urban areas, though these Wi-Fi networks often have limited bandwidth and heterogeneous upload capacities; also, MPTCP aggregation is promising to make full utilization of multiple wireless network resources for crowdsourced live stream uploading.
\section{Related Work} \label{sec:relatedwork}
Bandwidth efficiency, quality stability and resource fairness are the primary goals users want to achieve in a multimedia streaming system.
\subsection{Crowdsourced Video Sharing}
\subsection{Bandwidth Aggregation}
What is the gap
\section{Detailed Design of \emph{BASS}} \label{sec:strategy}
In this section, we present how aggregation servers are allocated and how they are matched with different B-boxes.
\subsection{Dynamical Aggregation Server Allocation}
In our design, the geo-distributed cloud solution allows us to deploy aggregation servers at many different locations around the world. When a B-box requests to send video data, an aggregation server is assigned to the B-box to aggregate video traffic. Aggregation servers are allocated dynamically according to both the user and original server's locations, the real-time bandwidth load of aggregation servers, and the network performance between the aggregation servers to the user and the original servers.
Considering these factors change over time, aggregation servers will be re-allocated regularly, e.g., every 30 minutes or when the network throughput on B-box is low.
We try to maximize the overall bandwidth for all users, while not exceeding the bandwidth capacities of aggregation servers. For example, when two B-boxes request the same aggregation server simultaneously, their original bandwidths of uploading to streaming server using single edge network and the increased bandwidths using aggregated edge networks are often different. Therefore the \emph{bandwidth gain} (i.e., the increased bandwidth comparing to the original bandwidth) are often different too.
Suppose this aggregation server's remaining bandwidth capacity can only serve one client, allocating this server to the client with the larger bandwidth improvement can yield more overall bandwidth gain.
Consider all these, we allocate aggregation servers to achieve the following objectives: (1) providing B-boxes with aggregation servers that can achieve high aggregated throughput; (2) matching aggregation servers with B-boxes to achieve maximum overall bandwidth gain.
\subsection{Algorithm and Implementation} \label{sec:algorithm}
We propose an allocation-matching algorithm to solve the problem above. We summarize important notations in Table \ref{tab:notation}. The allocation-matching algorithm is presented in Algorithm \ref{alg:algorithm}.
\begin{table}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{center}
\caption{Important notations.} \label{tab:notation}
\begin{tabular}{p{.2\linewidth}|p{.7\linewidth}}
\toprule
Variable & Definition
\\
\midrule
$n$ & Number of B-boxes requesting AS
\\
$m$ & Number of aggregation servers
\\
$t$ & Current time stamp
\\
$C$ & Set of clients
\\
$S$ & Set of aggregation servers
\\
$c_i$ & B-box $i$
\\
$s_j$ & Aggregation server $j$
\\
$B_o(c_i)$ & Bandwidth between $c_i$ and original server
\\
$B_o(s_j)$ & Bandwidth between $s_j$ and original server
\\
$B(c_i,s_j)$ & Bandwidth between $c_i$ and aggregation server $s_j$
\\
$B_o(c_i,s_j)$ & Bandwidth between $c_i$ and original server via $s_j$
\\
$R(s_j)$ & Remaining bandwidths capacity of $s_j$
\\
$T(s_j)$ & Total bandwidths capacity of $s_j$
\\
$r(s_j)$ & Bandwidth load rate of $s_j$
\\
$G(c_i, s_j)$ & Bandwidth gain B-box $c_i$ obtained from $s_j$
\\
$A(c_i, s_j)$ & 1 if $s_j$ is allocated to $c_i$, 0 otherwise
\\
$\Gamma_t$ & Overall bandwidth gain in time $t$
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Aggregation and Matching Algorithm}\label{alg:algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{Allocate Server}{}
\ForAll {$ c_i \in C$}
\State \textit{find a subset of $S$, $S_o$, which is closest to $c$}
\ForAll {$ s_j \in S_o$}
\State \textit{Measure bandwidth $B(c_i,s_j)$, $B_o(c_i)$}
\State $B_o(c_i,s_j) \gets min\{ B(c_i, s_j), B_o(s_j)\}$
\State $G(c_i, s_j) \gets B_o(c_i, s_j)-B_o(c_i)$
\State \textit{Send bandwidth info to scheduling server}
\EndFor
\State \textit{Sort $G(c_i)$ in descending order}
\EndFor
\State \textit{Generate all possible allocation plans satisfy (\ref{equ:constraint})}
\State \textit{Calulate $\Gamma_t$ for each plan}
\State \Return \textit{allocation plan }$A$,
\Statex \hspace{\algorithmicindent}\textit{that achieves the highest bandwidth gain}
\State \textit{Update $R(s_j)$ for all aggregation server}
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Suppose a B-box $c_i$ requests for an aggregation server, it retrieves a list of available aggregation servers, uplink bandwidths from these aggregation servers to the original services. Bandwidths between the aggregation servers and the original servers are regularly updated by aggregation servers and report to the scheduling server. Scheduling server preferentially provides B-box with the list of aggregation servers that are close or have better connection to the original server.
We define bandwidth load rate $r(s_j)$ as follows:
$$
r(s_j) = \frac{R(s_j)}{T(s_j)},
$$
Aggregation servers with $r(s_j)$ lower than a threshold will not be provided to a B-box. The threshold is determined by the bandwidth required to handle user's burst of throughput smoothly. Taking 4K streaming as an example, a stable 15 Mbits/s and max 50 Mbits/s bandwidth is enough to stream 4K. Therefore aggregation servers have to reserve some bandwidth in case of emergency. The threshold can be adjusted according to $T(s_j)$.
B-box then selects a subset $S_o$ of candidate aggregation servers which are in close proximity and measures $B(c_i,s_j)$, which is the uplink bandwidths to these aggregation servers via MPTCP. The bandwidth between $c_i$ and the original server $B_o(c_i)$ normally would be the largest bandwidth among each single edge network. Since without \emph{BASS}, users can only use one edge network.
The exact size of this subset and the time spent on measuring uplink bandwidth to each aggregation server is carefully adjusted to avoid adding too much overhead. For example, a B-box can select 3 aggregation servers and spend 5 seconds on measuring the bandwidth to each aggregation server to keep the overall start-up time relatively short.
These bandwidth test results including separate bandwidth on each path are stored in the B-box and updated regularly to avoid measuring bandwidth every time. After the B-box obtains the bandwidth information, it calculates $B_o(c_i,s_j)$, the predicted bandwidth to the original server via these aggregation servers, which is the smaller between the sum of many paths and the bandwidth from aggregation server to original server. Then the B-box reports the bandwidth test results to scheduling server.
Suppose the scheduling server receives $n$ requests from $n$ B-boxes in time $t$, then it will perform the matching between B-boxes and aggregation servers and try to find a matching that maximizes the overall bandwidth gain $\Gamma_t$, as follows:
\begin{align}
& \text{maxmize } \Gamma_t = \sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^m A(c_i, s_j)G(c_i, s_j), \\
\text{subject to}& \notag \\
& \sum_{i=1}^nA(c_i, s_j)B_o(c_i, s_j) < R(s_j), j\in\{1,...,m\} \label{equ:constraint}
\end{align}
This problem can be solved in a centralized manner. Finally, the scheduling server will allocate aggregation servers according to the calculation and send results back to the B-boxes.
|
\section{Introduction}
\finalchanges{It is now a very frequent issue for companies to optimise their daily profits by choosing between one of two possible website layouts.}
A natural approach is to start with a period of A/B Testing (exploration) during which the two versions are uniformly presented to users. Once
the testing is complete,
the company displays the version believed to generate the most profit for the rest of the \finalchanges{month} (exploitation).
The time spent exploring may be chosen adaptively based on past observations, but could also be fixed in advance.
Our contribution is to show that strategies of this form are much worse
than if the company is allowed to dynamically select which website to display without restrictions for the whole month.
Our analysis focuses on a simple sequential decision problem played over $T$ time-steps.
In time-step $t \in 1,2,\ldots,T$ the agent chooses an action $A_t \in \set{1,2}$ and
receives a normally distributed reward $Z_t \sim \mathcal N(\mu_{A_t}, 1)$ where $\mu_1, \mu_2 \in \mathbb{R}$ are the unknown mean rewards for actions $1$ and $2$ respectively.
The goal is to find a strategy $\pi$ (a way of choosing each action $A_t$ based on past observation) that maximises the cumulative reward over $T$ steps in
expectation, or equivalently minimises the regret
\begin{align}
\label{eq:regret}
R^\pi_\mu(T) = T \max\set{\mu_1, \mu_2} - \mathbb{E}_\mu\left[\sum_{t=1}^T \mu_{A_t}\right]\,.
\end{align}
This framework is known as the multi-armed bandit problem, which has many applications and has been studied for almost a century \citep{Tho33}.
Although this setting is now quite well understood,
the purpose of this article is to show that strategies based on distinct phases of exploration and exploitation are necessarily suboptimal. This is an
important message because exploration followed by exploitation is the most natural approach and is often implemented in applications (including the
website optimisation problem described above).
Moreover, strategies of this kind have been proposed in the literature for more complicated settings \citep{AO10,PerchetRigollet13Covariates,Perchet15Batched}.
Recent progress on optimal exploration policies (e.g., by \cite{GK16}) could have suggested that well-tuned variants of two-phase strategies might be near-optimal.
We show, on the contrary, that optimal strategies for multi-armed bandit problems \emph{must} be fully-sequential, and in particular should mix exploration and exploitation. \finalchanges{It is known since the work of~\cite{Wald45SPRT} on simple hypothese testing that sequential procedures can lead to significant gains. Here, the superiority of fully sequential procedures is consistent with intuition: if one arm first appears to be better, but if subsequent observations are disappointing, the obligation to commit at some point can be restrictive. In this paper, we give a crisp and precise description of how restrictive it is: it leads to regret asympotically twice as large on average. The proof of this result combines some classical techniques of sequential analysis and of the bandit literature.}
We study two settings, one when the gap $\Delta = |\mu_1 - \mu_2|$ is known and the other when it is not.
The most straight-forward strategy in the former case is to explore each action a fixed number of times $n$ and subsequently
exploit by choosing the action that appeared best while exploring. It is easy to calculate the optimal $n$ and consequently show that this strategy
suffers a regret of $R^\pi_\mu(T) \sim 4 \log(T) / \Delta$.
A more general approach is to use a so-called \emph{Explore-Then-Commit} (ETC) strategy, following a nomenclature introduced by \cite{Perchet15Batched}.
An ETC strategy explores each action alternately until some data-dependent stopping time and subsequently commits to a single action
for the remaining time-steps.
We show in Theorem~\ref{th:SPRT:DeltaKnown} that by using a
sequential probability ratio test (SPRT)
it is possible to design an ETC strategy for which $R^\pi_\mu(T) \sim \log(T)/\Delta$, which improves on the above result by a factor of $4$.
We also prove a lower bound showing that no ETC strategy can improve on this result.
Surprisingly it is possible to do even better by using a fully sequential strategy inspired by the UCB algorithm for multi-armed bandits \citep{KR95}.
We design a new strategy for which $R^\pi_\mu(T) \sim \log(T)/(2\Delta)$, which improves on the fixed-design strategy by a factor of $8$ and on
SPRT by a factor of $2$. Again we prove a lower bound showing that no strategy can improve on this result.
For the case where $\Delta$ is unknown, fixed-design strategies are hopeless because there is no reasonable tuning for the exploration budget $n$.
However, it is possible to design an ETC strategy for unknown gaps. Our approach uses a modified fixed-budget best arm
identification (BAI) algorithm in its exploration phase (see e.g., \cite{EvenDaral06,GK16}) and chooses the recommended arm for
the remaining time-steps. In Theorem~\ref{th:optimBAI:DeltaUnKnown} we show that a strategy based on this idea satisfies
$R^\pi_\mu(T) \sim 4 \log(T) / \Delta$, which again we show is optimal within the class of ETC strategies.
As before, strategies based on ETC are suboptimal by a factor of $2$ relative to the optimal rates achieved by fully sequential strategies such as
UCB, which satisfies $R_\mu^\pi(T) \sim 2\log(T)/\Delta$ \citep{KR95}.
In a nutshell, strategies based on fixed-design or ETC are necessarily suboptimal.
That this failure occurs even in the simple setting considered here is a strong indicator that they are suboptimal in more complicated settings.
Our main contribution, presented in more details in Section~\ref{sec:notation}, is to fully characterise the achievable asymptotic regret when $\Delta$ is
either known or unknown and the strategies are either fixed-design, ETC or fully sequential. All upper bounds have explicit finite-time forms, which allow us to
derive optimal minimax guarantees. For the lower bounds we give a novel and generic proof of all results.
All proofs contain new, original ideas that we believe are fundamental to the understanding of sequential analysis.
\section{Notation and Summary of Results}\label{sec:notation}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ETC}}}}{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ETC}}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{DETC}}}}{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{DETC}}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ALL}}}}{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ALL}}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathrm{R}_{\mu}(T,\pi)}}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{R}_{\mu}(T,\pi)}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathrm{R}_{\mu}(T,\pi_T)}}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{R}_{\mu}(T,\pi_T)}}
We assume that the horizon $T$ is known to the agent.
The optimal action is $a^* = \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,max}(\mu_1,\mu_2)$, its mean reward is $\mu^* = \mu_{a^*}$, and the gap between the means is $\Delta=|\mu_1-\mu_2|$.
Let $\mathcal H = \mathbb{R}^2$ be the set of all possible pairs of means, and $\smash{\mathcal H_{\Delta} = \set{\mu \in \mathbb{R}^2 : |\mu_1 - \mu_2| = \Delta}}$.
For $i \in \set{1,2}$ and $n \in \mathbb{N}$ let $\hat \mu_{i,n}$ be the empirical mean of the $i$th action based on the first $n$ samples.
Let $A_t$ be the action chosen in time-step $t$ and $\smash{N_i(t)=\sum_{s=1}^t\ind{A_{s}=i}}$ be the number of times
the $i$th action has been chosen after time-step $t$. We denote by $\hat \mu_i(t) = \hat \mu_{i,N_i(t)}$ the empirical mean of the $i$th arm after time-step $t$.
A strategy is denoted by $\pi$, which is a function from past actions/rewards to a distribution over the next actions. An ETC strategy is governed by a
sampling rule (which determines which arm to sample at each step), a stopping rule (which specifies when to stop the exploration phase) and a
decision rule indicating which arm is chosen in the exploitation phase. As we consider two-armed, Gaussian bandits with equal variances, we focus here on
uniform sampling rules, which have been shown in~\cite{COLT14} to be optimal in that setting. For this reason, we define an ETC strategy as a pair $(\tau, \hat a)$, where $\tau$ is an even stopping time with respect to the
filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t=\sigma(Z_1,\dots, Z_t))_t$ and $\hat a \in \set{1,2}$ is $\mathcal{F}_\tau$-measurable. In all the
ETC strategies presented in this paper, the stopping time $\tau$ depends on the horizon $T$ (although this is not reflected in the notation).
At time $t$, the action picked by the ETC strategy is
$A_t = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } t \leq \tau \text{ and } t \text{ is odd}\;, \\
2 & \text{if } t \leq \tau \text{ and } t \text{ is even}\;, \\
\hat a & \text{otherwise}\;.
\end{cases}$
\vspace{-0.2cm}
The regret for strategy $\pi$, given in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:regret}), depends on $T$ and $\mu$.
Assuming, for example that $\mu_1 =\mu_2 + \Delta$, then an ETC strategy $\pi$ chooses the suboptimal
arm $N_2(T) = \frac{\tau \wedge T}{2} + (T - \tau)_+ \ind{\hat{a} = 2}$ times, and the regret $R_\mu^\pi(T) = \Delta \mathbb{E}_\mu [N_2(T)]$ thus satisfies
\begin{align}
\Delta \mathbb{E}_\mu[(\tau\wedge T)/2] \leq R_\mu^\pi(T) \leq ({\Delta}/2) \mathbb{E}_\mu [\tau\wedge T] + \Delta T\; \mathbb{P}_\mu(\tau \leq T, \hat{a} \neq a^*)\,.
\label{regretETC}
\end{align}
We denote the set of all ETC strategies by \ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ETC}}}.
A fixed-design strategy is and ETC strategy for which there exists an integer $n$ such that $\tau = 2n$ almost surely, and the set of all such strategies is denoted by \ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{DETC}}}.
The set of all strategies is denoted by \ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ALL}}}.
For $\mathcal S \in\{\ensuremath{\mathcal H}, \ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}\}$, we are interested in strategies $\pi$ that are uniformly efficient on $\mathcal S$, in the sense that
\begin{equation}\forall \mu \in \mathcal S, \forall \alpha >0, \ {R_\mu^\pi(T)} = o(T^\alpha).\label{UniformEfficiency}\end{equation}
\begin{wrapfigure}[5]{r}{5cm}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|llll|}
\hline
& \ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ALL}}} & \ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{ETC}}} & \ensuremath{\Pi_{\text{DETC}}} \\ \hline
\ensuremath{\mathcal H} & 2 & 4 & NA \\
\ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}} & 1/2 & 1 & 4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{wrapfigure}
We show in this paper that any uniformly efficient strategy in $\Pi$ has a regret at least equal to $C_{\mathcal{S}}^\Pi\log(T)/|\mu_1-\mu_2| (1-o_T(1))$
for every parameter $\mu\in\mathcal{S}$, where $C_\mathcal{S}^\Pi$ is given in the adjacent table.
Furthermore, we prove that these results are tight. In each case, we propose a uniformly efficient strategy matching this bound. In addition, we prove a tight and non-asymptotic regret bound which also implies, in particular, minimax rate-optimality.
The paper is organised as follows. First we consider ETC and fixed-design strategies when $\Delta$ known and unknown (Section~\ref{sec:ETC}).
We then analyse fully sequential strategies that interleave exploration and exploitation in an optimal way (Section~\ref{sec:general}). For known $\Delta$
we present a novel algorithm that exploits the additional information to improve the regret. For unknown $\Delta$ we briefly recall the well-known results,
but also propose a new regret analysis of the UCB* algorithm, a variant of UCB that can be traced back to \cite{Lai87}, for which we also obtain order-optimal minimax regret.
\finalchanges{
Numerical experiments illustrate and empirically support our results in Section~\ref{sec:numerical}.}
We conclude with a short discussion on non-uniform exploration, and on models with more than $2$ arms, possibly non Gaussian.
\finalchanges{All the proofs are given in the supplementary material. In particular, our simple, unified proof for all the lower bounds is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:proofs:LB}. }
\section{Explore-Then-Commit Strategies}\label{sec:ETC}
\textbf{Fixed Design Strategies for Known Gaps.\ }
As a warm-up we start with the fixed-design ETC setting where $\Delta$ is known and where the agent chooses each action $n$ times
before committing for the remainder.
\begin{wrapfigure}[11]{r}{6.2cm}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\begin{minipage}{5.7cm}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}
\State {\bf input:} $T$ and $\Delta$
\State $n:=\Big\lceil 2 W\big(T^2\Delta^4/(32\pi)\big)/\Delta^2 \Big\rceil$
\For{$k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$}
\State choose $A_{2k-1} = 1$ and $A_{2k}=2$
\EndFor
\State $\hat{a} := \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,max}_{i} \hat{\mu}_{i,n}$
\For{$t\in\{2n+1,\dots,T\}$}
\State choose $A_t=\hat{a}$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{FB-ETC algorithm}\label{alg:FBETC}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\end{wrapfigure}
The optimal decision rule is obviously $\hat a = \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,max}_i \hat \mu_{i,n}$ with ties broken arbitrarily. The formal description of the strategy is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:FBETC}, where $W$ denotes the Lambert function implicitly defined for $y>0$ by $W(y) \exp(W(y)) = y$.
We denote the regret associated to the choice of $n$ by $R_\mu^{n}(T)$.
The following theorem is not especially remarkable except that the bound is sufficiently refined to show certain negative lower-order terms that would
otherwise not be apparent.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:FB:DeltaKnown}
Let $\mu\in\ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}$, and let
\[\overline{n}=\left\lceil \frac{2}{\Delta^2}W\left(\frac{T^2\Delta^4}{32\pi}\right) \right\rceil\;. \quad \text{ Then} \quad
R_\mu^{\overline{n}}(T)\leq\frac{4}{\Delta}\log\left(\frac{T\Delta^2}{4.46}\right) - \frac{2}{\Delta}\log\log\left(\frac{T\Delta^2}{4\sqrt{2\pi}}\right)+ \Delta\]
whenever $T\Delta^2 > 4\sqrt{2\pi e}$, and $R_\mu^{\overline{n}}(T)\leq T\Delta/2 + \Delta$ otherwise.
In all cases, $R_\mu^{\overline{n}}(T)\leq 2.04\sqrt{T}+\Delta$.
Furthermore, for all $\epsilon>0, T\geq 1$ and $n\leq 4(1-\epsilon)\log(T)/\Delta^2$,
\[R_\mu^n(T)\geq \left( 1 - \frac{2}{n\Delta^2} \right) \left(1-\frac{8\log(T)}{\Delta^2T}\right) \frac{\Delta T^\epsilon}{2\sqrt{\pi\log(T)}} \;.\]
As $R_\mu^n(T)\geq n\Delta$, this entails that
$\displaystyle\inf_{1\leq n\leq T} R_\mu^n(T) \sim 4\log(T)/\Delta$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{th:FB:DeltaKnown} is in
\ifsup
Appendix~\ref{proof:th:FB:DeltaKnown}.
\else
the supplementary material.
\fi
Note that the "asymptotic lower bound" $4\log(T)/\Delta$ is actually not a lower bound, even up to an additive constant: $R_\mu^{\overline{n}}(T)-4\log(T)/\Delta \to-\infty$ when $T\to\infty$. Actually, the same phenomenon applies many other cases, and it should be no surprise that, in numerical experiments, some algorithm reach a regret smaller than Lai and Robbins asymptotic lower bound, as was already observed in several articles~(see e.g. \cite{GMS16}).
Also note that the term $\Delta$ at the end of the upper bound is necessary: if $\Delta$ is large, the problem is statistically so simple that one single observation is sufficient to identify the best arm; but that observation cannot be avoided.
\subsubsect{Explore-Then-Commit Strategies for Known Gaps}
We now show the existence of ETC strategies that improve on the optimal fixed-design strategy.
Surprisingly, the gain is significant.
We describe an algorithm inspired by ideas from hypothesis testing and prove an upper bound on its regret that is minimax optimal and that asymptotically matches our lower bound.
Let $P$ be the law of $X-Y$, where $X$ (resp. $Y$) is a reward from arm $1$ (resp. arm $2$). As $\Delta$ is known, the exploration phase of an ETC algorithm can be viewed as a statistical test of the hypothesis $H_1 :( P = \mathcal N (\Delta,2))$ against $H_2: (P =\mathcal N (-\Delta,2))$. The work of~\cite{Wald45SPRT} shows that a significant gain in terms of expected number of samples can be obtained by using a sequential rather than a batch test.
Indeed, for a batch test, a sample size of $n \sim (4/\Delta^2)\log(1/\delta)$ is necessary to guarantee that both type I and type II errors are upper bounded by $\delta$. In contrast, when a random number of samples is permitted, there exists a sequential probability ratio test (SPRT) with the same guarantees that stops after a random number $N$ of samples with expectation $\mathbb{E}[N] \sim \log(1/\delta)/\Delta^2$ under both $H_1$ and $H_2$.
The SPRT stops when the absolute value of the log-likelihood ratio between $H_1$ and $H_2$ exceeds some threshold.
Asymptotic upper bound on the expected number of samples used by a SPRT, as well as the (asymptotic) optimality of such
procedures among the class of all sequential tests can be found in \citep{Wald45SPRT,Siegmund:SeqAn}.
\begin{wrapfigure}[11]{r}{7cm}
\vspace{-0.95cm}
\begin{minipage}{7cm}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}
\State {\bf input:} $T$ and $\Delta$
\State $A_1=1, A_2=2$, $t:=2$
\While{$(t/2)\Delta\left|\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t)\right| < \log\big(T\Delta^2\big)$}
\State choose $A_{t+1} = 1$ and $A_{t+2}=2$,
\State $t:=t+2$
\EndWhile
\State $\hat{a} := \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,max}_{i} \hat{\mu}_i(t)$
\While{$t\leq T$}
\State choose $A_t=\hat{a}$,
\State $t:=t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{SPRT ETC algorithm}\label{alg:SPRT}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\end{wrapfigure}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:SPRT} is an ETC strategy that explores each action alternately, halting when sufficient confidence is reached according to a SPRT.
The threshold depends on the gap $\Delta$ and the horizon $T$ corresponding to a risk of $\delta = 1/(T\Delta^2)$.
The exploration phase ends at the stopping time
\[ \tau = \inf\Big\{ t=2n : \big|\hat{\mu}_{1,n} - \hat{\mu}_{2,n} \big| \geq \frac{\log(T\Delta^2)}{n\Delta}\Big\}.\]
If $\tau<T$ then the empirical best arm $\hat{a}$ at time $\tau$ is played until time $T$. If $T\Delta^2\leq 1$, then $\tau = 1$
(one could even define $\tau=0$ and pick a random arm).
The following theorem gives a non-asymptotic upper bound on the regret of the algorithm. The results rely
on non-asymptotic upper bounds on the expectation of $\tau$, which are interesting in their own right.
\newcommand{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\rm SPRT-ETC}}}{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\rm SPRT-ETC}}}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:SPRT:DeltaKnown}
If $T\Delta^2\geq 1$, then the regret of the SPRT-ETC algorithm is upper-bounded as
\begin{align*}
R_\mu^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\rm SPRT-ETC}}}(T)\leq \frac{\log(eT\Delta^2)}{\Delta} + \frac{4\sqrt{\log(T\Delta^2)}+4}{\Delta} + \Delta\,.
\end{align*}
Otherwise it is upper bounded by $T\Delta/2+\Delta$, and for all $T$ and $\Delta$ the regret is less than $10\sqrt{T/e} + \Delta$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{th:SPRT:DeltaKnown} is given in
\ifsup
Appendix~\ref{proof:th:SPRT:DeltaKnown}.
\else
the supplementary material.
\fi
The following lower bound shows that no uniformly efficient ETC strategy can improve on the asymptotic regret of Algorithm~\ref{alg:SPRT}. The proof is given
in Section~\ref{sec:proofs:LB} together with the other lower bounds.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:lowerBoundEC:DeltaKnown} Let $\pi$ be an ETC strategy that is uniformly efficient on $\ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}$. Then for all $\mu \in \ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}$,
\[\liminf_{T\to\infty} \frac{R^\pi_\mu(T)}{\log(T)}\geq \frac{1}{\Delta}\;.\]
\end{theorem}
\subsubsect{Explore-Then-Commit Strategies for Unknown Gaps}
When the gap is unknown it is not possible to tune a fixed-design strategy that achieves logarithmic regret.
ETC strategies can enjoy logarithmic regret and these are now analysed. We start with the asymptotic lower bound.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:lowerBoundEC:DeltaUnKnown}
Let $\pi$ be a uniformly efficient ETC strategy on $\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$.
For all $\mu\in\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$, if $\Delta=|\mu_1-\mu_2|$ then
\[ \liminf_{T\to\infty} \frac{R_\mu^{\pi}(T)}{\log(T)} \geq\frac{4}{\Delta}\;.\]
\end{theorem}
A simple idea for constructing an algorithm that matches the lower bound is to use a (fixed-confidence) best arm identification algorithm for the
exploration phase. Given a risk parameter $\delta$, a $\delta$-PAC BAI algorithm consists of a sampling rule $(A_t)$, a stopping rule $\tau$
and a recommendation rule $\hat{a}$ which is $\mathcal{F}_\tau$ measurable and satisfies, for all $\mu \in \ensuremath{\mathcal H}$
such that $\mu_1\neq \mu_2$, $\mathbb{P}_\mu(\hat{a} = a^*) \geq 1-\delta$. In a bandit model with two Gaussian arms, \cite{COLT14}
propose a $\delta$-PAC algorithm using a uniform sampling rule and a stopping rule $\tau_\delta$ that asymptotically attains the
minimal sample complexity $\mathbb{E}_\mu[\tau_\delta] \sim (8/\Delta^2)\log(1/\delta)$. Using the regret decomposition \eqref{regretETC}, it is
easy to show that the ETC algorithm using the stopping rule $\tau_\delta$ for $\delta=1/T$ matches the
lower bound of Theorem~\ref{th:lowerBoundEC:DeltaUnKnown}.
\begin{wrapfigure}[12]{r}{6cm}
\vspace{-1cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{6cm}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}
\State {\bf input:} $T (\geq 3)$
\State $A_1 = 1, A_2 = 2$, $t:=2$
\While{$\left|\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t)\right| < \sqrt{\frac{8\log(T/t)}{t}}$}
\State choose $A_{t+1} = 1$ and $A_{t+2}=2$
\State $t:=t+2$
\EndWhile
\State $\hat{a} := \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,max}_{i} \hat{\mu}_i(t)$
\While{$t\leq T$}
\State choose $A_t=\hat{a}$
\State $t:=t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{BAI-ETC algorithm}\label{alg:BAI}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\end{wrapfigure}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:BAI} is a slight variant of this optimal BAI algorithm, based on the stopping time
\begin{align*}
\tau = \inf\!\! \left\{t=2n : |\hat{\mu}_{1,n} - \hat{\mu}_{2,n}|\!\!>\! \sqrt{\frac{4 \log\big(T/(2n)\big)}{n}} \right\}\!.
\end{align*}
The motivation for the difference (which comes from a more carefully tuned threshold featuring $\log(T/2n)$ in place of $\log(T)$) is that the confidence level should depend on the unknown gap $\Delta$, which determines the regret when a mis-identification
occurs. The improvement only appears in the non-asymptotic regime where we are able to prove both asymptotic optimality and order-optimal minimax regret. The
latter would not be possible using a fixed-confidence BAI strategy.
The proof of this result can be found in
\ifsup
Appendix~\ref{proof:th:optimBAI:DeltaUnKnown}.
\else
the supplementary material.
\fi
The main difficulty is developing a sufficiently strong deviation bound, which we do
\ifsup
in Appendix~\ref{app:tech},
\else
the supplementary material,
\fi
and that may be of independent interest.
Note that a similar strategy was proposed and analysed by \cite{LRS83}, but in the continuous time framework and with asymptotic analysis only.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:optimBAI:DeltaUnKnown} If $T\Delta^2 > 4e^2$, the regret of the BAI-ETC algorithm is upper bounded as
\begin{align*}
R_\mu^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{BAI-ETC}}}(T) \leq \frac{4\log\left(\frac{T\Delta^2}{4}\right)}{\Delta} + \frac{334\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{T\Delta^2}{4}\right)}}{\Delta} + \frac{178}{\Delta} + 2\Delta.
\end{align*}
It is upper bounded by $T\Delta$ otherwise, and by $32\sqrt{T} + 2\Delta$ in any case.
\end{theorem}
\section{Fully Sequential Strategies for Known and Unknown Gaps}\label{sec:general}
In the previous section we saw that allowing a random stopping time leads to a factor of $4$ improvement in terms of the asymptotic regret relative to the naive fixed-design strategy. We now turn our attention to fully sequential strategies when $\Delta$ is known and unknown. The latter case is the classic 2-armed bandit problem and is now quite well understood.
Our modest contribution in that case is the first algorithm that is simultaneously asymptotically optimal and order optimal
in the minimax sense. For the former case, we are not aware of any previous research where the gap is known except the line of work by \cite{BPR13,BC13}, where different questions are treated. In both cases we see that fully sequential strategies improve on the best ETC strategies by a factor of $2$.
\subsubsect{Known Gaps}
We start by stating the lower bound (proved in Section~\ref{sec:proofs:LB}), which is a straightforward generalisation of Lai and Robbins' lower bound.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:lowerBound:DeltaKnown}
Let $\pi$ be a strategy that is uniformly efficient on $\ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}$. Then for all $\mu \in \ensuremath{\mathcal H_{\Delta}}$,
\[\liminf_{T\rightarrow \infty} \frac{R_\mu^\pi(T)}{\log T} \geq \frac{1}{2\Delta}\]
\end{theorem}
We are not aware of any existing algorithm matching this lower bound, which motivates us to introduce a new strategy called $\Delta$-UCB that exploits
the knowledge of $\Delta$ to improve the performance of UCB.
In each round the algorithm chooses the arm that has been played most often so far unless the other arm has an upper confidence bound that is close to $\Delta$
larger than the empirical estimate of the most played arm. Like ETC strategies, $\Delta$-UCB is not anytime in the sense that it requires the
knowledge of both the horizon $T$ and the gap $\Delta$.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf input:} $T$ and $\Delta$
\State $\epsilon_T = \Delta \log^{-\frac{1}{8}}(e + T\Delta^2)/4$
\For{$t \in \set{1,\ldots, T}$}
\State let $\displaystyle A_{t,\min} := \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,min}_{i \in {1,2}} N_i(t-1)$ and $A_{t,\max} = 3 - A_{t,\min}$
\If {$\displaystyle \hat \mu_{A_{t,\min}}(t-1) + \sqrt{\frac{2 \log\left(\frac{T}{N_{A_{t,\min}}(t-1)}\right)}{N_{A_{t,\min}}(t-1)}} \geq \hat \mu_{A_{t,\max}}(t-1) + \Delta - 2\epsilon_T$}
\State choose $A_t = A_{t,\min}$
\Else
\State choose $A_t = A_{t,\max}$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{$\Delta$-UCB}\label{alg:GAUCB}
\end{algorithm}
\newcommand{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\Delta$-UCB}}}{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\Delta$-UCB}}}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:GAUCB:Deltaknown} If $T(2\Delta-3\epsilon_T)^2 \geq 2$ and $T\epsilon_T^2 \geq e^2$, the regret of the \text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\Delta$-UCB}} \ algorithm is upper bounded as
\begin{align*}
R_\mu^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\Delta$-UCB}}}(T) &\leq \frac{\log\left(2T\Delta^2\right)}{2\Delta(1 - 3\epsilon_T/(2\Delta))^2} + \frac{\sqrt{\pi\log\left(2T\Delta^2\right)}}{2\Delta(1 - 3\epsilon_T/\Delta)^2} \\
& \qquad+ \Delta\left[\frac{30e \sqrt{\log(\epsilon^2_T T)}}{\epsilon_T^2}
+ \frac{80}{\epsilon_T^2}+ \frac{2}{(2\Delta - 3\epsilon_T)^2}\right] + 5\Delta.
\end{align*}
Moreover $\limsup_{T\to\infty} R_\mu^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\Delta$-UCB}}}(T) / \log(T) \leq (2\Delta)^{-1}$ and $\forall\mu \in \mathcal H_\Delta, \ R_\mu^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\Delta$-UCB}}}(T) \leq 328\sqrt{T} + 5\Delta$.
\end{theorem}
The proof may be found in
\ifsup
Appendix~\ref{proof:th:GAUCB:Deltaknown}.
\else
the supplementary material.
\fi
\subsubsect{Unknown Gaps}
In the classical bandit setting where $\Delta$ is unknown, UCB by \cite{KR95} is known to be asymptotically optimal:
$ R_\mu^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{UCB}}}(T) \sim 2\log(T)/\Delta$, which matches the lower bound of \cite{LR85}.
Non-asymptotic regret bounds are given for example by \cite{ACF02,CGMMS13}.
Unfortunately, UCB is not optimal in the minimax sense, which is so
far only achieved by algorithms that are not asymptotically optimal \citep{AB09,Lat15-ucb}.
Here, with only two arms, we are able to show that Algorithm~\ref{algo:UCBstar} below is simultaneously minimax order-optimal and asymptotically optimal.
The strategy is essentially the same as suggested by \cite{Lai87}, but with a fractionally smaller confidence bound.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{th:ucb} is given in
\ifsup
Appendix~\ref{app:th:ucb}.
\else
the supplementary material.
\fi
Empirically the smaller confidence bonus used by UCB$^*$ leads to a significant improvement relative to UCB.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf input:} $T$
\For{$t \in \set{1,\ldots,T}$}
\State $\displaystyle A_t = \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,max}_{i \in \set{1,2}} \hat \mu_i(t-1) + \sqrt{\frac{2}{N_i(t-1)} \log\left(\frac{T}{N_i(t-1)}\right)}$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{UCB$^*$}\label{algo:UCBstar}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:ucb} For all $\epsilon\in(0,\Delta)$, if $T(\Delta-\epsilon)^2 \geq 2$ and $T\epsilon^2 \geq e^2$, the regret of the UCB$^*$ strategy is upper bounded as
\[
R^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{UCB}}^*}_\mu(T)
\leq \frac{2\log\left(\frac{T\Delta^2}{2}\right)}{\Delta\left(1 - \frac{\epsilon}{\Delta}\right)^2} + \frac{2\sqrt{\pi\log\left(\frac{T\Delta^2}{2}\right)}}{\Delta\left(1 - \frac{\epsilon}{\Delta}\right)^2}
+ \Delta\left(\frac{30e \sqrt{\log(\epsilon^2 T)}+16e}{\epsilon^2} \right) + \frac{2}{\Delta\left(1 - \frac{\epsilon}{\Delta}\right)^2} +\Delta. \]
Moreover, $\limsup_{T\to\infty} R^\pi_\mu(T) / \log(T) = 2/\Delta$ and for all $\mu\in\ensuremath{\mathcal H}$, $R_\mu^\pi(T) \leq 33 \sqrt{T} + \Delta$.
\end{theorem}
Note that if there are $K > 2$ arms, then the strategy above is still asymptotically optimal, but suffers a minimax regret of $\Omega(\sqrt{TK \log(K)})$, which is a factor of $\sqrt{\log(K)}$ suboptimal.
\section{Numerical Experiments}
\label{sec:numerical}
We represent here the regret of the five strategies presented in this article on a bandit problem with $\Delta=1/5$, for different values of the horizon. The regret is estimated by $4.10^5$ Monte-Carlo replications.
In the legend, the estimated slopes of $\Delta R^\pi(T)$ (in logarithmic scale) are indicated after the policy names.
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{simu.pdf}
The experimental behavior of the algorithms reflects the theoretical results presented above: the regret asymptotically grows as the logarithm of the horizon, the experimental coefficients correspond approximately to theory, and the relative ordering of the policies is respected.
However, it should be noted that for short horizons the hierarchy is not quite the same, and the growth rate is not logarithmic; this question is raised in~\cite{GMS16}.
\finalchanges{In particular, on short horizons the Best-Arm Identification procedure performs very well with respect to the others, and starts to be beaten (even by the gap-aware strategies) only when $T\Delta^2$ is much larger that $10$.}
\section{Conclusion: Beyond Uniform Exploration, Two Arms and Gaussian distributions}
It is worth emphasising the impossibility of non-trivial lower bounds on the regret of ETC strategies using any possible (non-uniform) sampling rule. Indeed, using UCB as a sampling rule together with an a.s. infinite stopping rule defines an artificial but formally valid ETC strategy that achieves the best possible rate for general strategies. This strategy is not a faithful counter-example to our claim that ETC strategies are sub-optimal, because UCB is not a satisfying exploration rule. If exploration is the objective, then uniform
sampling is known to be optimal in the two-armed Gaussian case \citep{COLT14}, which justifies the uniform sampling assumption.
The use of ETC strategies for regret minimisation (e.g., as presented by~\cite{PerchetRigollet13Covariates}) is certainly not limited to
bandit models with $2$ arms. The extension to multiple arms is based on the successive elimination idea in which a set of active arms is maintained
with arms chosen according to a round robin within the active set. Arms are eliminated from the active set once their optimality becomes
implausible and the exploration phase terminates when the active set contains only a single arm (an example is by \cite{AO10}).
The Successive Elimination algorithm has been introduced by \cite{EvenDaral06} for best-arm identification in the fixed-confidence setting.
\finalchanges{It was shown to be rate-optimal, and thus a good compromise for both minimizing regret and finding the best arm. If one looks more precisely at mutliplicative constants, however, \cite{GK16} showed that it is suboptimal for the best arm identification task in almost all settings except two-armed Gaussian bandits. Regarding regret minimization, the present paper shows that it is sub-optimal by a factor $2$ on every two-armed Gaussian problem.}
It is therefore interesting to investigate the performance in terms of regret of an ETC algorithm using an optimal BAI algorithm.
This is actually possible not only for Gaussian distributions, but more generally for one-parameter exponential families, for which \cite{GK16} propose the asymptotically optimal Track-and-Stop strategy. Denoting $d(\mu,\mu') = \mathrm{KL}(\nu_{\mu},\nu_{\mu'})$ the Kullback-Leibler
divergence between two distributions parameterised by $\mu$ and $\mu'$, they provide results which can be adapted to obtain the following bound.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:TaSRegret} For $\mu$ such that $\mu_1 > \max_{a\neq 1} \mu_a$, the regret of the ETC strategy using Track-and-Stop exploration with risk $1/T$ satisfies
\[\limsup_{T\rightarrow \infty} \frac{R_\mu^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\rm TaS}}}(T)}{\log T} \leq T^*(\mu) \left(\sum_{a=2}^K w_a^*(\mu)(\mu_1-\mu_a)\right),\]
where $T^*(\mu)$ (resp. $w^*(\mu)$) is the the maximum (resp. maximiser) of the optimisation problem
\[\max_{w \in \Sigma_K} \inf_{a \neq 1} \left[w_1 d\left(\mu_1,\frac{w_1 \mu_1 + w_a \mu_a}{w_1 + w_a}\right) + w_a d\left(\mu_a,\frac{w_a \mu_1 + w_a \mu_a}{w_1 + w_a}\right)\right],\]
where $\Sigma_K$ is the set of probability distributions on $\{1,\dots,K\}$.
\end{proposition}
In general, it is not easy to quantify the difference to the lower bound of Lai and Robbins
\[\liminf_{T\rightarrow \infty} \frac{R_\mu^{\pi} (T)}{\log T} \geq \sum_{a=2}^K\frac{\mu_1-\mu_a}{d(\mu_a,\mu_1)}.\]
Even for Gaussian distributions, there is no general closed-form formula for $T^*(\mu)$ and $w^*(\mu)$ except when $K=2$.
However, we conjecture that the worst case is when $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are much larger than the other means: then, the regret is almost the same as in the 2-arm case, and ETC strategies are suboptimal by a factor $2$.
On the other hand, the most favourable case (in terms of relative efficiency) seems to be when $\mu_2 = \dots = \mu_K$: then
\[w_1^*(\mu) = \frac{\sqrt{K-1}}{K-1 + \sqrt{K-1}}, \ \ \ \ \ \ w_2^*(\mu) = \dots = w_K^*(\mu) = \frac{1}{K-1 + \sqrt{K-1}}\]
and $T^* = {2(\sqrt{K-1} + 1)^2}/{\Delta^2}$, leading to
\[\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{R_\mu^{\mathrm{TaS}}(T)}{\log (T)} \leq \left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{K-1}}\right)\frac{2(K-1)}{\Delta},\]
while Lai and Robbins' lower bound yields $2(K-1)/\Delta$.
Thus, the difference grows with $K$ as $2\sqrt{K-1}\log(T)/\Delta$ , but the relative difference decreases.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let ${\mathcal O} := {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb C}^n,0}$ be the ring of germs of holomorphic functions at $0 \in {\mathbb C}^n$.
If $f \in {\mathcal O}$, and $U$ is a $(0,0)$-current
such that $f U = 1$, then it follows easily by regularity for the $\bar\partial$-operator on $(0,0)$-currents
that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:div1}
g \bar\partial U = 0 \text{ if and only if } g \in J(f),
\end{equation}
where $J(f)$ is the principal ideal generated by $f$. For a current $T$, we let $\ann T$
denote the annihilator of $T$, i.e., all holomorphic functions $g$ such that $g T = 0$. Thus, if $f U = 1$,
we get that
\begin{equation*}
\ann \bar\partial U = J(f).
\end{equation*}
One natural choice of such a current $U$ is the so-called principal value current $[1/f]$,
which is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\left \langle \left[\frac{1}{f}\right] , \phi \right\rangle := \lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \int \frac{\chi(|f|^2/\epsilon)}{f} \wedge \phi,
\end{equation*}
where $\phi$ is a test form and $\chi$ is the cut-off function which is the characteristic function of the interval $[1,\infty)$,
or a smooth regularization of this function.
The existence of this current was proven by Dolbeault, \cite{Dol}, and Herrera-Lieberman, \cite{HL}.
That this limit exists relies on Hironaka's theorem about resolution of singularities, and is thus
far from elementary. Anyhow, any such choice of a current $U$ gives rise to a description of a
principal ideal $J(f)$.
A construction of such a current by elementary means, which in general is different from the
principal value current was done by the second author in \cite{MazCR}.
Consider now a complete intersection ideal $J$ of codimension $p$, i.e., $J = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$ can be generated by exactly $p$
holomorphic functions, $f_1,\dots,f_p$. Coleff and Herrera showed in \cite{CH} that one can give a reasonable meaning to
$\bar\partial [1/f_p] \wedge \dots \wedge \bar\partial [1/f_1]$ in a similar way as for the principal value current.
Again, for all the different ways of regularizing the current, the existence of the limit relies on Hironaka's theorem.
In \cite{LS} it is described various ways that this product can be defined through some regularization procedure.
It was proven independently by Passare, \cite{PMScand} and Dickenstein-Sessa, \cite{DS}, that this so-called
Coleff-Herrera product satisfies the duality principle,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ch-duality}
\ann \bar\partial \left[\frac{1}{f_1}\right] \wedge \dots \wedge \bar\partial \left[\frac{1}{f_p}\right]
= J(f_1,\dots,f_p).
\end{equation}
The proof of Passare relied on constructing an explicit division formula involving the Coleff-Herrera product
in order to obtain the ideal membership, while the proof in \cite{DS} essentially reduced to solving a series
of $\bar\partial$-equations.
Especially in relation to extension problems of holomorphic functions, it has turned out to be useful
to consider other currents for describing complete intersection ideals similar to \eqref{eq:ch-duality}.
It turns out that, generalizing the case of principal ideals in the beginning, if $J = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$ is a complete
intersection ideal of codimension $p$, and if $X_k$ are $(0,k-1)$-currents for $k=1,\dots,p$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ci-conditions}
f_1 X_1 = 1 \text{, } f_j X_k = 0 \text{ for $1 \leq j < k \leq p$ and } f_k X_k = \bar\partial X_{k-1} \text{ for } 2 \leq k \leq p,
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ci-duality}
\ann \bar\partial X_p = J(f_1,\dots,f_p).
\end{equation}
In \cite{MazJMAA}, the second author gave an elementary construction of such currents for any complete intersection ideal,
using only the much more elementary Weierstrass preparation theorem, and not relying on Hironaka's theorem.
Consider now a more general ideal $J = J(f_1,\dots,f_m)$, which is not necessarily a complete intersection ideal.
In \cite{AW1}, Andersson and Wulcan constructed, given a free resolution $(E,\varphi)$ of ${\mathcal O}/J$, a
($\Hom(E_0,E)$-valued) current $R^E$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\ann R^E = J,
\end{equation*}
and two proofs of this description of the annihilator were given, one essentially reducing ideal membership to solving a series of $\bar\partial$-equations,
and the second by constructing an explicit division formula.
If $J = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$ is a complete intersection ideal, and one takes the Koszul complex of $f$ as
a free resolution of ${\mathcal O}/J$, then $R^E$ equals the Coleff-Herrera product of $f$.
In general, although the current $R^E$ is explicitly expressed in terms of the free resolution $(E,\varphi)$,
it is in general quite difficult to understand, and the proof of existence of this current again relies
on Hironaka's theorem.
In \cite{LarComp}, the first author described a way of relating the currents $R^E$ of Andersson and Wulcan,
related to different free resolutions, of possibly different ideals. We consider the particular case
when $J$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ideal of codimension $p$, i.e., ${\mathcal O}/J$ has a free resolution $(E,\varphi)$
of length $p$. We also assume that $\rank E_0 = 1$, which is always possible to choose. One can always
find a complete intersection ideal $I = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$ of codimension $p$
contained in $J$, for example by taking $p$ generic linear combinations of a set of generators of $J$,
cf., for example \cite{LarComp}*{Example~2}.
If one lets $(K,\psi)$ be the Koszul complex of $f$, then it is quite elementary homological
algebra that one can construct a morphism of complexes $a : (K,\psi) \to (E,\varphi)$ which extends the
natural surjection $\pi : {\mathcal O}/I \to {\mathcal O}/J$, i.e., which is such that the following diagram is commutative:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:amorphism}
\begin{gathered}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & E_p \ar[r]^{\varphi_p}& E_{p-1} \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r]^{\varphi_1} & E_0 \ar[r] &{\mathcal O}/J \ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & K_p \ar[r]^{\psi_p} \ar[u]^{a_p}& K_{p-1}\ar[r] \ar[u]^{a_{p-1}} & \cdots \ar[r]^{\psi_1}& K_0 \ar[u]^{a_0} \ar[r] & {\mathcal O}/I \ar[u]^{\pi}\ar[r] & 0,
}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
cf., Proposition~\ref{prop:comparison-morphism} below.
By \cite{LarComp}*{Example~3}, the current $R^E$ can then be described as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:comparison}
R^E = a_p(e) \bar\partial \left[\frac{1}{f_1}\right] \wedge \dots \wedge \bar\partial \left[\frac{1}{f_p}\right],
\end{equation}
where $e_1,\dots,e_p$ is a frame for $K_1$ such that $\psi_1 = f_1 e_1^* + \dots + f_p e_p^*$, and
$e := e_p \wedge \dots \wedge e_1$ is the induced frame for $K_p \cong \bigwedge^p K_1$.
Hence, the current $R^E$ can be described as an explicit tuple of holomorphic functions times
a Coleff-Herrera product.
If $J = J(g_1,\dots,g_p)$ is also a complete intersection ideal of codimension $p$, and $(E,\varphi)$
is the Koszul complex of $g$, then $R^E$ is also a Coleff-Herrera product, and \eqref{eq:comparison}
then becomes the transformation law for Coleff-Herrera products, see \cite{LarComp}*{Remark~2}.
Our main result is the following combination of \eqref{eq:ci-duality} and \eqref{eq:comparison},
which thus with the help of the construction from \cite{MazJMAA} allows for constructing currents
representing Cohen-Macaulay ideals by elementary means, in particular not relying on Hironaka's
theorem about resolution of singularities.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main}
Let $J$ be a Cohen-Macaulay ideal of codimension $p$, $(E,\varphi)$ be a free resolution
of ${\mathcal O}/J$ such that $\rank E_0 = 1$, $I = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$ a complete intersection ideal of codimension $p$
contained in $I$, $(K,\psi)$ the Koszul complex of $f$, and let $a : (K,\psi) \to (E,\varphi)$
be a morphism of complexes extending the natural surjection $\pi : {\mathcal O}/I \to {\mathcal O}/J$ as in \eqref{eq:amorphism}.
If $X_1,\dots,X_p$ are currents satisfying \eqref{eq:ci-conditions}, then
\begin{equation*}
\ann a_p(e)\bar\partial X_p = J.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
The requirement that $\rank E_0 = 1$ implies that the entries of $\varphi_1$ generate $J$,
and one can always find a free resolution such that this is the case.
We give two different proofs of this result, one in Section~\ref{sect:linkage},
which with the help of the theory of linkage reduces the problem to the complete
intersection case and \eqref{eq:ci-duality}, and as well a more direct proof
in Section~\ref{sect:integral} by means of an explicit division formula for
expressing the ideal membership.
In \cite{Lund}, Lundqvist defined by elementary means cohomological residues for a Cohen-Macaulay $J$,
which act on test forms which are $\bar\partial$-closed in a neighborhood of $\supp J$.
By the construction in \cite{Lund}, it follows easily that the action of the current $R^E$ on such
test forms equals the residues by Lundqvist. These residues and its relation to other residues
is elaborated a bit in \cite{LExpl}*{Section~7}.
Since these cohomological residues are only defined acting on a restricted class of test forms,
the construction can be done by elementary means, depending only on finding a free resolution,
and in particular avoiding resolutions of singularities. This is at the cost of not showing
that these residues can act on arbitrary test forms. However, the main result in \cite{Lund} is that
even by only acting on this restricted class of test forms, one still obtains a duality theorem.
\section{Proof by the theory of linkage} \label{sect:linkage}
In this section, we give the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, which is based on
the theory of linkage. In a somewhat different setting, similar methods were used
in \cite{LExpl}.
We recall that if $I$ and $J$ are two ideals in a ring $R$, then $I : J$ is the ideal
$I : J = \{ r \in R \mid rJ \subseteq I \}$.
The key result in proving Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is the following result, which
can be found in (the proof of) \cite{Vasc}*{Proposition~3.41}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:colon}
Let $J \subseteq {\mathcal O}$ be an ideal of pure codimension $p$,
and let $I = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$ be a complete intersection ideal of codimension $p$
contained in $J$.
If $K := I : J$, then $J = I : K$.
\end{thm}
We can describe the ideal $K$ appearing in Theorem~\ref{thm:colon} in a different way,
when ${\mathcal O}/J$ is Cohen-Macaulay. In order to do this, we use the following standard fact
from homological algebra, see \cite{Eis}, Proposition~A3.13.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:comparison-morphism}
Let $\alpha : F \to G$ be a homomorphism of ${\mathcal O}$-modules, and let $(K,\psi)$ and
$(E,\varphi)$ be free resolutions of $F$ and $G$.
Then, there exists a morphism $a : (K,\psi) \to (E,\varphi)$ of complexes which extends $\alpha$.
\end{prop}
We will apply this in the case when $F = {\mathcal O}/I$, $G = {\mathcal O}/J$, $I \subseteq J$
and $\alpha$ is the natural surjection $\pi : {\mathcal O}/I \to {\mathcal O}/J$, as in \eqref{eq:amorphism}.
We remind for the following lemma, that for any ideal $J \subseteq {\mathcal O}$ of codimension $p$,
there always exists a complete intersection ideal $I \subseteq J$ of codimension $p$.
The following follows from Lemma~3.2 in \cite{FH}.
\begin{lma} \label{lma:colon}
Let $J \subseteq {\mathcal O}$ be a Cohen-Macaulay ideal of codimension $p$,
and assume that $I = J(f_1,\dots,f_p) \subseteq J$ is a complete intersection ideal of codimension $p$.
Let $(E,\varphi)$ be a free resolution of ${\mathcal O}/J$ such that $\rank E_0 = 1$, and let $(K,\psi)$ be the Koszul complex of $f$,
which is a free resolution of ${\mathcal O}/I$. Let $a : (K,\psi) \to (E,\varphi)$ be the morphism induced
by the natural surjection ${\mathcal O}/I \to {\mathcal O}/J$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop:comparison-morphism}.
Let $L$ be the ideal generated by the entries of $a_p$.
Then,
\begin{equation*}
I : J = I + L.
\end{equation*}
\end{lma}
\begin{remark}
By reformulating this result, one can in fact drop the Cohen-Macaulay assumption, see
\cite{LExpl}*{Lemma~4.6}, but for simplicity, we stick to this case here.
\end{remark}
In \cite{DGSY}, a topic is treated which is related to this article,
namely, given an analytic functional annihilated by some Cohen-Macaulay ideal, to express
this functional in terms of residue currents, or more precisely Coleff-Herrera products.
In order to do this, Lemma~\ref{lma:colon} plays an important role, see the proof of \cite{DGSY}*{Theorem~4.1}.
In this article, we construct currents with a prescribed Cohen-Macaulay ideal $J$ as its
annihilator.
From the currents we construct, one could construct an analytic functional annihilated by $J$
and by our construction, this functional could be directly expressed in terms of
a current $\bar\partial X_p$ whose annihilator is some complete intersection ideal contained in $J$.
The current $\bar\partial X_p$ could either be the current constructed in \cite{MazJMAA}
or a Coleff-Herrera product, and in this latter case, one would obtain an expression
for the functional like in \cite{DGSY}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]
Since $J = I : (I:J)$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:colon}, and $I : J = I + L$ by
Lemma~\ref{lma:colon}, $J = I : L$. We thus get that
$g \in J$ if and only if all the entries of $g a_p(e)$ are in $I$.
By \eqref{eq:ci-duality}, this holds if and only if $g a_p(e) \bar\partial X_p = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}
We consider now the most basic case, namely when $I = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$ and $J = J(g_1,\dots,g_p)$
are both complete intersection ideals of codimension $p$. Then $I \subseteq J$ is equivalent
to that that $f = gA$ for some holomorphic $p \times p$-matrix $A$.
In this case, when $(E,\varphi)$ and $(K,\psi)$ are the Koszul complexes of $g$ and $f$
respectively, being free resolutions of ${\mathcal O}/J$ and ${\mathcal O}/I$ respectively, then the morphism
$a : (E,\varphi) \to (K,\psi)$ extending the natural surjection $\pi : {\mathcal O}/I \to {\mathcal O}/J$
is given by $a_k : \bigwedge^k {\mathcal O}^{\oplus p} \to \bigwedge^k {\mathcal O}^{\oplus p}$, $a_k = \bigwedge^k A$.
In particular, $a_p = \det A$.
Thus, reasoning as above, we get that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ci-trans-duality}
g \in J \text{ if and only if } (\det A) g \in I.
\end{equation}
This was an important part of the construction in \cite{MazJMAA},
since \eqref{eq:ci-trans-duality} allowed to reduce the problem to constructing
such currents for just for certain special ``adapted'' complete intersections.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex} \label{ex:cmcurve}
Let $\pi : {\mathbb C} \to {\mathbb C}^3$, $\pi(t) = (t^3,t^4,t^5)$, and let $Z$ be the germ at $0$ of $\pi({\mathbb C})$.
One can show that the ideal of holomorphic functions vanishing at $Z$
equals $J = J(y^2-xz,x^3-yz,x^2y-z^2)$.
The module ${\mathcal O}/J$ has a minimal free resolution $(E,\varphi)$ of the form
\begin{equation*}
0 \to {\mathcal O}^{\oplus 2} \xrightarrow[]{\varphi_2} {\mathcal O}^{\oplus 3} \xrightarrow[]{\varphi_1} {\mathcal O} \to {\mathcal O}/J,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -z & -x^2 \\ -y & -z \\ x & y \end{array} \right]
\text{ and }
\varphi_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} y^2-xz & x^3-yz & x^2y-z^2 \end{array} \right].
\end{equation*}
In particular, since ${\mathcal O}/J$ has a minimal free resolution of length $2$,
with $\rank E_2 = 2$, ${\mathcal O}/J$ is Cohen-Macaulay but $J$ is not a complete intersection.
However, $Z$ is in fact a set-theoretic complete intersection, which one can
see by verifying that indeed, if $f = (z^2-x^2y,x^4+y^3-2xyz)$, and $I = J(f)$,
then $Z(I) = Z$.
Let $(F,\psi)$ be the Koszul complex of $f$, which is a free resolution of ${\mathcal O}/I$ since $f$ is a complete intersection.
One verifies that $a : (F,\psi) \to (E,\varphi)$ given by,
\begin{equation*}
a_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{c} x^3-yz \\ y^2-xz \end{array} \right] \text{, }
a_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & y \\ 0 & x \\ -1 & 0 \end{array} \right] \text{ and }
a_0 = \left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \end{array} \right],
\end{equation*}
is a morphism of complexes extending the natural surjection $\pi : {\mathcal O}/I \to {\mathcal O}/J$.
In the appendix of \cite{LarComp}, we give an example of how such a morphism can be computed
with the help of the computer algebra system Macaulay2.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we then get that
\begin{align*}
g \in J \text{ if and only if }
(x^3-yz) g \in I \text{ and } (y^2-xz) g \in I.
\end{align*}
\end{ex}
For general Cohen-Macaulay ideals, one cannot expect that $Z(I) = Z(J)$ as in this example,
since it by definition only is possible for set-theoretic complete intersections.
\subsection{Construction of the currents from \cite{MazCR} and \cite{MazJMAA}}
In order to calculate the currents satisfying \eqref{eq:ci-conditions} as constructed in
\cite{MazCR} and \cite{MazJMAA} for the complete intersection in the example above,
we will first recall briefly the construction in general for a complete intersection ideal
of codimension $2$. (The case of codimension $> 2$ is similar, but a bit more technically involved.)
We thus consider a tuple $(f_1,f_2)$ of germs of holomorphic functions in ${\mathbb C}^n$ defining
a complete intersection of codimension $2$.
By a linear change of coordinates, we can assume we have coordinates $z$ on ${\mathbb C}^n$ such that
$f_1$ and $f_2$ are of the
form $f_i = v_i Q_i$, where $v_i$ are invertible, and $Q_i$ are Weierstrass polynomials in
$z_1$ for $i=1,2$. Then, the resultant $r_2$ of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ (where $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are considered as polynomials in $z_1$
for the calculation of the resultant) is a holomorphic function independent
of $z_1$. By a linear change of variables only in $(z_2,\dots,z_n)$, we can assume that $r_2(z) = u_2(z) P_2(z_2,\dots,z_n)$,
where $P_2$ is a Weierstrass polynomial in $z_2$ independent of $z_1$ and $u_2$ is invertible.
If we let $g_1 := f_1$ and $g_2 := r_2$, then $(g_1,g_2)$ is a complete intersection which
satisfies that one can write $g_i(z) = u_i(z) P_i(z)$, where $u_i(z)$ is a unit,
and $P_i(z)$ is a Weierstrass polynomials in $z_i$ of degree $N_i$, and in addition, $P_2(z)$ is independent of $z_1$.
The construction of the currents $X_1$ and $X_2$ satisfying \eqref{eq:ci-conditions} is based on first constructing currents $Y_1,Y_2$ satisfying
the corresponding conditions for $(g_1,g_2)$, i.e.,
$$ g_1 Y_1 = 1, g_1 Y_2 = 0 \text{ and } g_2 Y_2 = \bar\partial Y_1.$$
To do this, one defines $Y_1$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Y1}
\langle Y_1,\phi \wedge dz_I \wedge d\bar{z}_J \rangle := C_1 \int \frac{\overline{P}_1^{\gamma}}{g_1}
\partial_{\bar{z}_1}^{N_1 \gamma}(\phi) dz_I \wedge d\bar{z}_J,
\end{equation}
and $Y_2$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Y2}
\langle Y_2,\phi \wedge dz_I \wedge d\bar{z}_J \rangle := C_2 \int \frac{\overline{P}_2}{g_2} \partial_{\overline{z}_2}^{N_2}
\left( \frac{\overline{\partial P_1^\gamma}}{g_1} \partial_{\overline{z}_1}^{N_1 \gamma}(\phi) \right) dz_I \wedge dz_J,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is an integer chosen so the integrand in the definition of $Y_2$ becomes integrable, which indeed holds for $\gamma$ larger than $N_2$.
The constant $C_1$ is chosen so that $f_1 X_1 = 1$ and the constant $C_2$ is then chosen such that $g_2 Y_2 = \bar\partial Y_1$.
Through integration by parts one can calculate that $C_1 = (-1)^{N_1\gamma} (N_1\gamma)!$ and
$C_2 = -(-1)^{N_2} C_1/(N_2!)$.
In order to construct the currents $X_1,X_2$ for $(f_1,f_2)$, one then
first writes $r_2 = a f_1 + b f_2$ for some holomorphic functions $a,b$,
which indeed is possible, since by construction, $r_2 = a' Q_1 + b' Q_2$.
Then, one defines $X_1 := Y_1$ and $X_2 := b Y_2$, which one can verify
satisfies the properties \eqref{eq:ci-conditions}.
Note that the greatest common divisor, i.e., the last remainder term in the Euclidean algorithm
for $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ considered as polynomials in $z_1$ gives the resultant $r_2$ up to a constant
which depends on the degrees of the polynomials appearing when running the algorithm,
see for example \cite{CLO}*{Exercise 3.6.10-11}.
For our purposes it does not matter if we take a constant multiple of $r_2$ as $g_2$,
and we will thus below take the greatest common divisor instead of the resultant.
This is advantageous since the Euclidean algorithm is convenient for computation,
and additionally, by going backwards in the algorithm,
with the help of the terms that appear, one obtains a decomposition $r_2 = a' Q_1 + b' Q_2$.
\begin{ex} \label{ex:currents-cmcurve}
We now consider the construction as described above for $f= (f_1,f_2) := (z^2-x^2y,x^4-2xyz+y^3)$, as in Expample~\ref{ex:cmcurve}.
In order to make $f_1$ and $f_2$ Weierstrass polynomials in $x$ around zero (times units),
we do the change of coordinates:
$$x=X,\ \ y=Y,\ \ z=X+Z.$$
In these new coordinates, $(f_1,f_2)$ becomes:
$$f = ((1-Y)X^2+2XZ+Z^2,X^4-2X^2Y-2XYZ+Y^3 ).$$
If we let $g=1-Y$, the Weierstrass polynomial in $X$ associated to $f_1$ is equal to $P_1:=X^2+{2XZ\over g}+{Z^2\over g}$, which
has degree $N_1 = 2$.
To calculate the resultant $r_2$ of $P_1$ and $f_2$, we use the Euclidean algorithm as mentioned above,
and after an elementary but tedious calculations, we obtain that
$$r_2 ={Z^2F^2\over g}-{2ZFG\over g}+G^2,$$
where $F$ and $G$ are Weierstrass polynomials with respect to $Z$ defined by:
$$F(Y,Z)={4\over g^2}(1-{2\over g})Z^3+2Y({2\over g}-1)Z,$$
$$G(Y,Z)={1\over g^2}(1-{4\over g})Z^4+{2Y\over g}Z^2+Y^3.$$
Since $g(0)=1$, it is easy to see that $r_2 =UP_2$ where $U$ is a unit near zero and $P_2$
is a Weierstrass polynomial in $Z$ of degree $N_2 = 8$.
We finally do the linear coordinate change $(z_1,z_2,z_3) = (X,Z,Y)$ keeping the first variable fixed
so that $P_1$ is a Weierstrass polynomial in $z_1$ and $P_2$ is a Weierstrass polynomial in
$z_2$, and is independent of $z_1$.
We thus let $(g_1,g_2) = (f_1,r_2)$ and define $Y_1,Y_2$ by \eqref{eq:Y1} and \eqref{eq:Y2}.
By going backwards in the Euclidean algorithm, one finds that $r_2=af_1+bf_2$, where
$b=-(x+{2z\over g})F+G$. Thus, we get that
\begin{equation*}
X_1 := Y_1 \text{ and } X_2 := b Y_2
\end{equation*}
satisfies all the conditions \eqref{eq:ci-conditions}.
\end{ex}
\section{Proof by explicit division formulas} \label{sect:integral}
In this section, we give an explicit division formula which proves
Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
The proof relies on the following two lemmas.
On ${\mathbb C}^n$ with coordinates $\zeta$, and for $z \in {\mathbb C}^n$ fixed,
$\delta_\eta$ denotes contraction with the vector field
$(\zeta_1 - z_1)\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta_1} + \dots + (\zeta_n - z_n)\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta_n}$.
\begin{lma} \label{lma:detaQH}
Let $Q$ be a $(1,0)$-form on ${\mathbb C}^n$, and $H$ a holomorphic $(k+1)$-form.
Then
\begin{equation*}
(n-k) \bar\partial (\delta_\eta Q) \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H
= (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k} \wedge \delta_\eta H.
\end{equation*}
\end{lma}
\begin{lma} \label{lma:nablaY}
Let $I = J(f_1,\dots,f_p)$, $J$, $(E,\varphi)$, $(K,\psi)$ and $a : (K,\psi) \to (E,\varphi)$ be
as in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, and let $X_k$ be $(0,k-1)$-currents for $k=1,\dots,p$, which satisfy \eqref{eq:ci-conditions}.
Let $Y_k$ be defined as
\begin{equation*}
Y_k := a_k ( e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge e_k \wedge X_k ).
\end{equation*}
Then $Y$ satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nablaY}
\nabla Y := 1 - \bar\partial Y_p,
\end{equation}
where $Y = Y_1 + \dots + Y_p$ and $\nabla = \varphi-\bar\partial$.
\end{lma}
More explicitly, the equation \eqref{eq:nablaY} means that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nablaconditions}
\varphi_1 Y_1 = 1 \text{ and } \varphi_k Y_k =
\bar\partial Y_{k-1} \text{ for $2\leq k \leq p$ }.
\end{equation}
We let $e_1,\dots,e_p$ be the standard basis of $K_1 \cong {\mathcal O}^p$ such that
the morphism in $(K,\psi)$ is contraction with $\sum f_i e_i^*$,
and in particular, $K_k$ has as a basis $e_{I_1} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{I_k}$
for $1 \leq I_1 < \dots < I_k \leq p$.
\begin{remark} \label{rem:identification}
To be precise, $\varphi_1 Y_1$ is a $E_0$-valued $(0,0)$-current.
However, since we assume that $\rank E_0 = 1$, we have that
$E_0 \cong {\mathcal O} \cong K_0$. Note that $K_0 \cong \bigwedge^0 K_1$ has
a canonical frame, $e_\emptyset$. In addition, $a_0 : K_0 \to E_0$ is an isomorphism,
so $a_0$ induces a frame $a_0(e_\emptyset)$ of $E_0$. In order
to simplify the notation, we have identified ${\mathcal O} \stackrel{\cong}{\to} E_0$ through
the map, $f \mapsto f a_0(e_\emptyset)$, so that we write $\varphi_1 Y_1 = 1$
instead of $\varphi_1 Y_1 = a_0(e_\emptyset)$.
\end{remark}
\medskip
In order to prove the division formula, we will also use the so-called \emph{generalized Hefer forms}
associated to a free resolution $(E,\varphi)$ as introduced by Andersson in \cite{AndIntII}. They consist of
$(k-\ell,0)$-form valued holomorphic morphisms $H^\ell_k : E_k \to E_\ell$, satisfying $H^\ell_k = 0$
if $k < \ell$, $H^\ell_\ell = I_{E_\ell}$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Hefer}
\delta_\eta H^\ell_{k+1} = H^\ell_k \varphi_{k+1}(\zeta) - \varphi_{\ell+1}(z) H^{\ell+1}_{k+1}
\end{equation}
for $k > \ell$.
In a similar way to in \cite{MazCR} and \cite{MazJMAA}, we will show that
\eqref{eq:nablaY} and the following integral representation formula
lead to our sought after division formulas. Although similar formulas
exist also when $D$ is strongly pseudoconvex, \cites{BA,DH}, for simplicity
of the presentation, we stick to the case when $D$ is convex,
see for example \cite{BWeighted}*{Chapter~4}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:w-div-form}
Let $D \subseteq {\mathbb C}^n$ be a smooth convex domain with defining function $\rho$,
and let $Q := \partial \log (1/(-\rho))$ and
\begin{equation*}
P^{N,\ell}(\zeta,z) := \frac{1}{(\delta_\eta Q + 1)^{N+\ell}} (\bar\partial Q)^{\ell},
\end{equation*}
which is holomorphic in $z \in D$, and for $N \gg 1$, it is smooth in $\zeta \in \overline{D}$
and vanishes to arbitrarily high order (depending on $N$) on $\partial D$.
If $h \in {\mathcal O}(\overline{D})$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:w-div-form}
h(z) = c_{N,n} \int_D P^{N,n}(\zeta,z) h(\zeta) \text{, \quad for $z \in D$,}
\end{equation}
where $c_{N,n} := { N+n-1 \choose n}$.
\end{thm}
We now give the second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. More precisely, we have the
following result, which implies Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:div-form}
Let $D \subseteq {\mathbb C}^n$ be a smooth convex domain, $(E,\varphi)$ a free resolution of ${\mathcal O}/J$ for some ideal
$J$, and assume that $\rank E_0 = 1$. Let $Y_1,\dots,Y_p$ be
currents satisfying \eqref{eq:nablaY}, and take $P^{N,n}$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:w-div-form}, where
$N \gg 1$ is such that $P^{N,n}$ vanishes on $\partial D$ to order higher
than the order of $Y_1,\dots,Y_p$ on $\overline{D}$, and let $H$ be a generalized
Hefer form for $(E,\varphi)$.
If $h \in {\mathcal O}(\overline{D})$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:div-form}
h(z) = \varphi_1(z) P(h)(z) + R(h)(z) \text{, \quad for $z \in D$,}
\end{equation}
where $R(h)(z) =: R(z)$ is a holomorphic function given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Rp}
R(z) = c_p\int_D h(\zeta) P^{N,n-p}(\zeta,z) H^0_p \bar\partial Y_p,
\end{equation}
and $P(h)(z) =: P(z)$ is given as
\begin{equation*}
P(z) = P_0(z) + \dots + P_{p-1}(z),
\end{equation*}
where $P_k(z)$ is a vector of holomorphic functions given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Pk}
P_k(z) = c_k\int_D h(\zeta) P^{N,n-k}(\zeta,z) H^1_{k+1} Y_{k+1},
\end{equation}
for suitably chosen constants $c_0,\dots,c_p$.
\end{thm}
We recall that if $(E,\varphi)$ is a free resolution of an ideal ${\mathcal O}/J$ and $\rank E_0 = 1$,
then the entries of $\varphi_1$ are generators of $J$, so the first term in the right-hand side
of \eqref{eq:div-form} belongs to $J$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]
Since the kernel defining $R(h)(z)$ is smooth in $\zeta$ except for the term $Y_p$,
and if we thus as in Lemma~\ref{lma:nablaY} take $Y_p = a_p(e) X_p$, we get by the
division formula that $\ann a_p(e) \bar\partial X_p \subseteq J$. Conversely, by the inclusion
$J \subseteq I : (I : J)$, and Lemma~\ref{lma:colon}, if $h \in J$, then $a_p(e) h \in I$,
so $a_p(e) h \in \ann \bar\partial X_p$ by \eqref{eq:ci-duality}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It might seem like we also for this proof use the theory of linkage,
using Lemma~\ref{lma:colon}, and the inclusion $J \subseteq I : (I: J)$.
However, Lemma~\ref{lma:colon} is rather straight-forward homological algebra,
and the inclusion $J \subseteq I : (I : J)$ is trivial, while the real use of the
theory of linkage in the previous section was the non-trivial inclusion
$I : (I : J) \subseteq J$. In this section, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main} with
the help of integral formulas, instead of using this inclusion. We then note
that Theorem~\ref{thm:main} indeed implies this inclusion.
By \eqref{eq:ci-duality} and Lemma~\ref{lma:colon}, we get that
$h a_p(e) \bar\partial X_p = 0$ is equivalent to that $h \in I : (I : J)$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we thus get that $h \in J$, proving the desired inclusion.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:div-form}]
We define for $0 \leq k \leq p-1$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Rkdef}
R_k(z) := c_k\int h(\zeta) P^{N,n-k}(\zeta,z) H^0_k
\varphi_{k+1}(\zeta) Y_{k+1},
\end{equation}
where the constants $c_k$ are the same as the constants $c_k$ in \eqref{eq:Pk},
and these constants will be determined below.
For $k=p$, we let $R_p(z) := R(z)$, where
$R(z)$ is given by \eqref{eq:Rp}.
We start by defining $c_0 := C_{N,n}$, where $C_{N,n}$ is the constant in \eqref{eq:w-div-form}.
Since $H^0_0 = \Id_{E_0}$, and $\varphi_1 Y_1 = 1$,
we then get by \eqref{eq:w-div-form} that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:repr0}
h(z) = R_0(z) = c_0\int h(\zeta) P^{N,n}(\zeta,z) \varphi_1(\zeta) Y_1.
\end{equation}
Having chosen $c_0$, the proof then proceeds by induction, by proving that for $0 \leq k < p$
we can choose $c_{k+1}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:induction}
R_k(z) = \varphi_1(z) P_k(z) + R_{k+1}(z),
\end{equation}
where $P_k$ is given by \eqref{eq:Pk}. To see this, we note first that by using \eqref{eq:Hefer} on the term $H^0_k \varphi_{k+1}(\zeta)$
in \eqref{eq:Rkdef}, we get that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:induction2}
R_k(z) = \varphi_1(z) P_k(z) + c_k \int h(\zeta) P^{N,n-k}(\zeta,z) \delta_\eta H^0_{k+1} Y_{k+1}.
\end{equation}
By Lemma~\ref{lma:detaQH}, we then obtain since $H^0_{k+1}$ is a row of holomorphic $(k+1)$-forms that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{gathered}
\bar\partial P^{N,n-k-1}(\zeta,z) \wedge H^0_{k+1} =
-\frac{(N+n-k-1)}{(\delta_\eta Q + 1)^{N+n-k}} (\bar\partial\delta_\eta Q) \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H^0_{k+1} = \\
= \frac{C_k}{(\delta_\eta Q + 1)^{N+n-k}}
(\bar\partial Q)^{n-k} \wedge \delta_\eta H^0_{k+1}
= C_k P^{N,n-k}(\zeta,z) \wedge \delta_\eta H^0_{k+1},
\end{gathered}
\end{equation*}
where $C_k = \frac{-(N+n-k-1)}{(n-k)}$.
Inserting this in \eqref{eq:induction2}, we get that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:induction3}
R_k(z) = \varphi_1(z) P_k(z) + (c_k/C_k) \int h(\zeta) \bar\partial P^{N,n-k-1}(\zeta,z) \wedge H^0_{k+1} Y_{k+1}.
\end{equation}
If $\Psi$ is a smooth $(k+1,0)$ form on $\overline{D}$, then by extending
$\Psi \wedge P^{N,n-k-1}$ by $0$ outside of $\overline{D}$, by the choice of $N$, this extension
is a form which is differentiable to a higher order than the order of $Y_{k+1}$ for $0 \leq k < p$.
Thus, we can consider the extension of $\Psi \wedge P^{N,n-k-1}$ as a test form of bidegree $(n,n-k-1)$,
and we thus get by definition of $\bar\partial Y_{k+1}$ that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intbyparts}
\int_{\overline{D}} \Psi \wedge P^{N,n-k-1} \wedge \bar\partial Y_{k+1} = \pm \int_{\overline{D}} \bar\partial(\Psi \wedge P^{N,n-k-1}) \wedge Y_{k+1}.
\end{equation}
Since $h$ and $H^0_{k+1}$ are holomorphic, we get by applying \eqref{eq:intbyparts} to the last term in \eqref{eq:induction3} that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:induction4}
R_k(z) = \varphi_1(z) P_k(z) \pm (c_k/C_k) \int h(\zeta) P^{N,n-k-1}(\zeta,z) \wedge H^0_{k+1} \bar\partial Y_{k+1},
\end{equation}
for $0 \leq k < p$.
If we then let $c_{k+1} := \pm c_k/C_k$, and for $0 \leq k \leq p-2$ use that
$\bar\partial Y_{k+1} = \varphi_{k+2}(\zeta) Y_{k+2}$ by \eqref{eq:nablaconditions}, we obtain that the right-most term
in \eqref{eq:induction4} equals $R_{k+1}(z)$. For $k = p-1$, we see directly from \eqref{eq:Rp} that
the right-most term equals $R(z) = R_p(z)$. We have thus proven that \eqref{eq:induction} holds for
$k=0,\dots,p-1$.
To conclude, starting with \eqref{eq:repr0}, then using \eqref{eq:induction} repeatedly for $k=0,\dots,p-1$,
and finally that $R_p(z) = R(z)$, we obtain \eqref{eq:div-form}.
\end{proof}
We finally also remark that indeed, using the framework of integral formulas of Andersson,
as in \cite{AndIntII}, it follows from \eqref{eq:nablaY} that one has a division formula
\begin{equation*}
h(z) = \varphi_1(z) \sum_k \int H^1_k Y_k(\zeta) h(\zeta) \wedge g_{n-k} + \int H^0_p \bar\partial Y_p(\zeta) h(\zeta) \wedge g_{n-p},
\end{equation*}
where $g$ is a weight with compact support as in \cite{AW1}*{Section~5}.
Here we have preferred to give a more direct proof based on the basic Theorem~\ref{thm:w-div-form},
avoiding the need to use this full machinery.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lma:detaQH}]
We note first that since $\delta_\eta$ is an anti-derivation,
$\delta_\eta \bar\partial = -\bar\partial \delta_\eta$. In addition, for degree-reasons,
$Q \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H = 0$. Thus,
\begin{equation*}
0 = \delta_\eta \bar\partial( Q \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H)
= - \bar\partial \delta_\eta (Q \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H).
\end{equation*}
Hence, since $\delta_\eta$ is an anti-derivation, and $Q$ and $\bar\partial Q$
are of odd and even degree respectively, and $(\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H$
is $\bar\partial$-closed,
\begin{equation*}
(\bar\partial \delta_\eta Q) \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H -
\bar\partial ( Q \wedge \delta_\eta (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H) =
(\bar\partial Q)^{n-k} \wedge \delta_\eta H.
\end{equation*}
It then only remains to see that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:detadbarQ}
-\bar\partial ( Q \wedge \delta_\eta (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H) =
(n-k-1) \bar\partial \delta_\eta Q \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H.
\end{equation}
To see this, we first note that since $\bar\partial Q$ has even degree,
\begin{equation*}
\bar\partial ( Q \wedge \delta_\eta (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-1} \wedge H) =
(n-k-1) \bar\partial (Q \wedge (\delta_\eta \bar\partial Q) \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-2} \wedge H)
\end{equation*}
In addition, $\delta_\eta \bar\partial Q = - \bar\partial \delta_\eta Q$, which is
$\bar\partial$-closed, so
\begin{equation*}
- \bar\partial (Q \wedge (\delta_\eta \bar\partial Q) \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-2} \wedge H)
= \bar\partial Q \wedge \bar\partial \delta_\eta Q \wedge (\bar\partial Q)^{n-k-2} \wedge H,
\end{equation*}
which gives \eqref{eq:detadbarQ}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lma:nablaY}]
To prove that $Y$ satisfies \eqref{eq:nablaconditions},
we note first that since $\varphi_1 a_1 = \psi_1$ (where we identify $E_0$ and $K_0$ with ${\mathcal O}$ as in Remark~\ref{rem:identification}),
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_1 Y_1 = \varphi_1 a_1( e_1 \wedge X_1 ) = \psi_1 e_1 X_1 =
f_1 X_1 = 1.
\end{equation*}
For $2 \leq k \leq p$, we get that
\begin{align*}
\varphi_k Y_k &= a_{k-1}(\psi_k (e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge e_k)) \wedge X_k \\
&= \sum_{j=1}^k (-1)^{j-1} f_j a_{k-1}(e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge
\widehat{e}_j \wedge \dots \wedge e_k) \wedge X_k \\
&= (-1)^{k-1} a_{k-1} (e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge e_{k-1}) \wedge f_k X_k \\
&= (-1)^{k-1} a_{k-1} (e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge e_{k-1}) \wedge \bar\partial X_{k-1}
= \bar\partial Y_{k-1},
\end{align*}
where all the other terms in the sum vanish since $f_j X_k = 0$ for $j < k$,
and the sign in the last equality is due to the superstructure, cf.,
for example \cite{LarComp}*{Section~2.1}, since $a_{k-1}(e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge e_{k-1})$
has degree $k-1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{AndIntII}{article}{
author={Andersson, Mats},
title={Integral representation with weights. II. Division and
interpolation},
journal={Math. Z.},
volume={254},
date={2006},
number={2},
pages={315--332},
}
\bib{AW1}{article}{
author={Andersson, Mats},
author={Wulcan, Elizabeth},
title={Residue currents with prescribed annihilator ideals},
journal={Ann. Sci. \'Ecole Norm. Sup.},
volume={40},
date={2007},
number={6},
pages={985--1007},
}
\bib{BWeighted}{article}{
author={Berndtsson, Bo},
title={Weighted integral formulas},
conference={
title={Several complex variables},
address={Stockholm},
date={1987/1988},
},
book={
series={Math. Notes},
volume={38},
publisher={Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ},
},
date={1993},
pages={160--187},
}
\bib{BA}{article}{
author={Berndtsson, B.},
author={Andersson, M.},
title={Henkin-Ramirez formulas with weight factors},
journal={Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)},
volume={32},
date={1982},
number={3},
pages={v--vi, 91--110},
}
\bib{CH}{book}{
author={Coleff, Nicolas R.},
author={Herrera, Miguel E.},
title={Les courants r\'esiduels associ\'es \`a une forme m\'eromorphe},
series={Lecture Notes in Mathematics},
volume={633},
publisher={Springer},
place={Berlin},
date={1978},
}
\bib{CLO}{book}{
author={Cox, David A.},
author={Little, John},
author={O'Shea, Donal},
title={Ideals, varieties, and algorithms},
series={Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics},
edition={4},
note={An introduction to computational algebraic geometry and commutative algebra},
publisher={Springer, Cham},
date={2015},
}
\bib{DGSY}{article}{
author={Dickenstein, Alicia},
author={Gay, Roger},
author={Sessa, Carmen},
author={Yger, Alain},
title={Analytic functionals annihilated by ideals},
journal={Manuscripta Math.},
volume={90},
date={1996},
number={2},
pages={175--223},
}
\bib{DH}{article}{
author={Dautov, {\v{S}}. A.},
author={Henkin, G. M.},
title={Zeros of holomorphic functions of finite order and weighted
estimates for the solutions of the $\bar \partial $-equation},
language={Russian},
journal={Mat. Sb. (N.S.)},
volume={107(149)},
date={1978},
number={2},
pages={163--174, 317},
}
\bib{DS}{article}{
author={Dickenstein, A.},
author={Sessa, C.},
title={Canonical representatives in moderate cohomology},
journal={Invent. Math.},
volume={80},
date={1985},
number={3},
pages={417--434},
}
\bib{Dol}{article}{
author={Dolbeault, Pierre},
title={Courants r\'esidus des formes semi-m\'eromorphes},
conference={
title={S\'eminaire Pierre Lelong (Analyse) (ann\'ee 1970)},
address={},
date={},
},
book={
title={Lecture Notes in Math.},
volume={205},
publisher={Springer, Berlin},
},
date={1971},
pages={56--70},
}
\bib{Eis}{book}{
author={Eisenbud, David},
title={Commutative algebra},
series={Graduate Texts in Mathematics},
volume={150},
note={With a view toward algebraic geometry},
publisher={Springer-Verlag},
place={New York},
date={1995},
}
\bib{FH}{article}{
author={Fouli, Louiza},
author={Huneke, Craig},
title={What is a system of parameters?},
journal={Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.},
volume={139},
date={2011},
number={8},
pages={2681--2696},
}
\bib{HL}{article}{
author={Herrera, Miguel E.\ M.},
author={Lieberman, David I.},
title={Residues and principal values on complex spaces},
journal={Math. Ann.},
volume={194},
date={1971},
pages={259--294},
}
\bib{Lund}{article}{
author={Lundqvist, Johannes},
title={A local Grothendieck duality theorem for Cohen-Macaulay ideals},
journal={Math. Scand.},
volume={111},
date={2012},
number={1},
pages={42--52},
}
\bib{LarComp}{article}{
author={L\"ark\"ang, Richard},
title={A comparison formula for residue currents},
status={Preprint},
date={2012},
eprint={arXiv:1207.1279 [math.CV]},
url={http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1279},
}
\bib{LExpl}{article}{
author={L\"ark\"ang, Richard},
title={Explicit versions of the local duality theorem in $\mathbb{C}^n$},
status={Preprint},
date={2015},
eprint={arXiv:1510.01965 [math.CV]},
url={http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.01965},
}
\bib{LS}{article}{
author={L{\"a}rk{\"a}ng, Richard},
author={Samuelsson Kalm, H{\aa}kan},
title={Various approaches to products of residue currents},
journal={J. Funct. Anal.},
volume={264},
date={2013},
number={1},
pages={118--138},
}
\bib{MazCR}{article}{
author={Mazzilli, Emmanuel},
title={Division des distributions et applications \`a l'\'etude
d'id\'eaux de fonctions holomorphes},
journal={C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris},
volume={338},
date={2004},
number={1},
pages={1--6},
}
\bib{MazJMAA}{article}{
author={Mazzilli, Emmanuel},
title={Courants du type r\'esiduel attach\'es \`a une intersection
compl\`ete},
journal={J. Math. Anal. Appl.},
volume={368},
date={2010},
number={1},
pages={169--177},
}
\bib{PMScand}{article}{
author={Passare, Mikael},
title={Residues, currents, and their relation to ideals of holomorphic
functions},
journal={Math. Scand.},
volume={62},
date={1988},
number={1},
pages={75--152},
}
\bib{Vasc}{book}{
author={Vasconcelos, Wolmer V.},
title={Computational methods in commutative algebra and algebraic
geometry},
series={Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics},
volume={2},
publisher={Springer-Verlag},
place={Berlin},
date={1998},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction\label{sec:Introduction}}
The vehicle distribution system in the U.S. has a single dominant form, in which the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) manufacture, inventory and transport new vehicles to franchised dealers. These franchised dealers inventory and sell new vehicles to the end customers \cite{Karabakal2000}. OEMs rely on logistics companies to distribute the vehicles to the dealers. Logistics companies have one or more distribution centers, and the manufacturers transport the vehicles to these distribution centers. Apart being a transit point between the OEMs and dealers, the distribution centers process the vehicles for their minor customized requests (upgrade of seat covers, lights etc.) from the end customers. Distribution centers are ideal to perform such requests, otherwise the dealers will be burdened by inventory overhead or the OEMs' economy of scale will get affected. The logistics companies then deliver the vehicles to the dealers who in turn sell them to the end customers. This last mile of vehicle delivery to the dealers' locations is highly expensive. Taking into account that 16.4 million new vehicles were sold in the U.S. \citep{nada} for the year 2014, a conservative estimate of \$100 per vehicle for the last mile delivery puts the expected expenditure in excess of \$16 billion. Furthermore, the American Trucking Association accords this industry with a special status in their group \citep{acc}.
This study presents a methodology to distribute the vehicles for an auto logistics company (ALC) owning auto-carriers. The proposed methodology is evaluated on a real case study of an ALC in the southern U.S. In this paper we denote \textit{vehicle} as an OEM's product (e.g., a car, a truck, or a SUV), \textit{auto-carrier} as a special type of truck owned by ALCs which is used to transport the \textit{vehicles}, and a \textit{dealer's location} is a dealership address for an OEM. The vehicles are transported from ALC's distribution center to the dealers' locations using auto-carriers, and the delivery schedules to the dealers' locations are generated based on weekly demand. ALC serves dealers over a wide geographical area and to efficiently schedule the deliveries, the dealers are partitioned into clusters based on their locations. Each cluster may be further partitioned into sub-clusters based on the demand. We shall refer to these sub-clusters as regions. Instead of scheduling the deliveries to all its dealers, ALC schedules deliveries to the dealers in each region, and uses a heterogeneous fleet of auto-carriers for the deliveries. The dimensions and weight of the vehicles restrict the number of vehicles that can be loaded on each type of auto-carrier. A \textit{type} refers to a particular variety of auto-carriers as their ability to carry a certain number of vehicles differs from one type to another. An auto-carrier consists of a tractor and a trailer equipped with upper and lower loading ramps as shown in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}. Figure \ref{fig:illustration} illustrates an auto-carrier with nine ramps, which is typical. We will refer to the set of vehicles in a trip as \textit{load}. A load is always associated with an auto-carrier and has a precise vehicle-ramp assignment. Very few dealers in a given region have enough daily volume to receive an entire load, so a load may contain a mix of vehicles to be delivered to a group of dealers. The planner working at ALC is responsible for determining the routes and loads for the auto-carriers. We will refer to the planner as a \textit{user}. The primary objective of the user is to build loads to satisfy the demands of the dealers in a given region at a minimum cost. Given a set of vehicles to be delivered for a given region, the cost of the operations depends upon the number of auto-carriers used for the delivery. Hence, the planner's objective is to minimize the number of auto-carriers to deliver a given set of vehicles to the dealers in a region.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{genLoad.JPG}
\caption{An auto-carrier with nine loading ramps.}
\label{fig:illustration}
\end{figure}
Auto-carriers are equipped with special loading equipment on the ramps to load as many vehicles as possible. For instance, in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}, loading ramps 6 and 9 can be extended horizontally, and ramps 2 and 9 can be rotated. Vehicles are loaded and unloaded on the auto-carriers from the rear, and unloading without reshuffling is preferable. The load of an auto-carrier depends on a number of constraints. The constraints include the restrictions on maximum length, height, and weight of the cargo set by the government authorities (U.S. Department of Transportation) \citep{dot}, and the number of reloads allowed. An instance of reloading would occur when a vehicle to be delivered is on an interior ramp of the auto-carrier, and the only way to remove the vehicle is by removing the vehicles on the outer ramps. Reloading increases the chances of accidental damage that can occur to a vehicle as it is being unloaded and reloaded, and is a time consuming process affecting the productivity of the resources. The authors of \cite{Agbegha1998} estimated the reloading cost to be in excess of \$22.5 million per year. To circumvent reloading, \cite{Agbegha1998} and \cite{Dell2014} impose a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) policy when loading the vehicles onto the ramps. On the downside, the LIFO policy tends to increase the number of trips for the logistics companies. Furthermore, a load can contain vehicles from different dealers, and if the sequence of deliveries is fixed a priori, then this affects the vehicle-ramp assignment of the load.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{centering}
{\small{}}%
\begin{tabular}{|>{\centering}p{1.3cm}|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{1.5cm}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\small{Honda}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\small{Toyota}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\small{Ford}}}\tabularnewline
\cline{2-10}
& {\small{Ridgeline}} & {\small{Accord}} & {\small{Fit}} & {\small{Tundra}} & {\small{Camry}} & {\small{Yaris}} & {\small{F350}} & {\small{Focus}} & {\small{Fiesta}}\tabularnewline
\cline{2-10}
& {\small{Truck}} & {\small{Sedan}} & {\small{HB}} & {\small{Truck}} & {\small{Sedan}} & {\small{HB}} & {\small{Truck}} & {\small{Sedan}} & {\small{HB}}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small{Weight (lbs)}} & {\small{6,050}} & {\small{3,216}} & {\small{2,496}} & {\small{6,800}} & {\small{3,190}} & {\small{2,295}} & {\small{9,900}} & {\small{2,097}} & {\small{3,620}}\tabularnewline
\cline{1-1}
{\small{Length (inches)}} & {\small{207}} & {\small{195}} & {\small{162}} & {\small{229}} & {\small{189}} & {\small{154}} & {\small{233}} & {\small{179}} & {\small{160}}\tabularnewline
\cline{1-1}
{\small{Height (inches)}} & {\small{70}} & {\small{58}} & {\small{60}} & {\small{76}} & {\small{58}} & {\small{59}} & {\small{77}} & {\small{58}} & {\small{58}}\tabularnewline
\cline{1-1}
{\small{Width (inches)}} & {\small{78}} & {\small{73}} & {\small{67}} & {\small{80}} & {\small{72}} & {\small{67}} & {\small{80}} & {\small{72}} & {\small{68}}\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}{\small \par}
\caption{Vehicle dimensions (HB denotes Hatchback)}
\label{fig:dim}
\end{table}
Every year, a new range of vehicles with different dimensions and weights are introduced. For instance, Ford manufactures trucks that weigh around 9,900 lbs. These kind of heavy vehicles might require two loading ramps for transportation. The vehicle dimensions for three types of vehicles from three different OEMs are shown in Table \ref{fig:dim}. The range of variations in the dimensions for the vehicle types indicates that it is imperative to find a good mix of vehicles for loading each auto-carrier so that the total number of auto-carriers required for deliveries is minimized. This necessitates a mathematical model to minimize the number of auto-carriers required for delivery of the vehicles. Other motivations include the increase in the number of vehicles being sold every year, fuel cost, and ever increasing variety of vehicles released in the market.
The problem we address in the paper is described as follows: \textit{given a heterogeneous fleet of auto-carriers in a distribution center, a region consisting of a set of dealers, each requiring a set of vehicles, determine the route for the auto-carriers based on user's inputs and load the vehicles onto the auto-carriers to serve all the dealers at a minimum cost. Split deliveries are allowed, and the loads are not restricted by LIFO policy.} We will refer to this problem as the auto-carrier transportation problem (ATP). This problem is known to be NP-hard \cite{Tadei2002}.
ATP consists of two underlying subproblems: routing the auto-carriers to deliver the vehicles to the dealers (routing subproblem) and finding a feasible load for an auto-carrier (loading subproblem). The solution to the loading subproblem depends on the sequence in which an auto-carrier makes its deliveries. In this paper, we generate a route for each auto-carrier and thereby fix the sequence of deliveries using a routing heuristic, \emph{i.e.}, we assume that the sequence of dealers that each auto-carrier delivers the vehicles is fixed a priori. Given this route sequence, we formulate the loading subproblem as a mixed integer linear program (MILP). We present a branch-and-price (B\&P) algorithm to optimally load the vehicles using the given heterogeneous fleet of auto-carriers. The algorithm generates a set of feasible loads. A feasible load includes the following information: the set of vehicles in the load, the auto-carrier onto which the vehicles are loaded, the vehicle-ramp assignment for the auto-carrier, position of the vehicle (whether it is loaded in the forward or reverse direction), slides and slide angle of each ramp in the auto-carrier.
\subsection{Literature Review\label{sec:LitReview}}
ATP was first addressed in the literature by \cite{Agbegha1992} and \cite{Agbegha1998}. The authors describe the best practices followed by logistics companies in the U.S., and formulate the loading subproblem as a non-linear assignment problem. Subsequently, branch-and-bound algorithm is presented for the loading problem, however the routing subproblem is ignored. In the loading problem, an auto-carrier is modeled as a set of slots, and a loading network is introduced to impose a LIFO precedence among the slots.
The authors of \cite{Tadei2002} present a case study of an Italian vehicle transportation company, and formulate ATP as a MILP. Planning horizon is multiple days, so the problem becomes complex. Due to this, they relax both the routing and loading problems. With regard to routing, the destinations are divided into multiple clusters, so the algorithm assigns the auto-carriers to the clusters. For loading, the vehicle lengths are approximated by equivalent constants and equated against the total length of an auto-carrier. Hence, the algorithm does not specify individual vehicle-ramp assignments. A greedy heuristic for the loading problem is developed in \cite{Miller2003}, and modeled an auto-carrier as vehicle with two flat loading platforms. The solution method assumes that the vehicles are always loaded straight on the platforms, and the loading is considered as a bin-packing problem with two bins.
The work in \cite{Cuadrado2009} considers a real world auto-carrier distribution case in Venezuela, and develop a two-phase heuristic to determine a good sized fleet of auto-carriers based on a MILP formulation. Research in \cite{Lin2010} models the vehicle distribution in the U.S as a facility location problem, and presents a MILP formulation. However, the model does not explicitly consider loading and routing problems. Recently, the authors of \cite{Dell2014} propose an iterative local search algorithm for the routing, and enumerations techniques for the loading problem. LIFO policy is imposed to avoid reloading. We also refer the reader to \cite{iori2010routing} for a recent survey on loading and routing problems. Stochastic version of auto-carrier loading problem is considered in \cite{saran}, and a special type of valid inequalities called Fenchel cutting planes. The details of Fenchel cutting planes can be found at \cite{beier2015stage}, \cite{venkatachalam2016sc}, and \cite{venkatachalam2016integer}.
We use B\&P approach for loading problem. To our knowledge, there is no work in the literature that develops an exact algorithm based on B\&P for the loading problem. A B\&P approach for solving an integer programming problem is similar to the conventional branch-and-cut approach but for the row generation procedure of branch-and-cut. In B\&P, column generation is used to solve the linear programs at each node of the branch-and-bound tree \cite{Barnhart1998}. This technique is especially useful when the number of decision variables in problem formulation increases exponentially with the size of the problem, and when explicit listing of all the columns becomes difficult. In such a scenario, columns are generated as needed at each node of the branch-and-bound search tree. The B\&P approach has been applied effectively to solve a variety of NP-hard problems such as assignment problem \cite{Savelsbergh1997}, shift scheduling \cite{Mehrotra2000}, vehicle routing problem (\cite{Dell2006}; \cite{Gutierrez2010}; \cite{Muter2014}), product line design \cite{Wang2009}, inventory routing problem \cite{Gronhaug2010}, service network design \cite{Andersen2011}, and joint tramp ship routing and bunkering \cite{Meng2015}. Readers interested in B\&P and column generation can refer to three excellent tutorials presented in \cite{Lubbecke2005}, \cite{wilhelm2001technical}, and \cite{Barnhart1998}.
A common feature among all the models presented in the literature for the loading problem is the usage of a variety of coefficients to model the dimensions of vehicles and auto-carriers. In practice, obtaining or estimating such coefficients from the past experience is not trivial as the OEMs continuously change the dimensions of the new vehicles every year. On the other side we have strict government regulations with regard to the total dimensions of a loaded auto-carrier, hence using exact parameters and calculations for the mathematical models become imperative from an optimization perspective, and also improves the practice. In summary, we propose a methodology to sequentially solve ATP; we also use exact dimensions of the vehicles and auto-carriers for modeling the loading problem. Using actual dimensions provide a means to replicate the methodology to suit other markets. Also, we do not impose LIFO restrictions on loading.
\subsection{Objectives and contributions\label{sec:LitReview}}
In this paper, we describe a heuristic to generate a route based on user's inputs for the auto-carriers, and subsequently, we present an exact algorithm to optimally load auto-carriers for an auto logistics company. The contributions include a modeling framework for loading problem considering the actual dimensions of the vehicles, government and OEMs' restrictions, and loading sequence based on a fixed route sequence. Rather than restricting loading to LIFO scheme, the maximum number of reloads is a user input for the B\&P algorithm. Additionally, we provide the details to generate a route sequence. Furthermore, results from extensive computational experiments for loading problem using real-world instances are reported. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec:bp} provides the details of a heuristic to generate a route for the auto-carriers. We introduce notation and formulate the loading problem in Section \ref{sec:Formulation}, and describe a heuristic procedure for an initial feasible solution. Subsequently, we present B\&P algorithm for the loading problem. Section \ref{sec:compres} contains the computational study of the B\&P algorithm, and finally, Section \ref{sec:Conclusion} presents the concluding remarks and future research directions.
\section{Routing Heuristic\label{sec:bp}}
In this section, we present the details of the routing heuristic. The routing heuristic is used to determine the route, \emph{i.e.,} the sequence of deliveries to be made for each auto-carrier. We will refer to this sequence of deliveries as the routing sequence. The routing sequence is subsequently used by B\&P algorithm to generate loads for the auto-carriers.
\subsection{Routing heuristic\label{subsec:algo}}
As mentioned earlier, the ALC divides the dealers' locations into regions, and loads are built for each region. The user provides a source, a destination, an angle called the viewing angle, and an offset distance as inputs. The dealers' locations in the destination region are known a priori. Based on the user inputs, a polygon with four vertices is constructed. The details of the construction is elaborated in the Appendix. Then, the dealers' locations within the polygon are determined. The routing sequence for each auto-carrier is generated by solving a Hamiltonian path problem for the selected dealers' locations. The main steps of routing sequence are given in Figure \ref{BPIFSH}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{hanglist}
\item \textbf{Routing sequence}
\item \hrulefill
{\it\bf \item Step 1. Initialization.} Obtain user inputs on source $dc$ and destination $d$ locations, viewing angle $\varphi$ and offset distance $\nu$. Let $la$ and $ln$ represent latitude and longitude for a location.
{\it\bf \item Step 2. Calculate bearing angle.} Using the parameters $dc_{la}, dc_{ln}, d_{la},$ and $d_{ln}$, bearing angle $\theta$ is calculated.
{\it\bf \item Step 3. Construct polygon.} Construct a polygon $\chi$ by computing three extreme points based on the values of $\theta$ and $\nu$.
{\it\bf \item Step 4. Set of dealers' locations.} Form a set $S$ comprising of dealers' locations which lie inside the polygon $\chi$.
{\it\bf \item Step 5. Sequence generation.} Use Lin-Kernighan heuristic to solve a Hamiltonian path problem between $dc$ and $d$.
\item \hrulefill
\end{hanglist}
\caption{Routing heuristic}
\label{BPIFSH}
\end{figure}
In Step 1, the user chooses a source $dc$ and destination $d$ locations, viewing angle $\varphi$ and offset distance $\nu$. A source location $dc$ is ALC's distribution center, and a destination is a primary dealer's location where the load is to be built. Other parameters $\varphi$ and $\nu$ give the flexibility for the user to target the locations within a region for delivery. Using the latitude and longitude information for $dc$ and $d$, a bearing angle $\theta$ is calculated in Step 2. The bearing angle is defined as the angle made by the straight line between $dc$ and $d$ with respect to the geographical north. Based on the user's offset distance and bearing angle $\theta$, a polygon $\chi$ is constructed in Step 3. The set $S$ consists of all the dealer locations that lie inside the polygon $\chi$. The details of the formulae used from Step 2 to Step 4 are given in Appendix. Based on $dc$ and $d$, and the set of dealers' locations in the set $S$, a Hamiltonian path problem is solved using Lin-Kernighan heuristic \cite{LKH2000}. The output of Lin-Kernighan heuristic will provide the \textit{order} for each location $s \in S$.
Another objective for the route sequence, that is commonly used as a performance indicator by the ALCs, is to improve the `percentage of perfect load' (PPL). This is explained as follows. Given the set of dealers' locations $S$, let $rm$ be the total miles traveled by an auto-carrier from the distribution center $dc$ to the last destination in the route sequence where the vehicles are delivered, $dt_s$ be the distance between a dealer location $s$ and ALC's distribution center, and $n_s$ be the number of vehicles delivered to the location $s \in S$. Then, `Optimum pay miles' is defined as $rm*|R(t)|$, where $R(t)$ is the set of ramps for the auto-carrier of type $t$, and `Tariff miles' is defined as $\sum_{s \in S}dt_s n_s$. PPL is defined as the ratio between `Tariff miles' and `Optimum pay miles.' ALC constantly looks forward to improve the performance indicator PPL. In a way it encourages the loads to a single dealer location or to multiple dealer locations which are closer to each other. Based on the selected dealers locations, Lin-Kernighan heuristic generates a route by minimizing the distance between them. In order to maximize PPL, the user will always select a dealer destination $d$ with high demand of vehicles or other locations with high demand which are very closer to $d$ so that `PPL' is maximized. This is a reason for our sequential approach to solve ATP. By careful selection of parameters for the construction of polygon, the optimal solution for ATP may not be far away from the one obtained by the presented methodology.
\section{Loading Algorithm\label{sec:Formulation}}
In this section we present a B\&P algorithm for the loading problem. B\&P algorithm constitutes of two mathematical models, a master problem (MP) and a pricing subproblem (LDP). LDP generates a feasible load, and MP is solved by adding the loads as columns at every node in the search tree. We first present the formulations for MP and LDP followed by B\&P algorithm.
\subsection{Master problem} \label{sec:FormulationMaster}
We first introduce notation to formulate MP. ALC has a fleet of $\bar{T}$ auto-carriers split into $T$ types and a set of vehicles $V$, indexed by $v$ to be delivered to dealers' locations. Identifying $t$ with an auto-carrier type, let $T^t_{\max}$ denote the maximum number of type $t$ auto-carriers available, and let $P(t)$ denote the set of feasible loads for an auto-carrier type $t \in T$, and $P(t)$ is indexed by $p(t)$. A feasible load includes the following information: the set of vehicles in the load and the vehicle-ramp assignment for auto-carrier type $t$. For each $p(t) \in P(t)$, we denote by $p_{{v}(t)}$, the set of vehicles in $p(t)$. Let $c^t$ denote the operating cost for an auto-carrier type $t$, and $c^{{v}}$ denote a penalty associated with a vehicle ${v} \in V$, if ${v}$ is not delivered to the assigned dealer. In practice, the penalty $c^{{v}}$ associated with the non-delivery of vehicle ${v}$ is very high. Let $x^t_{p(t)}$ be a binary variable, which indicates whether a feasible load $p(t)$ is used or not for an auto-carrier type $t$. Let $u^{{v}}$ be a binary variable, equal to $1$ if vehicle ${v}$ is not a part of any feasible load and $0$ otherwise. The MP is given as follows:
\begin{alignat}{2}
\text{MP1} = \min &\sum_{t \in T}\sum_{p(t) \in P(t)} c^t x^t_{p(t)} + \sum_{{v} \in {V}} c^{{v}} u^{{v}} \label{fs-objfun}
\end{alignat}
\hspace{2.5cm}subject to:\\
\begin{alignat}{2} \
\sum_{p(t) \in P(t)} x^t_{p(t)} \leq T^t_{\max} \qquad \forall \, t\in T, \label{capEqn-mp} \\
\sum_{t \in T} \sum_{p(t) \in P(t):{v} \subset p_{{v}(t)}} x^t_{p(t)} + u^{{v}} \geq 1 \qquad \forall \, {v}\in {V}, \label{dmdEqn} \\
x^t_{p(t)} \in \{0,1\}, u^{{v}} \geq 0 \qquad \, \forall t \in T, \, p(t) \in P(t), {v}\in {V}. \label{vareqn}
\end{alignat}
\noindent Constraints \eqref{capEqn-mp} enforce the capacity limitation on the number of auto-carriers for each type $t$ that can be used for loading. Constraints \eqref{dmdEqn} ensure that every vehicle in the inventory is either loaded onto some auto-carrier for delivery or a penalty variable is triggered for its non-delivery to its dealer. In the objective function \eqref{fs-objfun}, we minimize the total operating costs for the auto-carriers and penalties for unsatisfied demand. The linear relaxation of MP, indicated hereafter by LP-MP, is same as MP with the binary restrictions on the $x^t_{p(t)}$ variables in \eqref{vareqn} relaxed, i.e., constraints \eqref{vareqn} are replaced as follows:
\begin{alignat}{2} \
x^t_{p(t)} \geq 0, \,\, u^{{v}} \geq 0 \qquad \, \forall t \in T, \, p(t) \in P(t), {v}\in {V}. \label{vareqn1}
\end{alignat}
In the following subsection, we formulate the pricing problem that generates feasible loads for MP.
\begin{comment}
LMP is solved through column generation by considering a restricted linear master problem RLMP with a limited subset of feasible patterns. We repeatedly solve a pricing sub-problem to generate columns with negative reduced cost, if any exists. The pricing problem consists in finding feasible loading patterns for the auto-carriers. In the following section, we introduce notations and formulate the loading pattern generation problem which is the pricing problem.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Pricing problem} \label{sec:FormulationPricing}
LDP is the pricing subproblem, and it finds a feasible load for the auto-carriers. As mentioned previously, a feasible load for an auto-carrier consists of a set of vehicles, and a precise vehicle-ramp assignment for each vehicle in an auto-carrier. The feasibility of a load is restricted by a number of constraints. The restrictions are due to the capacities and capabilities of the auto-carrier equipment, OEMs' preferences, and the government regulations that set limits on the length, height and weight of a loaded auto-carrier. We develop each of these constraints after introducing our notation. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}, an auto-carrier of type $t \in T$ consists of a set of ramps $R(t)$ indexed by $i$. For a given auto-carrier of type $t$ and its corresponding $R(t)$, we define the following subsets of $R(t)$:
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
R_{\mathcal{U}}(t) \equiv&\text{ set of ramps in the upper deck of an auto-carrier of type $t$ (e.g., ramps 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in}\notag \\
&\text{Figure \ref{fig:illustration}), and} \notag \\
R_{\mathcal{L}}(t) \equiv&\text{ set of ramps in the lower deck of an auto-carrier of type $t$ (e.g., ramps 3, 7, 8 and 9 in }\notag\\
&\text{Figure \ref{fig:illustration}).} \notag
\end{alignat}
For each ramp $i\in R_{\mathcal{U}}(t)$, we also define:
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
r_L(i) \equiv& \text{ ramp at the lower deck for a given ramp $i \in R_{\mathcal{U}}(t)$.} \notag
\end{alignat}
For a given auto-carrier of type $t$ and its corresponding ramp set $R(t)$, we define the following collection of subsets of $R(t)$ (the superscript $c$ in the following notation indicate that we are referring to a collection of sets):
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
R^c_{\mathcal{H}}(t) \equiv& \text{ collection of sets of ramps that limit the height of a loaded auto-carrier of type $t$.} \\ \notag
& \text{ (e.g., $R_{\mathcal{H}}^c(t) = \{\{1\}, \{2,3\}, \{4,7\}, \{5,8\}, \{6,9\}\}$ for auto-carrier in Figure \ref{fig:illustration})}. \\ \notag
R^c_{\mathcal{L}}(t) \equiv& \text{ collection of sets of ramps in an auto-carrier of type $t$, that have a limitation on the}\\ \notag
& \text{allowed length (e.g., $R^c_{\mathcal{L}}(t) = \{\{1,2\}, \{3\}, \{4,5,6\}, \{7,8,9\}\}$ for auto-carrier in Figure \ref{fig:illustration})}. \\ \notag
R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t) \equiv&\text{ collection of sets of ramps where each set of ramps can be combined to accommodate a}\\ \notag
& \text{ single vehicle in an auto-carrier of type $t$. (e.g., $R_{\mathcal{SP}}^c(t) = \{\{4,5\}, \{7,8\}, \{5,6\}\}$ for} \\ \notag
& \text{ an auto-carrier in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}).} \notag
\end{alignat}
We refer to $R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t)$ as the collection of \emph{split ramps} for an auto-carrier of type $t$.
Another aspect of LDP is a loading/unloading sequence for each ramp in an auto-carrier. The sequence in which the vehicles are loaded or unloaded from the ramps of an auto-carrier is unique and is dictated by a loading/unloading graph (see Figure \ref{fig:loadingsq}). The vertices of the graph represent the ramps of an auto-carrier, and they denote the set of ramps which should be empty or unloaded before a vehicle in a particular ramp is unloaded. To illustrate, if a vehicle in ramp 4 should be unloaded then the vehicles in the ramps 7, 8, and 9 should be unloaded or empty. A ramp in the graph without any outgoing edges is referred as an exit ramp (9 in Figure \ref{fig:loadingsq}). For every ramp $i \in R(t)$ of an auto-carrier of type $t$, the path from $i$ to the exit ramp is unique, and this gives an unloading sequence for the vehicle in the ramp $i$. Hence, for every ramp $i\in R(t)$, we define $q^t(i)$ as the ordered set of ramps in which the vehicles should be unloaded before unloading the vehicle in ramp $i$.
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
q^t(i) \equiv&\text{ ordered set of ramps providing the unloading sequence of ramp $i$ in an auto-carrier of type $t$.} \notag
\end{alignat}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{loadingsq}
\caption{The loading/unloading graph for the auto-carrier in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}. Ramp $9$ is the exit ramp.}
\label{fig:loadingsq}
\end{figure}
For each auto-carrier, we also assume a fixed route, i.e, an ordered sequence of dealer locations that each auto-carrier is going to visit. The set $S$ is an \textit{ordered} set of dealers' locations is obtained by the route heuristics explained in the previous section. For any $s_1,s_2 \in S$, $s_1 \preceq s_2$ represents that location $s_1$ will be visited by the auto-carrier before visiting the location $s_2$, and $\succeq$ represents vice-versa. We now define for each $v \in V$, $lo(v)$ as the dealer location.
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
lo(v) \equiv&\text{ dealer location for a vehicle $v \in V$}, lo(v) \in S. \notag
\end{alignat}
Now, we will describe various configurations in which a vehicle can be loaded on a ramp in an auto-carrier. Suppose that a vehicle $v$ is loaded on a ramp $i \in R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t)$ then $v$ can either be positioned in the same direction as that of an auto-carrier (vehicles positioned in the ramps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}) or in the opposite direction (vehicles positioned in the ramps 1, 7 and 8 in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}). Once $v$ is positioned on a ramp $i$, the ramp can either slide in the forward direction (e.g., ramps 5 and 8 in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}) or in the reverse direction (e.g., ramps 2, 4, 6 and 9 in Figure \ref{fig:illustration}). The amount of forward or backward slide is restricted by a maximum allowable angle of slide for each ramp. We now define the following sets:
\begin{flalign}
&J \equiv\text{ set of possible positions for a vehicle in a ramp, indexed by $j$,}\notag \\
&L \equiv\text{ set of possible slides for a ramp in an auto-carrier, indexed by $\ell$,}\notag \\
&M \equiv\text{ discrete set of allowable slide angles for a ramp in an auto-carrier, indexed by $m$, and} \notag \\
&\boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R,J,V,L,M)\equiv\text{ set of all possible configurations $(i,j,v,l,m)$, where $i \in R$, $j\in J$, $v\in V$,}\notag \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\text{$\ell \in L$, and $m \in M$ in an auto-carrier of type $t$.}& \notag
\end{flalign}
It should be noted that the set $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R,J,V,L,M)$ is constructed based on the inclusion and exclusions preferences for vehicle-ramp assignment from OEMs, and also, the set excludes the vehicles from the ramps due to incompatible dimensions, i.e., if a wheel base of a vehicle is larger than a ramp base. We now define a set of parameters whose values are either obtained from the auto-carrier's or vehicle's specifications or restrictions imposed by the governmental agencies for a loaded auto-carrier.
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
l^t_{\max}(\mathcal{L}) \equiv&\text{ maximum allowable loaded length for $\mathcal{L} \in R_{\mathcal{L}}^c(t)$ for an auto-carrier of type $t$, } \\ \notag
h_{v} \equiv&\text{ height of the vehicle $v \in V$,} \\ \notag
w_{v} \equiv&\text{ weight of the vehicle $v \in V$,} \\ \notag
h_{\max} \equiv&\text{ maximum allowable height (loaded height) for an auto-carrier,} \\ \notag
w^{\text{steer}}_{\max} \equiv&\text{ maximum allowable weight at the steering axle for an auto-carrier,}\\ \notag
w^{\text{drive}}_{\max} \equiv&\text{ maximum allowable weight at the drive axle for an auto-carrier,}\\ \notag
w^{\text{tandem}}_{\max} \equiv&\text{ maximum allowable weight at the tandem axle for an auto-carrier,}\\ \notag
w^{\text{total}}_{\max}\equiv&\text{ maximum allowable total load weight for an auto-carrier.} \notag
\end{alignat}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{wtDist.jpg}
\caption{$W_1$, $W_2$, and $W_3$ are the steer, drive, and tandem axles, respectively.}
\label{fig:axles}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:axles} shows the steer, drive, and tandem axles for an auto-carrier. We now introduce parameters that are derived using vehicle and auto-carrier specifications. The reader is referred to the Appendix for the details of the calculations for each of these parameters.
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
l^{v}_m \equiv&\text{ effective length of a vehicle $v \in V$ when it is loaded on a ramp inclined at an angle $m$,}& \\ \notag
h^{\text{gain}}_{\text{upper}}(\alpha) \equiv&\text{ height gain for a configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R_{\mathcal{U}}(t),J,V,L,M)$,} \\ \notag
h^{\text{max}}_{\text{lower}}(\alpha) \equiv&\text{ maximum allowable slide for a configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R_{\mathcal{L}}(t),J,V,L,M)$,} \\ \notag
w^{\text{steer}}(\alpha) \equiv&\text{ weight contributed to steer axle by configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)$,} \\ \notag
w^{\text{drive}}(\alpha) \equiv&\text{ weight contributed to drive axle by configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)$,} \\ \notag
w^{\text{tandem}}(\alpha) \equiv&\text{ weight contributed to tandem axle by configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)$.} \\ \notag
\end{alignat}
The parameters $h^{\text{gain}}_{\text{upper}}(\alpha)$ and $h^{\text{max}}_{\text{lower}}(\alpha)$ are derived based on the dimensions of the vehicles and ramps of an auto-carrier. The parameter $h^{\text{gain}}_{\text{upper}}(\alpha)$ is the gain in height due to the sliding of upper ramp by an angle, and $h^{\text{max}}_{\text{lower}}(\alpha)$ indicates the maximum possible slide the auto-carrier can accommodate for a vehicle in the upper deck due to the contour of the vehicle in the lower deck. Figure \ref{fig:htadv} shows an illustration of $h^{\text{gain}}_{\text{upper}}(\alpha)$ for a particular configuration $\alpha$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{htAdv1.jpg}
\caption{$h^{\text{gain}}_{\text{upper}}(\alpha)$ for a particular configuration $\alpha$. The height of the loaded auto-carrier exceeds the legally allowed height when the ramp does not slide. When the ramp slides at an angle, a gain in height is obtained and the height restriction is met.}
\label{fig:htadv}
\end{figure}
A loaded auto-carrier visits each location and unloads the vehicles that are to be delivered to that dealer. While unloading a vehicle $v_1$ from an auto-carrier, a violation is said to occur if a vehicle to be delivered to another dealer location has to be unloaded from the auto-carrier in order to unload $v_1$. Violations can be avoided by using a LIFO policy while loading, however, this may increase the number of auto-carriers required for delivery. In practice, ALC imposes an upper bound on the number of violations that an auto-carrier can incur. Hence, we define
\begin{alignat}{2}\notag
\text{v}_{\max} \equiv&\text{ maximum number of unload violations that an auto-carrier can incur. } \notag
\end{alignat}
\noindent{\bf Decision variables}\\
\\
We now define the decision variables used to formulate LDP. For every auto-carrier of type $t$ and $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)$, let ${y}(\alpha)$ be a binary variable, equal to $1$ if the configuration $\alpha$ is used and $0$ otherwise.
\begin{align}
{y}(\alpha) &=\left\{ \begin {array}{clcr}
1, & \mbox{if configuration $\alpha\in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)$ is in use,} \\
0, & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end {array}
\right. \notag \\ \notag
\end{align}
For every auto-carrier of type $t$ and $i\in R^c_\mathcal{SP}(t)$, let ${sp}_i$ be a binary variable defined as follows:
\begin{align}
{sp}_{i} &=\left\{ \begin {array}{clcr}
1, & \mbox{if the split ramp $i\in R^c_\mathcal{SP}(t)$ is used}, \\
0, & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end {array}
\right. \notag \\ \notag
\end{align}
We also define a binary variable ${z}_{is}$ to denote the ramp and location relationship, and an integer variable $u_{is}$ to indicate the number of violations for the vehicle in ramp $i$ based on the location $s$.
\begin{align}
{z}_{is} &=\left\{ \begin {array}{clcr}
1, & \mbox{if any vehicle $v\in V$ with $lo(v)=s$ is assigned to ramp $i\in R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t)$}, \\
0, & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end {array}
\right. \notag \\
u_{is} &= \text{ number of violations for the vehicle in ramp $i$, delivered to location $s$.}\notag
\end{align}
We now define a continuous variable:
\begin{align}
{h}_{i \ell } \, \, \equiv &\text{ adjusted height gain in the ramp $i \in R(t)$ at slide position $\ell$.} \notag
\end{align}
Finally, we define a dual value ${d}^v$ for each constraint in \eqref{dmdEqn} of MP, and $r^v$ is the potential revenue for delivering the vehicle $v$ to its dealer location. The revenue depends on the vehicle type and the location of the dealer.
\subsection{Model Formulation}
A MILP formulation for LDP is presented in this section. LDP for each auto-carrier of type $t$ (LDP($t$)) is presented as follows.
\begin{alignat}{2}
\text{LDP1}(t) = \min (1 - \sum_{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)} ({d}^v+r^v) {y}(\alpha)) \label{ss-objfun}
\end{alignat}
Each configuration of $\alpha$ is a unique combination $(i,j,v,\ell,m)$ for an auto-carrier of type $t$, where $i$ is a ramp (single or split); $v$ is the vehicle on ramp $i$; $j$ is the position of vehicle $v$ on $i$; $\ell$ is the slide of ramp $i$; and $m$ is the slide angle of ramp $i$. \\
\noindent{\bf Constraints}\\
\\
The objective function is optimized over the set of feasible solutions described by the following sets of constraints: \\
\noindent{\bf Height constraints}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{htconst}
\caption{Height constraints in equation \eqref{ht_c1}.}
\label{fig:htconst}
\end{figure}
\begin{alignat}{2}
\sum_{
\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R,J,V,L,M)}}
h_v {y}(\alpha) -
\sum_{i \in R \cap R_{\mathcal{U}}(t), \ell} {h}_{i \ell }
\leq h_{\max} \qquad &\forall \, R \in R^c_{\mathcal{H}}(t), \label{ht_c1} \\
{h}_{i \ell } \leq
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(\{i\},J,V,\{\ell\},M)}}
h^{\text{gain}}_{\text{upper}}(\alpha) {y}(\alpha)
\qquad &\forall \, i \in R_{\mathcal{U}}(t), \, \ell \in L, \label{ht_c2} \\
{h}_{i \ell } \leq
{h}_{r_L(i) \ell }
\qquad &\forall \, i \in R_{\mathcal{U}}(t), \, \ell \in L, \label{ht_c3} \\
{h}_{i \ell } \leq
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(\{i\},J,V,\{\ell\},M)}}
h^{\text{max}}_{\text{lower}}(\alpha) {y}(\alpha)
\qquad &\forall \, i \in R_{\mathcal{L}}(t), \, \ell \in L. \label{ht_c4}
\end{alignat}
\noindent Constraints \eqref{ht_c1} enforce the maximum height limitation for a pair of vehicles in the lower and upper deck for an auto-carrier of type $t$ (see Figure \ref{fig:htconst}). The term $\sum_{i \in R\cap R_{\mathcal{U}}(t), \ell} {h}^{t}_{i \ell }$ takes value based on the pair of vehicles considered, and represents the total height that has to be reduced by sliding the ramps. Also, this height is restricted by the contour of vehicles $v_1$ and $v_2$ (constraints \eqref{ht_c2}--\eqref{ht_c4}). Each element of the set $R \in R^c_{\mathcal{H}}(t)$ represents a set of ramps, one in a lower and another in the corresponding upper deck, which are vertically aligned for an auto-carrier of type $t$, and constitutes the maximum height limitation. The variable ${h}_{i \ell }$ is the height gain achieved by sliding ramp $i$ at an angle $\ell$. For ramp $i$ in the upper deck, the constraints in \eqref{ht_c2} and \eqref{ht_c3} upper bound the variables ${h}_{i \ell }$. The upper bound in constraint \eqref{ht_c2} is due to the vehicle in the ramp $i$, and the upper bound in \eqref{ht_c3} is due to the vehicle in the ramp below $i$, \emph{i.e.}, $r_L(i)$. Similarly, constraints \eqref{ht_c4} bound the variables ${h}_{i\ell }$ based on the vehicle in ramp $i$ in the lower deck. \\
\noindent{\bf Weight constraints}
\begin{alignat}{2}
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)}}
w^{\text{steer}}(\alpha) {y}(\alpha)
&\leq w^{\text{steer}}_{\max}, \label{wt_c1} \\
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)}}
w^{\text{drive}}(\alpha) {y}(\alpha)
&\leq w^{\text{drive}}_{\max}, \label{wt_c2} \\
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)}}
w^{\text{tandem}}(\alpha) {y}(\alpha)
&\leq w^{\text{tandem}}_{\max}, \label{wt_c3} \\
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)}}
w_v {y}(\alpha)
&\leq w^{\text{total}}_{\max}. \label{wt_c4}
\end{alignat}
\noindent The total weight for each axle of an auto-carrier of type $t$ is restricted in the weight constraints. The three axle weights, namely steer axle weight, drive axle weight, and tandem axle weight are restricted in the constraints \eqref{wt_c1}, \eqref{wt_c2}, and \eqref{wt_c3}, respectively. Constraint \eqref{wt_c4} restricts the total weight for an auto-carrier.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent{\bf Length constraints}
\\
\begin{alignat}{1}
\sum_{v,m}\left( l^v_m
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(\mathcal{L},J,\{v\},L,\{m\})}} {y}(\alpha)
\right)\leq l_{\max}^t(\mathcal{L})
\qquad \forall \, \mathcal{L} \in R^c_{\mathcal{L}}(t). \label{ln_c1}
\end{alignat}
\noindent Constraints \eqref{ln_c1} restrict the total length for each ramp set $\mathcal{L} \in R^c_{\mathcal{L}}(t)$ for an auto-carrier of type $t$.\\
\noindent{\bf Split Ramp constraints}
\begin{alignat}{1}
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(\{i\},J,V,L,M)}} {y}(\alpha) \leq {sp}_i
\qquad &\forall \, i \in R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t), \label{sp_c1} \\
\sum_{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(i\cap R(t),J,V,L,M)} {y}(\alpha) \leq |i|(1-{sp}_i)
\qquad &\forall \, i \in R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t). \label{sp_c2}
\end{alignat}
\noindent Constraints \eqref{sp_c1} and \eqref{sp_c2} ensure that when a vehicle is loaded on a split ramp by combining two or more ramps, then assignments of vehicles are not made to the individual ramps that are combined to form the split ramp and vice versa.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent{\bf Assignment constraints}
\begin{alignat}{1}
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(\{i\},J,V,L,M)}} {y}(\alpha) \leq 1
\qquad &\forall \, i\in R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t), \label{as_c1} \\
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,\{v\},L,M)}} {y}(\alpha) \leq 1
\qquad &\forall \, v\in V. \label{as_c2}
\end{alignat}
\noindent Constraints \eqref{as_c1} and \eqref{as_c2} ensure that every vehicle is assigned to only one ramp and each ramp has only one vehicle.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent{\bf Violation constraints}
\begin{alignat}{1}
{z}_{is} \geq
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(\{i\},J,\{v\in V:lo(v)=s\},L,M)}} {y}(\alpha)
\qquad &\forall \, i\in R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t), \, \, s\in S, \label{vi_c1} \\
u_{is} \geq \sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(q^t(i),J,\{v\in V:lo(v) \succeq s\},L,M)}} {y}(\alpha)
- |R(t)|(1-{z}_{is})
\qquad &\forall \, i\in R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t), \, \, s\in S, \label{vi_c2} \\
\sum_{i \in R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t), s \in S} u_{is} \leq \text{v}^t_{\max}. \qquad \label{vi_c3}
\end{alignat}
\noindent Constraints \eqref{vi_c1} assign value for the variables ${z}_{is}$ based on vehicle $v$'s location in the ramp $i$. Constraints \eqref{vi_c2} account the violations for the ramp $i$ based on the route sequence of the assigned vehicle $v$ and the loading sequence $q^t(i)$ for the ramp $i$. Subsequently, constraint \eqref{vi_c3} limits the number of violations that can occur.\\
Height, weight, and length constraints ensure that the generated load satisfies the regulations imposed by the governmental authorities. Assignment constraints avoid duplicate allotments for a ramp or a vehicle, and finally, violation constraints restrict the number of reloads for an auto-carrier.\\
To corroborate the performance of the B\&P algorithm, an equivalent aggregated formulation (EP) of the loading problem is developed and solved using a direct solver. The formulation for EP is briefly explained in this section. Let $K(t)$ be the set of auto-carriers for $t \in T$, and variable ${y}(\alpha)$ is added with indices $i$ and $t$ such that the variable ${y}^t_i(\alpha)$ indicates $i^{th}$ auto-carrier of type $t$. Let ${p}^t_i$ denote a binary variable indicating whether the auto-carrier ${y}^t_i(\alpha)$ is used or not. The EP model is given as follows.
\begin{alignat}{2}
\text{EP1} = \min \sum_{ t\in T, \, \, i \in K(t) } c^t {p}^t_i \label{ep-objfun}
\end{alignat}
\hspace{2.5cm}subject to:\\
\begin{alignat}{2} \
\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)}} {y}_i^t(\alpha) \leq |R(t)| {p}^t_i
\qquad \forall \, t\in T, \, i \in K(t), \label{ep-eqn1}
\end{alignat}
\begin{alignat}{2} \
\sum_{i \in K(t)} {p}^t_i \leq T^t_{\max} \qquad \forall \, t\in T, \label{ep-eqn2}
\end{alignat}
\begin{alignat}{2} \
\sum_{\substack{i \in K(t) ,\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t) \cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,v,L,M)}} {y}_i^t(\alpha) \geq 1
\qquad &\forall \, v\in V. \label{ep-eqn3}
\end{alignat}
We minimize the total cost required for delivering the vehicles. In constraints \eqref{ep-eqn1}, variable ${p}^t_i$ indicates whether an $i^{th}$ auto-carrier of type $t$ is used or not. The number of auto-carriers for each type $t$ is capacitated by constraint \eqref{ep-eqn2}. Constraints \eqref{ep-eqn3} assure that every vehicle $v$ is loaded in at least one auto-carrier $i$ of type $t$. Constraints \eqref{ht_c1} to \eqref{vi_c3} are included in EP model with indices $i$ and $t$ for the variable ${y}(\alpha)$.
\subsection{Branch-and-price algorithm\label{subsec:algo}}
MP in Section \ref{sec:FormulationMaster} has a very large number of decision variables so we develop a B\&P approach to solve the problem. For an optimal solution to LP-MP, we need to explicitly consider the entire set of possible variables by $P(t)$ which is practically very exhaustive. Hence, we construct another model called a restricted master problem (RMP) which relaxes the LP-MP using a smaller set $\bar{P}(t)$. Columns will be added to $\bar{P}(t)$ by solving a pricing problem, which in our case will be LDP1$(t)$ for an auto-carrier of type $t$. LDP1$(t)$ will be solved using the dual values obtained from RMP, and the generated load will be added to the set $\bar{P}(t)$ if it can improve the objective solution of the RMP further. The B\&P approach guarantees an optimal solution by generating columns at each node within the branch-and-bound search tree. In the following subsection, we discuss the main steps involved in the B\&P algorithm.
\begin{figure}
\begin{hanglist}
\item \textbf{Initial feasible solution heuristic}
\item \hrulefill
{\it\bf \item Step 1. Initialization.} Initialize $d^v$ to a positive number.
{\it\bf \item Step 2. Solve pricing problem.} Arbitrarily choose a $t$ such that $\left\vert \bar{P}(t)\right\vert < T^t_{max}$ and solve the pricing problem LDP1($t$), and let the solution be $p(t)$.
{\it\bf \item Step 3. Update columns.} Add the solution to $\bar{P}(t)$, $\bar{P}(t)$ = $\bar{P}(t) \cup p(t)$. Set $V = V - v, \forall v \subset p(t)$.
{\it\bf \item Step 4. Stop criterion. } If $V =\phi$ then Stop, else go to Step 2.
\item \hrulefill
\end{hanglist}
\caption{Initial feasible solution heuristic}
\label{BPIFSH}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Algorithm\label{subsec:algo}}
An initial solution to the problem is constructed using initial feasible solution (IFS) heuristic. IFS is used to generate an initial set of columns for $\bar{P}(t)$ then the B\&P algorithm is used. The heuristic is given in Figure \ref{BPIFSH}.
In Step 1 we initialize the dual parameter $d^v$ to a positive number. We solve the pricing problem LDP1($t$) in Step 2 for an arbitrary auto-carrier of type $t$ such that there is enough capacity available for loading. Based on the output from the pricing problem LDP1($t$), the columns are added to the respective $\bar{P}(t)$. In Step 4 we check whether all the vehicles are loaded, if not then algorithm is directed to Step 2, otherwise, terminate the algorithm. By using IFS, we have set of initial loads for all the vehicles in the set $V$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{hanglist}
\item \textbf{Branch-and-price algorithm}
\item \hrulefill
{\it\bf \item Step 1. Initialization.} Run the routing heuristic and generate route sequence $lo(v), \forall v \in V$. Set upper bound UB=$+\infty$, lower bound LB=$-\infty$, and let LDP1$(t) = 0 , \forall t \in T$, $\epsilon >0 $ as tolerance, and let $\hat{x}^t_{p(t)}$ be the solution for RMP. A node $n$ represents an instance of RMP, RMP-Obj($n$) represents objective value for RMP for the node $n$, $\Gamma$ represents a list with nodes, and a root node $n_0$ is formed based on the columns generated from IFS, and $n_0$ is added to $\Gamma$. Set node $n_0$ as $n$.
{\it\bf \item Step 2. Solve pricing problem.} For every $t \in T$, solve the respective LDP($t$) based on the dual values of node $n$ as a MILP, and update LDP1$(t)$.
{\it\bf \item Step 3. Pricing problem selection.} If LDP1$(t) \geq 0, \forall t \in T$, then goto Step 6. Otherwise, select a pricing problem LDP1$(t')$ such that $t' = \argmin_{t} \{\text{LDP1}(t)\}$, and add the columns based on the solution of LDP1($t'$) to $\bar{P}(t')$ for the node $n$, $\bar{P}(t') = \bar{P}(t') \cup p(t')$. This choice of subproblem is called `best-first' policy.
{\it\bf \item Step 4. Solve master problem and branching.} Solve RMP for node $n$ and update the dual values. If there is any $\hat{x}^t_{p(t)} \notin \mathbb{Z} \, \, \, \, \forall \, \, t \in T, \, \,$ and LB < RMP-Obj($n$), then create two nodes $n_1$ and $n_2$ and copy all the information for the nodes from the node $n$. Choose a variable $x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*}$ such that $\argmax_{t^*,p(t)^*} \{\lvert \hat{x}^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} -1 \rvert : \hat{x}^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} \notin \mathbb{Z}\} $. Add the following constraints $x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} \leq \lfloor\hat{x}^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} \rfloor$ and $x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} \geq \lceil \hat{x}^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} \rceil $ to the nodes $n_1$ and $n_2$, respectively. Add the nodes to the list $\Gamma$. Set LB = RMP-Obj($n$). If $\hat{x}^t_{p(t)} \in \mathbb{Z} \, \, \, \, \forall \, \, t \in T, \,\, p(t) \in \,\, \bar{P}(t) $ and UB > RMP-Obj($n$), then store the solution $\hat{x}^t_{p(t)}$ and set UB = RMP-Obj($n$).
{\it\bf \item Step 5. Node fathoming.} Remove any node $n^*$ from the list $\Gamma$ such that RMP-Obj($n^*$) $<$ LB or RMP-Obj($n^*$) $>$ UB.
{\it\bf \item Step 6. Stop criterion.} If $\Gamma = \phi $ or UB-LB $\leq \epsilon$, then Stop. Otherwise, use depth-first criterion to choose a node and set the node as $n$. Go to Step 2.
\item \hrulefill
\end{hanglist}
\caption{Branch-and-price algorithm}
\label{BP}
\end{figure}
We now outline the main components of B\&P algorithm to compute optimal solutions for the loading problem. In Step 1 we use the routing and IFS heuristics to generate a route sequence and initial set of feasible loads, respectively. An instance of RMP is a node $n$ and a list $\Gamma$ is used to store nodes. A root node is constructed using the outputs from IFS and added to the list $\Gamma$. Based on the dual values $d^v$ of node $n$, the objective function of LDP1($t$) is updated and solved as a MILP. If the objective functions for all the auto-carrier types are non-negative then stop criterion at Step 6 are checked. Otherwise, choose the pricing problem with the least objective value so that this could provide a maximum improvement for the objective function of RMP, and add the solution vector as a column to the node $n$. In Step 4, RMP is solved for node $n$, and if there exists a solution for a variable which is non-integral then two nodes are created using current node's information and a bisection of solution space is done based on the variable with non-integral value and added to the list. If the solution is integral for all the variables, then upper bound is checked and updated accordingly. Based on the updated lower and upper bounds, the nodes in the list $\Gamma$ are fathomed in Step 5. In Step 6, we evaluate the stopping criterion, and if the list $\Gamma$ is empty or the difference between lower and upper bounds is within a given tolerance then the algorithm is terminated. Otherwise, the algorithm continues from Step 2 with the updated information.
\begin{comment}
: we solve the pricing problem for arbitrary values of dual variables. We repeat this process for different sets of dual variable values until we have generate sufficient number of feasible loading patterns. Using these feasible patterns the initial RMLP is solved.
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 1 (Initialization). Set upper bound UB=$+\infty$, lower bound LB=$-\infty$, objective function value for the pricing problem, $\pi(t) = 0 , \forall t \in T$, $\epsilon >0 $ as tolerance, and let $\hat{x^t_{p(t)}}$ be the solution for RMP. A node $n$ will represent an instance of RMP, RMP-Obj($n$) represents objective value for RMP for the node $n$, $\Gamma$ represents a list with nodes, and a root node $n_0$ is formed based on IFS be added to $\Gamma$. \\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 2 (Solve pricing problem). For every $t \in T$, the objective function of the pricing problem LPGP1$(t)$ is updated based on the dual values of node $n$, and solved as a MIP. Update $\pi(t)$.\\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 3 (Subproblem selection). If $\pi(t) \geq 0, \forall t \in T$, then goto Step 6. Otherwise, select a subproblem LPGP1$(t')$ such that $t' = \argmin_{t} \{\pi(t)\}$, and add the columns based on the solution of LPGP1($t'$) to $\bar{P(t)}$ for the node $n$. This choice of subproblem is called best-first policy. \\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 4 (Solve Master Problem and Branching.) Set the current node as $n$, then solve RMP for node $n$ and update the dual values. If there is any $\hat{x^t_{p(t)}} \notin \mathbb{Z} \, \, \, \, \forall \, \, t \in T, \, \, p(t) \in \bar{P(t)}$ and LB < RMP-Obj($n$), then choose create two nodes $n_1$ and $n_2$ and copy all the information for the nodes from the node $n$. Choose a variable $x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*}$ such that $\argmax_{t^*,p(t)^*} \{\lvert \hat{x^t_{p(t)}} -1 \rvert : \hat{x^t_{p(t)}} \notin \mathbb{Z}\} $. Add the following constraints $x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} \leq \lfloor\hat{x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*}} \rfloor$ and $x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*} \geq \lceil \hat{x^{t^*}_{p(t)^*}} \rceil $ to the nodes $n_1$ and $n_2$, respectively. Add the nodes to the list $\Gamma$. Set LB = RMP-Obj($n$). If $\hat{x^t_{p(t)}} \in \mathbb{Z} \, \, \, \, \forall \, \, t \in T, \, \, p(t) \in \bar{P(t)}$ and UB > RMP-Obj($n$), then store the solution $\hat{x^t_{p(t)}}$ and set UB = RMP-Obj($n$).\\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 5 (Node Fathoming.) Remove any node $n^*$ from the list $\Gamma$ such that RMP-Obj($n^*$) $<$ LB or RMP-Obj($n^*$) $>$ UB. \\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 6 (Stop Criterion.) If $\Gamma = \phi $ or UB-LB $\leq \epsilon$ or $\pi(t) \geq 0, \forall t \in T$, then Stop. Otherwise, use depth-first criterion to choose a node and set the node as $n$ and go to Step 2. \\
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 1 (Initialization). Set the iteration count $\mathcal C \gets1$ and the initial upper bound $\bar{\gamma}$ on the optimal objective as $+\infty$. The initial RLMP is formed with using a limited subset of feasible patterns which is generated by an initial feasible heuristic. The initial RMLP is solved repeatedly by adding better columns generated using the optimal dual variables. Better columns are generated by solving the pricing subproblem using the dual variables. The pricing subproblem generates feasible load patterns (columns) and adds them to the initial set of feasible patterns in the RMLP. After the initial RMLP converges to its optimum, it is inserted in a list $\pi$. \\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 2 (Termination check and subproblem selection). If the list $\pi$ is empty, then stop. Otherwise, select a subproblem from the list with the lowest objective value. This choice of subproblem is called best-first policy. \\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 3 (Subproblem solution). Solve the selected subproblem using column generation \emph{i.e.}, solve the pricing problem to generate feasible patterns using the optimal dual variables and resolve the subproblem. This procedure is repeated till optimal solution to the subproblem is computed. Set $\mathcal C\gets \mathcal C + 1$. Let $\gamma$ be the solution objective value. If $\gamma \geq \bar \gamma$, then go to S\textlcsc{tep} 2. Otherwise, if the solution is feasible for the master problem, set $\bar \gamma \gets \gamma$ and go to S\textlcsc{tep} 2. \\
\noindent S\textlcsc{tep} 4 (Branching.) Create two subproblems by branching on a fractional variable. Then insert both the subproblems in the list $\pi$ and go to S\textlcsc{tep} 2. \\
In S\textlcsc{tep} 1 we use the following heuristic to generate an initial set of feasible loads: we solve the pricing problem for arbitrary values of dual variables. We repeat this process for different sets of dual variable values until we have generate sufficient number of feasible loading patterns. Using these feasible patterns the initial RMLP is solved.
\end{comment}
\section{Computational Results\label{sec:compres}}
In this section, we present the computational results of B\&P algorithm for the loading problem. Solution method for routing problem is predominantly based on well known Lin-Kernighan heuristic. Hence, we omit the computational study for the routing problem. The objectives of the computational study for the B\&P algorithm are \textit{(i)} test the efficacy of the procedure using real world instances \textit{(ii)} benchmark the performance against a holistic model, and \textit{(iii)} evaluate the solution quality based on the allowed number of reloads and intensity of demand for a location.
\subsection{Computational platform\label{sec:cp}}
The algorithm was implemented in Java, and CPLEX 12.6 was used to solve the linear RMP and integer pricing programs. Tree enumeration and column management were implemented using the Java collection library. All the computational runs were performed on an ACPI x64 machine (Intel Xeon E5630 processor @ 2.54 GHz, 12 GB RAM). The computation times reported are expressed in seconds, and we imposed a time limit of 7,200 seconds. The performance of the algorithm was tested on two different classes of test instances which are derived from real world data. The results from B\&P are benchmarked with the holistic EP model. The computational results for the EP model are reported.
\subsection{Instance generation\label{sec:ig}}
We generated two classes of test instances, A and B. The classes differ in the total number of destinations, \emph{i.e.}, dealers' locations. The solution for the loading problem depends on the number and types of vehicles, and the order of route sequence for a dealer location. Hence, we created two types of demand for dealer locations, high and low number of vehicles per location. Class A instances are low demand instances where $|S|\in \{15, 20, 25\}$, and class B instances are high demand instances with $|S| \in \{5,7,10\}$. In reality, class B represents city loads, few dealer locations with high demand for each of them, and class A represents non-city loads with less volume for high number of locations. For both the classes, the number of vehicles $|V|$ takes a value in the set $\{100, 200, 400 , 600\}$, and a total of $28$ different vehicle types were considered, \emph{i.e.}, the vehicles in the set $V$ consists of $28$ different vehicle types. Table \ref{tab:dims} represents the number of truck, sedan, and hatchback within each of the vehicle set. Accurate dimensions and weight of each vehicle type were obtained from OEMs, and other third party providers. Specifications for the auto-carrier like ramp lengths, maximum allowable slide angle, split ramps, and heights for each auto-carrier type were obtained from their computer-aided-design (CAD) drawings. Based on the available dimensions, the derived parameters used in LDP($t$) formulation are computed using trigonometry and force balance equations (see Appendix). The maximum number of allowable violations, ($\text{v}^t_{max}$) is a user parameter. We performed a computational study with $\text{v}^t_{max} \in \{0,2,4\}$. When $\text{v}^t_{max}$ takes a value $0$, a LIFO policy is imposed. We created $36$ class A and B instances. For the results tables, the column headings are defined as follows, `Name' is the instance name, `$|V|$' is the number of vehicles, `$|S|$' is the number of dealers' locations, `$\text{v}^t_{max}$' is the maximum number of allowable violations, `opt' is the optimal objective value (total number of loads), `LR' is the load efficiency ratio, and `EP \%' is the final relative mixed-integer programming (MIP) gap reported by CPLEX from the holistic model EP1 after the stipulated runtime. Apart from PPL, another metric useful to examine the efficiency of a load is the ratio between the number of vehicles $|V|$ and number of auto-carriers used for loading (`opt' column) denoted by load efficiency ratio ($LR$). For the computational study, we used an auto-carrier type with nine ramps. The reason is to allow us to a make a comparison of performance of algorithm with respect to different classes of instances and EP1. However, as denoted by the formulation, the methodology can be used by auto-carrier with different capabilities and capacities. Furthermore, the vehicles for each dealer location are randomly assigned. For EP1 model, the number of available auto-carriers is given as $|V|/6$, i.e., a $LR$ of 6 is used. In the tables \ref{tab:resultsA} and \ref{tab:resultsB}, the higher MIP gap \% for the instances in classes A \& B using EP1 formulation indicates the necessity of a decomposition algorithm for ATP.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$|S|$ & Truck & Sedan & Hatchback \\
\hline
100 & 33 & 31 & 36 \\
200 & 80 & 73 & 47 \\
400 & 251 & 70 & 79 \\
600 & 261 & 222 & 117 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Distribution of Vehicle Types}
\label{tab:dims}
\end{table}
\subsection{Tests with Class A\label{sec:classa}}
Table \ref{tab:resultsA} summarizes the computational behavior of B\&P algorithm on class A instances. In this class the number of vehicles for each dealer location is less compared to the other class. For instance with a demand of less than or equal to 200 vehicles, the performance of the algorithm is very impressive. The holistic model was not able to generate a feasible solution for instances with 400 or more vehicles. Since the number of vehicles for a location is less (for A-100-15 with $|S|$ = 15, each location's demand is 6 to 7 vehicles on an average), B\&P algorithm uses the advantage of reloads well. The change in number of auto-carriers for instances having 600 vehicles with and without using reloads is around five to six auto-carriers. Also in general, with an increase in the percentage of trucks for an instance, $LR$ reduces as there are more number of exclusions during the formation of the set $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R,J,V,L,M)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{ReloadSA.pdf}
\caption{Advantage of reloads with class A instances}
\label{fig:reloadA}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:reloadA} depicts the advantage of using reloads for class A instances, and the advantage increases with the increase in the number of vehicles for the instances. With more number of vehicles, B\&P approach had more opportunities to shuffle the vehicle-ramp assignment. Also, there is no pattern in terms of runtime with respect to a change in $\text{v}^t_{max}$, however runs with higher reloads were generally faster.
\subsection{Tests with Class B\label{sec:classb}}
Table \ref{tab:resultsB} summarizes the computational behavior of B\&P algorithm on class B instances. Only instance B-100-5 with LIFO was able to reach optimality with EP1 formulation. In class B, we noticed that the number of required auto-carriers did not significantly reduced with the increase in the number of allowed reloading. This is due to the reason that with a large volume of vehicles for each dealer's location, the loading problem was able to generate loads without utilizing the advantage of reloading. However, in class A due to the high number of dealers' locations for each instance, the number of vehicles for each location is low. Hence, the algorithm needed the allowance from reloading to reduce the total number of auto-carriers required for delivery. The high `$LR$' for class B also indicates the needlessness for a reload allowance as each location has a high demand for vehicles. This gives the opportunity for B\&P to build loads exclusively to a single dealer location. Also, class B instances had much better runtime than class A instances.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip0.15cm}
Name & $|V|$ & $|S|$ & $\text{v}^t_{max}$ & Time & opt & $LR$ & EP\% \tabularnewline[0.15cm]
\hline
\noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
\noalign{\vskip0.1cm}
A-100-15 & 100 & 15 & 0 & 144 & 13 & 7.69 & 20.63\tabularnewline
A-100-15 & 100 & 15 & 2 & 592 & 12 & 8.33 & 34.64\tabularnewline
A-100-15 & 100 & 15 & 4 & 175 & 12 & 8.33 & 30.56\tabularnewline
A-100-20 & 100 & 20 & 0 & 145 & 14 & 7.14 & 14.53\tabularnewline
A-100-20 & 100 & 20 & 2 & 199 & 12 & 8.33 & 38.27\tabularnewline
A-100-20 & 100 & 20 & 4 & 377 & 12 & 8.33 & 25.93\tabularnewline
A-100-25 & 100 & 25 & 0 & 279 & 14 & 7.14 & 25.93\tabularnewline
A-100-25 & 100 & 25 & 2 & 253 & 12 & 8.33 & 30.56\tabularnewline
A-100-25 & 100 & 25 & 4 & 337 & 12 & 8.33 & 32.66\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 277 & & 7.99 & 28.19\tabularnewline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{} \tabularnewline
A-200-15 & 200 & 15 & 0 & 3,756 & 30 & 6.66 & 44.44\tabularnewline
A-200-15 & 200 & 15 & 2 & 1,747 & 28 & 7.14 & 56.43\tabularnewline
A-200-15 & 200 & 15 & 4 & 969 & 27 & 7.40 & --\tabularnewline
A-200-20 & 200 & 20 & 0 & 1,903 & 29 & 6.89 & 45.80\tabularnewline
A-200-20 & 200 & 20 & 2 & 1,790 & 28 & 7.14 & 50.06\tabularnewline
A-200-20 & 200 & 20 & 4 & 896 & 27 & 7.40 & 51.69\tabularnewline
A-200-25 & 200 & 25 & 0 & 1,274 & 29 & 6.89 & 50.62\tabularnewline
A-200-25 & 200 & 25 & 2 & 1,976 & 28 & 7.14 & 56.43\tabularnewline
A-200-25 & 200 & 25 & 4 & 1,127 & 26 & 7.69 & --\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 1,715 & & 7.15 & 50.78\tabularnewline
\hline \tabularnewline
\end{tabular} \qquad
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip0.15cm}
Name & $|V|$ & $|S|$ & $\text{v}^t_{max}$ & Time & opt & $LR$ & EP\%\tabularnewline[0.15cm]
\hline
\noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
\noalign{\vskip0.1cm}
A-400-15 & 400 & 15 & 0 & 1,872 & 64 & 6.25 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-15 & 400 & 15 & 2 & 4,102 & 53 & 7.54 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-15 & 400 & 15 & 4 & 1,288 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-20 & 400 & 20 & 0 & 6,999 & 54 & 7.40 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-20 & 400 & 20 & 2 & 7,200 & 53 & 7.54 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-20 & 400 & 20 & 4 & 2,957 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-25 & 400 & 25 & 0 & 3,692 & 54 & 7.40 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-25 & 400 & 25 & 2 & 7,200 & 52 & 7.69 & --\tabularnewline
A-400-25 & 400 & 25 & 4 & 4,581 & 50 & 8.00 & --\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 4,587 & & 7.57 & --\tabularnewline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{} \tabularnewline
A-600-15 & 600 & 15 & 0 & 6,230 & 78 & 7.69 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-15 & 600 & 15 & 2 & 6,834 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-15 & 600 & 15 & 4 & 5,878 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-20 & 600 & 20 & 0 & 6,935 & 79 & 7.59 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-20 & 600 & 20 & 2 & 6,633 & 78 & 7.69 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-20 & 600 & 20 & 4 & 2,826 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-25 & 600 & 25 & 0 & 7,063 & 80 & 7.50 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-25 & 600 & 25 & 2 & 3,580 & 74 & 8.10 & --\tabularnewline
A-600-25 & 600 & 25 & 4 & 2,905 & 74 & 8.10 & --\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 5,884 & & 7.92 & --\tabularnewline[0.1cm]
\hline \tabularnewline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Computational results for Class A}
\label{tab:resultsA}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip0.15cm}
Name & $|V|$ & $|S|$ & $\text{v}^t_{max}$ & Time & opt & $LR$ & EP\% \tabularnewline[0.15cm]
\hline
\noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
\noalign{\vskip0.1cm}
B-100-5 & 100 & 5 & 0 & 42 & 12 & 8.33 & 0.00\tabularnewline
B-100-5 & 100 & 5 & 2 & 41 & 12 & 8.33 & 39.94\tabularnewline
B-100-5 & 100 & 5 & 4 & 46 & 12 & 8.33 & 23.37\tabularnewline
B-100-7 & 100 & 7 & 0 & 41 & 13 & 7.69 & 14.53\tabularnewline
B-100-7 & 100 & 7 & 2 & 47 & 12 & 8.33 & 14.53\tabularnewline
B-100-7 & 100 & 7 & 4 & 94 & 12 & 8.33 & 34.64\tabularnewline
B-100-10 & 100 & 10 & 0 & 226 & 13 & 7.69 & 14.53\tabularnewline
B-100-10 & 100 & 10 & 2 & 72 & 13 & 7.69 & 20.63\tabularnewline
B-100-10 & 100 & 10 & 4 & 70 & 13 & 7.69 & 25.93\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 75 & & 8.04 & 23.53\tabularnewline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{} \tabularnewline
B-200-5 & 200 & 5 & 0 & 190 & 24 & 8.33 & 38.27\tabularnewline
B-200-5 & 200 & 5 & 2 & 284 & 24 & 8.33 & 52.72\tabularnewline
B-200-5 & 200 & 5 & 4 & 273 & 24 & 8.33 & 38.27\tabularnewline
B-200-7 & 200 & 7 & 0 & 282 & 24 & 8.33 & 36.51\tabularnewline
B-200-7 & 200 & 7 & 2 & 377 & 24 & 8.33 & 50.06\tabularnewline
B-200-7 & 200 & 7 & 4 & 712 & 24 & 8.33 & 54.18\tabularnewline
B-200-10 & 200 & 10 & 0 & 663 & 24 & 8.33 & 32.66\tabularnewline
B-200-10 & 200 & 10 & 2 & 456 & 24 & 8.33 & --\tabularnewline
B-200-10 & 200 & 10 & 4 & 477 & 24 & 8.33 & 48.32\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 412 & & 8.33 & 43.87\tabularnewline
\hline \tabularnewline
\end{tabular} \qquad
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip0.15cm}
Name & $|V|$ & $|S|$ & $\text{v}^t_{max}$ & Time & opt & $LR$ & EP\%\tabularnewline[0.15cm]
\hline
\noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
\noalign{\vskip0.1cm}
B-400-5 & 400 & 5 & 0 & 791 & 50 & 8.00 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-5 & 400 & 5 & 2 & 804 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-5 & 400 & 5 & 4 & 586 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-7 & 400 & 7 & 0 & 703 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-7 & 400 & 7 & 2 & 1,191 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-7 & 400 & 7 & 4 & 1,464 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-10 & 400 & 10 & 0 & 749 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-10 & 400 & 10 & 2 & 1,429 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
B-400-10 & 400 & 10 & 4 & 1,277 & 49 & 8.16 & --\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 999 & & 8.14 & --\tabularnewline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{} \tabularnewline
B-600-5 & 600 & 5 & 0 & 1,852 & 74 & 8.11 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-5 & 600 & 5 & 2 & 1,745 & 74 & 8.11 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-5 & 600 & 5 & 4 & 2,392 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-7 & 600 & 7 & 0 & 1,434 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-7 & 600 & 7 & 2 & 2,693 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-7 & 600 & 7 & 4 & 2,918 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-10 & 600 & 10 & 0 & 1,835 & 74 & 8.11 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-10 & 600 & 10 & 2 & 3,157 & 73 & 8.21 & --\tabularnewline
B-600-10 & 600 & 10 & 4 & 2,716 & 74 & 8.11 & --\tabularnewline
Avg & & & & 2,304 & & 8.17 & --\tabularnewline[0.1cm]
\hline \tabularnewline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Computational results for Class B}
\label{tab:resultsB}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:Conclusion}
Auto-carrier test transportation problem (ATP) addresses the challenges of optimal movement of vehicles from the auto-manufacturers to dealers' locations using auto-carriers. The two main components of ATP are routing and loading. Routing details the routes for the auto-carriers and loading suggests on how to load the individual vehicles in an auto-carrier. We present a heuristic for the routing problem, and depending on the routes generated, we provide an exact algorithm based on branch-and-price (B\&P) approach to solve auto-carrier loading problem. In most of the current practices for the loading problem, disjunctions for an assignment or numerical coefficients based on past experience are used for modeling purposes. In this work, we use actual dimensions of the vehicles for the loading problem, hence this work can be adopted for any generic vehicles without a reliance on the past data or previous experience to derive the numerical coefficients. Also, we relax the last-in-first-out (LIFO) policy during loading so the solution presents the trade-off in resource utilization and the number of reloads. The B\&P method for loading problem is tested with instances created from real-world data, and the efficiency of the model is evaluated with a holistic model using extensive computational experiments. For the loading problem, B\&P method outperforms holistic model in the computational experiments, and large scale instances are solved within two hours time limit.
Future work include using routing problem along with loading in the B\&P framework. Future work include using routing problem along with loading in the B\&P framework. Multi-depot fuel constrained multiple vehicle routing problem introduced in \cite{sundar2015formulations} and \cite{sundar2016exact} could be appropriate. Another challenge faced by the logistics companies is capacity planning for auto-carriers, since auto-carriers are expensive assets. Given the stochastic nature of demand for the vehicles, the loading problem can be extended to a stochastic setting for capacity planning. From a computational perspective, the pricing problem can be solved independently so an implementation capable of solving pricing problems in parallel should also be evaluated.
\section*{Appendix}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{A}
\subsection{Calculation of effective weights at the steer, drive and tandem axle for a given configuration}
Given a configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R(t)\cup R^c_{\mathcal{SP}}(t),J,V,L,M)$ for an auto-carrier of type $t$, the effective weights acting at the steer, drive, and the tandem axles of the auto-carrier are calculated using force balance and moment balance equations. For the calculation of the effective weights at the three axles for a given configuration, the following assumptions are made.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We ignore the slide angles $L$, \emph{i.e.}, we calculate the weights assuming all the ramps are perfectly horizontal.
\item When a vehicle is loaded on a ramp, the force due to the entire weight of the vehicle acts at a point on the ground that is vertically below the geometric center of the ramp.
\item In case of a split ramp, \emph{i.e.}, one vehicle loaded on two ramps, the force acts at a point on the ground vertically below the geometric center of the combined ramp.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{weightcalc}
\caption{Free-body diagram for an auto-carrier.}
\label{fig:weight}
\end{figure}
The lengths, geometric center locations, and the distance from geometric center for the ramps to every axle are obtained from the auto-carrier's CAD drawings. Figure \ref{fig:weight} shows the free-body diagram. The force due to the weight of each vehicle in a given configuration acts at points which are vertically below their corresponding geometric center on the ground. Let $w_i$ denotes the force due to the weight of the vehicle loaded on the ramp $i$ (note that $i$ can also denote a split ramp, as is the case of $w_{\{4,5\}}$). The unknown reaction forces at steer, drive, and tandem axles are indicated by $w^{\text{steer}}(\alpha)$, $w^{\text{drive}}(\alpha)$, and $w^{\text{tandem}}(\alpha)$, respectively. The lengths $l_k$ ($k=1,\dots,7$) are known parameters. The force balance equation for the set of forces is given by \[ w^{\text{steer}}(\alpha) + w^{\text{drive}}(\alpha) + w^{\text{tandem}}(\alpha) = w_1 + w_2 + w_3 + w_{\{4,5\}} + w_6 + w_7 + w_8 + w_9. \] The moment balance principle states that the sum of the clockwise moments about a given point is equal to the sum of the anti-clockwise moments about the same point. The moment balance equation about the point at which the reaction force $w^{\text{drive}}(\alpha)$ acts is given by
\[l_1 \cdot w^{\text{steer}}(\alpha) + l_3 \cdot w_7 + l_4 \cdot w_{\{4,5\}} + (l_4+l_5)\cdot w_8 + (l_4+l_5+l_7)\cdot (w_6+w_9) = l_1\cdot w_1 + (l_4 + l_5 + l_6)\cdot w^{\text{tandem}}(\alpha). \] Similarly, moment balance equations for $w^{\text{steer}}(\alpha)$ and $w^{\text{tandem}}(\alpha)$ can be derived. The system of equations are then solved to compute the unknown reaction forces, \emph{i.e.}, $w^{\text{steer}}(\alpha)$, $w^{\text{drive}}(\alpha)$, and $w^{\text{tandem}}(\alpha)$.
\subsection{Calculation of height parameters for a given configuration in an auto-carrier}
Given a configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R,J,V,L,M)$ where $R \in R_{\mathcal{U}}(t)$, \emph{i.e.}, a configuration for a ramp in the upper deck, we detail the procedure to calculate $h_{\text{upper}}^{\text{gain}}(\alpha)$. Any ramp in the auto-carrier of type $t$ can slide within a maximum allowable slide angle about its pivot. A ramp can have pivots at both its ends. The configuration $\alpha$ specifies a slide angle, a loaded vehicle and the direction of slide. The direction of slide specifies the pivot of rotation. For instance, consider the ramp shown in Figure \ref{fig:height} where $h$ is the maximum height of the loaded vehicle on the ramp, and $l$ is the distance from the pivot to the point on the ramp where the vehicle attains this maximum height. Both these values can be computed with the knowledge of the vehicle and ramp dimensions. Now, if the slide angle is $\phi$, then the gain in height produced by sliding the ramp is computed approximately as $l \sin \phi \approx l \phi$ for small angles $\phi$. Hence $h_{\text{upper}}^{\text{gain}}(\alpha) \approx l \phi.$
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{heightappendix}
\caption{Height parameter calculation for a given configuration.}
\label{fig:height}
\end{figure}
Now, we detail the procedure to compute $h_{\text{lower}}^{\text{max}}(\alpha)$ for a configuration $\alpha \in \boldsymbol{\alpha}^t(R,J,V,L,M)$ where $R \in R_{\mathcal{L}}(t)$. Suppose $i$ and $\phi$ denote the ramp and its angle of slide in the configuration $\alpha$, respectively, then the parameter $h_{\text{lower}}^{\text{max}}(\alpha)$ is the maximum slide for the ramp vertically above the ramp $i$, based on the vehicle in the ramp $i$ and the slide angle $\ell$. Then, $h_{\text{lower}}^{\text{max}}(\alpha) = (l \phi + h - X)$ as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:height}.
\subsection{Selection of dealers' locations for route sequence}
Routing heuristic helps the planner to choose the set of dealers' locations near the destination $d$. The planner chooses the destination dealer $d$, viewing angle $\varphi$, and offset distance $\nu$, based on which a polygon is constructed, and then Lin-Kernighan heuristic is used to determine the route sequence for the vehicles to be delivered.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{polygon.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of Routing heuristics.}
\label{fig:map}
\end{figure}
Let $s$ be the ALC's distribution center, $d$ be the target dealer location, $\varphi$ is the viewing angle, `$lat$' and `$lon$' represent latitude and longitude in radian unit of measure for a location, respectively. Also, $\sin$, $\cos$, $\rm atan2$, $\rm asin$ represent sine, cosine, arctangent, and inverse sine trigonometric functions, respectively. Let $\bar{y}$ be given as \[ \bar{y} = \sin(d_{lon}-s_{lon}).\cos(d_{lat}), \] and $\bar{x}$ is given as, \[ \bar{x} = \cos(s_{lat}).\sin(d_{lat})- \sin(s_{lat}).\cos(d_{lat}).\cos(d_{lon}-s_{lon}). \] Then, the bearing angles $\theta$ is given as, $\theta = \rm atan2(y,x)$. The distance $di$ between $s$ and $d$ is calculated using the Haversine formula given as follows, \[ a = \sin((d_{lat}-s_{lat})/2).\sin((d_{lat}-s_{lat})/2) + \sin((d_{lon}-s_{lon})/2).\sin((d_{lon}-s_{lon})/2)*\cos(s_{lat})*\cos(d_{lat}), \]
\[ c = 2.\rm atan2(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{1-a}). \] Then, the distance $di$ is given as $di = R.c$, where $R$ is the diameter of earth, a value of 6,371 kilometers is used. Using the values $di$ and $\theta$, the latitude and longitude for the three extreme points of polygon $\chi$ are calculated. Let $C$, $L$, and $R$ be the center, left, and right extreme points of the polygon $\chi$, respectively. The fourth extreme point is the distribution center $s$. The angle values of $\theta$, $\theta + \varphi /2$, and $\theta - \varphi /2$ represent the bearing angle for $C$, $L$, and $R$, respectively. Then the latitude and longitude for $C$ is calculated as \[ C_{lat} = {\rm{asin}} (\sin(s_{lat}.\cos(K/R) + \cos(s_{lat}).\sin(K/R).\cos(\theta)) \] and \[ C_{lon} = s_{lon} + {\rm{atan2}}(\sin(\theta).\sin(K/R).\cos(s_{lat}),\cos(K/R)-\sin(s_{lat}).\sin(C_{lat})), \] where $K=(di + \nu)/R$. Similarly, $L_{lat}$ and $L_{lon}$ can be determined using $\theta + \varphi /2$ instead of $\theta$, $R_{lat}$ and $R_{lon}$ can be determined using $\theta - \varphi /2$ instead of $\theta$ in the above formula. For calculating $L_{lat}$, $L_{lon}$, $R_{lat}$, and $R_{lon}$, we use $K=di/R$. Once we construct a polygon $\chi$ using the latitudes and longitudes of $C$, $L$, $R$, and $s$, the set of dealers' locations $S$ within the polygon $\chi$ is determined. The details of Haversine formula are given in \cite{Rick1999}.
|
\section{Context}
\label{sec:intro}
Volcanic hazard assessment and risk mitigation are two very important scientific subjects with heavy implications both on the population safety and economic development \cite{brown2015}. Anticipating future activity of volcanoes requires monitoring of their activity as well as information on their past-behaviour and their internal structure. Several geophysical methods are usually used to study the inner structure of volcanoes: electrical resistivity tomography\cite{revil2008}, gravimetry, that gives access to the density\cite{li1998, gailler2009}, magnetic survey, that images the local variations of the magnetic field induced by rocks\cite{gailler2012} or seismic tomography, that uses seismic velocity\cite{lees2007}.
These methods are rather complex to interpret and sometimes, as in the case of electrical resistivity and gravimetry tomographies, the measurements need to be performed on the volcano itself, that is in a high risk area in case of active volcanoes. Moreover, they have low sensitivity to large depths and the inverse problem is often ill-posed.
Imaging with atmospheric muons\cite{alvarez1970, nagamine1995}, referred to as muography in the following, was recently made possible by the development of reasonably priced, large area, high efficiency and high precision muon trackers\cite{tanaka2007, marteau2012, fehr2012, tanaka2014}.
Muography principle is the same as for radiography: the measurement of the absorption of a radiation through a target will give access to its transmittance image and its integrated density. Atmospheric muons are used here as they are naturally produced with a broad energy spectrum and can cross kilometers of rock before being stopped. This method is complementary to the other geophysical methods and offers clear advantages: it is a remote imaging, so the risk area can be avoided, it has a good spatial resolution and a well-defined inverse problem, at least in two dimensions. On the other hand muography suffers from the fact that high-energy muons are rare. This has a direct implication on the size of the detector to be used ($S_{det}$) and the duration of the campaigns ($\Delta T$). Indeed if a high resolution on density measurement is wanted, a high exposure ($S_{det}\times \Delta T \times\Delta\Omega$) will be needed (where $\Delta\Omega$ is the solid angle for viewing the target).
In order to evaluate the feasability of muographic measurements, the TOMUVOL collaboration performed several data taking campaigns on the Puy de D\^ome volcano, an averaged sized volcano, 2~km wide at the base, shown in figure~\ref{fig:PDD}. Assuming an average density of 1.8 g.cm$^{-3}$, as suggested by field and gravimetric measurements, the necessary exposure to measure the average density through muography with a 5~\% uncertainty is represented in figure~\ref{fig:expAelec} (left) as a function of elevation and azimuth. For example, a 5~\% uncertainty on density from an exposure of 1000~deg$^2.$m$^2.$day with a 1~m$^2$ detector can be achieved in one day for an angular resolution of 1000~deg$^2$, or in 1000 days for an angular resolution of 1~deg$^2$. The final result will be a compromise between the density resolution and the angular resolution, that will depend on the geophysical goal.
The TOMUVOL experiment takes place in this context: it is a proof of principle for imaging volcanoes with atmospheric muons using the Puy de D\^ome volcano, in the French Massif Central. It makes use of Glass Resistive Plate Chambers (GRPC) as they offer a large area for a reasonable price while providing highly segmented data. Three different campaigns have been recorded in two distinct locations: TDF 2013 and Col de Ceyssat in 2014-15 and 2015-16, as shown on figure~\ref{fig:PDD}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sitesTomuvol.pdf}
\caption{The Puy de D\^ome volcano and the locations where the detector has been deployed between 2011 and 2016.}
\label{fig:PDD}
\end{figure}
\section{TOMUVOL detector}
The TOMUVOL detector is made of four layers of about 1~m$^2$, made of six GRPCs each. The chambers were built following the CALICE SDHCAL GRPCs\cite{beaulieu2015} design at IPNL\footnote{Institut de Physique Nucl\'eaire de Lyon, CNRS, Lyon 1}. Each GRPC is $50\times 33$~cm$^2$, in order to fit the geometry of CALICE's PCBs. The two glass electrodes are made of float glass 1.1~mm thick. The 1.2~mm gas gap is filled with 93~\% of TFE, 5.5~\% of isobutane and 1.5~\% of SF$_6$. The nominal high voltage is about 7.5~kV at normal pressure and temperature. It is corrected in real-time for $P/T$ variations.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{exposure-5pc-CDC.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[trim=7cm 7cm 1cm 0cm, clip, width=0.45\textwidth]{DAQ.pdf}
\caption{Left: exposure in order to get 5~\% uncertainty on the measured density. Right: schema of the TOMUVOL electronics.}
\label{fig:expAelec}
\end{figure}
The GRPCs are read via pads of 1~cm$^2$, i.e. about 40000~pads in total, using low consumption ASICs (1.5~mW/channel when running continuously \cite{callier2014}) from Omega\footnote{Omega, CNRS, Palaiseau}, with 64~channels, semi-digital readout, following the SDHCAL design. The power budget is an important parameter for a telescope to be deployed on volcanoes : even in the rare cases when line power access exists, the available power is generally limited. The front end electronics is one DIF board from LAPP\footnote{Laboratoire d'Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules, Annecy} per chamber that also transmits the synchronous clock at 5~MHz, as represented on figure~\ref{fig:expAelec} (right). The detector is auto-triggered.
Slow control is performed via a PLC monitoring gas, low and high voltages and environmental conditions. It is remotely monitored from a web interface.
\section{Performances of the TOMUVOL detector}
Being placed in-situ the TOMUVOL detector performances do vary with the atmospheric conditions. A dedicated study of the gain as a function of the environmental conditions was not yet performed. As a first approach, we followed the recipe suggested in \cite{gonzalez2005}, so high voltage is corrected for pressure over temperature variations through
\begin{equation*}
HV_{eff} = HV \times f_{corr} \qquad \mathrm{with} \qquad f_{corr} = \frac{P}{P_{ref}}\frac{T_{ref}}{T} \qquad(P_{ref} = 1.013\ \mathrm{hPa}, T_{ref} = 293.15\ \mathrm{K})
\end{equation*}
but we observe some remaining correlation with temperature. They can be seen on figure~\ref{fig:correlTemp}, where noise and dead time are represented versus temperature. It has to be stressed that in our case the data aquisition is limited by the USB protocol used for reading the front-end boards, that means that dead time is increasing when noise is increasing.\\
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.565\textwidth]{difrvst.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{dtvstemp.pdf}
\caption{Mean noise (left) and dead time (right) in function of the temperature for the Col de Ceyssat campaign between December 10, 2015 and January 3, 2016.}
\label{fig:correlTemp}
\end{figure}
Efficiency is one of the most important parameters in our case as a bias in this quantity will directly influence the muon flux estimation. It is calculated from the ratio of 3-layers tracks with an additional signal in the 4th layer matched to the track over the 3-layers tracks. Prior to the deployment, the chambers are tested in the laboratory. Since the thresholds are set globally for the 64 ASIC channels, the thresholds are scanned by making the efficiency versus high voltage and noise versus high voltage curves for each ASIC. Then a working HV point is defined for each chamber, as well as threshold values for each ASIC such as to maximise the efficiency while keeping the noise at an acceptable level. We aim to get a stable detector, which was the case during the TDF campaign from November 2013 to January 2014, as represented on figure~\ref{fig:effRateTDF2013} (left). Chambers from the first layer (in black) and from the last layer (in blue) look less efficient. This is mainly due to a geometrical effect as they are the two outside layers and give more constrain on the reconstructed direction of the track.\\
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{effStabVsTime.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TDF2013_lltrackRateVsTime.pdf}
\caption{Efficiency (left) and rate (right) stabilities during the TDF campaign, from November 2013 to January 2014. On the efficiency plot, layer 1 is represented in black, layer 2 in red, layer 3 in green and layer 4 in blue.}
\label{fig:effRateTDF2013}
\end{figure}
The rate stability is represented on figure~\ref{fig:effRateTDF2013} (right) for the campaign at TDF from November 2013 to January 2014. It shows a stablility better than 6~\% after the end of the commissionning phase. The first points correspond to a HV scan.\\
\section{Data analysis}
Using the performances of the detector its effective surface, defined as $S_{det}\times\varepsilon_{geom}\varepsilon_{illum}\varepsilon_{det}\varepsilon_{rec}\varepsilon_{sel}$, is calculated. $\varepsilon_{geom}$ is the geometrical acceptance, $\varepsilon_{illum}$ the illuminance correction factor, $\varepsilon_{det}$ the detector efficiency, $\varepsilon_{rec}$ the reconstruction efficiency and $\varepsilon_{sel}$ the selection efficiency. It is represented in function of the azimuth and the elevation on figure~\ref{fig:effSurfAflux} (left) for the campaign in Col de Ceyssat from October 2015 to February 2016. Our maximum effective surface for that campaign is about 0.4~m$^2$ for a 1~m$^2$ detector.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{area-15_CDC.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{flux-map_15_CDC-highres-730041-731488.png}
\caption{Effective surface (left) and reconstructed flux (right) in function of azimuth and elevation for the campaign in Col de Ceyssat from October 2015 to January 2016.}
\label{fig:effSurfAflux}
\end{figure}
The incoming flux of atmospheric muons is then deduced and also represented on figure \ref{fig:effSurfAflux} (right). The shadow of the volcano can easily be identified on the positive elevations. The free sky in the opposite direction of the volcano is visible at negative elevations but also in the direction of the volcano, e.g. at elevations larger than 20$^\circ$. Statistics is largely lower inside the volcano.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{flux_withexplainations_140416.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{relative-flux.png}
\caption{Reconstructed flux (dots) compared to prediction (left): the grey band corresponds to densities from 1.4~g.cm$^{-3}$ to 2.2~g.cm$^{-3}$; relative agreement between reconstucted flux and prediction for the free sky flux (right).}
\label{fig:fluxComp}
\end{figure}
In order to reduce the statistical fluctuations, the incoming flux of atmospheric muons is represented in figure~\ref{fig:fluxComp} (left) integrated over an azimuth window of 20$^\circ$, centered on the volcano. The flux is then compared to our prediction, coming from a homemade Monte-Carlo code using the energy loss data provided by the Particle Data Group\cite{pdg2014,pdglive} and the parametrisation of the atmospheric flux spectrum provided in \cite{Chirkin2004}. This Monte-Carlo code was extensively tested against reference simulation codes like \textsc{Geant4}\cite{agostinelli2003} or MUM\cite{sokalski2001}. The tests included comparisons in simplified simulation configuration (e.g. survival probabilities after propagation through different materials of muons between MeV and PeV), but also comparisons with a detailed simulation based on \textsc{Geant4} and tailored for our experimental needs. As an example, the relative difference, the relative difference on the rock density predicted with our homemade Monte-Carlo or \textsc{Geant4} 10.01 is less than 0.3~\% after propagating through rock depths up to 10~km. At the same time, the speed gain compared with \textsc{Geant4} when propagating muons through 10~km of rock is $\times$~5000.
On figure~\ref{fig:fluxComp} (left), the density considered for the volcano in our prediction is 1.8~g.cm$^{-3}$, in agreement with the mean density derived from gravimetric data and measured rock samples. The grey area represents the density range of these surveys: 1.4 to 2.2~g.cm$^{-3}$. The relative agreement between prediction and the measured flux in the free sky regions (in the blue areas), shown on figure~\ref{fig:fluxComp} (right), is within 10~\% for the moment. It will be improved in next months, mainly by better understanding and accounting for the detector performance.
\section{Developments and conclusion}
Various improvements are ongoing on our detector. Our goal is to improve the spatial and the temporal resolution by a factor ten by using multi-gap GRPCs. In order to get a more portable detector, easier to use in-situ, we are also working on the reduction of the cost, the electrical consumption and the complexity, using strips for example. A new scheme for gas circulation with new inlets and outlets is also under test, mainly to reduce gas consumption.
The campaigns on Puy de D\^ome showed that GRPCs can be successfully used for muography. GRPCs offer a detector with good time and space resolution for a reasonable price. New detectors, as by example, scintillators using micro-fibers, offer the required spatial resolutions, but the price per unit of instrumented surface is still prohibitive. We are pursuing our studies in order to better understand our telescope and give a quantitative result on the Puy de D\^ome volcano. Some of the major points are the fine understanding of the detector and reconstruction efficiencies. Data analysis is currently ongoing and more quantitative results are expected soon.
\acknowledgments
The TOMUVOL collaboration acknowledges funding from the University Blaise Pascal of Clermont-Ferrand, CNRS, R\'egion Auvergne and Conseil G\'en\'eral du Puy-de-D\^ome and the AIDA 2020 program (grant agreement number 654168). During the data taking campaigns, the TOMUVOL detector was kindly hosted in a building belonging to TDF Rh\^one Auvergne in 2013, thanks to Luc Lecoeuvre, head of the TDF Housing Wealth department. The author of this article was supported by Clervolc Labex program (ANR-10-LAB-0006). This is Clervolc contribution 204.
This is an author-created, un-copyedited version of an article published in JINST {\bf 11} C06009. IOP Publishing Ltd is not responsible for any errors or omissions in this version of the manuscript or any version derived from it. The Version of Record is available online at 10.1088/1748-0221/11/06/C06009.
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1915, Ramanujan \cite{2} introduced \slshape highly composite numbers
\upshape \enskip (HCN) as positive integers $n$ such that $d(m)<d(n)$ for all $m<n.$
(cf. A002182\cite{3}). At the same time, he introduced a more wide sequence of
\slshape largely composite numbers\upshape \enskip (LCN's) as
positive integers $n$ such that $d(m)\leq d(n)$ for all $m<n.$ (cf. A067128\cite{3})
In 1944, P. Erd\H{o}s \cite{1}, strengthening inequality of Ramanujan,
proved that if $n$ is a large HCN
and $n_1$ is the next HCN, then
\begin{equation}\label{1}
n<n_1<n+n(\log n)^{-c},
\end{equation}
where $c>0$ is a constant. This result is equivalent to the following: the number
of HCN's$<=x$ is greater than $(\log x)^{1+c}.$ At the beginning of the article he
writes: "At present I cannot decide whether the number of HCN's not exceeding $x$
is greater than $(\log x)^{\kappa}$ for every $\kappa."$ In this paper, using numerical results by D. A. Cormeth, we show that most likely $c<1,$ or, the same, in the cited Erd\H{o}s'
question, only $\kappa<2.$
\section{Sequence A273379 [3]}
Erdos \cite{1} noted that every HCN is divisible by every prime less than its
greatest prime divisor $p.$ The author with P. J. C. Moses considered
the sequence "LCN's $n$ which are not divisible by all the primes $< p,$ where $p$
is the greatest prime divisor of $n."$ The first few numbers of this sequence are
\begin{equation}\label{2}
3, 10, 20, 84, 168, 336, 504, 660, 672, 3960, 4680, 32760, 42840, ...
\end{equation}
Consider prime power factorization of these terms $\geq10:$
$$2\cdot5,\enskip 2^2\cdot5,\enskip 2^2\cdot3\cdot7,\enskip
2^3\cdot3\cdot7,\enskip 2^4\cdot3\cdot7,\enskip
2^3\cdot3^2\cdot7,\enskip 2^2\cdot3\cdot5\cdot11,\enskip 2^5\cdot3\cdot7,$$
$$2^3\cdot3^2\cdot5\cdot11,\enskip 2^3\cdot3^2\cdot5\cdot13, \enskip2^3\cdot3^2\cdot5\cdot7\cdot13,\enskip 2^3\cdot3^2\cdot5\cdot7\cdot17,...$$
Note that among the first 12 terms $\geq10,$ in ten terms there is missed only one
prime between the greatest prime divisor and the second greatest prime divisor,
while in two terms there missed two primes. D. A. Corneth (A273415\cite{3}) found the
smallest LCN's with
$i$ missed primes between the greatest prime divisor and the second greatest prime
divisor, such that smaller primes all divide the terms, $i=1,2,...,10:$
$$10, 4680, 6585701522400, 193394747145600, 27377180785991836800,$$
$$29378941900252048776672000,
5384823686347760468943298225056000,$$
$$404593694258692410380118300618528000,$$
$$1714431214566179268370439406441900195214656000,$$
\begin{equation}\label{3}
180656647480221782329653424360823828484237888000.
\end{equation}
He asks, whether this sequence is infinite?
\section{Infiniteness of sequence (3)}
Let $n$ be a large HCN. Let its greatest prime divisor be the $k$-th prime number
$p_k,\enskip k=k(n).$ It is known \cite{1}, that $p_k||n.$
\begin{lemma}\label{L1}\cite{1}
\begin{equation}\label{4}
c_1\log n <p_k<c_2\log n.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
By Lemma \ref{L1} and prime number theorem, we have
\begin{equation}\label{5}
k=O(\log n/\log\log n).
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{L2}
Let $n_1$ be the next HCN after $n.$ Then all numbers in the interval $[n, n_1)$
of the form
\begin{equation}\label{6}
np_{k+1}/p_k,...,np_{k+r}/p_k,
\end{equation}
if they exist, are LCN's.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} All numbers (\ref{6}) have the same number of divisors as $n,$ and
between them there is no any HCN, since the smallest $HCN>n$ is $n_1$ which is larger
every number (\ref{6}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{L3}
Let $N$ be a term of sequence $(\ref{3})$ with $r$ missed primes between the greatest
prime divisor $p_{k+r}$ and the second greatest prime
divisor $p_{k-1}$ of $N.$
Then together with $N$ all numbers
$$Np_{k+r-1}/p_{k+r}, Np_{k+r-2}/p_{k+r},...,Np_{k}/p_{k+r}$$
are LCN's (but not HCN's, except for the last number).
\end{lemma}
\newpage
\begin{proof}
Indeed, in the opposite case, between these numbers there is a HCN $\leq N,$ but
since all they, including $N,$ have the same number of divisors, it would contradict
the condition, that $N$ is LCN.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{L3} means that every number of sequence (\ref{3}) is building from an
HCN (which always has not any gap between its prime divisors $2,...,p_k$) by
consecutive multiplication
by $p_{k+1}/p_k, p_{k+2}/p_{k+1},..., p_{k+r}/p_{k+r-1}$ with the possible maximal
$r.$ By (\ref{1}) and (\ref{6}),
$$n<np_{k+r}/p_k<n(1+(\log n)^{-c}).$$
In order to have a real chance to obtain the numbers (\ref{3}), let require
a stronger inequality
\begin{equation}\label{7}
p_{k+r}/p_k<1+\frac{1}{2}(\log n)^{-c}.
\end{equation}
Here $\frac{1}{2}$ could be changed by any smaller positive constant.
Note that (\ref{7}) means that
\begin{equation}\label{8}
(1+o(1))(k+r)\log(k+r)/(k\log k)<1+\frac{1}{2}(\log n)^{-c},
\end{equation}
where, by (\ref{5}), $k=O(\log n/\log\log n).$ Since, for $r<k,$
$\log(k+r)=\log k +\log(1+r/k)=\log k+r/k+O((r/k)^2),$
then $\log(k+r)/\log k=1+O(r/(k\log k).$
So, by (\ref{8}), we see that (\ref{7}) yields
$$1+r/k+O(r/(k\log k))<1+\frac{1}{2}(\log n)^{-c},$$
or
$$r\leq \frac{k}{2(\log n)^c}=O((\log n)^{1-c}/\log\log n).$$ Thus if and only
if $c<1,$ the value of $r$ could be arbitrary large for sufficiently large n.
Moreover, the existence the numbers (\ref{3}) allows to conjecture that, indeed,
$0<c<1.$
|
\section{Introduction}
On the Internet, each message is transmitted in a sequence of packets.
We consider that the packets which are not correctly received are erased.
Hence, the Internet is modeled as the {\it packet erasure channel} (PEC).
The erased packets are re-transmitted by the automatic repeat-request (ARQ) in the case of the transmission control protocol (TCP).
On the other hand, the sender cannot resend the packets in the case of user diagram protocol (UDP), which can be used in multicasting, broadcasting, and unicasting under the large round trip time.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
A search query generates a request for ads to show with search
results. A user's visit to a webpage generates a request to an ad
exchange for page ads. In either case, advertisers are chosen to
participate in an auction that chooses the ad to be shown. Advertisers
often cannot pay for or process all auction requests they are
eligible for, so the requests passed on to them are throttled to meet
their quota constraints.
Auction parameters like reserve prices and throttling schemes can
affect an advertiser's payments and an exchange's revenue, so A/B
experiments are run to test ideas for improving outcomes for
advertisers and the ad exchange. \cite{lucking1999using}
and \cite{einav2011learning} experimented with auction formats,
\cite{reiley2006field} and \cite{ostrovsky2011reserve} experimented
with reserve prices, and \cite{ausubel2013experiment} experimented
with budget constraints.
Usually, A/B experiments are analyzed by assuming that the two
experiment arms, traditionally called treatment and control, are
independent. But, as \cite{blake2014marketplace} explains,
independence fails when the demands of the treatment and control arms
affect each other. Such {\em interference} is unavoidable when some
advertisers in an auction are in treatment and some in
control. \cite{kohavi2009controlled} recognizes that some
randomization schemes can give misleading treatment estimates for
auction experiments. For more insight into interference in other
applications see \cite{halloran1995causal}, \cite{hudgens2012toward},
\cite{rosenbaum2007interference}, \cite{tchetgen2010causal},
\cite{aronow2013estimating}, \cite{eckles2014design}, \cite{athey2015exact} and
\cite{airoldi2012}. Optimal experiment design in the presence of
interference has been explored by \cite{david1996designs},
\cite{eckles2014design} and \cite{walker2014design}.
This paper uses the framework of causal models and interference to
shed light on auction experiments. Section 2 introduces the main
elements of our model:
\begin{enumerate}
\item potential outcomes that describe what each advertiser would bid
if assigned to treatment or if assigned to control,
\item {throttling} algorithms that determine which of the advertisers
{\em eligible} to respond to a request for an ad are called to its auction,
\item {\em bid treatments} that affect what advertisers bid and {\em
throttling treatments} that affect when they are called to bid,
and
\item effects on the total daily payment of an advertiser or the
total daily revenue of the ad exchange.
\end{enumerate}
Section 3 defines two randomization schemes for auction
experiments. In {\em query randomization} each request for an ad is
randomized to treatment or control, so all participants in an auction
are in treatment or all are in control. In {\em (query, advertiser)
randomization}, each advertiser that is eligible for a query is independently
assigned to treatment or control, so treatment bidders and control bidders
can compete in the same auction. With either kind
of randomization, an advertiser can be assigned to treatment for some
queries and to control for others. (Query, advertiser) randomization is
undesirable because it introduces interference, but it may be
unavoidable if only some advertisers are included in an experiment,
perhaps to avoid revealing a possible change in auction algorithms
before it has proven useful. The remainder of the paper explores bias
and variance of estimated effects for bid and throttling treatments
under query and (query, advertiser) randomization.
To establish the ideas, Section 4 shows what can go wrong when
treatment and control bidders compete in the same auction. Section 5
introduces budget (processing or financial) throttling. In {\em Split
quota} experiments each advertiser has separate budgets for
treatment and control queries. In {\em joint quota} experiments the
advertiser draws against the same budget for all its
queries. Simulations in Section 6 suggest that estimated treatment
effects can be severely biased under (query, advertiser) randomization
regardless of whether the budget is split or joint for both bid and
throttling experiments. Estimated treatment effects for throttling
experiments are biased for both query and (query, advertiser) randomization,
but the bias is much smaller for split quota than for joint quota
experiments.
\section{CAUSAL MODELS FOR AUCTIONS}
This section casts auction experiments as causal models in which each
advertiser has two potential bids for each query: the bid that would
be made if the advertiser were assigned to treatment for that query
and the bid if assigned to control. Of course, only one potential bid
can be observed. This section points out further subtleties that
result from advertiser competition and quota throttling.
\subsection{Potential Bids}
To start, suppose there is no throttling, so advertisers bid in all
auctions for which they are eligible. The raw data for a sample of
auctions is then a set of vectors $(q,a,B,Y)$, where $q$ denotes a
query, $a$ an advertiser, $B$ the advertiser's bid, and $Y$ the
advertiser's payment. We consider only auctions like first and second
price auctions in which the payment is positive if the advertiser wins
the auction and zero otherwise. Define $N_q$ to be the number of
unique queries and $N$ the total number of (query, advertiser) pairs,
typically considered over the course of one day.
In an experiment, a (query, advertiser) pair is assigned to either
treatment or control. Let $Z = (Z_1, \ldots, Z_N)$ be the treatment
assignment vector, where $Z_i = 1$ if (query, advertiser) pair $i$ is
assigned to treatment, and $Z_i = 0$ if assigned to control. Following
the potential outcomes framework of \cite{rubin1990po}, each eligible
advertiser for a query has a bid and payment that will be observed if the pair is
assigned to control and a possibly different bid and payment that will
be observed if assigned to treatment. That is, the {\em potential bids} for the $N$
(query, advertiser) pairs are $B(Z) = (B_1(Z), \ldots, B_N(Z)) $ and the
potential payments are $Y(Z) = (Y_1(Z), \ldots, Y_N(Z))$.
An advertiser does not know which other advertisers are eligible for a
query so its bid is independent of all other bids for the query, which
implies that the following assumption given in \cite{rubin1980comment}
holds.
\begin{assumption}[Stable Unit Treatment Value (SUTVA)]
There is only one
version of the treatment and there is no interference in the potential
bids for eligible advertisers in treatment and control.
\end{assumption}\label{sutva}
Because SUTVA holds for bids, the potential bids for all query,
eligible advertiser pairs under treatment $B(\vec{1})$ and under control
$B(\vec{0})$ can be considered separately.
\subsection{Potential payments}
If bidder i's payment is positive, then any other
bidder in the auction pays zero, so a treatment that affects what
advertisers bid can affect the payment for both treatment and control
advertisers. For example, suppose there are three advertisers in an auction
with the
potential bids given in the following table and the winner pays what it bid.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
advertiser & B(1) & B(0) \\
\hline
$b_1$ & 5 & 2 \\
\hline
$b_2$ & 4 & 4 \\
\hline
$b_3$ & 3 & 1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
If all three advertisers participate in the auction and advertiser 2 is the
only one assigned to treatment, then it wins and pays
$Y_2( (0,1,0) ) = 4$. However, if advertiser 1 is also assigned to treatment and
participates in the auction then advertiser 2 loses and pays nothing.
This is an example of interference: the payment of an advertiser is
affected by the assignment of other advertisers in
the auction to treatment and control. Hence, SUTVA does not hold for payments.
We make the following assumption about payments.
\begin{assumption} The potential payment of an advertiser eligible for a query
depends only on its assignment to treatment or control and the
assignments of the other eligible advertisers for the query. That is
\begin{equation}
Y_i(Z) = Y_i(Z_{q[i]})
\end{equation}
where $Z_{q[i]}$ is the subset of the assignment vector $Z$ on (query,
advertiser) pairs for which the query is $q[i]$.
\end{assumption}
We extend this assumption to auctions with quota throttling in
Section 2.3.
The interference structure allowed by Assumption 2 is similar to that
given in \cite{rosenbaum2007interference} and \cite{hudgens2012toward}
and can be seen as a special type of \textit{effective treatment}
(\cite{manski2013identification}) or \textit{exposure mapping}
(\cite{aronow2013estimating, eckles2014design}). However, those papers
do not consider quota throttling.
\subsection{Quota throttling}
\label{section:quota-intro}
Advertisers are generally {\em quota constrained}, meaning that they
have insufficient budget or infrastructure to process all the queries
they could be sent (\cite{chakraborty2010selective}). In that case,
some queries are dropped or {\em throttled} to meet the quota
constraints. That is, there is a vector
$W(Z) = (W_1(Z), \ldots, W_N(Z))$ with $W_i(Z) = 0$ if (query, advertiser)
pair $i$ is dropped and $W_i(Z) = 1$
otherwise. Note that throttling can depend on the assignment $Z$ to
treatment and control. We assume random dropping according to a {\em
throttling distribution} $p(W(Z)|Z)$. In the presence of throttling, Assumption~2
means that the potential payment of an advertiser depends only on its
assignment to treatment or control, and on the assignment of the advertisers
for the same query who were not throttled. Henceforth, advertisers who
participate (bid) in auctions are called bidders.
Because how much a bidder in an auction pays depends on the other
bidders in the auction, the potential payment for any
advertiser $a$ is random when at least one other advertiser for the
query is quota constrained, even if advertiser $a$ is unconstrained.
\subsection{Bid treatments and throttling treatments}
Loosely speaking, an experiment about bids is designed to test
whether a change to bidding rules, such as a change to the reserve or
``floor'' price for auctions, matters when throttling rules are
unchanged. (See \cite{reiley2006field} and \cite{ostrovsky2011reserve} for
examples.)
\begin{definition}[Bid Treatment]
Under a {\em bid treatment}, for all $Z$, the throttling
distribution $W$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
W(Z) | Z \sim (W(Z) | Z=\vec{1}) \sim (W(Z) | Z=\vec{0}).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
In words, a bid treatment affects only potential bids, so a given
(query, advertiser) for an eligible advertiser has the same probability of
being dropped regardless of how other eligible bidders are assigned
to treatment and control. That condition holds if queries are throttled before
the advertiser's bid is known.
An experiment about throttling is designed to understand
whether changing the rules for meeting quota constraints matters
if bidding parameters like reserve prices are unchanged. (See the
selective callout algorithm in \cite{chakraborty2010selective}.)
\begin{definition}[Throttling Treatment]
Under a {\em throttling treatment}, for all $Z$, the potential
bids satisfy
\begin{equation}
B(Z) = B(\vec{0}) = B(\vec{1}).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
In a throttling experiment, any eligible advertiser would bid the same amount,
whether it is throttled or not. This is true if advertisers do not reveal their
bids before throttling.
\subsection{Effects on revenue}
If no advertiser is quota constrained, then no advertiser is dropped from a
query and the effect $\tau$
of the treatment on the total revenue of the ad exchange compares the
revenue when every (query, advertiser) pair is treated to the
revenue when every (query, advertiser) pair is in control:
\begin{equation}
\tau = \sum_i^N (Y_i(\vec{1}) - Y_i(\vec{0}))
\end{equation}
where $Y_i$ is the payment of (query, advertiser) pair $i$. If there
are quota constraints, then $\tau$ is affected by random dropping so
the effect on total revenue is $\tau^* = E(\tau)$, taking the
expectation under the dropping scheme $p(W)$. Note that the sum in
this case is taken over the $N$ (query, eligible advertiser) pairs.
The effect $\tau_a$ of treatment on the revenue generated
by a given advertiser $a$ when there are no quota constraints is given by
\begin{equation}
\tau_a = \sum_{i:a[i] = a} (Y_i(\vec{1}) - Y_i(\vec{0})).
\end{equation}
Again, with random throttling the effect of interest is
$\tau_a^* = E(\tau_a)$, taking the expectation under the dropping
scheme $p(W)$. Note that $\tau_a$ considers the effect of treating all
eligible advertisers on the revenue generated {\em only} by advertiser
$a$, rather than the effect of treating only the queries for
advertiser $a$.
\section{RANDOMIZATION}
\label{section:randomization-estimators}
With {\em query randomization}, each query is randomized to treatment or control
and then all the eligible advertisers for the query are assigned to control if the query is
assigned to control or to treatment if the query is assigned to
treatment. Formally, an auction experiment is query-randomized if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $P(Z_i = 1) = p_i$ and $P(Z_i = 0) = 1-p_i$, and
\item $Z_i = 1$ implies that $\vec{Z}_{q[i]} = \vec{1}_{q[i]}$.
\end{enumerate}
With {\em (query, advertiser)} randomization, each (query,
advertiser) pair is randomized independently to treatment or
control. Auctions now may have a mix of treated and control
bidders, which is not representative of the behavior of future
auctions. However, (query, advertiser) randomization may be necessary
if only some advertisers are allowed to be in the experiment, and
hence many of the auctions with treated advertisers will also have
untreated advertisers. Both query randomization and (query,
advertiser) randomization happen before any form of throttling
takes place.
Our parameters of interest are total
differences over a day, not a mean per-query difference.
Here the total under treatment is estimated by inversely weighting
each observation in treatment by its probability of occurrence, and
the total under the control is estimated by inversely weighting each
observation in control by its probability of occurrence.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau-estimator}
\hat{\tau}(Z) =
\left
( \sum_{i: Z_i = 1} \frac{Y_i(Z)}{p_i} - \sum_{i: Z_i = 0}
\frac{Y_i(Z)}{1-p_i}
\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat{\tau}_a(Z) = \left ( \sum_{i: a[i] = a, Z_i = 1} \frac{Y_i(Z)}{p_i} -
\sum_{i: a[i] = a, Z_i = 0} \frac{Y_i(Z)}{1-p_i} \right).
\end{equation}
The estimators $\hat\tau$ and $\hat\tau_a$ would be unbiased for
$\tau$ and $\tau_a$ respectively, if the SUTVA assumption
(\ref{sutva}) held for payments $Y(Z)$, but SUTVA does not hold for
payments. Nonetheless, Section~\ref{section:theorems} shows
that $\hat\tau$ and $\hat\tau_a$ are unbiased under query
randomization.
\section{TWO EXAMPLES OF BIAS}
\label{models-bias}
To illustrate the issues, two toy examples show that the estimated
treatment effect for an experiment with just one auction can be
severely biased.
\subsection{Identical but independent bidders}
Suppose $K$ bidders participate in a first price auction, and they
all have the same bid under treatment and the same bid under
control. That is,
\begin{flalign*}
B_i(1) &= R_1, \,\,\, i=1\ldots K\\
B_i(0) &= R_0, \,\,\, i=1\ldots K\\
R_1 &> R_0 .
\end{flalign*}
Also suppose each advertiser was independently assigned to treatment
with probability $\frac{1}{2}$; this is an example of (query,
advertiser) randomization. The goal is to estimate the effect of
treatment on this auction alone:
$\tau = \sum_{i=1}^K(Y_i(\vec{1}) - Y_i(\vec{0}))$. How ties are
decided does not matter. The expected value of the estimator defined
in \eqref{eq:tau-estimator} is
\begin{flalign*}
E(\hat{\tau}) &=
\frac{1}{2^K} (\hat{\tau}(\vec{1}) + \hat{\tau}(\vec{0})) +
\frac{1}{2^K} \sum_{Z \neq \{\vec{1},\vec{0}\}} \hat{\tau}(Z)\\
&= \frac{1}{2^K}(R_1 - R_0) + \frac{1}{2^K} \sum_{Z \neq \{\vec{1},\vec{0}\}} R_1 \\
&=\frac{1}{2^K} \tau + \frac{1}{2^K} (2^K - 2) R_1 \\
&= \frac{1}{2^K} \tau+ (1 - \frac{1}{2^{K-1}}) R_1
\end{flalign*}
where all $2^K$ possible assignments are equiprobable. The bias of $\hat\tau$ is
\begin{equation} \label{scenario1-bias}
\mbox{Bias}(\hat{\tau}, \tau) =
(\frac{1}{2^K} - 1) \tau + (1 - \frac{1}{2^{K-1}}) R_1.
\end{equation}
Intuitively, what happens is that the estimator $\hat{\tau}$ takes the
value $R_1$ for every assignment $Z$, except for $Z=\vec{0}$ where it
takes the value $-R_0$. Thus, as the number $K$ of bidders grows,
the bias approaches $R_0$, so the bias becomes as large as the control
bid as the size of the auction grows. For example, with $K=4$ bidders,
treatment bids of $R_1 = 6$ and control bids of $R_0 = 5$, the true
effect is $\tau = 1$ while equation~(\ref{scenario1-bias}) shows that
the bias is about 4.3. The same result would hold for second price
auctions in this scenario. The bias would not vanish if we only
allowed randomizations with given numbers $N_0$ and $N_1$ of control
and treated bidders respectively. Indeed, for any such
randomization scheme with $0 < N_0, N_1 < K$, the bias would be
exactly $R_0$ for any $K$. However, as will be shown in
Section~\ref{section:theorems}, the estimator is unbiased under query
randomization.
\subsection{Treatment dominates control}
Suppose $K$ bidders participate in an auction and each
bidder under treatment bids more than every bidder under
control. If we label the bidders according to their bids under
treatment, then
\begin{flalign*}
B_i(1) &> B_j(0) \,\,\, \mbox{ for all } i, j\\
B_i(1) &> B_j(1) \mbox{ if } i < j
\end{flalign*}
Then (see the supplementary material) the bias of the estimated treatment
effect is bounded below by $\tau( \frac{1}{2^K} - 1) + A_K$, where
$A_K$ approaches $B_K(1)$ as the number $K$ of eligible bidders grows. Thus,
the bias grows at least as large as $\max_{i}(B_i(0)) - (B_1(1) -
B_K(1))$.
The limiting bias is especially large if the smallest and largest bids
under treatment are
close, even if $K$ is small. When $K=4$, $(B_1(0), B_2(0), B_3(0),
B_4(0)) = (4, 4.25, 4.50, 4.75)$ and $(B_1(1), B_2(1), B_3(1), B_4(1))
= (6, 5.50, 5.25, 5)$, the true effect is $\tau = 1.25$, and the
exact bias is $3.8$, which is about three times as large as the effect itself.
\section{BIAS WITH QUOTA THROTTLING}
\label{section:theorems}
\subsection{Joint and split throttling}
Let $N_q[a]$ be the total number of queries that advertiser $a$ is
eligible for and let $Q[a]$ be the {\em quota} or number of queries
that advertiser $a$ can process. If $N_q[a] > Q[a]$, then the queries
for advertiser $a$ must be throttled so some are randomly dropped. An
experiment can use advertiser $a$'s quota for both treatment and
control, or it can split the quota into two pieces, using one piece to
service the $a$'s queries assigned to treatment and the other piece
to service $a$'s queries assigned to control. We do not
consider mixed experiments in which some advertisers are assigned to joint
throttling and others to split throttling.
\begin{definition} Under {\em joint throttling},
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i: a[i] = a} W_i(Z) \leq Q[a]
\end{equation}
for all assignments $Z$ to treatment and all advertisers $a$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} Under {\em split throttling},
\begin{description}
\item[] $\sum_{i: a[i] = a} I(Z_i = 1)W_i(Z) \leq Q^{(1)}[a]$,
\item[] $\sum_{i: a[i] = a} I(Z_i = 0)W_i(Z) \leq
Q^{(0)}[a]$, and
\item[] $Q^{(1)}[a] + Q^{(0)}[a] = Q[a]$
\end{description}
for all assignment $Z$ to treatment and every advertiser $a$, where
$Q^{(1)}[a]$ and $Q^{(0)}[a]$ denote the {\em quotas} in treatment
and control respectively.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Bid treatments and joint throttling}
\label{section:bid-level}
Suppose that the ad exchange always fulfills
each advertiser's quota entirely and that the number of queries that could
be sent to advertiser $a$ is more than it can process, so $N_q[a] >
Q_q[a]$. Then joint throttling implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:saturated-quota}
\sum_{i: a[i] = a} W_i(Z) = Q[a]
\end{equation}
for all advertisers $a$ and all assignments $Z$ to treatment. Further
suppose that throttling is random, so an advertiser is randomly
dropped from queries to meet its quota constraints. Then for all
vectors $w$ satisfying \eqref{eq:saturated-quota},
\begin{equation}
P(W(Z) = w | Z) = \binom{N[a]}{Q[a]}^{-1} \,\,\, \mbox{for all } Z.
\end{equation}
Under these assumptions, the following theorem is proved in the
supplementary material.
\begin{theorem} \label{bid-level-th}
With joint throttling and query randomization, the estimator
$\hat{\tau}$ is unbiased for $\tau^*$ for any bid treatment when every
advertiser is quota constrained and there are sufficient queries for
every advertiser's budget quota to be fulfilled.
\end{theorem}
Unsurprisingly, the same result holds for query randomization when
all auctions are unconstrained, that is, when no advertiser is
quota throttled. The corresponding theorem is stated and proved in the
supplementary material. In summary, query randomization leads to unbiased
estimates for bid treatments both with and without throttling.
\subsection{Quota treatment and split throttling}
\label{section:quota-level}
A quota experiment is designed to test whether a change to the
algorithm for dropping advertisers from queries to satisfy quota
constraints affects revenue. Suppose that the change is in addition to
the standard throttling algorithm (the control case) and that it is
applied before the standard throttling algorithm is applied. For
example, some feature of the query, such as the user's locale, could be
used to drop queries, reducing the need to randomly drop queries
without regard to their value to the advertiser. To be specific, the
treatment drops the (query, eligible advertiser) pair $i$ before the
control throttling algorithm is applied when a binary
random variable $x[i]$ is zero and the control
throttling algorithm alone is applied if $x[i]$ is one. Then the treatment
throttling enforces the constraint:
\begin{equation}
(Z_i = 1) \cap (x_i = 0) \Rightarrow W_i(Z) = 0.
\end{equation}
The simulations in Section 6 show that the estimated effect of the
quota treatment on revenue is biased under joint throttling for both
query randomized and (query, advertiser) randomized experiments. The
question is what happens if separate budgets are maintained for
treatment and control for each advertiser (i.e., under split throttling)?
Theorem~\ref{quota-level-th}, which is proved in the supplementary
material, shows that the estimated effect can be unbiased under
split-quota throttling under a set of conditions. Unfortunately, the
conditions are unlikely to hold in practice.
To state Theorem~\ref{quota-level-th}, let $N_a^{(1)}(x=1)(Z)$ be the
number of eligible queries
under treatment for advertiser $a$ when $x = 1$, and $Z = 1$. Define
$N_a^{(0)}(x=1)(Z)$ analogously. Also, define $N(x=1)$ to be the
total number of (query, eligible advertiser) pairs for which $x=1$.
\begin{theorem} \label{quota-level-th}
Let $\mathcal{Z}$ be the assignments of (query, eligible advertiser) pairs
allowed by query randomization. If
\begin{description}
\item[] $x_i = 0$ implies that the bid $B_i$ for advertiser $i$ is 0,
\item[] $\frac{Q_a^{(0)}}{N_a^{(0)}(Z)} =
\frac{Q_a^{(0)} + Q_a^{(1)}}{N_a}$ for all advertisers
$a \in \mathcal{A}$ and assignments of (query,
bidder) pairs $Z \in \mathcal{Z}$ to treatment and
control, and
\item[] $\frac{Q_a^{(1)}}{N_a^{(1)}(x=1)(Z)} =
\frac{Q_a^{(1)} + Q_a^{(0)}}{N_a(x=1)} $ for all $a\in
\mathcal{B}$ and
$Z \in \mathcal{Z}$
\end{description}
then the estimator $\hat{\tau}$ is unbiased for $\tau^*$ under
query randomization with split throttling.
\end{theorem}
\section{SIMULATIONS}
\label{section:simulations}
This section reports the results of simulating the bias and variance
of revenue estimators under quota throttling for query randomized
experiments and (query, advertiser) randomized experiments. The simulated
query randomized experiments are {\em balanced} in the sense that they have
the same number of queries in treatment and control. Similarly, the
simulated (query, advertiser) randomized experiments balance the number of
(query, advertiser) pairs assigned to treatment and control. Without such
balance, effect estimates for total revenue would be much more
variable and that additional variability would obscure differences in
the randomization and quota sharing schemes for reasonably sized
simulations.
There are two main conclusions. First, when estimating {\em bid
treatment} effects in constrained auctions, the estimated effects
under balanced query randomization are not only unbiased (as proved in
Theorem~5.1), but also have smaller variance than those obtained
with balanced (query, advertiser) randomization. Second, even if the
conditions of Theorem~5.2 are violated, query randomization combined
with split throttling can dramatically reduce the variance of the
estimated {\em quota treatment} effect, compared to the variance under
joint throttling.
Each simulated experiment considers auctions with three eligible advertisers. These
advertisers all compete in $N_q$ = 90, 120 or 150 auctions unless they are
throttled. Their quota limits are either $N_q / 3$ or
$2N_q/3$. For bid treatments, potential bids are
$\mbox{Lognormal}(\mu_0 = 1, v=0.1)$ under control and
$\mbox{Lognormal}(\mu_1, v = 0.1)$ under treatment where $\mu_1$ is
either 1.05, 1.1, or 2. All the treatment bids in a simulation are
drawn from the same distribution, and all the control bids are drawn
from the same distribution. The control and treatment bids for a
(query, advertiser) pair are correlated, as described in the supplementary material.
The potential bids define the true treatment effect on
total revenue.
For each distribution of potential bids and quota limit, we generated 20,000
random query experiments with exactly half the $N_q$ queries in each
experiment assigned to treatment and half to control. We also
generated 20,000 random (query, advertiser) pair experiments, with half the
pairs in treatment and half in control. The bid treatment effect or
quota treatment effect, depending on the nature of the simulation, was
estimated in each experiment. Because the bias depends on the
treatment effect for a lognormal, we report simulated bias relative to the true
effect.
\subsection{Bid treatments}
Figure~\ref{fig:bid_level_bias} describes the simulated relative bias
(ratio of the bias to the true effect), where the rows correspond to
the different quota settings and the columns to the different mean log
treatment bids. The standard errors reported are computed over the 200
draws from the bid distribution and are divided by $\sqrt{200}$ to reflect
uncertainty about the simulated mean bias.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{bid_level_bias.pdf}
\caption{Simulated bias of the effect of a bid treatment
relative to the true effect under balanced query
randomization and balanced (query, advertiser)
randomization. The dots show the mean relative bias, and the
endpoints show the mean $\pm$ twice its simulated standard
error. Columns show the mean log bid under treatment
and the rows show the throttling rate.}
\label{fig:bid_level_bias}
\end{figure}
Figure 1 shows that the relative bias is nearly zero for randomized
query experiments, while the relative bias has a mean as high as 1.5
for randomized (query, advertiser) pair experiments. That is, the
penalty for allowing control and treated advertisers to compete in the
same auction is a 50\% increase in relative bias. Moreover, the
simulated variance of the bid treatment estimate under the random
query experiment is no more than its variance under the random (query,
advertiser) experiment (see Figure~\ref{fig:bid_level_var}.) The ratio of
simulated variances for (query, advertiser) randomization versus query
randomization is above one for all bid and throttling combinations
considered here, and as high as 6 when the treatment bids are 5\%
higher than the control bids, and the quota is around 66\%. Note that
the number of auctions in the experiment has little effect on the
relative bias or variance.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{ratio-var-bidlevel.pdf}
\caption{Ratio of the variance of estimated treatment effects
under (query, advertiser) randomization to the variance of the
estimated treatment effects under balanced query randomization for different lognormal
bid distributions and throttling rates. The dots show the mean ratios
and the endpoints show the mean $\pm$ twice its simulated
standard error. The horizontal dotted line lies at one.}
\label{fig:bid_level_var}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quota treatments}
Because a quota treatment does not affect bids, the potential bids
with a quota treatment are the same under treatment and control. Here
$B_i(0) = B_i(1) \sim \mbox{Lognormal}(\mu_0 = 1, v=0.1)$. For each
random query or random (query, advertiser) pair, we draw a covariate
$x_i \sim Bernoulli(p_x)$, where $p_x = 0.1$ or $p_x = 0.5$ or
$p_x = 0.9$ in different
simulations. Figure~\ref{fig:quota_level_bias} shows the relative bias
of the estimate of total revenue under balanced query randomization
with joint throttling and with split throttling. The results for the
variance are shown in the supplementary material. Clearly, relative
bias is close to zero for split throttling (even if the conditions of
theorem~5.2 are violated), whereas it is around $-1$ for joint
throttling. This means that the estimator under joint throttling
estimates 0 regardless of the true effect on total revenue! So the
effect on total revenue of changing the throttling mechanism can never
be estimated from an experiment that uses joint throttling to meet
quota constraints. The supplementary material shows that this
conclusion about joint quota also holds for (query, advertiser)
randomization.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{quota_level_bias.pdf}
\caption{Bias of joint quota throttling and split quota
throttling estimators relative to the true effect under
query randomization. The dots are the mean relative bias
and the segments show two simulated standard errors around
that mean.}
\label{fig:quota_level_bias}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Extension to larger samples}
Our simulations generate only a few auctions relative to the millions
of auctions that might participate in a real experiment every
day. Figures~\ref{fig:bid_level_bias} and \ref{fig:quota_level_bias}
hint that the relative biases are close to constant for larger numbers
of auctions, while Figure~\ref{fig:bid_level_var} hints that the ratio
of the variances is constant, or even slightly increasing as the
number of auctions in an experiment increases. Together, these figures
suggest that the variance of the estimator of the effect of a
treatment on total revenue increases faster under balanced (query,
advertiser) randomization than under balanced query randomization. We ran
additional simulations (see supplementary material) that give further
evidence for these trends.
\section{CONCLUSION}
Every day, companies like Google, Facebook and Yahoo run billions of auctions in ad
exchanges, and every day they experiment to improve the exchange. This
paper shows how casting experiments in the framework of potential
outcomes clarifies many practical issues, such as the consequences of
the choice of randomization. Bias has been emphasized throughout
because when it is large it makes experiments misleading.
As a general policy, query randomization should be preferred over
(query, advertiser) randomization when experimenting with bid treatments
because it allows an unbiased estimator of the true treatment effect,
without exceeding the variance of the same estimator under (query, advertiser)
randomization. Split-quotas
are preferable to joint quotas when experimenting with throttling
treatments because split quotas have reduced bias and RMSE in simulations.
Admittedly, we do not have a complete solution to the problems that
arise in practice, such as the fact that advertisers are often
provided information about the user, such as location, that the
advertiser may use to decide whether to bid or the bid
amount. Experiments that take account of such covariates might be
better analyzed with statistical models rather than with the simple
estimators proposed here. Nor do we have analytical results for the
variance of the estimators or formal procedures for hypothesis
testing. These are all possible directions for future work.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank my advisor James Cummings for all his explanations, suggestions and enthusiasm throughout my time in graduate school. I am grateful to Joel Hamkins for his assistance with the writing of this thesis. I would like to thank Daniel Rodr\'iguez and many other graduate students for their help and support over the past six years.
Furthermore I would like to thank Professors Cummings, Schimmerling and Grossberg for their classes in logic; the mathematics department of Carnegie Mellon for its support; and all the undergraduates I have had the pleasure of teaching.
\section*{Abstract}
This thesis consists of two parts: the construction of a jointly universal family of graphs, and then an exploration of set-theoretic geology.
Firstly we shall construct a model in which $2^{\aleph_{\omega_1}}=2^{\aleph_{\omega_1+1}}=\aleph_{\omega_1+3}$ but there is a jointly universal family of size $\aleph_{\omega_1+2}$ of graphs on $\aleph_{\omega_1+1}$. We take a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ and will use Radin forcing with interleaved collapses to change $\kappa$ into $\aleph_{\omega_1}$. Prior to the Radin forcing we perform a preparatory iteration to add functions from $\kappa^+$ into Radin names for what will become members of the jointly universal family on $\kappa^+$. The same technique can be used with any uncountable cardinal in place of $\omega_1$.
Secondly we explore various topics in set-theoretic geology. We begin by showing that a class Easton support iteration of $\Add(\kappa,1)$ at $\kappa$ regular results in a universe that is its own generic mantle. We then consider set forcings $\mathbb{P}$, $\mathbb{Q}$, $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{S}$ with respective generics $G$, $H$, $I$ and $J$ such that $V[G][I]=V[H][J]$ and show that $V[G]$ and $V[H]$ must have a shared ground via $(|\mathbb{R}|+|\mathbb{S}|)^+$-cc forcing. This allows a similar analysis of the related situation when $\mathbb{P}$ is replaced by a class iteration and $V[H]$ by a generic ground of $V[G]$. We conclude with a simple characterisation of the mantle of a class forcing extension, and an investigation of the possibilities for a version of the intermediate model theorem that applies to class forcing.
\tableofcontents
\mainmatter
\chapter{Introduction}
We write $x:=y$ to mean $x$ is defined to equal $y$, and $x=:y$ to mean $y$ is defined to equal $x$. We write $f:A\rightharpoonup B$ for a partial function from $A$ to $B$. Our forcing convention is that $p\leq q$ means $p$ is stronger (more informative) than $q$. For forcing conditions $p$ and $q$ we write $p\parallel q$ to mean $p$ is compatible with $q$; for a formula $\varphi$ we write $p\parallel\varphi$ to mean $p$ decides whether or not $\varphi$ is true. Given an ultrafilter $u$, the quantification $\forall_u x:\varphi(x)$ will signify that $\{x\mid\varphi(x)\}\in u$.
\section{Universal graphs at $\aleph_{\omega_1+1}$}
For a cardinal $\mu$, a {\em universal graph on $\mu$} is a graph on $\mu$ into which every graph on $\mu$ can be embedded as an induced subgraph. A family of graphs on $\mu$ is {\em jointly universal on $\mu$} if every graph on $\mu$ can be embedded into at least one of them. We are interested in obtaining jointly universal families of small cardinality for $\mu$ a successor cardinal of the form $\kappa^+$.
If $2^{\kappa}=\kappa^+$ then by a standard model-theoretic construction there is a saturated and hence universal graph on $\kappa^+$. This holds even if $2^{\kappa^+}$ is large. So we are interested in cases when $2^{\kappa}>\kappa^+$. If $\kappa$ is regular then as shown by D{\v z}amonja and Shelah in \cite{universalModels} it is consistent to have a jointly universal family on $\kappa^+$ of size $\kappa^{++}$ whilst $2^{\kappa^+}$ is arbitrarily large. If $\kappa$ is singular than matters are generally more problematic. D{\v z}amonja and Shelah introduce a new approach in \cite{2author} that begins with $\kappa$ supercompact and performs a preparatory iteration to add functions that after Prikry forcing will become embeddings into a family of jointly universal graphs, whilst preserving some of the supercompactness of $\kappa$, followed by Prikry forcing to change the cofinality of $\kappa$. This enables them to build a model where $\cf(\kappa)=\omega$, $2^{\kappa^+}>\kappa^{++}$ and there is a jointly universal family on $\kappa^{+}$ of size $\kappa^{++}$. In \cite{5author} Cummings, D{\v z}amonja, Magidor, Morgan and Shelah modify this construction to use Radin forcing and achieve $\cf(\kappa)>\omega$ and $2^{\kappa^+}>\kappa^{++}$ with a jointly universal family on $\kappa^+$ of size $\kappa^{++}$. Then in \cite{3author} Cummings, D{\v z}amonja and Morgan employ Prikry forcing with interleaved collapses to build a model with $2^{\aleph_{\omega+1}}>\aleph_{\omega+2}$ and a jointly universal family on $\aleph_{\omega+1}$ of size $\aleph_{\omega+2}$. We will use a preparatory forcing followed by Radin forcing with interleaved collapses to prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\kappa$ be supercompact and $\lambda<\kappa$ regular uncountable. Then there is a forcing extension in which $\kappa=\aleph_{\lambda}$, $2^{\aleph_{\lambda}}=2^{\aleph_{\lambda+1}}=\aleph_{\lambda+3}$ and there is a jointly universal family of graphs on $\aleph_{\lambda+1}$ of size $\aleph_{\lambda+2}$.
\end{theorem}
In section \ref{ultrafilter_sequences} we consider sequences of ultrafilters $\vec{u}$ from which it is possible to derive a version $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ of Radin forcing with interleaved collapses. The forcing is similar to the one used by Foreman and Woodin in \cite{ForemanWoodin} but differs in the forcing interleaved and some technical details. Also we will show the desired properties of the forcing directly rather than proving that a supercompact Radin forcing has these properties and then projecting them.
We identify certain useful properties of sequences of ultrafilters that have been derived from supercompactness embeddings, and denote the class of sequences possessing these properties by $\mathcal{U}$. In section \ref{properties_of_radin} we prove some results about the forcing $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ when $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$; in particular that it has the Prikry property and that its generic filters can be conveniently characterised. In section \ref{preparatory_forcing} we define a preparatory forcing $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ that adds functions which, after Radin forcing, will become embeddings from graphs on $\kappa^+$ into a graph on $\kappa^+$ that we intend to make a member of our jointly universal family. We also prove that this preparatory forcing has properties including $\kappa$-directed closure and the $\kappa^+$-cc.
In section \ref{construction_of_model} we begin with $\kappa$ supercompact and perform a Laver preparation forcing. We then use a diamond sequence to identify ultrafilter sequences $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$ for $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$, and carry out an iteration of the $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$ forcings. This allows us to extend a supercompactness embedding $j$ from $V$ to the generic extension, and from this $j$ we derive an ultrafilter sequence $\vec{u}$ in $\mathcal{U}$ and take $J$ that is $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$-generic over the universe resulting from the $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$-iteration. We show that there is a stationary set $S$ of points $\gamma$ in $\kappa^{+4}$ where $\vec{u}$ restricts to $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$ and $\vec{u}^{\gamma}\in\mathcal{U}$; then the characterisation of generic filters will show that $J$ is also generic for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$ over the same universe. Our final model will be built by stopping the iteration at a point in $S$ that is also a limit of $\kappa^{++}$-many members of $S$ and adjoining $J$; we will then have constructed $\kappa^{++}$-many graphs to use as members of our joint universal family, together with embeddings of every graph on $\kappa^+$ into them.
\section{Set-theoretic geology}
A \textit{ground} of the universe $V$ is a model $W\subseteq V$ of ZFC such that there is a forcing $\mathbb{P}\in W$ with a generic $G$ such that $W[G]=V$. Laver in \cite{laver_geology} and independently Woodin in \cite{woodin} proved that in this case $W$ will be a class of $V$, using parameters from $W$. Hamkins and Reitz in \cite{hamkins} and \cite{Reitz} used these ideas to formulate the \textit{Ground Axiom} which asserts that there are no grounds of $V$ other than $V$ itself; in particular they showed that this axiom is first-order expressible. In \cite{FHR} these ideas were developed by Fuchs, Hamkins and Reitz to define the \textit{mantle} of $V$, written $M^V$, as the intersection of all of the grounds of $V$ and to show that it is a class of $V$.
The associated notion of a \textit{generic ground} of $V$, which is defined to be the ground of some forcing extension of $V$, is also given in \cite{FHR}. From this we can build the \textit{generic mantle}, written $gM^V$, which is the intersection of all of the generic grounds of $V$. It is clear that every ground is a generic ground (since $V$ is trivially a generic extension of itself) so $gM^V\subseteq M^V$. Fuchs, Hamkins and Reitz ask whether the mantle is in fact always equal to the generic mantle. Recent work by Usuba in \cite{usuba} answers this question in the affirmative.
It is possible to generalise the idea of forcing with set partial orders to the use of class partial orders, for which we obtain class generics; see \cite[Chapter 8]{FK} for a detailed exposition. This presents new challenges in ensuring that the generic universe will be a model of ZFC, but has the potential to make changes to the entire structure of the universe and so obtain interesting behaviours of the mantle and generic mantle. In particular in \cite{FHR} class forcing is used to show that every model of ZFC is the mantle of another model of ZFC.
In Section \ref{easton_generic_mantle} we consider the class Easton support iteration of $\Add(\kappa,1)$ at $\kappa$ regular, which was used in \cite{FHR}, and show that the generic mantle of the resulting universe $V[G]$ is equal to $V[G]$ itself; this answers Question 69 of that paper. We then look for ways to generalise to a wider range of class forcing extensions.
We begin in Section \ref{set_forcing_intersection} by considering the situation where $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ are set-sized forcings with generics $G$ and $H$ respectively and there are further forcings $\mathbb{R}\in V[G]$ and $\mathbb{S}\in V[H]$ with respective generics $I$ and $J$ such that $V[G][I]=V[H][J]$. This situation is a reduced version of one in which $\mathbb{P}$ is a class forcing and $V[H]$ is a generic ground of $V[G]$, so we are interested in the possibilities for $V[G]\cap V[H]$. In Theorem \ref{main_sets} we show that, regardless of the properties of $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$, there will be an inner model $U\subseteq V[G]\cap V[H]$ from which $V[G]$ and $V[H]$ can each be recovered by $((|\mathbb{R}|+|\mathbb{S}|)^+)^{V[G]}$-cc forcings. This contrasts with Proposition \ref{intersection_not_model_of_ZFC} where we see that $V[G]\cap V[H]$ itself may not be a model of ZFC, and with Proposition \ref{coll_add_example} which gives an example where $V[G]\cap V[H]=V$ but $\mathbb{P}$ is not $((|\mathbb{R}|+|\mathbb{S}|)^+)^V$-cc.
We use these results in Section \ref{intersections_part_1} to show that if $\mathbb{P}$ is a class forcing with generic $G$ that preserves a sufficient number of weakly compact cardinals and $W$ is a generic ground of $V[G]$ via forcings $\mathbb{R}\in V[G]$ and $\mathbb{S}\in W$, with respective generics $I$ and $J$ such that $V[G][I]=W[J]$, then there is a common ground of $V[G]$ and $W$ via $((|\mathbb{R}|+|\mathbb{S}|)^+)^{V[G]}$-cc forcings.
In Section \ref{characterising_the_mantle} we consider a universe $V[G]$ formed by class forcing and give a simple characterisation of $M^{V[G]}$ that avoids any reference to the posets which are naturally involved in the construction of the mantle. Then in Section \ref{intersections_part_2} we present an alternative analysis of the intersection of a universe resulting from a class forcing extension with one of its generic grounds; this approach relies on covering rather than weakly compact cardinals, and shows that the intersection cannot just be a set-sized extension of the starting model.
Whenever we have a set forcing $\mathbb{P}$ with generic $G$ and an intermediate model $V\subseteq W\subseteq V[G]$ then we are able to form a complete sub-algebra $\mathbb{A}$ of $\ro(\mathbb{P})$ such that $V[G\cap\mathbb{A}]=W$, and this is extremely useful in the analysis of such intermediate models. In Section \ref{class_intermediate_models} we explore the possibilities for a similar result when $\mathbb{P}$ is a class forcing. The naive $\ro(\mathbb{P})$ would be a collection of classes and so not itself a class, but we are able to form an different Boolean algebra forcing-equivalent to $\mathbb{P}$ that is complete under set-sized supremums and infimums, though not class-sized ones. We discuss the difficulties this entails and conclude with a theorem that constructs the intermediate model $W$ as a forcing extension of $V$ via a weakened notion of class forcing.
\chapter{Universal graphs at $\aleph_{\omega_1+1}$}
\section{Ultrafilter sequences and the definition of $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$} \label{ultrafilter_sequences}
\subsection{The nature of ultrafilter sequences} We will be building sequences of the following form.
\begin{definition}
A sequence $\vec{u}=\langle \kappa, u_i, \mathcal{F}_i\mid i<\lambda \rangle$ (which means that there is a single $\kappa$ together with $\lambda$-many each of the $u_i$ and $\mathcal{F}_i$) is a {\em proto ultrafilter sequence} if $\lambda<\kappa$, the $u_i$ are $\kappa$-complete ultrafilters on $V_{\kappa}$ and the $\mathcal{F}_i$ are sets of partial functions from $V_{\kappa}$ to $V_{\kappa}$. We will write $\kappa(\vec{u})$ for $\kappa$ and $\lh\vec{u}$ for $\lambda$ which we also call the {\em length} of $\vec{u}$. We stress that our use of the term ``length'' here differs from the usual convention.
\end{definition}
For $\beta$ a strongly inaccessible cardinal we define $\mathbb{C}(\alpha,\beta)$ to be the poset $\Coll(\alpha^{+5},<\beta)$ and $\mathbb{B}(\alpha,\beta)$ to be the regular open algebra derived from this poset. Note that $\mathbb{C}(\alpha,\beta)$ is contained in $V_{\beta}$ and has the $\beta$-cc so we are free to regard conditions in $\mathbb{B}(\alpha,\beta)$ as members of $V_{\beta}$. Given sequences $\vec{v}$ and $\vec{w}$ with $\kappa(\vec{v})<\kappa(\vec{w})$ we will also write $\mathbb{B}(\vec{v},\vec{w})$ for $\mathbb{B}(\kappa(\vec{v}),\kappa(\vec{w}))$. This is the forcing that we will interleave into our Radin generic sequence.
\begin{definition}
Let $\kappa$ be strongly inaccessible, $i<\kappa$ and $u$ a $\kappa$-complete ultrafilter on $V_{\kappa}$ concentrating on proto ultrafilter sequences of length $i$. Then a {\em $u$-constraint} is a partial function $h:V_{\kappa}\rightharpoonup V_{\kappa}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\dom h$ is in $u$ and consists of proto ultrafilter sequences of length $i$.
\item For all $\vec{w}$ in $\dom h$, $h(\vec{w})\in \mathbb{B}(\kappa(\vec{w}),\kappa)-\{0\}$.
\end{itemize}
An {\em ultrafilter sequence} is defined by recursion on $\kappa(\vec{u})$ to be a proto ultrafilter sequence $\vec{u}=\langle \kappa, u_i, \mathcal{F}_i\mid i<\lambda\rangle$ such that each $\mathcal{F}_i$ is a non-empty set of $u_i$-constraints, and each $u_i$ concentrates on ultrafilter sequences of length $i$.
\end{definition}
Observe that if we form the ultrapower $j_u:V\rightarrow\Ult(V,u)$ we can regard $u$-constraints (modulo $u$) as representing members of the Boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}(\kappa,j_u(\kappa))^{\Ult(V,u)}$.
\begin{definition}
We will need an auxiliary notion of {\em supercompact ultrafilter sequences}. Such sequences will be recursively defined to have the form $\vec{u}^*=\langle z, u^*_i, H^*_i \mid i<\lambda\rangle$ where there is some $\kappa(\vec{u}^*):=\kappa>\lambda$ with $z$ a set of ordinals that is a superset of $\kappa$, each $u^*_i$ is an ultrafilter on $[\kappa^{+4}]^{<\kappa}\times V_{\kappa}^{2i}$ that concentrates on supercompact ultrafilter sequences of length $i$, and each $H^*_i$ is a {\em $u^*_i$-constraint}. This last means that $\dom H^*_i \in u^*_i$, and for $\vec{w}^*\in\dom H^*_i$ we have $H^*_i(\vec{w}^*)\in\mathbb{B}(\vec{w}^*,\vec{u}^*)-\{0\}$.
We also define an ordering on $u^*_i$-constraints by $L^*\leq K^*$ if $\dom L^*\subseteq\dom K^*$ and $L^*(\vec{w}^*)\leq K^*(\vec{w}^*)$ for all $\vec{w}^*$ in $\dom L^*$. We shall use similar orderings for other functions whose domains are required to lie in some ultrafilter.
\end{definition}
Observe that if we form the ultrapower $j_{u^*}:V\rightarrow\Ult(V,u^*)$ then we can regard $u^*$-constraints (modulo $u^*$) as representing members of the Boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}(\kappa, j_{u^*}(\kappa))^{\Ult(V,u^*)}$.
\subsection{Constructing ultrafilter sequences}
For the remainder of this section we work in the following context.
\begin{setting}
Let $2^{\kappa} = \kappa^{+4}$ with $j:V\rightarrow M$ witnessing that $\kappa$ is $\kappa^{+4}$-supercompact. Let $\lambda<\kappa$ be regular uncountable.
\end{setting}
We will use $j$ to inductively build an ultrafilter sequence $\vec{u}=\langle \kappa, u_i, \mathcal{F}_i\mid i<\lambda \rangle$ with $\kappa(\vec{u})=\kappa$. In doing so we will need to construct an auxiliary supercompact ultrafilter sequence $\vec{u}^*=\langle j``\kappa^{+4}, u^*_i, H^*_i\mid i<\lambda \rangle$.
We will also define a function $\pi$ from supercompact ultrafilter sequences to ultrafilter sequences, given by
$$\pi(\langle z^*, w^*_i, K^*_i \mid i<\bar{\lambda}\rangle) := \langle z^*\cap\bar{\kappa}, \pi_i(w^*_i), \pi'_i(w^*_i,K^*_i)\mid i<\bar{\lambda}\rangle$$
with $\pi_i$ and $\pi'_i$ to be built as part of the induction and $\bar{\kappa}:=\kappa(\langle z^*, w^*_i, K^*_i \mid i<\bar{\lambda}\rangle)$. Note that the $u^*_i$ concentrate on sequences where $z^*\cap\bar{\kappa}$ is inaccessible. We will ensure as we induct on $\bar{\lambda}\leq\lambda$ that
\begin{equation}\tag{*}
j(\pi)(\langle j` `\kappa^{+4}, u^*_i, H^*_i \mid i<\bar{\lambda}\rangle) = \langle \kappa, u_i, \mathcal{F}_i \mid i<\bar{\lambda}\rangle.
\end{equation}
Suppose we have defined $u_i$, $u^*_i$, $\mathcal{F}_i$, $H^*_i$, $\pi_i$ and $\pi'_i$ for $i<\bar{\lambda}$; this gives us the definition of $\pi$ on sequences of length up to $\bar{\lambda}$. Define
$$u^*_{\bar{\lambda}} := \{X\subseteq[\kappa^{+4}]^{<\kappa}\times V_{\kappa}^{2\bar{\lambda}} \mid \langle j``\kappa^{+4}, u^*_i, H^*_i \mid i<\bar{\lambda}\rangle \in j(X)\}$$
and
$$u_{\bar{\lambda}} := \{Y\subseteq V_{\kappa}\mid \langle \kappa, u^i, \mathcal{F}^i \mid i<\bar{\lambda}\rangle \in j(Y)\}.$$
For $w^*$ an ultrafilter on $[\bar{\kappa}^{+4}]^{<\bar{\kappa}}\times V_{\bar{\kappa}}^{2\bar{\lambda}}$ define
$$\pi_{\bar{\lambda}}(w^*):= \{Y\subseteq V_{\bar{\kappa}}\mid \pi^{-1}``Y \in w^* \}.$$
Note by (*) that $Y\in u_{\bar{\lambda}}$ is equivalent to $\pi^{-1}``Y \in u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$ which, since $\pi$ and $j(\pi)$ agree on $V_{\kappa}$, is equivalent to $j(\pi)^{-1}``Y\in u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$ and so to $Y\in j(\pi_{\bar{\lambda}})(u^*_{\bar{\lambda}})$. Therefore $u_{\bar{\lambda}}=j(\pi_{\bar{\lambda}})(u^*_{\bar{\lambda}})$. We now pause the construction to make some definitions.
\begin{definition}
Let $w^*$ be an ultrafilter on $[\bar{\kappa}^{+4}]^{<\bar{\kappa}}\times V_{\bar{\kappa}}^{2\bar{\lambda}}$ that concentrates on supercompact ultrafilter sequences of length $\bar{\lambda}$, and $K^*$ a $w^*$-constraint. Then for $A\in w^*$ and $\vec{x}$ an ultrafilter sequence we define
$$b(K^*, A)(\vec{x}):=\bigvee\{K^*(\vec{x}^*)\mid \pi(\vec{x}^*)=\vec{x}, \vec{x}^*\in A\}\in\mathbb{B}(\kappa(\vec{x}),\bar{\kappa})-\{0\}.$$
Observe that the domain of $b(K^*,A)$ is the projection of $A$ under $\pi_{\bar{\lambda}}$, so it is in $\pi_{\bar{\lambda}}(w^*)$. Observe also that for $A'\subseteq A$ we have $b(K^*,A')\leq b(K^*,A)$ pointwise, so as $A$ ranges over $w^*$ the equivalence classes generated by the $b(K^*,A)$ yield a non-trivial filter base in $\mathbb{B}(\bar{\kappa},j_{\pi_{\bar{\lambda}}(w^*)}(\bar{\kappa}))^{\Ult(V,\pi_{\bar{\lambda}}(w^*))}$. We shall call the induced filter $\Fil(K^*)$.
\end{definition}
Now given $w^*$ and $K^*$ we define $\pi'_{\bar{\lambda}}(w^*,K^*) = \{g\mid [g]_{\pi_{\bar{\lambda}}(w^*)}\in \Fil(K^*)\}$, which will conclude our definition of $\pi$ for sequences of length up to $k+1$. We note that $\pi'_{\bar{\lambda}}(w^*,K^*)$ consists of all $g$ such that $g\geq b(K^*, A)$ for some $A\in w^*$, where we ensure a pointwise inequality be shrinking the $A$ as necessary. It remains to choose $H^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$, and then once we have done so we will conclude by defining $\mathcal{F}_{\bar{\lambda}} = j(\pi'_{\bar{\lambda}})(u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}, H^*_{\bar{\lambda}})$, which is to say $\mathcal{F}_{\bar{\lambda}}=\{h\mid [h]_{u_{\bar{\lambda}}}\in\Fil(H^*_{\bar{\lambda}})\}$. Care must be taken in selecting $H^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$ because we wish to ensure that the filter $\mathcal{F}_{\bar{\lambda}}$ it induces will be an ultrafilter. The following lemma will be helpful to that end.
\begin{lemma}
Let $b\in \mathbb{B}(\kappa,j_{_{\bar{\lambda}}}(\kappa))^{\Ult(V,_{\bar{\lambda}})}$ and $K^*$ a $u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$-constraint. Then there is a $u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$-constraint $L^*\leq K^*$ such that either $b\in\Fil(L^*)$ or $\neg b\in\Fil(L^*)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Say $b =: [f]_{_{\bar{\lambda}}}$ and define $A:=\{\vec{x}^*\in \dom K^*\mid \pi(\vec{x})\in \dom f\} \in u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$. Then for each $\vec{x}^* \in A$ take $L^*(\vec{x}^*)\leq K(\vec{x}^*)$ such that either $L^*(\vec{x}^*)\leq f(\pi(\vec{x}^*))$ or $L^*(\vec{x}^*)\leq \neg f(\pi(\vec{x}^*))$. Define $A^+$ to be the set of places in $A$ where the first case occurs, and $A^-$ to be the set of places where the second does. One of these is in $u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$ and restricting the domain of $L^*$ to this set will give $L^*$ the required properties.
\end{proof}
For $\bar{\kappa}<\kappa$ the forcing $\mathbb{C}(\bar{\kappa}, \kappa)$ has the $\kappa$-chain condition, so $|\mathbb{B}(\bar{\kappa},\kappa)|=\kappa$. This tells us by elementarity that $|\mathbb{B}(\kappa,j_{_{\bar{\lambda}}}(\kappa))^{\Ult(V,_{\bar{\lambda}})}| = |j_{_{\bar{\lambda}}}(\kappa)| = 2^{\kappa} = \kappa^{+4}$. Now the $u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$-constraints can be regarded as members of the regular open algebra $\mathbb{B}(\kappa, j_{u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}}(\kappa))^{\Ult(V,u^*_{\bar{\lambda}})}$, in the non-zero part of which the forcing $\mathbb{C}(\kappa, j_{u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}}(\kappa))^{\Ult(V,u^*_{\bar{\lambda}})}=\Coll(\kappa^{+5},<j_{u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}}(\kappa))^{\Ult(V,u^*_{\bar{\lambda}})}$ is dense. The $\kappa^{+4}$-supercompactness of $j_{u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}}$ tells us that the latter forcing is $\kappa^{+5}$-closed, so we can repeatedly apply the above lemma to obtain a $u^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$-constraint $H^*_{\bar{\lambda}}$ such that $\Fil(H^*_{\bar{\lambda}})$ is an ultrafilter. This concludes the inductive construction.
\subsection{Properties of ultrafilter sequences I}
We collect together all save one of the properties that we will want our ultrafilter sequences to possess. The final property is postponed because it requires the definition of $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ to state.
Note that for $h\in \mathcal{F}_i$ and $s\in V_{\kappa}$ the $h\downharpoonright s$ notation used here means that the domain of $h$ is restricted to $\{\vec{w}\mid s \in V_{\kappa(\vec{w})}\}$.
\begin{definition}
We define $\mathcal{U}'$ to be the class of all ultrafilter sequences $\vec{u}=\langle \bar{\kappa}, u_i, \mathcal{F}_i \mid i < \bar{\lambda} \rangle$ that satisfy the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The ultrafilter $u_i$ concentrates on sequences from $\mathcal{U}'$ of length $i$ (so this definition is recursive).
\item If $h$ is in $\mathcal{F}_i$ and $h$ is equal to $h'$ modulo $u_i$ then $h'$ is also in $\mathcal{F}_i$.
\item The set of Boolean values represented by the functions $\mathcal{F}_i$ is a $\bar{\kappa}$-complete ultrafilter on $\mathbb{B}(\bar{\kappa},j_{u_i}(\bar{\kappa}))^{\Ult(V,u_i)}$.
\item (Normality) For all $i<\bar{\lambda}$, given $\langle h^s \mid s \in V_{\bar{\kappa}} \rangle$ with $h^s \in \mathcal{F}_i$ then there is $h \in \mathcal{F}_i$ such that $h \leq h^s \downharpoonright s$ for all $s \in V_{\bar{\kappa}}$.
\item Let $i'<i''<\bar{\lambda}$ and $e\in \mathcal{F}_{i'}$. Then there is a $u_{i''}$-large set of ultrafilter sequences $\vec{w}=\langle\bar{\kappa}(\vec{w}), w_i, \mathcal{G}_i \mid i<i''\rangle$ such that $e\upharpoonright\bar{\kappa}(\vec{w})$ is in $\mathcal{G}_{i'}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\vec{u}$ be constructed from $j$ as above. Then $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U'}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first three clauses are immediate.
\begin{enumerate} [(1)]
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item (Normality) We are given $i<\lambda$ and $\langle h^s \mid s \in V_{\kappa} \rangle \subseteq \mathcal{F}_i$. Say $h^s\geq b(H^*_i,A^s)$ with $A^s\in u^*_i$. Take the diagonal intersection of the $A^s$,
$$A:=\{\vec{w}^* \mid \forall s \in V_{\kappa(\vec{w}^*)}: \vec{w}^*\in A^s\}.$$
We have $\forall s\in V_{\kappa(\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i)}: \vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i \in j(A^s)$, which is to say $\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i\in j(A)$ so $A\in u^*_i$. Then $h:=b(H^*_i,A)$ will be our candidate.
Given $s\in V_{\kappa}$ we want $h \leq h^s \downharpoonright s$, so given $\vec{w}\in \dom h$ above $s$ we want $h(\vec{w})\leq h^s(\vec{w})$. Now $h(\vec{w})$ is the supremum of $K^*(\vec{w}^*)$ over $\vec{w}^*\in A$ such that $\pi(\vec{w}^*)=\vec{w}$. All of these $\vec{w}^*$ have $\kappa(\vec{w}^*)=\kappa(\vec{w})$ above $s$, so they must also be members of $A^s$. But $h^s(\vec{w})$ is the supremum of $K^*(\vec{w}^*)$ over members of $A^s$, so $h^s(\vec{w})\geq h(\vec{w})$.
\item We are given $i'<i''<\lambda$ and $e\in \mathcal{F}_{i'}$ and note that $j(e)\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{u}\upharpoonright i'') = e \in \mathcal{F}_{i'}$. Then by elementarity there is a $u_{i''}$-large set of sequences $\vec{w}=\langle \kappa(\vec{w}), w_i, \mathcal{G}_{i'}\rangle$, as required.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Definition of the Radin forcing $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$} \label{defineR}
We are given an ultrafilter sequence $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U'}$ and define $\bar{\kappa}:=\kappa(\vec{u})$ and $\bar{\lambda}:=\lh\vec{u}$.
For notational convenience, given $\vec{w} =: \langle \kappa(\vec{w}), w_i, \mathcal{F}_i \mid i<\lh\vec{w}\rangle$ we will start writing $\mathcal{F}_{\vec{w},i}$ for $\mathcal{F}_i$ and $\mathcal{F}_{\vec{w}}$ for the set of
functions $e:V_{\kappa(\vec{w})}\rightharpoonup V_{\kappa(\vec{w})}$ such that defining $e_i:=e\upharpoonright\{\vec{v}\mid\lh\vec{v}=i\}$ gives us $e_i\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{w},i}$ for all $i<\lh\vec{w}$. Note that $\dom e$ is permitted to include sequences that are longer than $\vec{w}$ itself.
\begin{definition}
Let $\vec{w}\in\mathcal{U}'$. Then an {\em upper part} for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$ is a member $e$ of $\mathcal{F}_{\vec{w}}$ such that:
$$\forall\vec{v}\in\dom e: e\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{v})\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{v}}.$$
\end{definition}
We claim that any $e$ in $\mathcal{F}_{\vec{w}}$ can have its domain shrunk to make it into an upper part. Define $e^0:=e$ and then by the final clause of the definition of $\mathcal{U}'$ we have that
$$A^1:=\{\vec{v}\in\dom e\mid e^0\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{v})\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{v}}\}\in \bigcap w_i$$
so we can define $e^1:=e^0\upharpoonright A^1 \in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{w}}$. Iterating this process $\omega$ times and intersecting the $A^n$ we reach $e'\leq e$ which has the required property. From now on we shall perform such shrinking without comment when building forcing conditions.
\begin{definition}
A {\em suitable triple} is $(\vec{w},e,q)$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\vec{w}\in\mathcal{U}'$.
\item $e$ is an upper part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$.
\item $q \in \mathbb{B}(\kappa(\vec{w}),\kappa)-\{0\}$.
\end{itemize}
A {\em direct extension} of $(\vec{w},e,q)$ is a suitable triple $(\vec{w},e',q')$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $e'\leq e$ (i.e. $\dom e'\subseteq\dom e$ and $e' \leq e$ pointwise).
\item $q' \leq q$.
\end{itemize}
Another suitable triple $(\vec{v},d,p)$ is {\em addable below} $(\vec{w},e,q)$ if it satisfies the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\vec{v} \in \dom e$.
\item $d \leq e\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{v})$.
\item $p\leq e(\vec{v})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We observe that for every $\vec{v}\in\dom e$ the definition of ``upper part'' has assured us that $(\vec{v},e\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{v}),e(\vec{v}))$ is both a suitable triple and addable below $(\vec{w},e,q)$.
\begin{definition}
A {\em condition} in $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ is a finite sequence
$$s = ((\vec{w}_0,e_0,q_0),...,(\vec{w}_{n-1},e_{n-1},q_{n-1}), (\vec{u}, h))$$
such that each $(\vec{w}_k,e_k,q_k)$ is a suitable triple, the $\kappa(\vec{w}_k)$ are increasing, $q_k\in\mathbb{B}(\vec{w}_k,\vec{w}_{k+1})$, and $h$ is an upper part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$. We also require that $\kappa(\vec{w}_0)=\omega$, $\lh\vec{w}_0=0$ and $e_0=\phi$. We will call such a $((\vec{w}_0,e_0,q_0),...,(\vec{w}_{n-1},e_{n-1},q_{n-1}))$ a {\em lower part} for the forcing.
{\em Extension} in $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ is given by $s'\leq s$ if
$$s'=((\vec{v}_0,d_0,p_0),...,(\vec{v}_{m-1},d_{m-1},p_{m-1}),(\vec{u},h'))$$
such that $h'\leq h$, every $\vec{w}_k$ occurs as some $\vec{v}_l$, and every $(\vec{v}_l,d_l,p_l)$ is either a direct extension of one of the $(\vec{w}_k,e_k,q_k)$ or addable below one of them or addable below $(\vec{u},h)$.
{\em Direct extension} in $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ is given by $s'\leq^* s$ if
$$s'=((\vec{w}_0,e'_0,q'_0),...,(\vec{w}_{n-1},e'_{n-1},q'_{n-1}), (\vec{u}, h'))$$
with $h'\leq h$ and $(\vec{w}_k,e'_k,q'_k)$ a direct extension of $(\vec{w}_k,e_k,q_k)$ for $k<n$. \
For lower parts $r$ and $r'$ we define extension $r'\leq r$ in the same way as for conditions, except that all triples from $r'$ must by either direct extensions of, or addable below, a triple from $r$. Note that this compels $\kappa(\max r') = \kappa(\max r)$. Likewise we have a notion of $\leq^*$ on lower parts, and a {\em $^*$-open} set of lower parts is one that is downward-closed under this relation.
\end{definition}
Observe that a forcing condition is required to have a triple $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,p))$ as a member of its stem for some $p$. However we shall write $((\vec{u},h))$ as an abbreviation for $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,\phi),(\vec{u},h))$ at times when we are only interested in the upper part of the forcing.
If we force below a condition $((\vec{u},h))$ such that $\dom h$ contains only sequences of length less than $\lambda$ then $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ will add a generic sequence of the form $\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha} \mid \alpha<\omega^{\lambda}\rangle$, where $g_i$ is generic in $\mathbb{B}(\vec{w}_{\alpha},\vec{w}_{\alpha+1})$. The $\omega^{\lambda}$ is ordinal exponentiation so as $\lambda$ is regular uncountable we in fact have $\omega^\lambda=\lambda$. This collapses all cardinals in the intervals $(\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})^{+5},\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha+1}))$ and we shall see later that it preserves all other cardinals, so it will make $\kappa$ into $\aleph_{\lambda}$.
More generally, forcing with $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ will add a generic sequence $\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha} \mid \alpha<\theta+\lambda\rangle$
for some ordinal $\theta$.
\subsection{Properties of ultrafilter sequences II}
We are finally in a position to make the definition that we will use during the main construction.
\begin{definition}
The class $\mathcal{U}$ is defined recursively to consist of all $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}'$ such that the $u_i$ concentrate on members of $\mathcal{U}$, and $\vec{u}$ satisfies the following additional property. (Note that the $h'\upharpoonright\vec{w}$ is given by restricting the domain of $h'$ to sequences $\vec{v}$ such that $\kappa(\vec{v})<\kappa(\vec{w})$ and $\lh\vec{v}<\lh\vec{w}$.)
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\setcounter{enumi}{5}
\item (Capturing) Let $h$ be an upper part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ and $X$ a $^*$-open set of lower parts for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$. Then there is an upper part $h' \leq h$ such that for all lower parts $s$ and all $i<\lh\vec{u}$ we have one of:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item For all $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ there do not exist $e$ and $q\leq h'(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},e,q)) \in X$.
\item For all $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ and $\vec{x} \in \dom h'$ such that $\kappa(\vec{w})<\kappa(\vec{x})$ there are densely many $q$ in $\mathbb{B}(\vec{w},\vec{x})$ below $h'_i(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},h'\upharpoonright\vec{w},q)) \in X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
Let $\vec{u}$ be constructed from a supercompactness embedding $j$ as before. Then $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Say $\vec{u}$ is of the form $\langle \kappa, u_i, \mathcal{F}_i \mid i < \lambda \rangle$ and the supercompact ultrafilter sequence used in the construction is $\langle z,u^*_i,H_i\mid i<\lambda\rangle$. We have already established that $\vec{u} \in \mathcal{U}'$ so it remains to prove capturing. For each lower part $s$ begin by defining witnesses $f^s$ such that for all $\vec{w}\in\dom h$, if there are $e$ and $q\leq h(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown ((\vec{w},e,q))\in X$ then there is $q\leq h(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown ((\vec{w},f^s(\vec{w}),q))\in X$.
We may assume that each $h_i$ is of the form $b(H_i, B_i)$ for some $B_i\in u^*_i$. For each lower part $s$ and each $i<\lambda$ choose $H^s_i \leq H_i$ such that for all $\vec{w}^* \in \dom H^s_i$ for which there exists $q \leq H_i(\vec{w}^*)$ with $s\frown ((\pi(\vec{w}^*),f^s(\pi(\vec{w}^*)),q))\in X$ we have $s \frown ((\pi(\vec{w}^*),f^s(\pi(\vec{w}^*)),H^s_i(\vec{w}^*)))\in X$. By normality take $H'_i$ such that for all $i$ and $s$ we have $H'_i \leq H^s_i\downharpoonright s$. For each $i<\lambda$ and lower part $s$ we can choose $C^s_i \subseteq B_i$ a member of $u^*_i$ such that one of the following occurs:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item For every $\vec{w}^*$ in $C^s_i$ there does not exist a $q \leq H_i(\vec{w}^*)$ such that $s\frown ((\pi(\vec{w}^*),f^s(\pi(\vec{w}^*)),q)) \in X$.
\item For every $\vec{w}^*$ in $C^s_i$ we have $s\frown ((\pi(\vec{w}^*),f^s(\pi(\vec{w}^*)),H'_i(\vec{w}^*)))\in X$.
\end{enumerate}
Define $C_i := \triangle_s C^s_i$ and $h'_i:=b(H'_i, C_i)$. Observe that by construction $\Fil(H_i)$ is an ultrafilter and so equal to $\Fil(H'_i)$, whence $h'_i\in\mathcal{F}_i$. We can now prove a weaker version of the desired dichotomy.
\begin{claim}
Let $s$ be a lower part and $i<\lambda$. Then we have one of:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item For all $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ there do not exist $e$ and $q\leq h'(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},e,q)) \in X$.
\item For all $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ there are densely many $q$ in $\mathbb{B}(\vec{w},\vec{u})$ below $h'_i(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},f^s(\vec{w}),q)) \in X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose (i) is false, so we have $\vec{w}\in\dom h'_i$, $e$ and $q' \leq h'(\vec{w})\leq h(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},e,q'))\in X$. The choice of $f^s$ then gives us $q\leq h(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},f^s(\vec{w}),q)) \in X$. Now
$$q \leq h_i(\vec{w}) = b(H_i, B_i)(\vec{w}) = \bigvee_{\pi(\vec{w}^*)=\vec{w}, \vec{w}^*\in B_i} H_i(\vec{w}^*)$$
so there must be some $\vec{w}^* \in B_i$ with $\pi(\vec{w}^*)=\vec{w}$ such that $q \parallel H_i(\vec{w}^*)$. But $\vec{w}\in\dom h'_i$ so $\vec{w}^*\in C_i\subseteq C^s_i\downharpoonright s$; and $X$ is downwards closed so we cannot have been in the first case when we defined $C^s_i$, and must therefore be in the second case.
We wish to show that (ii) holds, so we are given some $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ and $r \in \mathbb{B}(\vec{w},\vec{u})$ below $h'_i(\vec{w})$. By similar reasoning we have that $r$ is compatible with $H'_i(\vec{w}^*)$ for some $\vec{w}^* \in C_i$ with $\pi(\vec{w}^*)=\vec{w}$. By the definition of $C^s_i$ we know that $s\frown ((\vec{w},f^s(\vec{w}),H'_i(\vec{w}^*)))\in X$ so it is possible to take $q\leq r$ with $s\frown ((\vec{w},f^s(\vec{w}),q))\in X$.
\end{proof}
For each lower part $s$ and each $i<\lambda$ that falls into case (ii) of the claim, and for each $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ we have a dense open set of $q \in \mathbb{B}(\vec{w},\vec{u})$ such that $s\frown ((\vec{w},f^s(\vec{w}),q))\in X$, and we take a maximal antichain contained in both this set and $\mathbb{C}(\vec{w},\vec{u})$. The $\kappa$-chain condition of the forcing tells us that this antichain is bounded, which is to say there is some $\eta_{s, i, \vec{w}} < \kappa$ with the antichain contained in $\mathbb{C}(\vec{w},\eta_{s, i, \vec{w}})$. We now refine $\dom h'$ to contain only $\vec{x}$ such that $\kappa(\vec{x})$ is a closure point of the function $(s, i, \vec{w}) \mapsto \eta_{s, i, \vec{w}}$ and immediately have the following strengthening of the claim.
For all lower parts $s$ and $i < \lambda$ we have one of:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item For all $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ there do not exist $e$ and $q\leq h'(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},e,q)) \in X$.
\item For all $\vec{w}\in \dom h'_i$ and $\vec{x}\in\dom h'$ such that $\kappa(\vec{w})<\kappa(\vec{x})$ there are densely many $q$ in $\mathbb{B}(\vec{w},\vec{x})$ below $h'_i(\vec{w})$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w},f^s(\vec{w}),q)) \in X$.
\end{enumerate}
To conclude the proof we will need to make further reductions of the domains of the $h'_i$. For each lower part $s$ and each $i<k<\lambda$ define $d^s_{i,k}$ to be the function $j(f^s)(\vec{u}\upharpoonright k)$ restricted to lower parts of length $i$. We observe that $j(f^s)(\vec{u}\upharpoonright k)$ is an upper part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}\upharpoonright k}$ so $d^s_{i,k}$ will have domain in $u_i$ and is a partial function from $V_{\kappa}$ to $V_{\kappa}$. Thus for any $\vec{v}$ in its domain we have $j(d^s_{i,k})(\vec{v}) = j(d^s_{i,k})(j(\vec{v})) = j(d^s_{i,k}(\vec{v}))=d^s_{i,k}(\vec{v})$, giving us
\begin{align*}
& \forall\vec{v}\in\dom d^s_{i,k}: j(d^s_{i,k})(\vec{v}) = d^s_{i,k}(\vec{v}) = j(f^s)(\vec{u}\upharpoonright k)(\vec{v}) \\
\Rightarrow& \forall_{u_k}\vec{w}: \forall\vec{v}\in\dom d^s_{i,k}\cap V_{\kappa(\vec{w})}: d^s_{i,k}(\vec{v}) = f^s(\vec{w})(\vec{v})
\end{align*}
Call this $u_k$-large set $X^s_{i,k}$ and take $h''^s\leq h'$ such that for all $j<\lambda$ we have $\dom h''^s_j\subseteq (\bigcap_{k>j}\dom d^s_{j,k})\cap(\bigcap_{i<j}X^s_{i, j})$. Also ensure $h''^s_i\leq j(f^s)(\vec{u}\upharpoonright k)$ for all $i<k<\lambda$; this is possible since all the functions involved are members of the $\kappa$-complete filter $\mathcal{F}_i$. Then by normality take $h''$ such that $h''\downharpoonright s\leq h''^s$ for all $s$. For any lower part $s$, $\vec{w}\in\dom h''$ and $\vec{v}\in\dom h''\upharpoonright\vec{w}$ above $s$ this gives
$$h''(\vec{v})\leq h''^s(\vec{v})\leq j(f^s)(\vec{u}\upharpoonright (\lh\vec{w}))(\vec{v})=f^s(\vec{w})(\vec{v}).$$
Hence $h''\upharpoonright\vec{w}\leq f^s(\vec{w})$ and since $X$ is $^*$-open we get $s\frown((\vec{w},h''\upharpoonright\vec{w},q))\in X$ for densely-many $q$ as required.
\end{proof}
This lemma is valuable because it allows us to express the crucial properties of $\vec{u}$ solely in terms of subsets of $V_{\kappa}$, rather than large supercompactness embeddings. When we perform the forcing iteration it will be possible to reflect these properties from the $\vec{u}$ that occurs at the end of the iteration to the $\vec{u}$ at earlier stages.
\section{Properties of the Radin forcing $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$} \label{properties_of_radin}
\subsection{The Prikry property}
\begin{proposition}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$. Then $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ has the Prikry property.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We are given some condition
$$p = ((\vec{w}_0,h_0,p_0),...,(\vec{w}_{n-1},h_{n-1},p_{n-1}),(\vec{u},h_n))$$
from $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ and a proposition $\varphi$, and wish to find a direct extension of $p$ that forces either $\varphi$ or $\neg\varphi$. For notational convenience we will deem $\vec{w}_n$ to be $\vec{u}$.
We define a descending sequence of $p^k$ by induction on $k\leq n$; starting with $p^0\leq^* p$ such that $p^0\parallel\phi$ if possible, or else $p^0:=p$. Given $p^{k-1}$, for each lower part $s\leq p^{k-1}\upharpoonright k$ for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_k}$, if possible take $((\vec{w}_k,h^s_k,p^s_k))\frown y^s_k \leq^* p^{k-1}\downharpoonright k$ such that $s\frown((\vec{w}_k,h^s_k,p^s_k))\frown y^s_k\parallel\phi$. Then by normality we can form $h'_k\leq h^s_k\downharpoonright s$ for all lower parts $s$, and by closure we can form $p'_k\leq p^s_k$ and $y'_k\leq y^s_k$ for all such $s$. Define $p^k := p^{k-1}\upharpoonright k\frown((\vec{w}_k,h'_k,p'_k))\frown y'_k$. The construction concludes with $p':=p^n$, so
$$p' = ((\vec{w}_0,h'_0,p'_0),...,(\vec{w}_{n-1},h'_{n-1},p'_{n-1}),(\vec{w}_n,h'_n))$$
such that for all $k\leq n$ and all lower parts $s \in \mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_k}$, if there is some direct extension $t$ of $p'\downharpoonright k$ with $s\frown t\parallel\varphi$ then already $s\frown p'\downharpoonright k\parallel\varphi$. Then for each $k\leq n$ define $X^+_k$ to be the set of lower parts $s$ in $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_k}$ such that $s\frown p'\downharpoonright k\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\varphi$. Similarly define $X^-_k$ with $\neg\varphi$ in place of $\varphi$. Take $h''_k \leq h'_k$ that captures both $X^+_k$ and $X^-_k$.
We claim that $$p'':=((\vec{w}_0,h''_0,p'_0),...,(\vec{w}_{n-1},h''_{n-1},p'_{n-1}),(\vec{w}_n,h''_n))$$
decides $\varphi$. Suppose this is not so, and take $t$ of minimal length below $p''$ that decides $\varphi$; without loss of generality we can assume $t\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\varphi$. Fix $k\leq n$ such that the largest new triple appearing in $t$ lies between $\vec{w}_{k-1}$ and $\vec{w}_k$. Call this triple $(\vec{v},e,q)$ and split $t$ as $r\frown((\vec{v},e,q))\frown s$. Observe that by the construction we actually have $r\frown((\vec{v},e,q))\frown p''\downharpoonright k \mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \varphi$. Observe further that the existence of such a $(\vec{v},e,q)$ tells us that $r$ and $\epsilon:=\lh\vec{v}$ fall into case (ii) of the capture of $X^+_k$. We will show by density that in fact $r\frown p''\downharpoonright k\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\varphi$, which will contradict the minimality of the length of $t$ and conclude the proof.
We are given some extension of $r\frown p''\downharpoonright k$, say of the form
$$r'\frown ((\vec{v}_0,e_0,q_0),...,(\vec{v}_{m-1},e_{m-1},q_{m-1}))\frown y$$
where $\kappa(\max r') = \kappa(\max r)$ and $\kappa(\min y) = \kappa(\vec{w}_k)$, and we seek an extension that forces $\varphi$. Fix $j$ such that $\lh\vec{v}_j = \epsilon$ and $\lh\vec{v}_i < \epsilon$ for all $i<j$; if there is no such $\vec{v}_j$ then we can easily insert one. We have $\vec{v}_j \in \dom h''_k$ and $q_j\leq h''_k(\vec{v}_j)$, and case (ii) of the capturing of $X^+_k$ occurs for $r$ and $\epsilon$, so we can find $q^*\leq q_j$ such that $r\frown((\vec{v}_j,h''_k\upharpoonright\vec{v}_j,q^*))\in X^+_k$, which is to say
$$r\frown((\vec{v}_j,h''_k\upharpoonright\vec{v}_j,q^*))\frown p'\downharpoonright k\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\varphi.$$
For $i<j$ the fact that $(\vec{v}_i,e_i,q_i)$ could be added below $(\vec{w}_k,h''_k)$ shows us that it can also be added below $(\vec{v}_j,h''_k\upharpoonright\vec{v}_j)$. This establishes that
$$r'\frown ((\vec{v}_0,e_0,q_0),... (\vec{v}_j,e_j\wedge h''_k\upharpoonright\vec{v}_j, q^*) ,...,(\vec{v}_{m-1},e_{m-1},q_{m-1}))\frown y$$
is below $r\frown((\vec{v}_j,h''_k\upharpoonright\vec{v}_j,q^*))\frown p'\downharpoonright k$ and hence forces $\varphi$, and it is also an extension of $r'\frown ((\vec{v}_0,e_0,q_0),...,(\vec{v}_{m-1},e_{m-1},q_{m-1}))\frown y$ as required.
\end{proof}
We can use this result to show that $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ preserves enough cardinals.
\begin{proposition} \label{preserveCardinals}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$ and $\langle\vec{w}_{\alpha},g_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\theta\rangle$ the generic sequence of ultrafilter sequences and collapses added by $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$.
Then for $\alpha<\theta$, $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ preserves the cardinals in $[\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha}),\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})^{+5}]$.
\item If we force below $((\vec{u},h))$ such that $\dom h$ contains only sequences of length less than $\lh\vec{u}$ then $\kappa$ becomes $\aleph_{\lh\vec{u}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Our proof is by induction on $\kappa(\vec{u})$. Given $\alpha<\theta$ take a condition $p$ in the generic filter of the form $p_1\frown((\vec{w}_{\alpha},e,q))\frown p_2$. Below $p$, $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ splits as
$$\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_{\alpha}}/p_1\frown((\vec{w}_{\alpha},e)) \:\:\times\:\: \mathbb{R}'_{\vec{u}}/((\langle\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\rangle,\phi,q))\frown p_2$$
where $\mathbb{R}'_{\vec{u}}$ is the same as $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ except with its first collapse starting from $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})^{+5}$ instead of $\omega^{+5}$. By hypothesis the first of these forcings preserves many cardinals below $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})$ and hence $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})$ itself; since it has the $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})^+$-cc it also preserves all larger cardinals. The second forcing has the Prikry property by a proof identical to the one above, and it is $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})^{+5}$-closed in the $\leq^*$-ordering, so it will preserve all remaining cardinals up to and including $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})^{+5}$.
\item Here we have $\theta=\omega^{\lh\vec{u}}=\lh\vec{u}$. By part (a) we have that cardinals in $[\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha}),\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})^{+5}]$ are preserved, and it is clear that all other cardinals below $\kappa(\vec{u})$ are collapsed. So the forcing leaves $\lh\vec{u}$-many cardinals below $\kappa$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Analysis of names}
Next we prove a technical lemma allowing us to replace $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$-names with names in smaller forcings; it will be useful to us in Lemma \ref{Qstrong} when we need to establish tight control over such names.
\begin{lemma} \label{nameAnalysis}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$, $\dot{x}$ a Boolean $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$-name (i.e. a name for a single true/false value), and $s\frown((\vec{u},h))\in\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$.
Then there is an ordinal $\beta<\kappa$, an upper part $h'\leq h$, and a $\mathbb{R}_{\max s}\times\mathbb{B}(\max s, \beta)$-name $\dot{y}$ such that $\dom h'$ lies above $\beta$ (so below $((\vec{u},h'))$ this $\dot{y}$ can be regarded as a $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$-name) and such that $s\frown((\vec{u},h'))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \dot{x}=\dot{y}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each $\beta>\kappa(\max s)$ and each $\mathbb{R}_{\max s}\times\mathbb{B}(\max s,\beta)$-name $\dot{y}$ use normality to take $h_{\dot{y}}\leq h$ such that for every lower part $t$, if there is some $h^*\leq h$ with $t\frown((\vec{u},h^*))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{x}=\dot{y}$ then $t\frown((\vec{u},h_{\dot{y}}))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{x}=\dot{y}$. Define $X_{\dot{y}}$ to be the set of lower parts $t$ such that
$$t\frown((\vec{u},h_{\dot{y}}))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{x}=\dot{y}$$
and take $h'_{\dot{y}}\leq h_{\dot{y}}$ capturing $X_{\dot{y}}$. Then use normality again to get $h'$ such that $h'\downharpoonright (\beta+1)\leq h_{\dot{y}}$ for all $\mathbb{R}_{\max s}\times\mathbb{B}(\max s,\beta)$-names $\dot{y}$.
Take $\vec{w}\in\dom h'$ above $s$ and of length $0$ (i.e. $\vec{w}=\langle\kappa(\vec{w})\rangle$). We can split $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ below $s\frown((\vec{w},\phi,0),(\vec{u},h'))$ as
$$\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}/s\frown((\vec{w},\phi))\times \mathbb{R}'_{\vec{u}}/((\vec{w},\phi, 0),(\vec{u},h'\downharpoonright \kappa(\vec{w})))$$
where $\mathbb{R}'_{\vec{u}}$ is the usual forcing derived from $u$ except that its first collapse starts from $\kappa(\vec{w})^{+5}$ rather than $\omega^{+5}$. Now we can view $\dot{x}$ as being a $\mathbb{R}'_{\vec{u}}$-name for a $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$-name. We know that $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$ has the $\kappa(\vec{w})^+$-cc, so the $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$-name in question consists of at most $\kappa(\vec{w})$-many pieces of information. This allows us to use the Prikry property and closure of $\mathbb{R}'_{\vec{u}}$ to take a direct extension $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,q), (\vec{u},h''))$ of $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,0), (\vec{u},h'\downharpoonright \kappa(\vec{w})))$ that determines the value of the $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$-name, say as $\dot{y}$, a $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$-name in the ground model. So returning to $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ we have
$$s\frown((\vec{w},\phi,q),(\vec{u},h''))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{x}=\dot{y}.$$
Observe that (since $\lh\vec{w}=0$) $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}}$ splits below $s\frown((\vec{w},\phi))$ as $\mathbb{R}_{\max s}/s \times \mathbb{B}(\max s, \vec{w})$; this has the $\kappa(\vec{w})$-cc so $\dot{y}$ is in fact a $\mathbb{R}_{\max s}\times\mathbb{B}(\max s, \beta)$-name for some $\beta<\kappa(\vec{w})$. Now by construction $X_{\dot{y}}$ contains $s\frown((\vec{w},\phi,q))$, and $\vec{w}\in\dom h_{\dot{y}}$, so when we captured $X_{\dot{y}}$ we must have been in case (ii) for $s$ and $0$. We can now use the same argument as in the proof of the Prikry condition to show that any extension of $s$ must be extensible to some condition in $X_{\dot{y}}$, so we have that $s\frown((\vec{u},h'))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{x}=\dot{y}$ as required.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Characterisation of genericity}
Finally we look for a way to characterise genericity that will allow us to take generic sequences for one Radin forcing and show that they are also generic for other Radin forcings. This characterisation develops similar ideas for simpler forcings found in \cite{Mathias} and \cite{Mitchell}.
\definition
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$. A sequence $\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha} \mid \alpha < \theta\rangle$ in some outer model of set theory is {\em geometric} for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ if it satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{ \kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha}) \mid \alpha < \theta\}$ is club in $\kappa(\vec{u})$ with $\kappa(\vec{w}_0)=\omega$.
\item For all limit ordinals $\alpha < \theta$, $\langle \vec{w}_{\beta}, g_{\beta} \mid \beta < \alpha\rangle$ is generic for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_{\alpha}}$.
\item For all $\alpha$, $g_{\alpha}$ is $\mathbb{B}(\vec{w}_{\alpha},\vec{w}_{\alpha+1})$-generic.
\item For every $X\in V_{\kappa(\vec{u})+1}$; $X \in \bigcap_{i<\lh\vec{u}}u_i$ iff for all large $\alpha$, $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in X$.
\item For every upper part $h$ for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$, for all large $\alpha$, $h(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$.
\end{enumerate}
Note (4) implies that for all $i<\lh\vec{u}$ there are unboundedly many $\alpha<\theta$ such that $\lh(\vec{w}_{\alpha})=i$.
It is clear that a generic sequence for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ is geometric; we aim to show the converse.
\begin{definition} \label{defnGenericFilter}
We have already seen that from a generic filter for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ it is possible to derive a generic sequence $G=\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha} \mid \alpha < \theta\rangle$. Conversely, given such a generic sequence we can rederive the generic filter $F_G$, which will consist of all conditions $((\vec{v}_0,e_0,p_0),...,(\vec{v}_{n-1},e_{n-1},p_{n-1}),(\vec{u},h))$ with $(\vec{v}_n,e_n):=(\vec{u},h)$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item For all $k<n$ there is $\alpha$ such that $\vec{v}_k=\vec{w}_{\alpha}$ and $p_k\in g_{\alpha}$
\item For $\alpha$ and $k\leq n$, if $\kappa(\vec{v}_{k-1})<\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})<\kappa(\vec{v}_k)$, then $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in\dom e_k$ and $e_k(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We will say a sequence $\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha} \mid \alpha < \theta\rangle$ {\em respects} $(\vec{u},h)$ if for all $\alpha < \theta$ we have $\vec{w}_{\alpha} \in \dom h$ and $h(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{geometricLemma}
Let $\vec{u} \in \mathcal{U}$, $h$ an upper part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ and $D\subseteq \mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ dense open. Then there is an upper part $h' \leq h$ such that for every geometric sequence $G$ respecting $(\vec{u},h')$ we have $F_G\cap D \neq \phi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $\kappa:=\kappa(\vec{u})$ and $\lambda:=\lh\vec{u}$. Invoke normality to take $h^*\leq h$ such that for every lower part $t$, if there is an $h'$ such that $t\frown((\vec{u},h'))\in D$ then $t\frown((\vec{u},h^*\downharpoonright t))\in D$. Define $X^{\phi}$ to be the set of lower parts $t$ such that $t\frown((\vec{u},h^*))\in D$. We will inductively define $X^{\eta}$ for $\eta$ any finite sequence of $i<\lambda$. First take $h^{\eta}\leq h^*$ capturing $X^{\eta}$. Then for each $i<\lambda$, the set $X^{\langle i\rangle\frown\eta}$ will consist of all $t$ that with $i$ fall into case (ii) of the capturing of $X^{\eta}$. The number of possible $\eta$ is less than $\kappa$ so by $\kappa$-completeness we can fix $h'$ that is below $h^{\eta}$ for all such $\eta$.
We note that there are densely-many $r$ in $\mathbb{B}(\omega,\kappa)$ such that $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,r))\in X^{\eta}$ for some $\eta$. This is because for any $r\in\mathbb{B}(\omega,\kappa)$ we can extend $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,r),(\vec{u},h'))$ to a condition $t\frown((\vec{u},h^*)) \in D$; then $t\in X^{\phi}$ and inductively removing triples of $t$ from the right yields $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,r'))\in X^{\eta}$ for some $r'\leq r$ and $\eta$.
Now we are given a geometric sequence $G=\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha} \mid \alpha < \theta\rangle$ that respects $(\vec{u},h')$ and must show $F_G\cap D \neq \phi$.
By the density in $\mathbb{B}(\omega,\kappa)$ just noted, and by the genericity of $g_0$, take $q_0\in g_0$ and $\eta$ such that $((\langle\omega\rangle,\phi,q_0))\in X^{\eta}$. Say $\eta=:\langle i_1,...,i_{n-1}\rangle$. Define $\alpha_0=0$ and then inductively take $\alpha_{k+1}>\alpha_k$ minimal such that $\lh\vec{w}_{\alpha_{k+1}}=i_k$. We note that this must be possible by clause (4) in the definition of geometricity. Then for $k\geq 1$ inductively choose $q_k\in g_{\alpha_k}$ such that
$$s_k:=((\vec{w}_0,h'\upharpoonright\vec{w}_0,q_0),...,(\vec{w}_{\alpha_k},h'\upharpoonright\vec{w}_{\alpha_k},q_k))\in X^{\langle i_{k+1},...i_{n-1}\rangle},$$
invoking the nature of case (ii) capturing, the genericity of the $g_k$, and the fact $h'(\vec{w}_{\alpha_k})\in g_{\alpha_k}$. This concludes with $s_{n-1}\in X^{\phi}$ so $s_{n-1}\frown((\vec{u},h'))\in D$ (as $h'\leq h^*$), and it remains to show that $s_{n-1}\frown((\vec{u},h'))\in F_G$.
The first of the two requirements from Definition \ref{defnGenericFilter} is clear from the construction itself. Now we must consider the case of some $\beta < \theta$ and $k\leq n$ such that $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha_{k-1}}) < \kappa(\vec{w}_{\beta}) < \kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha_k})$, or equivalently $\alpha_{k-1}<\beta<\alpha_k$. Note that the $k=n$ case is taken care of by the respect of $G$ for $(\vec{u},h')$. The minimality of our choice of $\alpha_k$ (together with clauses 2 and 4 in the definition of geometric) tells us that $\lh\vec{w}_{\beta}<\lh\vec{w}_{\alpha_k}$, so $\vec{w}_{\beta}\in\dom h'\upharpoonright\vec{w}_{\alpha_k}$. Then from the respect of $G$ for $(\vec{u},h')$ we have $h'(\vec{w}_{\beta})\in g_{\beta}$ as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{characteriseGenericity}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$. Then a sequence $G$ is generic for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ iff it is geometric for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We are given $D\subseteq\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ dense open and wish to show that $D\cap F_G\neq\phi$. We begin by using normality to take an upper part $h$ such that for all lower parts $s$, if there is some $\tilde{h}$ such that $s\frown((\vec{u},\tilde{h}))\in D$ then already $s\frown((\vec{u},h\downharpoonright s))\in D$. For each lower part $s$, use the Prikry property for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ to take $h_s\leq h\downharpoonright s$ such that
$$((\vec{u},h_s))\parallel\exists t\in \dot{\Gamma}: s\frown t\frown ((\vec{u},h))\in D$$
where $\dot{\Gamma}$ is the name for the set of all lower parts for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ that appear as the lower part of some condition in the generic filter. We say $s$ is {\em good} if the decision is positive. For good $s$ we have $$D_s:=\{t\frown((\vec{u},h^*))\mid s\frown t\frown((\vec{u},h^*))\in D\}$$
dense open below $((\vec{u},h_s))$. For these $s$ use Lemma \ref{geometricLemma} to take $h'_s\leq h_s$ such that for all geometric $G$ respecting $(\vec{u},h'_s)$ we have $F_G\cap D \neq\phi$. Then by normality take $h'\leq h\downharpoonright s$ for all $s$, and note that also
$$((\vec{u},h'))\parallel \exists t\in \dot{\Gamma}: s\frown t\frown ((\vec{u},h))\in D$$
for all lower parts $s$. Finally take $h''\leq h'$ that captures the set of good lower parts; we say that a lower part $r$ that falls into case (ii) of this capturing is {\em pre-good}.
Write the geometric $G$ we were given as $\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha} \mid \alpha < \theta\rangle$, and use clause 5 of geometricity to take $\beta<\theta$ a limit ordinal such that
$$\forall \alpha\geq \beta: \vec{w}_{\alpha}\in\dom h'', h''(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}.$$
Then take $\gamma>\beta$ also limit such that for all $\beta<\alpha<\gamma$, $\lh\vec{w}_{\alpha}<\lh\vec{w}_{\gamma}$; this is possible as $\cf\theta>\omega$ and all lengths occur cofinally in $\langle\vec{w}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\theta\rangle$.
\begin{claim}
There are densely-many $r\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e))$ in $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_{\gamma}}$ such that $r$ is pre-good.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We are given a condition $r\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e))\in\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_{\gamma}}$ and have that $r\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e,0),(\vec{u},h'')) \in \mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ so we can extend it to
$$r'\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e',q))\frown t\frown((\vec{u},h''))\in D,$$
and the choice of $h$ then gives
$$r'\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e',q))\frown t\frown((\vec{u},h))\in D.$$
The decision made by $((\vec{u},h'))$ for $r'\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e',q))$ must thus have been positive, which is to say $r'\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e',q))$ is good. The fact that $\vec{w}_{\gamma}\in\dom h''$ and $q\leq h''(\vec{w})$ then gives that $r'$ is pre-good; we are now done because $r'\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e'))\leq r\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e))$ in $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{w}_{\gamma}}$.
\end{proof}
The claim allows us to use property 2 of $G$ to find some pre-good $r$ and $e$ with $r\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},e))\in F_{G\upharpoonright\gamma}$ and $\kappa(\max(r))>\kappa(\beta)$. Then we use case (ii) of capturing to take $p\in\mathbb{B}(\vec{w}_{\gamma},\vec{w}_{\gamma+1})$ such that $p\in g_{\gamma}$ and $s:=r\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma},h''\upharpoonright\vec{w}_{\gamma},p))$ is good. For all $\alpha<\gamma$ with $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})$ above $r$ we have $\alpha>\beta$, so $\lh\vec{w}_{\alpha}<\lh\vec{w}_{\gamma}$ and $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in\dom h''\upharpoonright\vec{w}_{\gamma}$; also $h''(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$ by the choice of $\beta$. Combining these shows us that $s\frown((\vec{w}_{\gamma+1},\phi))\in F_{G\upharpoonright(\gamma+1)}$.
Now $D_s$ is dense and $G\downharpoonright(\gamma+1)$ respects $h'$ so we can take $t\frown((\vec{u},h^*))\leq((\vec{u},h'))$ in $F_{G\downharpoonright(\gamma+1)}\cap D_s$. Then by the definitions of $F_G$ and $D_s$ we have $s\frown t\frown((\vec{u},h^*))\in F_G\cap D$, and are done.
\end{proof}
\section{The preparatory forcing $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$} \label{preparatory_forcing}
In this section we work in the following context.
\begin{setting}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$ with $\kappa:=\kappa(\vec{u})$ and $\lambda:=\lh\vec{u}$ regular uncountable. Let $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$ and $2^{\kappa^+}=\kappa^{+3}$. Assume there exists a binary tree $T$ of height and size $\kappa^+$ (i.e. a tree such that each node has two successors on the next level) with $\langle x_{\alpha}\mid \alpha<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$ an enumeration of its branches. Let $\langle \dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\mid \alpha<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$ be an enumeration of the $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$-names for graphs on $\kappa^+$. We note that such an enumeration is possible since $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ has size $2^{\kappa}$ and the $\kappa^+$-cc.
\end{setting}
\subsection{Defining the forcing $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$}
We will want to perform an iteration that preserves $V_{\kappa}$ and successively expands $V_{\kappa+1}$ and thus the sequences of ultrafilters. With this in mind we consider a member $\vec{u}$ of $\mathcal{U}$, and seek to add a partial function $g$ from $V_{\kappa}$ to $V_{\kappa}$ such that defining $g_i := g\upharpoonright\{\vec{w}\in\mathcal{U}\mid\lh \vec{w} = i\}$ we could potentially expand $\vec{u}$ to some $\vec{u}'$ in the generic extension with $g_i\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}',i}$. In order to accomplish this we will need the $g$ we build to be appropriately compatible with the pre-existing members of $\vec{u}$, motivating the following definition which generalises long Prikry forcing to the case of Radin forcing with collapses.
\begin{definition}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$. Then $\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$ is defined to have conditions $(c,h)$ where $h$ is an upper part for $\vec{u}$ and there is $\rho^{(c,h)}:=\rho<\kappa$ such that $c$ is a partial function from $\mathcal{U}\cap V_{\rho}$ to $V_{\kappa}$ such that
$$\forall \vec{v}\in \dom c: c(\vec{v})\in\mathbb{B}(\vec{v},\vec{\kappa})-\{0\}, c\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{v}) \in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{v}}.$$
We also require $\kappa(\vec{v})<\kappa(\vec{w})$ for $\vec{v}\in\dom c$ and $\vec{w}\in\dom h$.
We define $(c',h')\leq(c,h)$ if $c'\upharpoonright\rho^{(c,h)}=c$, $h'\leq h$ and for each $\vec{w}\in\dom c' - \dom c$ we have $\vec{w}\in\dom h$ and $c(\vec{w})\leq h(\vec{w})$.
Also define $a^{(c,h)}:=\{\kappa(\vec{w})\mid \vec{w}\in\dom c\}$.
\end{definition}
For any $(c,h)\in\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$ and $\vec{w}\in\dom h$ the definition of upper part gives us that $(c\cup h\upharpoonright(\kappa(\vec{w})+1), h\downharpoonright(\kappa(\vec{w})+1))\leq(c,h)$ so by density $\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$ will add a partial function $g$ from $V_{\kappa}$ to $V_{\kappa}$ such that for all upper parts $h$ there is a $\mu<\kappa$ with $g\downharpoonright\mu\leq h$.
We now augment this definition into one that will help us add a family of universal graphs together with functions witnessing their universality.
\begin{definition}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$. Then $\mathbb{Q}^*_{\vec{u}}$ has conditions $p=(c,h,t,f)$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(c,h)\in\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$. We define $a^p$ to be $a^{(c,h)}$.
\item $t\in[(a^p\cap\sup a^p)\times \kappa^{+3}]^{<\kappa}$.
\item $f =: \langle f^{\eta}_{\alpha}\mid (\eta,\alpha)\in t\rangle$ with $\dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}\in [\kappa^+]^{<\kappa}$.
\item For each $(\eta,\alpha)\in t$ and $\zeta\in\dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}$ there is $\gamma < \kappa$ with $f^{\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta) = (x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\zeta, \gamma)$.
\end{enumerate}
We also write $t^{\eta}:=\{\alpha \mid (\eta,\alpha)\in t\}$.
We define $(c',h',t',f')\leq(c,h,t,f)$ if $(c',h')\leq(c,h)$ in $\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$, $t'\supseteq t$, and for all $(\eta, \alpha)\in t$ we have $f'^{\eta}_{\alpha}\supseteq f^{\eta}_{\alpha}$.
Note that this definition is implicitly dependent on the $\langle x_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$ and $\langle\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$ from the setting.
\end{definition}
In addition to the function $g$ added by $\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$, this forcing will for each $\vec{w}\in \dom g$ and $\alpha<\kappa^{+3}$ add a function from $\kappa^+$ to $T\times\kappa$, the first co-ordinate of which will run along the branch $x_{\alpha}$. The idea here is that after Radin forcing the $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$-name $\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}$ will be realised as a graph on $\kappa^+$ and then (for some $\eta$ to be selected later) the function $f^{\eta}_{\alpha}$ will map it into $T\times\kappa$. We will then include in our list of jointly-universal graphs the graph on $T\times\kappa$ induced by all these embeddings. This raises the problem that there may be disagreements between the many graphs we are trying to simultaneously embed as to whether or not a particular edge should exist. In order to gain better control of the situation we will add a fifth requirement on forcing conditions, and for this we need a technical definition.
\begin{definition}
Let $s=\langle (\vec{w}_k,e_k,q_k)\mid k<n\rangle$ be a lower part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$, $c$ the first co-ordinate of a condition from $\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$ and $\eta<\kappa$. Then we say $s$ is {\em harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$} if for all $k<n$ we have one of:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\kappa(\vec{w}_k)<\eta$.
\item $\kappa(\vec{w}_k)=\eta$ and $\lh\vec{w}_k = 0$.
\item $\kappa(\vec{w}_k)>\eta$, $e_k\leq c\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{w}_k)$, $\kappa(\vec{v})>\eta$ for all $\vec{v}\in\dom e_k$, $\vec{w}_k\in\dom c$ and $q_k\leq c(\vec{w}_k)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{openHarmony}
Let $s$ be harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$ and $s'\leq s$ (so $\kappa(\max s')=\kappa(\max s)$). Then $s'$ is harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider some element $(\vec{v},d,p)$ from $s'$. If $\vec{v}$ already occurs in $s$ then it is clear that is satisfies the conditions. Otherwise it was added below some element $(\vec{w},e,q)$ from $s$ (because $\kappa(\max s') = \kappa(\max s)$). If $\kappa(\vec{w})\leq\eta$ then $\kappa(\vec{v})<\eta$ so all is well. Otherwise since $\vec{v}\in\dom e$ we get $\kappa(\vec{v})>\eta$. The required conditions in this case follow since $d\leq e\upharpoonright V_{\kappa(\vec{v})}$ and $p\leq e(\vec{v})$.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to define the desired forcing.
\begin{definition}
The forcing $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ consists of conditions $(c,h,t,f)$ that satisfy the four conditions from the definition of $\mathbb{Q}^*_{\vec{u}}$, which for convenience we repeat here, together with one more:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(c,h)\in\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$.
\item $t\in[(a\cap\sup a)\times \kappa^{+3}]^{<\kappa}$ where $a:=a^{(c,h)}$.
\item $f =: \langle f^{\eta}_{\alpha}\mid (\eta,\alpha)\in t\rangle$ with $\dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}\in [\kappa^+]^{<\kappa}$.
\item For each relevant $\eta$, $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ there is $\gamma < \kappa$ with $f^{\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta) = (x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\zeta, \gamma)$.
\item Let $\eta\in a\cap\sup a$, $\alpha,\beta\in t^{\eta}$, $s$ a lower part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ that is harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$, and $\zeta,\zeta'\in\dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}\cap \dom f^{\eta}_{\beta}$. Let also $f^{\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta) = f^{\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta)\neq f^{\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta')=f^{\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta')$. Then
$$s\frown((\vec{u},h))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}} \zeta \dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\zeta' \leftrightarrow \zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}\zeta'.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We will be able to use this final condition at the end of the argument to ensure that graphs (given by the $\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}$) that we wish to map to the same place will agree about which edges should exist. But first we must establish that the right kind of generic object is still added. In doing so we establish a slightly stronger result that tidies up the conditions and will aid some of our later reasoning.
\begin{lemma} \label{squareOff}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$, $l$ an upper part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$, $\eta<\mu<\kappa$, $\epsilon,\epsilon'<\kappa^{+3}$ and $\zeta,\zeta'<\kappa^+$. Let $p \in \mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ with $\eta \in a^p$. Then there are densely many conditions $q=(c,h,t,f)$ below $p$ such that $a^q$ has a maximal element greater than $\mu$, $h\leq l$, and there are $A\in[\kappa^{+3}]^{<\kappa}$ and $B\in[\kappa^+]^{<\kappa}$ with $t = (a^q\cap\sup a^q)\times A\ni(\eta,\epsilon),(\eta,\epsilon')$ and $\dom f^{\theta}_{\beta} = B\ni\zeta,\zeta'$ for each $(\theta, \beta)\in t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We are given some condition $r=(c,h,t,f)\leq p$ to extend. Choose some $\vec{w}\in\dom h$ such that $\kappa(\vec{w})>\mu$ and define $c' = c\cup h\upharpoonright (\kappa(\vec{w})+1)$ and take $h'\leq l$, $h\downharpoonright\vec{w}$. Then $(c',h')$ will be in $\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}}$ by the definition of upper part, and $a^{(c',h')}$ will have a maximum element $\kappa(\vec{w})$ as required.
Now we wish to add new points to $t$ and the domains of the $f$ functions, in order to ensure they contain the required co-ordinates and are ``squared off'' as specified. There are $<\kappa$-many new points needed so we can choose values for the second co-ordinates of the $f^{\theta}_{\beta}(\tau)$ that are all distinct both from pre-existing values and each other. This will avoid creating any new instances of the fifth clause of the definition of $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$. Call the resulting condition $q=(c',h',t',f')$.
Suppose we are given $\theta \in a^{r'}\cap\sup a^{r'}$, $\alpha,\beta \in A$, $s$ a lower part for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ harmonious with $c'$ past $\theta$, and $\tau,\tau'\in B$ such that $f'^{\theta}_{\alpha}(\tau) = f'^{\theta}_{\beta}(\tau)\neq f'^{\theta}_{\alpha}(\tau')=f'^{\theta}_{\beta}(\tau')$. We want
$$s\frown((\vec{u},h'))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \tau\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\tau'\leftrightarrow\tau\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}\tau'.$$
Note by the construction of $f'$ that we must have $\theta\in a^r\cap\sup a^r$ with $\alpha,\beta\in t^{\theta}$ and $\tau,\tau'\in\dom f^{\theta}_{\alpha}\cap \dom f^{\theta}_{\beta}$ for these equalities to be possible. We would like to split $s$ as $s_1\frown s_2$ such that $s_1$ is harmonious with $c$ past $\theta$ and $s\frown((\vec{u},h'))\leq s_1\frown((\vec{u},h))$. Unfortunately this may not be possible because the smallest triple of $s_1$ may have a second co-ordinate that includes entries from $c$. So instead we show that $s\frown((\vec{u},h'))$ forces the required statement by a density argument.
Given any $s^*\frown((\vec{u},h''))\leq s\frown((\vec{u},h'))$ split $s^*$ as $s^*_1\frown s^*_2$ such that $\kappa(\max s^*_1)<\ssup a^r$ and $\kappa(\min s^*_2)\geq\ssup a^r$. By Lemma \ref{openHarmony} we have that $s^*_1\frown s^*_2$ is harmonious with $c'$ past $\theta$, and so also $s^*_1$ is harmonious with $c$ past $\theta$. By the conditionhood of $r$ this gives
$$s^*_1\frown((\vec{u},h))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \tau\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\tau'\leftrightarrow\tau\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}\tau'.$$
Strengthen $s^*_2$ to $s^{**}_2$ by shrinking the second co-ordinate of $\min s^*_2$ as necessary to ensure that it lies above $\sup a^r$, so that $s^{**}_2$ can be added below $h$. Defining $s^{**}:=s^*_1\frown s^{**}_2$ this gives us $s^{**}\frown((\vec{u},h''))\leq s^*_1\frown((\vec{u},h))$, so $s^{**}\frown((\vec{u},h''))$ forces the desideratum. We also have $s^{**}\frown((\vec{u},h''))\leq s^*\frown((\vec{u},h''))$ so we are done.
\end{proof}
Being able to perform the argument above is a reason for the second co-ordinate in the definition of the $f^{\eta}_{\alpha}$. From another perspective the second co-ordinate gives us a greater degree of flexibility in our embeddings into the jointly-universal graphs.
\subsection{Properties of $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$}
We now prove properties of the $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$-forcings that will be valuable when we come to iterate them. First we recall some definitions.
\begin{definition}
A subset $X$ of a forcing $\mathbb{P}$ is {\em centred} if every finite subset of $X$ has a lower bound. The forcing $\mathbb{P}$ is {\em $\kappa$-compact} if every centred subset of size less than $\kappa$ has a lower bound.
\end{definition}
Note that $\kappa$-compactness implies $\kappa$-directed closure.
\begin{lemma} \label{Qcompact}
The forcing $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ is $\kappa$-compact.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We are given some $X\subseteq\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ with $|X|<\kappa$. For each finite subset $x$ of $X$, take a lower bound $(c^x,h^x,t^x,f^x)$ for $x$. It is clear that we can take some $h^*$ that is below $h^x$ for all such $x$ (using the $\kappa$-completeness of $\mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}}$). Also form $c^*$, $t^*$ and $f^*$ by unions of all the individual $c$, $t$ and $f$ from conditions in $X$. Note we do not use the $c^x$, $t^x$ and $f^x$ as these are not guaranteed to be compatible.
We can see that $(c^*,h^*,t^*,f^*)$ satisfies the requirements for being a member of $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ except possibly the fifth one. Suppose we are given $\eta,\alpha,\beta,\zeta$ and $\zeta'$ together with $s$ harmonious with $c^*$ past $\eta$ such that $f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta) = f^{*,\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta)\neq f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta')=f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta')$. Then choose a finite set $x \subseteq X$ that contains conditions $(c,h,t,f)$ which between them witness all of the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s$ is harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$.
\item $(\eta,\alpha)\in t$ and $\zeta\in\dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}$.
\item $(\eta,\alpha)\in t$ and $\zeta'\in\dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}$.
\item $(\eta,\beta)\in t$ and $\zeta\in\dom f^{\eta}_{\beta}$.
\item $(\eta,\beta)\in t$ and $\zeta'\in\dom f^{\eta}_{\beta}$.
\end{itemize}
Now $(c^x,h^x,t^x,f^x)$ is a condition in $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ so
$$s\frown((\vec{u},h^x))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\zeta'\leftrightarrow\zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}\zeta'$$
and we ensured $h^*\leq h^x$ so $s\frown((\vec{u},h^*))$ will force the same thing.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
The forcing $\mathbb{P}$ has the {\em strong $\kappa^+$-chain condition} if for every sequence $\langle p_{\alpha}\mid \alpha<\kappa^+\rangle$ from $\mathbb{P}$ there are a club $C\subseteq\kappa^+$ and a regressive function $f:(C\cap\cof\kappa)\rightarrow\kappa^+$ such that for all $\alpha,\beta\in C\cap\cof\kappa$ if $f(\alpha)=f(\beta)$ then $p_{\alpha}$ and $p_{\beta}$ are compatible.
\end{definition}
Note that by Fodor's theorem this property immediately implies the usual $\kappa^+$-chain condition.
\begin{lemma} \label{Qstrong}
The forcing $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ has the strong $\kappa^+$-chain condition.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We are given $\langle p_i\mid i<\kappa^+\rangle$ a sequence of conditions from $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$. Define $(c^i,h^i,t^i,f^i):=p^i$, $\langle f^{i,\eta}_{\alpha}\mid(\eta,\alpha)\in t^i\rangle:=f^i$ and $a^i:=a^{p^i}$. We use our ability to extend conditions as in lemma \ref{squareOff} to assume there are $A^i$ and $B^i$ such that $t^i = (a^i\cap\sup a^i)\times A^i$ and for all $(\eta,\alpha)\in t^i$ that $\dom f^{i,\eta}_{\alpha}=B^i$.
For each $i<\kappa^+$, $\alpha\in A^i$, $\zeta,\zeta'\in B^i$ and lower part $s$ we have ``$\zeta \dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\zeta'$'' a binary name, so by Lemma \ref{nameAnalysis} we can take $h'\leq h^i$ and a $\mathbb{R}_{\max s}\times\mathbb{B}(\max s, \gamma)$-name $\dot{y}^i_{\alpha,s}(\zeta,\zeta')$ for some $\gamma<\kappa$ with $s\frown((\vec{u},h'))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \zeta \dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\zeta'\leftrightarrow \dot{y}^i_{\alpha,s}(\zeta,\zeta')$. For each $i$ we will use the $\kappa$-closure of upper parts to assume, by shrinking as necessary, that $s\frown((\vec{u},h^i))$ forces this for all such $\alpha$, $\zeta$ and $\zeta'$ and for all lower parts $s$ with $\kappa(\max s)\leq\sup a^i$ and the third co-ordinate of $\max s$ equal to zero.
Enumerate $\bigcup_{i<\kappa^+}A^i\subseteq\kappa^{+3}$ as $\{\beta(j) \mid j<\kappa^+\}$, and for each $i<\kappa^+$ enumerate $R^i:=\{j<\kappa^+\mid \beta(j)\in A^i\}$ in increasing order as $\{j^i_{\epsilon}\mid\epsilon<\mu^i\}$ for some $\mu^i<\kappa$. Fix $\{ t(k)\mid k<\kappa^+\}$ an enumeration of points in $T$ (the tree from which the branches $x_{\alpha}$ come) and define $T^i$ to be the set of $k<\kappa^+$ such that $f^{i,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)=(t(k),\nu)$ for some $\eta$, $\alpha$, $\zeta$ and $\nu$. Construct functions as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $F_1(i)=(c^i,\mu^i, R^i\cap i, B^i\cap i,T^i\cap i)$.
\item $F_2(i)$ is the set of tuples $(\eta, \epsilon,\zeta, k,\nu)$ such that $\eta\in a^i\cap\sup a^i$, $\epsilon<\mu^i$, $\zeta<i$, $k<i$ and $f^{i,\eta}_{\beta(j^i_{\epsilon})}(\zeta)=(t(k),\nu)$.
\item $F_3(i)$ is the set of tuples $(\epsilon, s, \zeta,\zeta', \dot{y}^i_{\beta(j^i_{\epsilon}),s}(\zeta,\zeta'))$ for $\epsilon<\mu^i$, $s$ a lower part of the form described above, and $\zeta,\zeta'\in B^i\cap i$.
\end{itemize}
Then we define $F(i)=(F_1(i),F_2(i),F_3(i))$. Note that $F(i)$ will be a member of
$$(V_{\kappa}^2\times([i]^{<\kappa})^3)\times(\kappa^2\times i^2\times\kappa)^{<\kappa}\times(\kappa\times V_{\kappa}\times i^2\times V_{\kappa})^{<\kappa}.$$
Fix an injection $G$ from
$$(V_{\kappa}^2\times([\kappa^+]^{<\kappa})^3)\times(\kappa^2\times (\kappa^+)^2\times\kappa)^{<\kappa}\times(\kappa\times V_{\kappa}\times (\kappa^+)^2\times V_{\kappa})^{<\kappa}$$
to $\kappa^+$. We have $\kappa^{<\kappa}=\kappa$ which implies $(\kappa^+)^{<\kappa}=\kappa^+$ so we can find a club $C_0$ such that for all points $i$ in $C_0\cap\cof\kappa$,
$$G``((V_{\kappa}^2\times([i]^{<\kappa})^3)\times(\kappa^2\times i^2\times\kappa)^{<\kappa}\times(\kappa\times V_{\kappa}\times i^2\times V_{\kappa})^{<\kappa})\subseteq i.$$
This will make $G\circ F:\kappa^+\rightarrow\kappa^+$ regressive on $C_0$.
Define $C_1$ to be the club subset of $\kappa^+$ consisting of points $i'$ such that for all $i<i'$ we have that $R^i, B^i, T^i\subseteq i'$ and for all $\alpha\neq\beta$ in $A^i$ that $x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright i'\neq x_{\beta}\upharpoonright i'$.
We will prove that the regressive function $G\circ F$ and club $C_0\cap C_1$ together serve as witnesses to the strong $\kappa^+$-chain condition. So given $i<i'$ in $C_0\cap C_1$ such that $G(F(i))=G(F(i'))$ we wish to show that $p^i$ is compatible with $p^{i'}$. Note that the properties of $C_1$ plus the fact that $F_1(i)=F_1(i')$ mean that $R^i\cap R^{i'}$, $R^i-R^{i'}$ and $R^{i'}-R^i$ are positioned in increasing order as subsets of $\kappa^+$, and likewise for $B^i$ and $T^i$.
First consider any $\eta\in a^i\cap\sup a^i=a^{i'}\cap\sup a^{i'}$, $\alpha\in A^i\cap A^{i'}$ and $\zeta\in B^i\cap B^{i'}$. It is clear that the first co-ordinates of $f^{i,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)$ and $f^{i',\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)$ agree, since they are just $x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\zeta$; say this is equal to $t(k)$ and then as $k\in T^i$ and $i'\in C_1$ we get $k<i'$. Let $\alpha=:\beta(j)$, with $j\in R^i\cap R^{i'}$ so by the increasing enumeration, $j=:j^i_{\epsilon}=j^{i'}_{\epsilon}$ for some $\epsilon<\mu^i=\mu^{i'}$. We have $\zeta\in B^i\subseteq i'$. Thus the tuple $(\eta,\epsilon,\zeta,k,\pi_2(f^{i',\eta}_{\beta(j^{i'}_{\epsilon})}(\zeta)))$ will be a member of $F_2(i')$ and so also of $F_2(i)$ and we have $f^{i,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)=f^{i',\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)$.
The preceding argument allows us to define a putative lower bound $p^*=(c^*,h^*,t^*,f^*)$ for $p^i$ and $p^{i'}$ given by $c^*=c^i=c^{i'}$, $h^*$ any upper part below $h^i$ and $h^{i'}$, $t^*=t^i\cup t^{i'}$, and $f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}$ equal to either $f^{i,\eta}_{\alpha}\cup f^{i',\eta}_{\alpha}$, $f^{i,\eta}_{\alpha}$ or $f^{i',\eta}_{\alpha}$ depending on whether $\alpha$ is in $A^i\cap A^{i'}$, $A^i-A^{i'}$ or $A^{i'}-A^i$ respectively. It is clear that this $p^*$ will satisfy the first four clauses of the definition of $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ so it remains to show the fifth.
Define $a^*:=a^i=a^{i'}$. We will be given $\eta\in a^*\cap\sup a^*$, $\alpha,\beta\in t^{*,\eta}$, $s$ harmonious with $c^*$ past $\eta$ and $\zeta,\zeta'\in \dom f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}\cap f^{*,\eta}_{\beta}$ such that $f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta) = f^{*,\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta)\neq f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta')=f^{*,\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta')$. We wish to show that
$$s\frown((\vec{u},h^*))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\zeta'\leftrightarrow\zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}\zeta'.$$
We see that
$$(\alpha,\zeta),(\alpha,\zeta'),(\beta,\zeta),(\beta,\zeta')\in (A^i\times B^i)\cup(A^{i'}\times B^{i'}),$$
which compels that either all the co-ordinates occur in a single one of $A^i\times B^i$ or $A^{i'}\times B^{i'}$, from which the result is obvious, or (without loss of generality) that we have one of the following two cases.
\begin{case1}
$\alpha,\beta \in A^i\cap A^{i'}$, $\zeta\in B^i-B^{i'}$ and $\zeta'\in B^{i'}-B^i$.
\end{case1}
We may assume $\alpha\neq\beta$. The definition of $C_1$ and the fact that $\alpha,\beta \in A^i$ ensures that $x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright i'\neq x_{\beta}\upharpoonright i'$. But $B^{i'}\cap i'=B^i\cap i$ so we must have have $\zeta'\geq i'$, giving $x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright \zeta'\neq x_{\beta}\upharpoonright \zeta'$. This contradicts $f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta')=f^{*,\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta')$.
\begin{case2}
$\alpha\in A^i-A^{i'}$, $\beta\in A^{i'}-A^i$ and $\zeta,\zeta'\in B^i\cap B^{i'}$.
\end{case2}
Take $j$ such that $\beta(j)=\alpha$, $j'$ such that $\beta(j')=\beta$, $\epsilon$ such that $j^i_{\epsilon}=j$ and $\epsilon'$ such that $j^{i'}_{\epsilon'}=j'$. Take $k$ such that $x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\zeta=x_{\beta}\upharpoonright\zeta=t(k)$ and $k'$ such that $x_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\zeta'=x_{\beta}\upharpoonright\zeta=t(k')$; note that $k,k'\in T^i\cap T^{i'}\subseteq i$. Likewise $\zeta,\zeta'< i$. Combining all this information tells us that the tuples $(\eta, \epsilon, \zeta, k, \nu)$ and $(\eta, \epsilon, \zeta', k', \nu')$ appear in $F_2(i)$ for some $\nu$ and $\nu'$. Hence they also appear in $F_2(i')$ and we have
$$f^{i',\eta}_{\beta(j^{i'}_{\epsilon})}(\zeta)=f^{i,\eta}_{\beta(j^i_{\epsilon})}(\zeta)=f^{*,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)=f^{*,\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta)=f^{i',\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta)$$
and similarly for $\zeta'$. These equalities occur entirely inside $p^{i'}$ so we can invoke its conditionhood to get
$$s\frown((\vec{u},h^{i'}))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta(j^{i'}_{\epsilon})}\zeta'\leftrightarrow\zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}\zeta'.$$
Define $\tilde{s}$ to be equal to $s$ except that the third co-ordinate of $\max \tilde{s}$ should be trivial. We will have $(\epsilon, \tilde{s}, \zeta,\zeta', \dot{y}^i_{\beta(j^i_{\epsilon}),\tilde{s}}(\zeta,\zeta'))$ in $F_3(i)$ and thus in $F_3(i')$, with $\dot{y}^i_{\alpha,\tilde{s}}(\zeta,\zeta')=\dot{y}^i_{\beta(j^i_{\epsilon}),\tilde{s}}(\zeta,\zeta'))=\dot{y}^{i'}_{\beta(j^{i'}_{\epsilon}),\tilde{s}}(\zeta,\zeta'))$. Since $s$ is below $\tilde{s}$ we know
$$s\frown((\vec{u},h^i))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}\zeta'\leftrightarrow\dot{y}^i_{\alpha,\tilde{s}}(\zeta,\zeta')$$
and
$$s\frown((\vec{u},h^{i'}))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta(j^{i'}_{\epsilon})}\zeta'\leftrightarrow\dot{y}^{i'}_{\beta(j^{i'}_{\epsilon}),\tilde{s}}(\zeta,\zeta').$$
Putting all these results together yields what we want.
\end{proof}
\section{Construction of the model} \label{construction_of_model}
We now perform an iteration of length $\kappa^{+4}$ of preparatory forcings, under the following assumptions. Note that the behaviour of the power-set function given here can be obtained from any model in which $\kappa$ is supercompact whilst preserving supercompactness.
\begin{setting}
Let $\kappa$ be supercompact, $2^{\kappa}=\kappa^+$, $2^{\kappa^+}=\kappa^{+3}$, $2^{\kappa^{+3}}=\kappa^{+4}$ and $\lambda<\kappa$ regular uncountable.
\end{setting}
\subsection{The forcing construction}
Fix $\langle x_{\epsilon}\mid \epsilon<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$ an enumeration of the branches of the complete binary tree $T$ on $\kappa^+$.
\begin{lemma} \label{propertiesOfP}
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a $<\kappa$-support iteration of length $\kappa^{+4}$ of forcings that are either trivial or of the form $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$ for some $\vec{u}$. Then $\mathbb{P}$ is $\kappa$-directed closed and has the $\kappa^+$-chain condition. Also $2^{\kappa}=2^{\kappa^+}=\kappa^{+3}$ at intermediate stages, and $2^{\kappa}=\kappa^{+4}$ at the end of the iteration.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have from lemma \ref{Qcompact} that the $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}}$-forcings are $\kappa$-compact, hence $\kappa$-directed closed. It is clear that a $<\kappa$-support iteration of such forcings will remain $\kappa$-directed closed.
A forcing is said to be {\em countably parallel closed} if any two descending $\omega$-sequences in it that are pointwise compatible have a common lower bound. It is clear that this property follows from $\kappa$-compactness. We also have that the component forcings are $\kappa$-closed and have the strong $\kappa^+$-chain condition, so we can invoke \cite[Theorem 1.2]{5author} to deduce that $\mathbb{P}$ has the strong $\kappa^+$-chain condition, and hence the usual $\kappa^+$-cc.
Call the intermediate stages of the forcing $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$ for $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$. We can prove by induction on $\gamma$ that $|\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}|=\kappa^{+3}$ and $(2^{\kappa^+})^{V^{\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}}}=(2^{\kappa^+}\times\kappa^{+3})^{\kappa}=\kappa^{+3}$. The latter follows from the former by the usual analysis of names together with the $\kappa^+$-cc. Conversely, conditions from $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\vec{u}}$ for $\vec{u}\in V^{\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}}$ are members of $(V_{\kappa}\times 2^{\kappa}\times [\kappa\times\kappa^{+3}]^{<\kappa}\times [\kappa\times\kappa^{+3}\times\kappa]^{<\kappa})^{V^{\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}}}$, where we drop the first co-ordinate of the $f^{\eta}_{\epsilon}(\zeta)$ since it can be deduced from $\zeta$ and $\epsilon$. Thus we can use the $\kappa^+$-cc of $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$ and the fact that $(2^{\kappa})^{V^{\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}}}=\kappa^{+3}$ to encode them as member of $\kappa^{+3}$. Hence $|\mathbb{P}_{\gamma+1}|=\kappa^{+3}$ and the induction proceeds. Limit stages for $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$ are immediate by the $<\kappa$-support, and then at the end we get $2^{\kappa}=\kappa^{+4}$ are desired.
\end{proof}
Define $\mathbb{L}$ to be the Laver preparatory forcing to make $\kappa$ indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing, as given in \cite{Laver}. After this forcing we still have $2^{\kappa^{+3}}=\kappa^{+4}$ so by a result from \cite{ShelahDiamond} we have a $\lozenge_{\kappa^{+4}}(\kappa^{+4}\cap\cof(\kappa^{++}))$-sequence $\langle S_{\gamma}\mid\gamma<\kappa^{+4}\rangle$. We will perform an iteration $\mathbb{P}$ of the type described above
but before doing so we wish to establish a list in $V^{\mathbb{L}}$ of all possible $\mathbb{P}$-names for subsets of $\kappa$, regardless of the sequence of $\vec{u}_{\gamma}$ we end up using to construct $\mathbb{P}$. We can do so by inductively building a list of possible $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$-names for subsets of $\kappa$:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $\gamma=\delta+1$ a $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$-name for a subset of $\kappa$ is a $\mathbb{P}_{\delta}$-name for a $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\delta}$-name for a subset of $\kappa$. Such a $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\delta}$-name is, by the $\kappa^+$-cc, a function from $\kappa$ to $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\delta}\times 2$ and as in the proof of \ref{propertiesOfP} members of $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\delta}$ can be encoded as members of $(2^{\kappa})^{V^{\mathbb{L}*\mathbb{P}_{\delta}}}$. We note that this encoding can be done merely be looking at the shape of possible conditions, without knowledge of $\vec{u}_{\delta}$. The list of possible $\mathbb{P}_{\delta}$-names for subsets of $\kappa$ can now be used to list all the possible $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$-names for subsets of $\kappa$.
\item For $\gamma$ limit the listing is straightforward because of the $\kappa^+$-cc.
\end{itemize}
Members of $\mathcal{U}^{V^{\mathbb{P}*\mathbb{L}}}$ are essentially subsets of $(2^{\kappa})^{V^{\mathbb{P}*\mathbb{L}}}$ so our listing allows us to translate between subsets of $\kappa^{+4}$ in $V^{\mathbb{L}}$ and anything that could possibly turn out to be a $\mathbb{P}$-name for a member of $\mathcal{U}$.
We are now ready to define the $<\kappa$-support iteration $\mathbb{P}=\langle \mathbb{P}_{\gamma},\mathbb{Q}_{\delta}\mid \gamma\leq\kappa^{+4},\delta<\kappa^{+4}\rangle$. At stage $\gamma$, apply the translation just established to $S_{\gamma}\subseteq\kappa^{+4}$. If the result is a $\mathbb{P}$-name for a member of $\mathcal{U}$ that is in fact already a $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$-name then instantiate this name in $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$ and call the result $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$. Use \ref{propertiesOfP} to fix $\langle \dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon}\mid \epsilon<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$ an enumeration of the $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$-names for graphs on $\kappa^+$. Define $\mathbb{Q}_{\gamma}=\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$, working with respect to the sequences $\langle x_{\epsilon}\mid \epsilon<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$ and $\langle \dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon}\mid \epsilon<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$. Otherwise take $\mathbb{Q}_{\gamma}$ to be the trivial forcing.
Let $G*H$ be $\mathbb{L}*\mathbb{P}$-generic. If $\mathbb{Q}_{\gamma}$ is non-trivial then $H(\gamma)$ will add a potential upper part which we call $h^{\gamma}$, and a sequence of functions which we call $F^{\gamma}=\langle F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\alpha}\mid \eta =\kappa(\vec{w}), \vec{w}\in\dom h^{\gamma}, \alpha<\kappa^{+3}\rangle$.
\begin{lemma} \label{staty1}
Let $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}^{V[G][H]}$. Then in $V[G][H]$ there is a stationary set of $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$ of cofinality $\kappa^{++}$ such that $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$ is the restriction of $\vec{u}$ to $V[G][H\upharpoonright \gamma]$ and $\mathbb{Q}_\gamma=\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
There is a club of points $\gamma$ in $\kappa^{+4}$ where the members of $(2^{\kappa})^{V[G][H]}$ listed as above by ordinals below $\gamma$ are exactly $\bigcup_{\delta<\gamma}(2^{\kappa})^{V[G][H\upharpoonright\delta]}$. For such $\gamma$ of cofinality at least $\kappa^+$ the $\kappa^+$-cc of $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$ makes this equal to $(2^{\kappa})^{V[G][H\upharpoonright\gamma]}$. Take a $\mathbb{P}$-name for $\vec{u}$ and use the above translation to convert it into a subset of $\kappa^{+4}$; the diamond sequence then gives us a stationary set of $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$ of cofinality $\kappa^{++}$ such that $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$ is given by restricting $\vec{u}$ to subsets of $\kappa$ that belong to $V[G][H\upharpoonright\gamma]$. Now all the properties in the definition of $\mathcal{U}$ are $\Pi^1_2$ over $V_{\kappa}$, so there a club of $\gamma$ where the restriction of $\vec{u}$ to $V[G][H\upharpoonright\gamma]$ is a member of $\mathcal{U}^{V[G][H\upharpoonright\gamma]}$. Combining these two facts gives a stationary set of $\gamma$ where $\vec{u}$ restricts to $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$ and $\mathbb{Q}_\gamma=\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$.
\end{proof}
Observe that by the properties of the Laver preparation and the fact that $\mathbb{P}$ is $\kappa$-directed closed (by lemma \ref{propertiesOfP}) we can take $j:V\rightarrow M$ witnessing that $\kappa$ is highly supercompact and $j(\mathbb{L})(\kappa)=\mathbb{P}$, and then find a master condition allowing us to extend $j$ to an embedding $j:V[G]\rightarrow M[G][H][I]$ where $I$ is generic for a highly closed forcing. We can then use the methods of section 2 to derive $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}^{V[G][H][I]}$ from $j$, and observe by the closure that in fact $\vec{u}\in V[G][H]$. It will then be possible to apply the above lemma to $\vec{u}$. However we will actually need to be more careful than this in the construction of our master condition, because we want to ensure that $h^{\gamma}\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}}$ stationarily-often.
\begin{lemma}
There is $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}^{V[G][H]}$ such that in $V[G][H]$ there is a stationary set of $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$ of cofinality $\kappa^{++}$ such that $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$ is the restriction of $\vec{u}$ to $V[G][H\upharpoonright \gamma]$, $\mathbb{Q}_\gamma=\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$, and $h^{\gamma} \in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Take $\mu$ large and $j:V\rightarrow M$ witnessing that $\kappa$ is $\mu$-supercompact with $j(\mathbb{L})(\kappa)=\mathbb{P}$ and $j(\mathbb{L})(\alpha)$ trivial for $\alpha\in(\kappa,\mu)$. We have $j$ fixing $G$ pointwise so we can extend $j$ to $j:V[G]\rightarrow M[G][H][I]$ where $I$ is some $j(\mathbb{L})/(\mathbb{L}*\mathbb{P})$-generic over $M$. We will now build a master condition in $j(\mathbb{P})$ by inductively defining a descending sequence $p_{\gamma}\in j(\mathbb{P}_{\gamma})$ for $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar p_{\gamma}\leq j``(H\upharpoonright\gamma)$.
For $\gamma$ limit take $p_{\gamma}$ to be any lower bound of $\langle p_{\delta}\mid \delta<\gamma\rangle$, using that the forcing is highly closed. We will have $p_{\gamma+1}:=p_{\gamma}\frown(q_{\gamma})$ for $q_{\gamma}$ to be defined. We can force below $p_{\gamma}$ to lift $j$ to $j:V[G][H\upharpoonright\gamma]\rightarrow M[G][H][I][j(H\upharpoonright\gamma)]$. If $\mathbb{Q_{\gamma}}$ is the trivial forcing then so is $j(\mathbb{Q}_{\gamma})$ and we take $q_{\gamma}$ to be its unique member. Otherwise we set $q_{\gamma}=(\tilde{c}^{\gamma},\tilde{h}^{\gamma},\tilde{t}^{\gamma},\tilde{f}^{\gamma})$ with definitions as follows.
$$\dom \tilde{c}^{\gamma} :=\dom h^{\gamma}\cup \left\{\vec{w} \in \mathcal{U}^{V[G][H]} \middle| \begin{array}{l}
\exists i<\lambda: \vec{w}\cap V[G][H\upharpoonright\gamma]=\vec{u}^{\gamma}\upharpoonright i, h^{\gamma}_{<i}\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{w}},\\
\forall(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma): \vec{w}\in\dom j(h), \\
\bigwedge_{(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma)}j(h)(\vec{w})\neq 0
\end{array}\right\},$$
with $\tilde{c}^{\gamma}(\vec{w}):=h^{\gamma}(\vec{w})$ for $\vec{w}\in\dom h^{\gamma}$, and
$$\tilde{c}^{\gamma}(\vec{w}):=\bigwedge_{(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma)} j(h)(\vec{w})$$
for $\vec{w}\in\dom\tilde{c}^{\gamma}-\dom h^{\gamma}$. We set
$$\tilde{h}^{\gamma}:=\bigwedge_{(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma)} j(h),$$
$\tilde{t}^{\gamma}:=(a^{(\tilde{c}^{\gamma},\tilde{h}^{\gamma})}\cap\kappa) \times j``\kappa^{+3}$, and $\dom (\tilde{f}^{\gamma})^{\eta}_{j(\alpha)}=j``\kappa^+$ and $(\tilde{f}^{\gamma})^{\eta}_{j(\alpha)}(j(\zeta))=j(F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta))$ for all $\eta \in a^{(\tilde{c}^{\gamma},\tilde{h}^{\gamma})}\cap\kappa$, $\alpha\in\kappa^{+3}$ and $\zeta\in\kappa^+$.
\begin{claim}
$(\tilde{c}^{\gamma},\tilde{h}^{\gamma},\tilde{t}^{\gamma},\tilde{f}^{\gamma})\in j(\mathbb{Q}_{\gamma})$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The requirement that $h^{\gamma}_{<i}\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{w}}$ for those $\vec{w}\in \dom\tilde{c}^{\gamma}$ with $\kappa(\vec{w})=\kappa$ ensures that $\tilde{c}^{\gamma}$ is an acceptable first co-ordinate for a condition in $j(\mathbb{M}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}})$. The first four clauses of the definition then follow from the fact that $j(\kappa)$ is large. For the fifth we are given $\eta \in a^{(\tilde{c}^{\gamma},\tilde{h}^{\gamma})}\cap\kappa$, $\alpha,\beta\in\kappa^{+3}$, $s$ a lower part for $j(\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}})$ that is harmonious with $\tilde{c}^{\gamma}$ past $\eta$, and $\zeta,\zeta'\in\kappa^+$ such that $(\tilde{f}^{\gamma})^{\eta}_{j(\alpha)}(j(\zeta))=(\tilde{f}^{\gamma})^{\eta}_{j(\beta)}(j(\zeta))\neq (\tilde{f}^{\gamma})^{\eta}_{j(\alpha)}(j(\zeta'))=(\tilde{f}^{\gamma})^{\eta}_{j(\beta)}(j(\zeta'))$. By elementarity this last assertion is equivalent to $F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)=F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta)\neq F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta')=F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta')$.
If $\kappa(\max s)<\kappa$ then use Lemma \ref{squareOff} to take a condition $(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma)$ with $\eta\in a^{(c,h)}\cap\sup a^{(c,h)}$, $\alpha,\beta \in t^{\eta}$, $s$ harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$, and $\zeta,\zeta'\in \dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}\cap \dom f^{\eta}_{\beta}$. Then
$f^{\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta)=f^{\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta)\neq f^{\eta}_{\alpha}(\zeta')=f^{\eta}_{\beta}(\zeta')$ so we get
$$s\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\alpha}\zeta' \leftrightarrow \zeta\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\beta}\zeta'.$$
Now $s\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),\tilde{h}^{\gamma}))\leq s\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),j(h)))$ so together with elementarity we obtain
$$s\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),\tilde{h}^{\gamma})) \mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j(\zeta) j(\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\alpha})j(\zeta') \leftrightarrow j(\zeta) j(\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\beta})j(\zeta')$$
as required.
Otherwise we can write $s$ as $s_1\frown((\vec{w}, d, p))$ for some $\vec{w}\in\dom \tilde{c}^{\gamma}-\dom h^{\gamma}$. We will show that $s\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),\tilde{h}^{\gamma}))$ forces what we want by a density argument. Suppose we are given an extension $s^*\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),h^*))$; express $s^*$ as $s^*_1\frown((\vec{w}, d^*,p^*))\frown s^*_2$. Lemma \ref{openHarmony} tells us that $s^*_1\frown((\vec{w}, d^*,p^*))$ remains harmonious with $\tilde{c}^{\gamma}$ past $\eta$, so we can use Lemma \ref{squareOff} to take $(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma)$ with $\eta\in a^{(c,h)}\cap\sup a^{(c,h)}$, $\alpha,\beta \in t^{\eta}$, $s^*_1$ harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$, and $\zeta,\zeta'\in \dom f^{\eta}_{\alpha}\cap \dom f^{\eta}_{\beta}$. As before the conditionhood of $(c,h,t,f)$ followed by the elementarity of $j$ give that
$$s^*_1\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),j(h))) \mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j(\zeta) j(\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\alpha})j(\zeta') \leftrightarrow j(\zeta) j(\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\beta})j(\zeta').$$
The harmoniousness of $s$ with $\tilde{c}^{\gamma}$ tells us that $d^*\leq d\leq h^{\gamma}\leq c\cup h$ so we can refine $s^*$ to $s^{**}$ by strengthening $d^*$ to $d^{**}\leq h =j(h)\upharpoonright\kappa$. We also have $\vec{w}\in\dom\tilde{c}^{\gamma}\subseteq\dom j(h)$ and $p^*\leq p \leq \tilde{c}^{\gamma}(\vec{w})\leq j(h)(\vec{w})$, so $(\vec{w},d^{**},p^*)$ is addable below $(j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),j(h))$. So is $s^*_2$ (because it is addable below $\tilde{h}^{\gamma}\leq j(h)$) yielding
$$s^{**}\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),h^*)) \mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j(\zeta) j(\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\alpha})j(\zeta') \leftrightarrow j(\zeta) j(\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\beta})j(\zeta').$$
And $s^{**}\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),h^*))$ is also below $s^*\frown((j(\vec{u}^{\gamma}),h^*))$, concluding the proof of the claim.
\end{proof}
It is immediate that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar q_{\gamma}\leq j``H(\gamma)$ so $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar p_{\gamma}\leq j``(H\upharpoonright\gamma)$; this finishes the inductive definition. Take $p$ a lower bound of the sequence of $p_{\gamma}$ as our master condition and force below it to obtain a $j(\mathbb{P})$-generic filter. Then we can extend $j$ to $j:V[G][H]\rightarrow M[G][H][I][j(H)]$, where $j(H)$ is the filter for $j(\mathbb{P})$ just obtained. This embedding will witness a high degree of generic supercompactness so as in section 2 we can in $V[G][H][I][j(H)]$ derive an ultrafilter sequence $\vec{u}$ from it, and show $\vec{u}\in\mathcal{U}$; we also get the associated supercompact ultrafilter sequence $\vec{u}^*=\langle z, u^*_i, K^*_i \mid i<\lambda\rangle$ and the associated projection $\pi$. The $\mu$-closure of the $j(\mathbb{L})/(\mathbb{L}*\mathbb{P})*j(\mathbb{P})$-forcing gives us that $\vec{u}\in V[G][H]$. Then we can invoke Lemma \ref{staty1} to see that there are stationarily-many $\gamma<\kappa^{+4}$ where $\vec{u}$ restricts to $\vec{u}^{\gamma}$ and $\mathbb{Q}_{\gamma}=\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$. We wish to show that $h^{\gamma}\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}}$ for such $\gamma$ and will do so by proving by induction on $i$ that $h^{\gamma}_i\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u},i}$.
Given any $(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma)$ we have $h_i\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma},i}\subseteq \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u},i}$ so $\dom h_i\in u_i$, which gives
\begin{align*}
& \pi^{-1}` ` \dom h_i \in u^*_i \\
\Rightarrow& \forall_{u^*_i}\vec{w}^* \pi(\vec{w}^*)\in\dom h_i \\
\Rightarrow& j(\pi)(\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i)\in\dom j(h_i) \\
\Rightarrow& \vec{u}\upharpoonright i \in\dom j(h_i)
\end{align*}
Also by definition of $\Fil(K^*_i)$ there is an $A\in u^*_i$ with $h_i\geq b(K^*_i,A)$, from which
\begin{align*}
& \forall\vec{w}\in\dom h_i: h_i(\vec{w}) \geq \bigvee\{K^*_i(\vec{w}^*)\mid \vec{w}^*\in A, \pi(\vec{w}^*)=\vec{w}\}\\
\Rightarrow& \forall\vec{w}^*\in A: h_i(\pi(\vec{w}^*)) \geq K^*_i(\vec{w}^*)\\
\Rightarrow& j(h_i)(\vec{u}\upharpoonright i) \geq j(K^*_i)(\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i),
\end{align*}
using that $A\in u^*_i$ and $j(\pi)(\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i)=\vec{u}\upharpoonright i$.
Therefore $j(K^*_i)(\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i)$ witnesses that $\bigwedge_{(c,h,t,f)\in H(\gamma)}j(h)(\vec{u}\upharpoonright i)\neq 0$. By the induction hypothesis we have $h^{\gamma}_{<i}\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}\upharpoonright i}$ so we established have all of the requirements necessary for $\vec{u}\upharpoonright i\in\dom\tilde{c}^{\gamma}$. We have also shown that $\tilde{c}^{\gamma}(\vec{u}\upharpoonright i)\geq j(K^*_i)(\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i)$. Now forcing below $p_{\gamma+1}$ ensures that $\tilde{c}^{\gamma}$ is an initial segment of $j(h^{\gamma})$ so we have
\begin{align*}
& j(h^{\gamma})(\vec{u}^\upharpoonright i)\geq j(K^*)(\vec{u}^*\upharpoonright i)\\
\Rightarrow& \forall\vec{w}^*\in B: h^{\gamma}(\pi(\vec{w}^*))\geq K^*(\vec{w}^*) \mbox{ for some } B\in u^*_i\\
\Rightarrow& \forall\vec{w}\in\pi ` `B: h^{\gamma}_i(\vec{w})\geq \bigvee\{K^*_i(\vec{w}^*)\mid \vec{w}^*\in B, \pi(\vec{w}^*)=\vec{w}\}\\
\Rightarrow& h^{\gamma}_i\geq b(K^*_i,B)
\end{align*}
which gives $h^{\gamma}_i\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u},i}$ as desired.
\end{proof}
Fix a $\vec{u}$ and $S\subseteq\kappa^{+4}$ stationary as given by this lemma. Take $J$ that is $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$-generic over $V[G][H]$, forcing below an upper part whose domain is made up of sequences of length less than $\lambda$, so that $J$ generates a generic sequence $\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\lambda\rangle$ as discussed in sub-section \ref{defineR}. For any $\gamma\in S$ we observe by the characterisation of genericity in Lemma \ref{characteriseGenericity} that $J$ is geometric for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ and hence $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$, so it is generic for $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$ and we can form the extension $V[G][H\upharpoonright \gamma][J]$.
\subsection{The jointly universal family}
We now fix some $\gamma \in S$ and define a graph $\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}$ on $T\times\kappa$ that is intended to be universal with respect to the graphs in $V[G][H\upharpoonright \gamma][J]$. We have $h^{\gamma}\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{u}}$ so start by fixing $\beta<\lambda$ such that $\lh\vec{w}_{\beta}=0$ and for all $\alpha>\beta$ we have $\vec{w}_{\alpha} \in \dom h^{\gamma}$ and $h^{\gamma}(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$. Define $\eta:=\kappa(\vec{w}_{\beta})$. Define $\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon}$ to be the realisation of $\dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon}$ in $V[G][H\upharpoonright \gamma][J]$. For $z, z' \in T\times\kappa$ we define $z \mathcal{E}^{\gamma} z'$ if there exist $\epsilon$, $\zeta$ and $\zeta'$ such that $F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}(\zeta)=z$ and $F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}(\zeta')=z'$ with $\zeta \mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon} \zeta'$ in $V[G][H\upharpoonright \gamma][J]$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\gamma\in S$, $\eta$ as above and $\epsilon<\kappa^{+3}$. Then in $V[G][H\upharpoonright \gamma][J]$ the function $F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}$ is an embedding of $\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon}$ into $\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is clear from the definition that every edge in $\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon}$ is mapped to one in $\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}$, so we need to show the converse. Consider $\epsilon$, $\zeta$ and $\zeta'$ such that $F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}(\zeta) \mathcal{E}^{\gamma} F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}(\zeta)$. Observe first that the values of $\zeta$ and $\zeta$ are deducible from their targets under $F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}$, so there must be some $\epsilon'$ with $\zeta \mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon'} \zeta'$ such that
$$F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}(\zeta)=F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon'}(\zeta)\neq F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon}(\zeta')=F^{\gamma,\eta}_{\epsilon'}(\zeta').$$
Take a condition $s\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h)) \in J$ such that $s\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\zeta \dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon'}\zeta'$, $s$ extends past $\eta$, and $\vec{w}_{\beta}$ occurs in $s$. Use Lemma \ref{squareOff} to take a condition $(c,h',t,f)\in H(\gamma)$ such that $c$ extends past $\max s$, $a^{(c,h')}$ has a maximal element, $h'\leq h$, $(\eta,\epsilon),(\eta,\epsilon') \in t$ and $\zeta,\zeta'\in \dom f^{\eta}_{\epsilon}\cap \dom f^{\eta}_{\epsilon'}$. Our aim is to find a lower part $s'$ such that:
\begin{enumerate} [(i)]
\item $s'$ is harmonious with $c$ past $\eta$.
\item $s'\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h'))\leq s\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h))$.
\item $s'\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h'))\in J$.
\end{enumerate}
Then we will use (i) to invoke the fifth clause of the definition of $\mathbb{Q}_{\vec{u}^{\gamma}}$ for $(c,h',t,f)$ to see that
$$s'\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h'))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \zeta \dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon} \zeta' \leftrightarrow \zeta \dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon'} \zeta'$$
which by (ii) will give $s'\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h'))\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\zeta \dot{\mathcal{E}}^{\gamma}_{\epsilon}\zeta'$ and then by (iii) we will be done.
We construct $s'$ from $s$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Leave triples $(\vec{w}_{\alpha},d,p)$ with $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\leq\eta$ (i.e. $\alpha\leq\beta$) unchanged.
\item For $(\vec{w}_{\alpha},d,p)\in s$ with $\alpha>\beta$ replace with $(\vec{w}_{\alpha},d\wedge(c\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})),p\wedge c(\vec{w}_{\alpha}))$.
\item The set of $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})$ is a club, and $\ssup a^{(c,h')}$ is a successor. This means we can take $\beta'$ maximal such that $\vec{w}_{\beta'}\in \dom c$. Then add $(\vec{w}_{\beta'},(h\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{w}_{\beta'}))\wedge(c\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{w}_{\beta'})),h(\vec{w}_{\beta'})\wedge c(\vec{w}_{\beta'}))$ to the end of $s$.
\end{itemize}
For $(\vec{w}_{\alpha},d,p)\in s$ with $\alpha>\beta$ note that $c$ is an initial segment of an upper part $h^{\gamma}$ and $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in\dom h^{\gamma}$ so we are guaranteed that $c\upharpoonright\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in \mathcal{F}_{\vec{w}_{\alpha}}$ for such $\alpha$. Also $p\in g_{\alpha}$, and $c(\vec{w}_{\alpha})=h^{\gamma}(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$ by choice of $\beta$, so $p$ and $c(\vec{w}_{\alpha})$ are compatible. The same holds for $\beta'$, ensuring $s'$ is a valid lower part. Now we check that it has the required properties.
\begin{enumerate} [(i)]
\item This is immediate from the definition (and the reason for the appearance of $c$ in it).
\item The new triple of $s'$ must be addable to $s\frown((\vec{u}^{\gamma},h))$ on account of its being in $J$, and we have taken care to respect $h$ here.
\item We will use the requirements from Definition \ref{defnGenericFilter} for a condition to belong to the generic filter $J$ associated with $\langle \vec{w}_{\alpha}, g_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\lambda\rangle$. The first clause is clear so we consider the second. For $\alpha<\beta$ we have $\vec{w}_{\alpha}$ below a triple of $s$ that is not modified, so all is well. For $\beta<\alpha<\beta'$ we have $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in h^{\gamma}$ with $h^{\gamma}(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$. Now $c$ is an initial segment of $h^{\gamma}$ that extends to $\vec{w}_{\beta'}$ so $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in \dom c$ and $c(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\in g_{\alpha}$. This means that the modifications made to the members of $s$ are unproblematic. (It is for this step that we had to add the extra triple to $s'$.) Finally for $\alpha>\beta'$ we have that $\kappa(\vec{w}_{\alpha})>\kappa(\max \dom c)$ so the fact that $(c,h',t,f)\in H(\gamma)$ and $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in\dom h^{\gamma}$ tells us that $\vec{w}_{\alpha}\in\dom h'$; likewise $g_{\alpha}\ni h^{\gamma}(\vec{w}_{\alpha})\leq h'(\vec{w}_{\alpha})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
We can now conclude the proof. Take a sequence $\langle\delta_i\mid i<\kappa^{++}\rangle$ of points from $S$ such that $\delta:=\sup \delta_i$ is in $S$. Our final model will be $V[G][H\upharpoonright\delta][J]$ and the family of universal graphs will be $\{\mathcal{E}^{\delta_i}\mid i<\kappa^{++}\}$. Given some graph $\mathcal{E}$ in the model, take a $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\delta}}$-name $\dot{\mathcal{E}}$ in $V[G][H\upharpoonright\delta]$ for it. By the $\kappa^+$-cc of $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\delta}}$ this name can be coded as a subset of $\kappa^+$ and then by the $\kappa^+$-cc of the forcing iteration we can find some $i<\kappa^{++}$ such that $\dot{\mathcal{E}}$ is in $V[G][H\upharpoonright\delta_i]$. Since $\vec{u}^{\delta_i}$ is a restriction of $\vec{u}^{\delta}$ we see that $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}^{\delta_i}}$ will also interpret the name as $\mathcal{E}$, and the lemma above shows that it can be embedded into $\mathcal{E}^{\delta_i}$.
By Lemma \ref{propertiesOfP} $\mathbb{L}\times\mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$ preserves all cardinals, and then by Proposition \ref{preserveCardinals} $\mathbb{R}_{\vec{u}}$ changes $\kappa$ to $\aleph_{\lambda}$ and preserves all larger cardinals. We have proved the following theorem,
\begin{theorem}
Let $\kappa$ be supercompact and $\lambda<\kappa$ regular uncountable. Then there is a forcing extension in which $\kappa=\aleph_{\lambda}$, $2^{\aleph_{\lambda}}=2^{\aleph_{\lambda+1}}=\aleph_{\lambda+3}$ and there is a jointly universal family of graphs on $\aleph_{\lambda+1}$ of size $\aleph_{\lambda+2}$.
\end{theorem}
\chapter{Set-theoretic geology}
\section{Easton-support iteration of Cohen forcing} \label{easton_generic_mantle}
The following result of set-theoretic geology is well-known, for example it follows from \cite{FHR}[Theorem 65].
\begin{theorem}
Assume $V=L$. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a class Easton-support product of $\Add(\kappa,1)$ at $\kappa$ regular with generic $G$. Then $M^{V[G]}=gM^{V[G]}=V$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider any $x\in V[G]-V$; we may assume $x\subseteq\kappa$ for some regular $\kappa$. Then split $\mathbb{P}$ as $\mathbb{P}_0\times\mathbb{P}_1$ where $\mathbb{P}_0$ is the product up to and including $\Add(\kappa,1)$, and $\mathbb{P}_1$ is the product from $\Add(\kappa^+,1)$ onwards; split $G$ correspondingly as $G_0\times G_1$. Then the $\kappa^+$-closure of $\mathbb{P}_1$ implies that $x\notin V[G_1]$, but $V[G_1][G_0]=V[G]$ so this is a ground of $V[G]$ omitting $x$. We obtain $x\notin M^{V[G]}$ and since the generic mantle is always a subclass of the mantle this also means that $x\notin gM^{V[G]}$.
\end{proof}
This contrasts with the class Easton support iteration of $\Add(\kappa,1)$ at $\kappa$ regular with generic $G$, which was used by Hamkins, Reitz and Woodin in \cite{HRW} to construct a model in which $V[G]=M^{V[G]}$ but $V[G]\neq\HOD^{V[G]}$. We will now show that $gM^{V[G]}=V[G]$, answering the question posed by Fuchs, Hamkins and Reitz in \cite[Question 69]{FHR} which asks for the generic mantle of this model. To this end we will first prove the following lemma.
For a complete subposet $\mathbb{M}$ of a poset $\mathbb{N}$ and an $\mathbb{N}$-name $\dot{x}$ we will write $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{N}}\dot{x}\in V[\mathbb{M}]$ to mean that for every $\mathbb{N}$-generic $G$ we have that $\dot{x}[G]\in V[G\cap\mathbb{M}]$; this is a weaker notion than $\dot{x}\in V^{\mathbb{M}}$. Similarly $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{N}}\dot{x}\notin V[\mathbb{M}]$ denotes that $\dot{x}[G]\notin V[G\cap\mathbb{M}]$ for every $\mathbb{N}$-generic $G$.
We recall that for a poset $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{P}$-name for a poset $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}$ the \textit{termspace} forcing $\mathbb{A}(\mathbb{P}, \dot{\mathbb{Q}})$ consists of all $\mathbb{P}$-names $\dot{q}$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{q}\in\dot{\mathbb{Q}}$ and $\dot{q}$ is rank-minimal among all $\mathbb{P}$-names $\dot{q}'$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}}\dot{q}=\dot{q}'$. Note that this is guaranteed to be a set rather than a proper class. Its ordering is given by $\dot{q}\leq\dot{q}'$ iff $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{q}\leq\dot{q}'$.
More information about termspace forcing can be found in \cite{saturated_ideals}. In particular it is easy to see that if $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}$ is forced by $\mathbb{P}$ to be $\lambda$-strategically closed then $\mathbb{A}(\mathbb{P},\dot{\mathbb{Q}})$ is $\lambda$-strategically closed. Also whenever we have $(p,\dot{q})\leq(p',\dot{q}')$ in $\mathbb{P}*\dot{\mathbb{Q}}$ we can use the maximum principle to find $\dot{q}^*$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{q}^*\leq q'$ and $p\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{q}^*=\dot{q}$, from which $(p,\dot{q}^*)$ is equivalent to $(p,\dot{q})$ in $\mathbb{P}*\dot{\mathbb{Q}}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{EastonHelp}
Let $\mathbb{P}_0$ be a poset with $|\mathbb{P}_0|\leq\kappa$, and let $\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1$ be $\mathbb{P}_0$-names for posets such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0}|\dot{\mathbb{R}}|\leq\kappa$ and $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0}\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1\;\kappa^+$-strategically-closed ($\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1$ may be a name for either a class or a set forcing).
Let $\dot{x}$ and $\dot{z}$ be names such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0}\dot{x}\subseteq\kappa$ and $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0*(\dot{\mathbb{R}}\times\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1)}\dot{z}\notin V[\mathbb{P}_0*\dot{\mathbb{R}}]$.
Then $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0*(\dot{\mathbb{R}}\times\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1)}\dot{x}\in V[\dot{z}]$.
\end{lemma}
We pause to remark that a simpler version of this lemma in which $\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ is trivial suffices to show that the mantle is equal to the whole model.
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{z}\subseteq\theta$ for some $\theta\in\OR$. Define the termspace forcings $\mathbb{A}:=\mathbb{A}(\mathbb{P}_0,\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1)$ and $\mathbb{B}:=\mathbb{A}(\mathbb{P}_0,\dot{\mathbb{R}})$, observing that the former is $\kappa^+$-strategically-closed. We will say that two conditions in $\mathbb{P}_0$ \textit{disagree} on an assertion if one forces that it is true and the other that it is false.
\begin{claim}
$$\exists p\in\mathbb{P}_0\;\exists\dot{u}\in\mathbb{B}\;\exists \dot{s}\in\mathbb{A}\;\forall\dot{r}\leq\dot{s}\;\exists j<\theta\;\exists\dot{q},\dot{q}'\leq\dot{r}:(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{z}, (p,\dot{u},\dot{q}')\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\notin\dot{z}.$$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Supposing the claim is false gives us
\begin{equation} \label{1}
\forall p\:\forall\dot{u}\:\forall\dot{s}\:\exists\dot{r}\leq\dot{s}\;\forall j<\theta\;\forall\dot{q},\dot{q}'\leq\dot{r}: \neg(p,\dot{u},\dot{q}),(p,\dot{u},\dot{q}') \mbox{ disagree on }j\in\dot{z}.
\end{equation}
Enumerate $\mathbb{P}_0$ as $\{p_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\kappa\}$ (with repetition if necessary) and take $\{\dot{u}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\kappa\}\subseteq\mathbb{B}$ that are forced by $\mathbb{P}_0$ to enumerate $\dot{\mathbb{R}}$. Using (\ref{1}), and the $\kappa^+$-strategic-closure of $\mathbb{A}$ build inductively a descending sequence $\langle\dot{s}_{\kappa\alpha+\beta}\mid\alpha,\beta<\kappa\rangle$ such that
$$\forall j<\theta\;\forall\dot{q},\dot{q}'\leq\dot{s}_{\kappa\alpha+\beta}:\neg(p_{\alpha},\dot{u}_{\beta},\dot{q}),(p_{\alpha},\dot{u}_{\beta},\dot{q}')\mbox{ disagree on }j\in\dot{z}.$$
Take $\dot{s}$ a lower bound for this sequence, so
\begin{equation} \label{2}
\forall p\in\mathbb{P}_0\:\forall\beta<\kappa\:\forall j<\theta\:\forall\dot{q},\dot{q}'\leq\dot{s}: \neg(p,\dot{u}_{\beta},\dot{q}),(p,\dot{u}_{\beta},\dot{q})\mbox{ disagree on }j\in\dot{z}.
\end{equation}
Define a $\mathbb{P}_0*\dot{\mathbb{R}}$-name $\dot{w}\subseteq\theta$ by
$$\dot{w}:=\{((p,\dot{u}),\check{\jmath})\mid \exists\dot{q}\leq\dot{s}:(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{z}\}.$$
We were given that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{z}\notin V[\mathbb{P}_0\times\dot{\mathbb{R}}]$, so $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0*(\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1\times\mathbb{R})}\dot{z}\neq\dot{w}$. Thus we can extend $(0,0,\dot{s})$ to some $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\in\mathbb{P}_0*(\dot{\mathbb{R}}\times\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1)$ that decides a point of disagreement, giving $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\leq(0,0,\dot{s})$ and $j<\theta$ such that $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{z}-\dot{w}$ or $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{w}-\dot{z}$. Modify $\dot{q}$ if necessary to ensure $\dot{q}\leq\dot{s}$ in the termspace forcing $\mathbb{A}$.
One possibility is that $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{z}$ and $(p,\dot{u})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\notin\dot{w}$. But by the definition of $\dot{w}$ the first statement gives $(p,\dot{u})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{w}$, contradicting the second statement.
Alternatively we have $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\notin\dot{z}$ and $(p,\dot{u})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{w}$. Then from the latter statement we can find $(p^*,\dot{u}^*)\leq(p,\dot{u})$ such that $((p^*,\dot{u}^*),\check{\jmath})\in\dot{w}$ so there is $\dot{q}'\leq\dot{s}$ such that $(p^*,\dot{u}^*,\dot{q}')\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{z}$. Take $\beta<\kappa$ and $p^{**}\leq p^*$ such that $p^{**}\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{u}^*=\dot{u}_{\beta}$. Then we see that $(p^{**},\dot{u}_{\beta},\dot{q})$ and $(p^{**},\dot{u}_{\beta},\dot{q}')$ disagree on whether $j\in\dot{z}$, which contradicts (\ref{2}). This concludes the proof of the claim.
\end{proof}
Find $p$, $\dot{u}$ and $\dot{s}$ as given by the preceding claim. Temporarily fix any $\dot{r}\leq\dot{s}$ and any $\alpha<\kappa$. The claim gives us $j<\theta$ and $\dot{q},\dot{q}'\leq\dot{r}$ such that $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{z}$ and $(p,\dot{u},\dot{q}')\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\notin\dot{z}$. Now we can use the maximum principle to construct a new name $\dot{q}''\leq\dot{r}$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0*(\dot{\mathbb{R}}\times\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1)}(\alpha\in\dot{x}\rightarrow\dot{q}''=\dot{q})\wedge(\alpha\notin\dot{x}\rightarrow\dot{q}''=\dot{q}')$. This yields
$$\forall\dot{r}\leq\dot{s}\;\forall\alpha<\kappa\;\exists j<\theta\;\exists\dot{q}''\leq\dot{r}: (p,\dot{u},\dot{q}'')\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j\in\dot{z}\leftrightarrow\alpha\in\dot{x}.$$
Next in $V$ use the strategic closure of $\mathbb{A}$ to build $\langle\dot{r}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\kappa\rangle$ a descending sequence below $\dot{s}$ in $\mathbb{A}$ according to the strategy, together with $\langle j_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\kappa\rangle$ from $\theta$ such that
$$(p,\dot{u},\dot{r}_{\alpha})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar j_{\alpha}\in\dot{z}\leftrightarrow\alpha\in\dot{x}.$$
The sequence has a lower bound $\dot{r}$, and then $(p,\dot{u},\dot{r})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\forall\alpha<\kappa:j_{\alpha}\in\dot{z}\leftrightarrow\alpha\in\dot{x}$, so $(p,\dot{u},\dot{r})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{x}\in V[\dot{z}]$.
\end{proof}
Using the lemma we have the following theorem, which applies for example when $V=L$.
\begin{theorem}
Assume GCH. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a class Easton support iteration of $\Add(\kappa,1)$ at $\kappa$ regular with generic $G$ such that $V\subseteq gM^{V[G]}$. Then $gM^{V[G]}=V[G]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We are given $x\in V[G]$ together with a generic ground $W$ and wish to show that $x\in W$. Take forcings $\mathbb{R}=\dot{\mathbb{R}}[G]\in V[G]$ and $\mathbb{S}\in W$ with generics $I$ and $J$ respectively such that $V[G][I]=W[J]$. Take $\kappa$ successor such that (without loss of generality) $x\subseteq\kappa$ and $\mathbb{R}\in H^{V[G]}_{\kappa}$. Split $\mathbb{P}$ as $\mathbb{P}_0*\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1$ where $\mathbb{P}_0$ is the iteration up to and including $\kappa$, and $\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1$ is the iteration beyond; note by GCH that $|\mathbb{P}_0|\leq\kappa$ and $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0}\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1\;\kappa^+$-closed. Split $G$ correspondingly as $G_0*G_1$ and observe that $x\in V[G_0]$ so we can take $\dot{x}$ a $\mathbb{P}_0$-name for it. Also $\mathbb{R}\in V[G_0]$ so we can split the forcing $\mathbb{P}*\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ as $\mathbb{P}_0*(\dot{\mathbb{R}}\times\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1)$.
Since $\mathbb{P}$ is a class forcing we can find $\dot{z}$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_0*(\dot{\mathbb{R}}\times\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1)}\dot{z}\in W - V[\mathbb{P}_0*\dot{\mathbb{R}}]$. Invoking \ref{EastonHelp} gives us that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{x}\in V[\dot{z}] \subseteq W$, using that $V\subseteq gM^{V[G]}$ so $V\subseteq W$.
\end{proof}
\section{Intersection of set-forcing extensions} \label{set_forcing_intersection}
We are interested in generalising our analysis of the generic mantle to a wider range of class forcing extensions. We are therefore interested in situations where we have a class forcing $\mathbb{P}$ with generic $G$ together with a generic ground of $V[G]$. To aid us we shall first consider the situation in which $\mathbb{P}$ is only a set forcing and (assuming $V\subseteq W$) the intermediate model theorem then gives us that $W$ is a set extension of $V$.
Here and for most of the remaining results we assume Global Choice. This ensures that there is a class of ordinals $X$ with $V=L[X]$. Then for any (set or class) generic extension $V[G]$ and class $Y\subseteq\OR$ thereof we can understand $V[Y]$ to mean $L[X, Y]$.
\begin{theorem} \label{main_sets}
Assume Global Choice. Let $\mathbb{P}*\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\mathbb{Q}*\dot{\mathbb{S}}$ be set forcings with respective generics $G*I$ and $H*J$ such that $V[G, I] = V[H, J]$ with $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}}|\dot{\mathbb{R}}|<\kappa$ and $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{Q}}|\dot{\mathbb{S}}|<\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is a cardinal in $V[G,I]$. Then there is an inner model $V\subseteq U\subseteq V[G]\cap V[H]$ such that $V[G]$ and $V[H]$ are both $\kappa$-cc forcing extensions of $U$ (via forcings that are quotients of $\ro(\mathbb{P})$ and $\ro(\mathbb{Q})$ respectively).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ are forcings whose underlying sets are containing in the ordinals. Fix $\dot{G}$ a $\mathbb{Q}*\dot{\mathbb{S}}$-name such that $\dot{G}[H*J]=G$, and $\dot{H}$ a $\mathbb{P}*\dot{\mathbb{R}}$-name such that $\dot{H}[G*I]=H$. Since $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}}|\dot{\mathbb{R}}|<\kappa$ we can choose a set $R$ of size less than $\kappa$ of $\mathbb{P}$-names for members of $\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ such that for any $\mathbb{P}$-name $\dot{r}$ for a member of $\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ there are densely many $p\in\mathbb{P}$ such that there exists an $\dot{r}'\in R$ for which $p\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{r}=\dot{r}'$. Choose a similar $S\subseteq\dot{\mathbb{S}}$ also of size less than $\kappa$.
For $p\in\mathbb{P}$ define
$$S^1(p):=\{q\in\mathbb{Q}\mid\exists \dot{r}\in R:(p,\dot{r})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar q\in\dot{H}\}$$
and for $A\subseteq\mathbb{P}$ define $S^1(A):=\bigcup_{p\in A}S^1(p)$. Similarly for $q\in\mathbb{Q}$ define
$$T^1(q):=\{p\in\mathbb{P}\mid\exists\dot{s}\in S:(q,s)\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar p\in\dot{G}\}$$
and for $B\subseteq\mathbb{Q}$ define $T^1(B):=\bigcup_{q\in B}T^1(q)$. Now construct inductively $S^{n+1}(p) := \bigcup_{q\in S^1(p)}\bigcup_{p'\in T^1(q)}S^n(p')$ and $S^{n+1}(A) := \bigcup_{q\in S^1(A)}\bigcup_{p'\in T^1(q)}S^n(p')$, followed by $S(p) := \bigcup_{n<\omega}S^n(p)$ and $S(A) := \bigcup_{n<\omega}S^n(A)$. Make equivalent definitions for $T(q)$ and $T(B)$. All of this can be done in $V$.
For any $q\in H$ we can take $(p,\dot{r})\in G*I$ such that $(p,\dot{r})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar q\in\dot{H}$. Then by density there will be a $p'\leq p$ with $p'\in G$ together with an $\dot{r}'\in R$ such that $p'\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{r}=\dot{r}'$. Thus $(p',\dot{r}')$ is below $(p,\dot{r})$ and also forces that $q$ is in $\dot{H}$, so $q\in S^1(p')\subseteq S^1(G)$. Therefore $H\subseteq S^1(G)$ so $S^1(T(H))\subseteq S^1(T(S^1(G))) = S(G)$, and likewise $G\subseteq T^1(H)$ so $S(G)\subseteq S(T^1(H)) = S^1(T(H))$. This gives us that $S(G) = S^1(T(H))$ and so it is a member of both $V[G]$ and $V[H]$.
For convenience define $E(G)$ to be $T^1(S(G))$ and note that this is contained in $\mathbb{P}$ and is interdefinable with $S(G)$. Furthermore for $\dot{r}\in\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ we have that $\{q\in\mathbb{Q}\mid\exists p\in G:(p,\dot{r})\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar q\in\dot{H}\}$ is a filter, so $S^1(G)$ and hence $E(G)$ is (in $V[G]$) a union of $<\kappa$-many filters. The inner model $U:=V[E(G)]$ will be our candidate. We have $V\subseteq V[E(G)]\subseteq V[G]$ so by the intermediate model theorem there is a complete subalgebra $\mathbb{A}$ of $\mathbb{P}$ such that $V[E(G)] = V[\mathbb{A}\cap G]$, together with $\mathbb{C}$ the quotient forcing $\mathbb{P}/(\mathbb{A}\cap G)$.
\begin{claim}
$\mathbb{C}$ has the $\kappa$-cc.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $\dot{\Gamma}$ be the standard $\mathbb{P}$-name for the generic of $\mathbb{P}$ and $\dot{\mathcal{E}}$ the $\mathbb{A}$-name for $E(\dot{\Gamma})$; this will exist because $\mathbb{A}$ is generated by the conditions $\{[\![p\in E(\dot{\Gamma})]\!]\mid p\in\mathbb{P}\}$. Take $\dot{\mathbb{C}}$ an $\mathbb{A}$-name for $\mathbb{C}$, so by \cite[Lemma 25.5]{old_jech} there are conditions below which $\mathbb{A}*\dot{\mathbb{C}}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{P}$; we can assume these conditions are trivial.
Given any $\mathbb{A}$-name $\dot{x}$ for a member of $\mathbb{C}$, define $p_{\dot{x}}:=(1, \dot{x})\in\mathbb{A}*\dot{\mathbb{C}}$, which we can regard as a member of $\mathbb{P}$. Take some $\mathbb{C}$-generic $K$ that contains $\dot{x}[G\cap\mathbb{A}]$ and define $\bar{G}:=(\mathbb{A}\cap G)*K$, a $\mathbb{P}$-generic. Now $p_{\dot{x}}$ is in $\bar{G}$ and hence $E(\bar{G})$. Therefore $[\![ p_{\dot{x}}\in \dot{\mathcal{E}}]\!]$ is in $\bar{G}\cap\mathbb{A}$ which equals $G\cap\mathbb{A}$, from which $p_{\dot{x}}\in E(G)$.
We have in $V[G]$ that $E(G)$ was formed as a union of $<\kappa$-many filters, into one of which each $p_{\dot{x}}$ must fall. Suppose there is $\dot{X}$ an $\mathbb{A}$-name for an antichain in $\mathbb{C}$ of size $\kappa$. For any $\dot{x}$ and $\dot{y}$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{A}}\dot{x},\dot{y}\in\dot{X}$ we have $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{A}}\dot{x}\perp\dot{y}$ so $p_{\dot{x}}\perp p_{\dot{y}}$, which means that $p_{\dot{x}}$ and $p_{\dot{y}}$ are members of different filters whose union is $E(G)$. But there are $\kappa$-many of these $\dot{x}$ and $<\kappa$-many filters, and $\kappa$ remains a cardinal in $V[G]$. This is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
By a similar analysis the forcing between $U$ and $V[H]$ also has the $\kappa$-cc.
\end{proof}
We immediately obtain the following:
\begin{corollary}
Assume Global Choice. Let $\mathbb{P}*\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\mathbb{Q}*\dot{\mathbb{S}}$ be set forcings with respective generics $G*I$ and $H*J$ such that $V[G, I] = V[H, J]$ and $V[G]\cap V[H]=V$ with $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}}|\dot{\mathbb{R}}|<\kappa$ and $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{Q}}|\dot{\mathbb{S}}|<\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is a cardinal in $V[G,I]$. Then there is $p\in G$ such that $\mathbb{P}_p$ is $\kappa$-cc.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Theorem \ref{main_sets} gives us a common ground $U$ of $V[G]$ and $V[H]$ that contains $V$, so it must be $V$ itself. Therefore there is a $\kappa$-cc forcing $\mathbb{M}$ with generic $E$ such that $V[E]=V[G]$. Then by \cite[Lemma 25.5]{old_jech} there are $p\in G$ and $m\in E$ such that $\mathbb{P}_p$ equals $\mathbb{M}_m$ and so is $\kappa$-cc.
\end{proof}
To see that this result for chain condition is best possible, consider $\mathbb{P}=\mathbb{Q}=\mathbb{R}=\mathbb{S}=\Add(\lambda, 1)$ with mutually generic filters $G=J$ and $H=I$. Assuming $2^{<\lambda}=\lambda$ the forcings all have size $\lambda$ but $\mathbb{P}$ does not have the $\lambda$-cc.
In the proof of \ref{main_sets} we were not able to simply use the intersection of $V$ and its generic ground as their common ground. The following example that develops a method of Woodin illustrates that this is an unavoidable complexity, because the intersection may not be a model of ZF. An alternative proof (with assuming a strong inaccessible) can be found in \cite[Theorem 34]{FHR}.
\begin{proposition} \label{intersection_not_model_of_ZFC}
Let $M$ be a countable model of ZFC that believes $V=L$ and that there exists a strongly inaccessible cardinal. Then there exist generics $G$ and $H$ over $M$ such that $M[G]\cap M[H]\nvDash\ZF$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In $M$ fix $\theta$ strongly inaccessible and $\chi$ much larger than $\theta$. Take $x\subseteq\theta$ that encodes a $\Coll(\theta, \chi)^M$-generic over $M$. First, working in $M[x]$, we shall construct $G$ and $H$ which are $\Add(\theta, 1)^M$-generics over $M$ and induce generic functions $g, h:\theta\rightarrow 2$ such that $g^{-1}``\{1\}\cap h^{-1}``\{1\}$ encodes $x$. Enumerate the dense open subsets of $\Add(\theta, 1)^M$ from $M$ ,as $\{D_i\mid i<\theta\}$. We will inductively build $p_i, q_i\in\Add(\theta, 1)^M$ for $i<\theta$ such that $\dom p_i = \dom q_i$ and then take $g = \bigcup p_i$ and $h = \bigcup q_i$. Start with $p_0 = q_0 =\{\}$ and take $p_i = \bigcup_{j<i}p_j$ and $q_i=\bigcup_{j<i}q_j$ at $i$ limit. Given $p_i$ and $q_i$ find $p_i'\leq p_i$ whose domain is even such that $p_i'\in D_i$ and then construct $q_i'\leq q_i$ by defining $q_i(\delta)=0$ for $\delta\in\dom p_i'-\dom q_i$. Similarly find $q_i''\leq q_i'$ such that $q_i''\in D_i$ and $\dom q_i''$ is even, and construct $p_i''\leq p_i'$ by taking $p_i''(\delta)=0$ for $\delta\in\dom q_i''-p_i'$. Observe that $p_i''^{-1}``\{1\}\cap q_i''^{-1}``\{1\} = p_i^{-1}``\{1\}\cap q_i^{-1}``\{1\}$. Now define $\xi:=\dom p_i''=\dom q_i''$ and extend $p_i''$ to $p_{i+1}$ and $q_i''$ to $q_{i+1}$ by defining
\begin{equation}
(p_{i+1}(\xi),p_{i+1}(\xi+1))=(q_{i+1}(\xi),q_{i+1}(\xi+1))= \begin{cases}
(1, 0) \quad\mbox{ if } i\in x\\
(0, 1) \quad\mbox{ if } i\notin x.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Define subsets of $\theta$, $\bar{g}:=g^{-1}``\{1\}$ and $\bar{h}:=h^{-1}``\{1\}$. Since we met all of the dense sets from $M$ the associated filters $G$ and $H$ must be generic over $M$, but we have ensured that $i\in x$ iff the $i^{th}$ element of $\bar{g}\cap \bar{h}$ is even, so $\bar{g}\cap \bar{h}$ codes $x$.
Now take $F$ that is $(\prod_{\alpha<\theta}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^{M}$-generic over $M[x]$ where we use an Easton support product. In $M[x]$ there are also the sets $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ and hence the forcings $(\prod_{\alpha\in \bar{g}}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^{M[G]}$ and $(\prod_{\alpha\in \bar{h}}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^{M[H]}$. There are natural projections $\pi_0:(\prod_{\alpha<\theta}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^M\rightarrow (\prod_{\alpha\in\bar{g}}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^{M[G]}$ and $\pi_1:(\prod_{\alpha<\theta}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^M\rightarrow (\prod_{\alpha\in\bar{h}}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^{M[H]}$ from which we obtain generics $\pi_0``F$ and $\pi_1``F$. Now $\theta$ is strongly inaccessible in $M$ so the constructions of the latter two forcings are unaffected by $\theta$-closed forcing, and they will also be Easton-support products of $\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1},1)^M$ forcings in $M[G]$ and $M[H]$ respectively. This means we can form the generic extension of $M[G]$ by $(\prod_{\alpha\in \bar{g}}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^{M[G]}$ to get $M[G][\pi_0``F]$, and of $M[H]$ by $(\prod_{\alpha\in\bar{h}}\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1}, 1))^{M[H]}$ to get $M[H][\pi_1``F]$.
Let us now consider $M[G][\pi_0``F]\cap M[H][\pi_1``F]$. For $\alpha\in\bar{g}\cap\bar{h}$ the generic $F(\alpha)$ for $\Add(\aleph_{\alpha+1},1)^M$ will be a fresh subset of $\aleph_{\alpha+1}^M$ (i.e. a subset all of whose initial segments are in the ground model) that is a member of $M[G][\pi_0``F]\cap M[H][\pi_1``F]$. Conversely if $\alpha\notin\bar{g}\cap\bar{h}$ then say $\alpha\notin\bar{g}$, so in $M[G][\pi_0``F]$ there will be no fresh subset of $\aleph_{\alpha+1}^M$. Therefore $M[G][\pi_0``F]\cap M[H][\pi_1``F]$ contains a fresh subset of $\aleph_{\alpha+1}^M$ if and only if $\alpha$ is a member of both $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$. If this intersection were a model of ZF then it would be able to form the set of such $\alpha$, and so it would contain $\bar{g}\cap\bar{h}$ and from this $x$. This is impossible because the forcing that gives $G*\pi_0``F$ is too small to have collapsed $\chi$.
\end{proof}
In this example the two models $M[G][\pi_0``F]$ and $M[H][\pi_1``F]$ are re-united by set forcing in the model $M[x][F]$. Take $E$ a generic for some $\chi^+$-closed class forcing in $M$. Then we have a class forcing extension of $M$ given by $M[G][\pi_0``F][E]=M[E][G][\pi_0``F]$ and a generic ground $M[E][H][\pi_1``F]$ thereof such that their intersection is not a model of ZF.
The importance of $\kappa$ remaining a cardinal of $V[G]$ in \ref{main_sets} is illustrated by the following, where the role of $\kappa$ is played by $\lambda^+$.
\begin{proposition} \label{coll_add_example}
Let $M$ be a countable model of ZFC that believes $\lambda$ to be regular such that $2^{<\lambda}=\lambda$. Then there exist forcings $\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{Q}\times\mathbb{S}$ in $M$ with generics $G\times I$ and $H\times J$ respectively such that $M[G, I]=M[H, J]$ and $M[G]\cap M[H]=M$ but $|\mathbb{R}|^M=|\mathbb{S}|^M=\lambda$ and for all $p\in\mathbb{P}$, $\mathbb{P}_p$ is not $\lambda^+$-cc in $M$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
$\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ will be $\Coll^*(\lambda,\lambda^+)^M$, which we define to be the usual $\Coll(\lambda,\lambda^+)^M$ with the additional stipulation that the conditions must be injective partial functions; this means that the generic function it adds will be a bijection. Similarly $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{S}$ will be $\Add^*(\lambda, 1)^M$, by which we mean the forcing whose conditions are injective partial functions from $\lambda$ to $\lambda$; this is equivalent to the usual $\Add(\lambda, 1)^M$ and will create a bijective generic function from $\lambda$ to $\lambda$.
Take $G$ and $H$ to be mutually generic filters added by $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$, and $g, h:\lambda\rightarrow\lambda^+$ the resultant bijections. Define $i=j=g^{-1}\circ h$ and let $I=J$ be the filters associated with $i$ and $j$ respectively. It is clear that $M[G]\cap M[H]=M$ and $M[G, I]=M[G\times H]=M[H, J]$ so we just need to check that $I$ is in fact generic for $\Add^*(\lambda, 1)$ over $M[G]$ (and similarly for $J$ over $M[H]$).
Given $D\in M$ a dense subset of $\Add^*(\lambda, 1)^M$ that belongs to $M[G]$ we define $E$ to be $\{q\in\Coll^*(\lambda,\lambda^+)\mid g^{-1}\circ q\in D\}$, also in $M[G]$. Given any $q\in\Coll^*(\lambda,\lambda^+)^M$ then $g^{-1}\circ q\in\Add^*(\lambda,1)$ so there is an $r\in D$ with $r\leq g^{-1}\circ q$ and then $g\circ r\leq q$ is in $E$. Thus $E$ is dense in $\Coll^*(\lambda,\lambda^+)^M$ and we can find $q\in H\cap E$ giving $g^{-1}\circ q\in I\cap D$.
\end{proof}
In the construction used in this proof we could take an antichain $X\subseteq\Coll^*(\lambda,\lambda^+)^M$ of size $\lambda^+$ and apply \ref{main_sets} to it to obtain in $M[G]$ an injection from $X$ into the set of $\lambda$-many filters whose union forms $E(G)$, but this is not a contradiction because $\lambda^+$ has been collapsed by $\mathbb{P}$.
It is well known that for mutually generic filters $G$ and $H$ we must have $V[G]\cap V[H]=V$. We conclude this section by showing that the converse is false.
\begin{proposition}
Let $M$ be a countable model of ZFC. Then there exist generic filters $G$ and $H$ such that $M[G]\cap M[H]=M$ but $G$ and $H$ are not mutually generic.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\theta$ large and $x\subseteq\omega$ encoding a $\Coll(\omega,\theta)^M$-generic over $M$. Let $\{D_i\mid i<\omega\}$ be an enumeration of all dense open subsets of $\Add(\omega,1)$ from $M$ and $\{(\dot{a}_i,\dot{b}_i)\mid i<\omega\}$ an enumeration of pairs of $\Add(\omega,1)$-names from $M$ that are forced to be new subsets of $\OR$. We will construct $\Add(\omega, 1)$ generics $G$ and $H$ over $M$ by inductively defining $p_i, q_i$ for $i<\omega$ and then taking $g=\bigcup p_i$ and $h=\bigcup q_i$. We have already seen in \ref{intersection_not_model_of_ZFC} how to do this so that $g$ and $h$ induce generic filters $G$ and $H$ in such a way that $\bar{g}\cap\bar{h}$ codes $x$, where $\bar{g}:=g^{-1}``\{1\}$ and $\bar{h}:=h^{-1}``\{1\}$. This means $G$ and $H$ cannot be mutually generic because if they were $G\times H$ would be generic for $\Add(\omega,1)\times\Add(\omega,1)$ whilst encoding a $\Coll(\omega,\theta)^M$-generic.
To obtain $M[G]\cap M[H]=M$ we add an additional step to the construction of $(p_{i+1},q_{i+1})$. Given $(p_i', q_i')$ which have met $D_i$ and recorded whether $i\in x$ we want to ensure that $\dot{a}_i[G]\neq\dot{b}_i[H]$, so we seek $p_{i+1}\leq p_i'$ and $q_{i+1}\leq q_i'$ and $\eta\in\OR$ such that $p_{i+1}\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \eta\in\dot{a}_i$ and $q_{i+1}\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \eta\notin\dot{b}_i$ (or vice versa). We also need $p_{i+1}^{-1}``\{1\}\cap q_{i+1}^{-1}``\{1\}=p_i'^{-1}``\{1\}\cap q_i'^{-1}``\{1\}$ so as not to disrupt the coding of $x$. For $s\in\Add(\omega,1)$ and $n<\omega$ we will write $s\frown\langle 0\rangle^n$ for the extension $s'$ of $s$ with $\dom s'=\dom s+n$ and $s'(m)=0$ for $m\in\dom s'-\dom s$.
Since $\dot{b}_i$ is a name for a new subset of $\OR$ we can fix $\eta$ such that $q_i'$ does not decide whether $\eta\in\dot{b}_i$. Observe that it is impossible for there to be $k$ and $l$ such that $p_i'\frown\langle 0\rangle^{k}\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \eta\in\dot{a}_i$ and $p_i'\frown\langle 0\rangle^{l}\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \eta\notin\dot{a}_i$ since such conditions would be compatible. So without loss of generality say there is no $l<\omega$ with $p_i'\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \eta\notin\dot{a}_i$. Take $q_i''\leq q_i'$ such that $q_i''\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \eta\notin\dot{b}_i$ and define $p_i'':=p_i'\frown\langle 0\rangle^{\lh q_i''-\lh q_i'}$. Since $p_i''$ does not force $\eta\notin\dot{a}_i$ we can take $p_{i+1}\leq p_i''$ such that $p_{i+1}\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar \eta\in\dot{a}_i$ and define $q_{i+1}:=q_i''\frown\langle 0\rangle^{\lh p_{i+1}-\lh p_i''}$.
This has given us that all sets of ordinals from $M[G]\cap M[H]$ are in $M$, and it follows that $M[G]\cap M[H]=M$.
\end{proof}
\section{Intersections with generic grounds I} \label{intersections_part_1}
We first recall some key definitions for class forcing.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a class partial order. Then a class $D\subseteq\mathbb{P}$ is \textit{predense} below $p\in\mathbb{P}$ if every $q\leq p$ is compatible with an element of $D$. The forcing $\mathbb{P}$ is \textit{pre-tame} if for every $p\in\mathbb{P}$, $\lambda\in\OR$, and $V$-definable sequence of classes $\langle D_i\mid i<\lambda\rangle$ that are each pre-dense below $p$, there are $q\leq p$ and $\langle d_i\mid i<\lambda\rangle\in V$ such that $d_i\subseteq D_i$ and each $d_i$ is pre-dense below $q$.
The forcing $\mathbb{P}$ is \textit{tame} if it is both pre-tame and forces the power set axiom to hold.
The forcing $\mathbb{P}$ is \textit{ZFC-preserving} if for all $\mathbb{P}$-generics $G$ the model $\langle V[G], G\rangle$, in the language of set theory together with a unary predicate, satisfies ZFC, where the axioms of separation and replacement are allowed to make definitions with respect to the unary predicate.
\end{definition}
The fundamental theorems of class forcing show that the forcing relation $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar$ is definable in $V$, that a $\mathbb{P}$-extension $V[G]$ will satisfy $\varphi(\dot{a}[G])$ iff there is $p\in G$ such that $p\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\varphi(\dot{a})$, and that a class forcing $\mathbb{P}$ is pre-tame if and only if it preserves ZFC - Power Set (in the extended language with a unary predicate for $G$); for proofs see \cite[Chapter 8, 2.5 and 2.11]{FK}. Thus a class forcing is tame if and only if it is ZFC-preserving. The notion of ZFC-preservation is not first-order expressible but this equivalence allows us to instead speak of tameness, which constitutes a first-order axiom scheme.
\begin{definition}
We will say a class forcing $\mathbb{P}$ is \textit{forwards} if it is tame and is the result of a an iteration $\langle\mathbb{P}_{\alpha},\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha\in\OR\rangle$ of set forcing, such that for all cardinals $\kappa$ there is an $\alpha$ such that $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ forces the tail forcing from $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\alpha}$ onwards to be $\kappa$-distributive.
We note that most interesting class forcings are of this kind but not, for example, Jensen's coding of the universe into a real. The increasing distributivity occurs because any forcing that preserves ZFC can only add set-many subsets of any given ordinal.
\end{definition}
We will need to following result from \cite[Proposition 1.4]{Unger}.
\begin{lemma} \label{kappaCCSubsets}
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a non-trivial $\kappa$-cc forcing. Then it adds a new subset of $\kappa$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\dot{B}$ be forced to be a fresh subset of $\lambda$ added by $\mathbb{P}$. Fix $\langle\lambda_i\mid i<\cf(\lambda)\rangle$ cofinal in $\lambda$ and let $T$ be the tree whose $i^{th}$ level consists of all possible values of $\dot{B}\cap\lambda_i$. By the $\kappa$-cc all levels of $T$ have size less than $\kappa$. We have two cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\cf(\lambda)\leq\kappa$ then $|T|$ has size at most $\kappa$. The forcing adds a branch through $T$ that determines the realisation of $\dot{B}$, and this branch will be a new subset of $T$.
\item Otherwise $\cf(\lambda)>\kappa$. For any $i<\cf(\lambda)$ of cofinality $\kappa$ and $A, B\in \Lev_i(T)$ with $A\neq B$ we can find $j<i$ where $A\cap\lambda_j\neq B\cap\lambda_j$. But there are $<\kappa$-many such pairs on level $i$, so we can find a single $f(i)<i$ such that for all $A, B\in\Lev_i(T)$ with $A\neq B$ we have $A\cap\lambda_{f(i)}\neq B\cap\lambda_{f(i)}$. Now $f$ is a regressive function on the stationary set $\cf(\lambda)\cap\cof(\kappa)$ so there is a stationary subset $S$ and a fixed $k<\cf(\lambda)$ with $f(i) = k$ for all $i\in S$. Take $A\in\Lev_k(T)$. Then in any $i\in S$ there is a unique extension of $A$ to $\Lev_i(T)$, so $A$ determines the value of $\dot{B}$, which contradicts its being forced to be new.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
We also need a more careful analysis of possible extensions of the universe by definability with respect to sets of ordinals.
Suppose we have $V\subseteq W$ models of ZFC, $\theta$ such that $\beth^V_{\theta}=\theta$, and $X\subseteq\theta$ a member of $W$. Then we can fix $A\subseteq\theta$ in $V$ such that $L_{\theta}[A]=V_{\theta}$ and interpret $V_{\theta}[X]$ as $L_{\theta}[A, X]$. We pause to show that this will be independent of the choice of $A$. Given another $A'\subseteq\theta$ such that $L_{\theta}[A']=V_{\theta}$ then for any $c\in L_{\theta}[A,X]$ we have $c\in L_{\gamma}[A,X]=L_{\gamma}[A\cap\gamma,X]$ for some $\gamma<\theta$; since $A\cap\gamma\in V_{\theta}=L_{\theta}[A']$ this will give $c\in L_{\theta}[A',X]$. Together with a similar argument in the other direction this yields $L_{\theta}[A,X]=L_{\theta}[A',X]$.
We can also define $V[X]$ to be $V(\{X\})$ as this will automatically be a model of the Axiom of Choice and so of ZFC.
\begin{lemma} \label{reflection_helper_2}
Let $V\subseteq W$ be models of ZFC, $\theta$ strongly inaccessible in $W$, and $X\subseteq\theta$ a member of $W$. Then $V_{\theta}[X]=V[X]_{\theta}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The left-to-right containment is clear so we consider the converse. Given $x\in V[X]_{\theta}$, take a strong limit cardinal $\beta>\theta$ such that $x\in V_{\beta}[X]_{\theta}$ and then choose $\chi>>\beta$. Use the strong inaccessibility of $\theta$ to build $M\prec V[X]_{\chi}$ such that $\TC(\{x\})\subseteq M$, $\beta\in M$, $\delta:=M\cap\theta\in\theta$ and $|M|<\theta$. Collapse $\pi:M\rightarrow\bar{M}$ to a transitive model; this gives $\pi(\theta)=\delta$, $\pi(X)=X\cap\delta$ and $\pi(x)=x$. We began with $M\models x\in V_{\beta}[X]_{\theta}$, so we obtain $\bar{M}\models x\in V_{\pi(\beta)}[X\cap\delta]_{\delta}$. But $\pi(\beta)<\theta$ so by absoluteness $x\in V_{\theta}[X\cap\delta]_{\delta}\subseteq V_{\theta}[X]$.
\end{proof}
We recall the following definition, introduced by Hamkins in \cite{hamkins_extensions}.
\begin{definition}
Let $V\subseteq W$ be models of ZFC and $\lambda$ a cardinal of $W$. We say $V$ has the \textit{$\lambda$-covering} property in $W$ if for every $\sigma\subseteq V$ with $\sigma\in V$ and $|\sigma|^W<\lambda$ there is $\tau\in V$ with $\sigma\subseteq\tau$ and $|\tau|^W<\lambda$. It has the \textit{$\lambda$-approximation} property in $W$, if for any increasing sequence $\langle\tau_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\delta\rangle\in W$ where $\cf^W(\delta)\geq\lambda$ and each $\tau_{\alpha}\in V$ we have $\bigcup\tau_{\alpha}\in V$.
\end{definition}
It is key to the study of grounds that a universe $V$ has $\lambda$-covering and $\lambda$-approximation within any forcing extension by a forcing of size less than $\lambda$. Furthermore, Hamkins showed that given any universe $V$ and any $S\subseteq\mathcal{P}(\lambda)$ there is at most one inner model $W$ that satisfies $\lambda$-covering and $\lambda$-approximation and has $\mathcal{P}(\lambda)^W=S$. For proofs of these results see \cite[Lemma 9]{FHR}, \cite{Reitz} or \cite[Theorem 5]{HOD}. (This is what renders the grounds of a universe uniformly definable, and so makes the mantle a class, as discussed in \cite{FHR}.)
We can now use our earlier work with set forcing extensions to analyse the intersection of a class forcing extension and one of its generic grounds, in the presence of a sufficient number of weakly compact cardinals.
\begin{theorem} \label{main_class}
Assume Global Choice. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a forwards class forcing with generic $G$, formed from $\langle\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\OR\rangle$ with individual generics $G_{\alpha}$. Let there be a stationary class of ordinals $\alpha$ such that the initial segment $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ of $\mathbb{P}$ is formed by a direct limit of the preceding forcings, and such that $\alpha$ is weakly compact in $V[G_{\alpha}]$. Let $W$ be a generic ground of $V[G]$ via forcing of size less than $\kappa$, such that $V\subseteq W$. Then there is a common ground of $V[G]$ and $W$ via forcings with the $\kappa$-cc.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using Global Choice we may assume that the underlying set of $\mathbb{P}$ is contained in the ordinals, so $G\subseteq\OR$. Say $W$ is a generic ground of $V[G]$ via $\mathbb{R}\in V[G]$ with generic $I$ and $\mathbb{S}\in W$ with generic $J$, so $V[G][I]=W[J]$ with $|\mathbb{R}|,|\mathbb{S}|<\kappa$.
Suppose the result does not hold. Observe that $W$ is definable in $V[G][I]$ as the unique inner model whose powerset of $\kappa$ is $\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^W$ and for which $\kappa$-covering and $\kappa$-approximation hold, so the assertion that no such common ground exists is first-order definable; call this assertion $\varphi(\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^W)$. We may assume that in $V[G]$ it is forced by $\mathbb{R}$ that $\varphi(\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^W)$ holds. Reflecting down the $\langle V[G]_{\alpha}\mid\alpha\in\OR\rangle$ hierarchy, there is a club of $\theta>>\kappa$ such that
$$V[G]_{\theta}\models\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{R}}\varphi(\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^W).$$
There is a stationary class of $\theta$ such that $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ is formed as a direct limit and $\theta$ is weakly compact in $V[G_{\theta}]$. Additionally there is a club of $\theta$ such that the underlying set of $\bigcup_{\alpha<\theta}\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ is $\theta$, which if $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ is a direct limit means that the underlying set of $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ is $\theta$ and $G_{\theta}=G\cap\theta$. Finally for all $\alpha$ the increasing distributivity of $\mathbb{P}$ gives us $\beta$ such that $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}}V[\dot{G}]_{\alpha}\subseteq V_{\beta}[\dot{G}]$; this yields (definably in $V$) a club of $\theta$ such that $V[G]_{\theta}=V_{\theta}[G]$. Fix a $\theta$ that has all of these properties.
The filter $J$ will still be generic over $W_{\theta}$ and, since $|\mathbb{S}|<\theta$, every member of $V[G, I]_{\theta}$ will have a $\mathbb{S}$-name in $W_{\theta}$. This permits the forcing extension $W_{\theta}[J]=V[G,I]_{\theta}$, which means that $W_{\theta}$ is a `class' from the point of view of $V[G, I]_{\theta}$. Specifically it will be the `inner model' of $V[G, I]_{\theta}$ satisfying $\kappa$-covering and $\kappa$-approximation and with the correct $\mathcal{P}(\kappa)$ that we have assumed shares no common ground with $V[G]_{\theta}$ via $\kappa$-cc forcing.
By the choice of $\theta$ we that have $V[G]_{\theta}$ equals $V_{\theta}[G]$, which clearly equals $V_{\theta}[G\cap\theta]$, which by \ref{reflection_helper_2} equals $V[G\cap\theta]_{\theta}$. Now $|\mathbb{R}|<\theta$ so all sets of size less than $\theta$ added by $\mathbb{R}$ will have names of size less than $\theta$; this allows us to deduce $V[G,I]_{\theta}=V[G]_{\theta}[I]=V[G\cap\theta]_{\theta}[I]=V[G\cap\theta, I]_{\theta}$.
We have therefore managed to cut down the situation where $W$ was a generic ground of $V[G]$ to one where $W_{\theta}$ is a generic ground of $V[G\cap\theta]_{\theta}$, and by assumption the two have no common ground via $\kappa$-cc forcing. Our aim is now to extend the height of the universes in question back up to $\OR$ while leaving the forcing $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ unchanged; then we will be able to apply our understanding of this situation for set forcings to find a common ground and obtain a contradiction. The main difficulty in doing so is extending $W_{\theta}$, since the obvious $V(W_{\theta})$ may lack both a well-ordering of $W_{\theta}$ and an $\mathbb{S}$-name for $G\cap\theta$.
Since $W_{\theta}$ is definable in $V[G,I]_{\theta}=V[G\cap\theta,I]_{\theta}$ we get that $W_{\theta}\in V[G\cap\theta,I]$. Now $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ has underlying set $\theta$ so for any $\alpha\in(\kappa,\theta)$ we may regard $\mathbb{S}$-names for $G\cap\alpha$ as subsets of $\alpha$, and therefore also as members of $W_{\theta}$. Form the tree $T\subseteq W_{\theta}$ whose $\alpha$-level consists of such $\mathbb{S}$-names for $G\cap\alpha$. Now $\theta$ is weakly compact in $V[G\cap\theta]$ and $\mathbb{R}$ is a small forcing so $\theta$ remains weakly compact in $V[G\cap\theta, I]$; since $T\in V[G\cap\theta,I]$ there is a cofinal branch of $T$ in $V[G\cap\theta,I]$. We apply the $\kappa$-approximation between $W$ and $V[G,I]$ to see that this branch will also be a member of $W$.
Similarly, form the tree $T'\subseteq W_{\theta}$ such that for all $\alpha$ strong limit its $\alpha$-level consists of $x\subseteq\alpha$ such that $W_{\alpha}\subseteq V[x]$. We can again take a branch in this tree that will be a member of both $V[G\cap\theta,I]$ and $W$. Combine both branches into some $B\subseteq\theta$, so that $W_{\theta}\subseteq V[B]$ and $V[B]$ contains an $\mathbb{S}$-name for $G\cap\theta$. Since $B\in W$ we have in fact $W_{\theta}=V[B]_{\theta}$. Also $V[B]\subseteq V[G\cap\theta,I]$, and $V[B]$ contains $\mathbb{S}$-names for both $G\cap\theta$ and $I$ (since the latter name is of size less that $\theta$), so $V[G\cap\theta,I]$ is a forcing extension of $V[B]$ via $\mathbb{S}$ and $J$.
Since everything has now been reduced to set forcing, we can apply the intermediate model theorem to $V\subseteq V[B]\subseteq V[G\cap\theta,I]$ to get a forcing $\mathbb{Q}$ with generic $H$ such that $V[B]=V[H]$. We can then use \ref{main_sets} to obtain a common ground $U$ of $V[G\cap\theta]$ and $V[B]$, say via $\kappa$-cc forcings $\mathbb{M}$ and $\mathbb{N}$ which are quotients of $\ro(\mathbb{P}_{\theta})$ and $\ro(\mathbb{Q})$ respectively, with corresponding generics $E$ and $F$.
Take $\alpha<\theta$ such that $\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^{V[G\cap\theta]}=\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^{V[G_{\alpha}]}$ and $\dot{X}$ a $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$-name for a subset of $(2^{\kappa})^{V[G\cap\theta]}$ that encodes $\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^{V[G\cap\theta]}$. Let $\mathbb{M}'$ be the complete subalgebra of $\ro(\mathbb{P}_{\alpha})$ generated by $[\![i\in\dot{X}]\!]$ for $i<(2^{\kappa})^{V[G\cap\theta]}$. We can then apply the quotient of $\ro(\mathbb{P}_{\theta})$ to $\mathbb{M}'$ to get $\mathbb{M}^*\leq\mathbb{M}$ that adds $\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^{V[G\cap\theta]}$. This means that $\mathbb{M}/\mathbb{M}^*$ will have no subsets of $\kappa$ left to add, but will still have the $\kappa$-cc so by \ref{kappaCCSubsets} it must be trivial. Therefore we can assume that $\mathbb{M}=\mathbb{M}^*$, so it has size at most $|\mathbb{M}'|\leq |\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}|<\theta$ and is a member of $U_{\theta}$, and similarly for $\mathbb{N}$. Furthermore, since these forcings are small all sets of size less than $\theta$ will have $\mathbb{M}$- or $\mathbb{N}$-names of size less than $\theta$, giving $U_{\theta}[E]=V[G\cap\theta]_{\theta}$ and $U_{\theta}[F]=W_{\theta}$. This makes $U_{\theta}$ a ground of each of these models (it is a class by the usual approximation and covering argument), and so a common ground of them via $\kappa$-cc forcing. This contradicts the non-existence of such a ground that we reflected down to $\theta$.
\end{proof}
The approach of Usuba in \cite{usuba} gives a common ground $U$ of $V[G]$ and $W$ in this scenario, but the forcings in $U$ witnessing this are only guaranteed to be $\kappa^{++}$-cc rather than $\kappa$-cc as shown here.
The requirement of Theorem \ref{main_class} that $V\subseteq W$ is automatic when $V$ is any core model $K$; to see this it is enough to check that $K^{V[G]}=K^V$ and then invoke the standard preservation of $K$ by set forcing. We know that $K\cap H_{\mu}$ is uniformly definable without parameters in $H_{\mu}$ for any cardinal $\mu>\omega$; see \cite{jensen_steel} for details. Given any such $\mu$, fix a set-generic initial segment $G_0$ of $G$ such that $H^{V[G_0]}_{\mu}=H^{V[G]}_{\mu}$. Then $K^{V[G]}\cap H_{\mu}$ will equal $K^{H^{V[G]}_{\mu}}$ by the uniformity of the definition, which equals $K^{H^{V[G_0]}_{\mu}}=K^{V[G_0]}\cap H_{\mu}$ by the uniformity again, which by the preservation of $K$ under set forcing is equal to $K^V\cap H_{\mu}$. Therefore $K^{V[G]}=K^V$.
This requirement $V\subseteq W$ cannot be easily simplified; in particular it is not implied by $V=gM^V$. To illustrate this we construct an example of a universe $V$ and a set $x\in gM^V$ together with a class generic $F$ such that $x\notin gM^{V[F]}$.
\begin{example}
Take $x$ a Cohen real over $L$. For $\kappa\in\OR$ and $n<\omega$ define $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa, n}$ to be
$$\Add(\aleph_{\kappa.\omega + n.5 + 1}, \aleph_{\kappa.\omega + n.5 + 3}).$$
In $L[x]$ define $\mathbb{P}$, $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ to be the Easton support products over $\kappa$ of $\prod_{n<\omega}\mathbb{A}_{\kappa, n}$, $\prod_{n\in x}\mathbb{A}_{\kappa, n}$ and $\prod_{n\notin x}\mathbb{A}_{\kappa, n}$ respectively. It is clear that $\mathbb{P}\cong\mathbb{Q}\times\mathbb{R}$ and that $\mathbb{Q}$ can be regarded as a complete subposet of $\mathbb{P}$. Take $G$ a $\mathbb{P}$-generic over $L[x]$ and split it as $H\times F$ a $(\mathbb{Q}\times\mathbb{R})$-generic. Define $V = L[x][H]$, so $V[F]=L[x][G]$. We see that $x$ is in $gM^{V}$ because it is encoded cofinally in the continuum function of $V$. Now $\mathbb{P}$ is in $L$ so $x$ is Cohen generic over $L[G]$ and we have $L[G]$ a ground of $L[x][G]$ that does not contain $x$, because $\mathbb{P}$ is countably closed and so cannot add new reals. Therefore $x\notin gM^{L[x][G]} = gM^{V[F]}$.
\end{example}
Regardless, we have the following corollary which is a special case of \cite[Corollary 5.5]{usuba}.
\begin{corollary}
Assume Global Choice. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a forwards class forcing with generic $G$, formed from $\langle\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha<\OR\rangle$ with individual generics $G_{\alpha}$. Let there be a stationary class of ordinals $\alpha$ such that $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ is formed by a direct limit of the preceding forcings, and such that $\alpha$ is weakly compact in $V[G_{\alpha}]$. Let $V\subseteq gM^{V[G]}$. Then $gM^{V[G]}=M^{V[G]}$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Characterising the mantle} \label{characterising_the_mantle}
\begin{definition}
For a forwards class iteration $\mathbb{P}$ with generic $G$ we say $x\in V[G]$ is \textit{caught} by $G$ if
$$V[G]\models\forall e\;\exists_{unbdd}\theta\exists C\subseteq\theta\;\forall A\subseteq\theta\;(C\in V[e,A]\rightarrow x\in V[A]).$$
\end{definition}
From lemma \ref{EastonHelp} (in the case when $\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ is trivial) we can deduce as follows that if $\mathbb{P}$ is an Easton support iteration of $\Add(\kappa,1)$ at $\kappa$ regular, then all $x\in V[G]$ are caught by $G$. It suffices to consider $x$ that are subsets of some cardinal $\kappa$. Given $e$, take an initial segment $G_{\alpha}$ of the generic such that $x,e\in V[G_{\alpha}]$ and then choose $C$ to be any set of ordinals from $V[G]-V[G_{\alpha}]$; we may regard $C$ as a subset of $\theta$ for unboundedly large $\theta$. Given any $A$ such that $C\in V[e,A]$ then we have $A\notin V[G_{\alpha}]$ so the lemma gives us that $x\in V[A]$ as required.
In some cases we can use this definition to provide a simple characterisation of the mantle, but first we need a lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{classInts2}
Let $V$ be a model of ZFC, $\mathbb{P}$ a forwards class forcing with generic $G$, $W$ a model of ZFC such that $V\subseteq W$ and $e\in V[G]$ such that $W[e]=V[G]$. Then $W$ is a class and ground of $V[G]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Say $\mathbb{P}$ is formed by an iteration of $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in\OR$, with associated generics $G_{\alpha}$. We may assume $e\subseteq\kappa$ for some cardinal $\kappa$ and take $\dot{e}$ a $\mathbb{P}$-name for $e$. Choose $\alpha$ such that $\dot{e}$ is a $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$-name and let $\mathbb{C}$ be the complete subalgebra of $\ro(\mathbb{P}_{\alpha})$ generated by $[\![i\in \dot{e}]\!]$ for $i<\kappa$. Observe that $|\mathbb{C}|\leq|\ro(\mathbb{P}_{\alpha})|=2^{|\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}|}$.
Define $\lambda:=((2^{|\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}|})^+)^{V[G]}$ and take $\lhd\in W$ a well-ordering of $H^W_{\lambda}$, so $V(H^W_{\lambda},\lhd)$ will be a model of the axiom of choice and thus of ZFC. Find $\beta>\alpha$ such that $V\subseteq V(H^W_{\lambda},\lhd)\subseteq V[G_{\beta}]$. This gives us
$$V\subseteq V(H^W_{\lambda},\lhd)\subseteq V(H^W_{\lambda},\lhd)[e]\subseteq V[G_{\beta}].$$
Apply the intermediate model theorem to get a complete subalgebra $\mathbb{A}$ of $\mathbb{P}_{\beta}$ such that $V[G\cap\mathbb{A}]=V(H^W_{\lambda},\lhd)$. We also have the quotient $\mathbb{P}_{\beta}/(G\cap\mathbb{A})\in V(H^W_{\lambda},\lhd)$ and can form its complete subalgebra $\mathbb{E}:=\mathbb{C}/(G\cap\mathbb{A})\in W$, which we know will have size less than $\lambda$, and the associated generic which we call $F$. Therefore any dense $D\subseteq\mathbb{E}$ from $W$ will be a member of $V(H^W_{\lambda},\lhd)$, so $F$ will be generic over $W$. We have found $\mathbb{E}\in W$ with a generic $F$ such that $W[F]=W[e]=V[G]$.
Now by the usual arguments that $W$ will have the $\lambda$-covering and $\lambda$-approximation properties in $V[G]$ and so it is a class of $V[G]$, definable from the parameter $\mathcal{P}(\lambda)^W$.
\end{proof}
We pause to note that the assumption that $W$ is within a set distance of $V[G]$ is essential not only to $W$ being a ground of $V[G]$, but also to its being a class.
\begin{example} \label{partial_lottery}
For $\kappa$ regular let $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ be $\Add(\kappa, 1)$ and let $\mathbb{T}$ be the trivial forcing $\{*\}$. For forcings $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ we write $\mathbb{P}\oplus\mathbb{Q}$ for the lottery sum that chooses one of $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ to force with.
There is a complete embedding $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\oplus\mathbb{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ given by sending $p\in\Add(\kappa,1)$ to $\langle 0\rangle\frown p$ and $*$ to $\langle 1\rangle$. We can use this to create a complete embedding from $\mathbb{Q}$ a class Easton support product of $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\oplus\mathbb{T}$ into $\mathbb{P}$ a class Easton support product of $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$. Thus we may regard $\mathbb{Q}$ as a complete subposet of $\mathbb{P}$. Take $G$ a class generic for $\mathbb{P}$ and let $S$ be the class of ordinals $\kappa$ at which non-trivial forcing is performed by $G\cap\mathbb{Q}$. Then $S$ is a class in $V[G\cap\mathbb{Q}]$; we will show that it is not one in $V[G]$, and so $V[G\cap\mathbb{Q}]$ cannot be a class in $V[G]$.
Suppose otherwise, so there is a formula $\varphi$ and parameter $a$ such that $\varphi(a,\eta)^{V[G]}\leftrightarrow\eta\in S$ for all ordinals $\eta$. Take $\dot{a}$ a $\mathbb{P}$-name for $a$ and $\dot{S}$ a class $\mathbb{P}$-name for $S$, then find $p\in G$ such that $p\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\forall\eta:\varphi(\dot{a},\eta)\leftrightarrow\eta\in\dot{S}$. Split $\mathbb{P}$ as $\mathbb{P}_0\times\mathbb{P}_1$ and $G$ as $G_0\times G_1$ so that $p\in\mathbb{P}_0$ and $\dot{a}$ is a $\mathbb{P}_0$-name. Then in $V[G_0]$ we have $\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}_1}\forall\eta:\varphi(a,\eta)\leftrightarrow\eta\in\dot{S}$. Choose $\kappa$ such that $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ is part of $\mathbb{P}_1$. Then without loss of generality $\kappa\in S=\dot{S}[G]$ so $\varphi(a,\kappa)^{V[G]}$, but we can form $G'$ from $G$ by swapping the first co-ordinate of $G\cap\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ while maintaining $V[G']=V[G]$, so $\kappa\notin\dot{S}[G']$ but $\varphi(a,\kappa)^{V[G']}$. This is a contradiction.
\end{example}
We are now ready to give a characterisation of the mantle.
\begin{theorem}
Assume $V=L$ and that there exists a stationary class of strongly inaccessible cardinals. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a tame class Easton support iteration of set forcings, $G$ a generic for $\mathbb{P}$, and $x$ be a member of $V[G]$. Then $x$ is caught iff $x\in M^{V[G]}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the forwards direction we are given $W$ a ground of $V[G]$, say via $V[G] = W[J]$ for $J$ a $\mathbb{S}$-generic. Define $e$ to be this $J$, and take $\theta>>|\mathbb{S}|$ and $C$ from the definition of `caught'. Take a $\mathbb{S}$-name in $W$ for $C$, and let $A$ be an encoding of this name as a subset of $\theta$; then $C\in L[e, A]$, yielding $x\in V[A]\subseteq W$.
For the converse, using Global Choice we may assume that all members $\mathbb{P}$ are ordinals. Say $\mathbb{P}$ is formed by the Easton support iteration $\langle\mathbb{P}_i\mid i<\OR\rangle$. There will be a club class of $\theta$ such that $\bigcup_{i<\theta}\mathbb{P}_i=\theta$. When $\theta$ is also strongly inaccessible the use of Easton support gives that $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}=\bigcup_{i<\theta}\mathbb{P}_i$, so $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ will be a forcing on $\theta$ with generic $G\cap\theta$.
We have that $L[G]\models x\in M$ so by reflection down the $\langle L[G]_{\theta}\mid\theta\in\OR\rangle$ hierarchy there is a club class of $\theta$ such that $L[G]_{\theta}\models x\in M$. Now for each ordinal $\alpha$ there will be some $\beta$ such that for every member $z$ of $L[G]_{\beta}$ a name for $z$ occurs in $L_{\alpha}$; this will give us that $L[G]_{\alpha}\subseteq L_{\beta}[G]$. Therefore there is a club class of cardinals $\theta$ such that $L[G]_{\theta}=L_{\theta}[G]$.
Suppose $x$ is not caught, which is to say $$L[G]\models\exists e\;\forall_{large}\theta\forall C\subseteq\theta\;\exists A\subseteq\theta\;(C\in L[e,A]\wedge x\notin L[A]).$$ Fix such an $e$ and choose $\theta$ strongly inaccessible and in the club classes considered above such that $e\in L[G]_{\theta}$. Let $C$ be $G\cap\theta$ and take $A\subseteq\theta$ such that $G\cap\theta\in L[e,A]$ and $x\notin L[A]$.
This gives
$$L_{\theta}[G\cap\theta]\subseteq L[G\cap\theta]_{\theta}\subseteq L[e,A]_{\theta}\subseteq L[G]_{\theta}=L_{\theta}[G]=L_{\theta}[G\cap\theta]$$
from which $L_{\theta}[G\cap\theta]=L[e, A]_{\theta}$. Since $A\subseteq\theta$ and $e$ is small, we can use \ref{reflection_helper_2} to see that this is in turn equal to $L_{\theta}[e,A]$, which equals $L_{\theta}[A][e]$.
We can now apply \ref{classInts2} within $L_{\theta}[G\cap\theta]$ to see that $L_{\theta}[A]$ is a ground thereof; $x\notin L[A]$ so this ground omits $x$. But $L_{\theta}[G\cap\theta]$ equals $L[G]_{\theta}$ and so believes that $x$ is a member of its mantle, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\section{Intersections with generic grounds II} \label{intersections_part_2}
We now present an alternative analysis of the intersection of a universe with one of its generic grounds, which gives a weaker result but avoids the need for large cardinal assumptions. First we recall the following definitions.
\begin{definition}
Let $V\subseteq W$ be models of ZFC. We say that \textit{Jensen covering} holds between $V$ and $W$ if for any uncountable $X\in W$ with $X\subseteq V$ there is a $Y\in V$ such that $X\subseteq Y$ and $|X|=|Y|$ in $W$. We say \textit{weak covering} holds between $V$ and $W$ if for all singular strong limit cardinals $\lambda$ of $W$ we have $(\lambda^+)^V=(\lambda^+)^W$.
\end{definition}
When $V$ is a small core model such as $L$ or $L[0^{\#}]$ we will have Jensen covering between $V$ and its set-generic extensions. This is not true if $V$ is a larger core model, such as the core model for one Woodin cardinal, but then we will still have weak covering between $V$ and its set-generic extensions, and $V$ will also still satisfy GCH. Therefore we present slightly different arguments for the two situations.
\begin{theorem} \label{weak_main}
Assume Global Choice and that Jensen covering holds between $V$ and its set-generic extensions. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a forwards class forcing with generic $G$, and $W$ a generic ground of $V[G]$ such that $V\subseteq W$. Then $V[G]\cap W$ is not contained in $V[c]$ for any $c\in V[G]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Say $V[H]$ is a generic ground via $V[G][I]=V[H][J]$ where $I$ is $\mathbb{R}$-generic over $V[G]$ and $J$ is $\mathbb{S}$-generic over $V[H]$. Suppose there is $c\in V[G]$ with $V[G]\cap V[H]\subseteq V[c]$.
Split $\mathbb{P}$ in $V$ as $\mathbb{P}^0*\dot{\mathbb{P}^{>0}}$ and correspondingly $G$ as $G^0*G^{>0}$ such that $\mathbb{R}, c\in V[G^0]$ and $J\in V[G^0,I]$. Observe that $I$ and $G^{>0}$ are mutually generic over $V[G^0]$ so we can regard the extension $V[G,I]$ as $V[G^0,I][G^{>0}]$. Take $\beta$ such that $G^0, I\in W_{\beta}[J]$ and $\lhd$ a well-ordering of $W_{\beta}$. This gives us
$$V[G^0,I]\subseteq V(W_{\beta},\lhd)[J]\subseteq V[G^0,I][G^{>0}]$$
and we can apply the intermediate model theorem in $V[G^0,I]$ to split $\mathbb{P}^{>0}:=\dot{\mathbb{P}}^{>0}[G^0]$ as $\mathbb{P}^1*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^{>1}$ and $G^{>0}$ correspondingly as $G^1*G^{>1}$ so that $U:=V[G^0,I][G^1]=V(W_{\beta},\lhd)[J]$. (Technically we must first cut down $\mathbb{P}^{>0}$ to a large enough set initial segment and then apply the theorem to that.)
Take $\kappa$ an uncountable cardinal in $V[G,I]$ such that $U\models |G^0*I*G^1|\leq\kappa$, then $X\subseteq\OR$ encoding $\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^{V[G,I]}$. Since $V[G]$ is a forwards class forcing extension it is possible to split $\mathbb{P}^{>1}:=\dot{\mathbb{P}}^{>1}[G^0*I*G^1]$ in $V[G^0*I*G^1]$ as $\mathbb{P}^2*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^{>2}$ and $G^{>1}$ as $G^2*G^{>2}$ so that $G^2\notin V[G^0,I,G^1, X]$. Find $\beta'>\beta$ such that $G^2, I\in W_{\beta}[J]$ and $\lhd'$ a well-ordering of $W_{\beta'}$. We get
$$V\subseteq V(W_{\beta},\lhd)\subseteq V(W_{\beta'},\lhd')\subseteq V[G^0, I, G^{>1}]$$
so the intermediate models theorem will yield a forcing $\mathbb{Q}\in V$ together with a generic $H$ such that $V[H]=V(W_{\beta'},\lhd')$, then a second application will split them as $\mathbb{Q}=\mathbb{Q}^1*\dot{\mathbb{Q}}^{>1}$ and $H=H^1*H^{>1}$ such that $V[H^1]=V(W_{\beta},\lhd)$. Now we have
$$U\subseteq U[G^2]= V[G^0,I,G^1,G^2]\subseteq V(W_{\beta}',\lhd')[J]=V(W_{\beta},\lhd)[H^{>1}][J]$$
where $\mathbb{Q}^{>1}:=\dot{\mathbb{Q}}^{>1}[H^1]$ and $\mathbb{S}$ are both members of $V(W_{\beta},\lhd)$, so $H^{>1}$ and $J$ are mutually generic and can be swapped to get
$$U\subseteq U[G^2]\subseteq V(W_{\beta},\lhd)[J][H^{>1}]=U[H^{>1}]$$
allowing us to use the intermediate model theorem in $U$ to split $\mathbb{Q}^{>1}$ as $\mathbb{Q}^2*\dot{\mathbb{Q}}^3$ and $H^{>1}$ as $H^2*H^3$ such that $U':=U[H^2]=U[G^2]$.
Next by \cite[Lemma 25.5]{old_jech} applied in $U$ there are $p\in G^2$ and $q\in H^2$ together with an isomorphism $\pi:\mathbb{P}^2_p\rightarrow\mathbb{Q}^2_q$ such that $\pi``G^2_p=H^2_q$; we may assume $p$ and $q$ are trivial. (This theorem applies only to set forcing which is one reason why we need to cut down $V[G,I]$ to $U'$ first.)
Define $\mathbb{A}:=\mathbb{P}^0*\dot{\mathbb{R}}*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^1$ and $F:=G^0*I*G^1$, so $U=V[F]$. Take $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}^2$ an $\mathbb{A}$-name for $\mathbb{Q}^2$ and $\dot{\pi}$ an $\mathbb{A}$-name for $\pi$. For each $a\in\mathbb{A}$ define $\pi_a\in V$ to be the set of pairs $(\dot{p},\dot{q})$ of $\mathbb{A}$-names, the first a member of $\dot{\mathbb{P}}^2$ and the second a member of $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}^2$, such that $a\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{\pi}(\dot{p})=\dot{q}$. Then $\bigcup_{a\in F}\pi_a$ will be realised as $\pi$ under $F$.
Now for each $a\in F$ we have $\dom\pi_a\cap G^2\in V[G]$ but also $\dom\pi_a\cap G^2 = \pi^{-1}``(\im\pi_a\cap H^2)\in V[H]$; recalling that $V[G]\cap V[H] \subseteq V[c]$ we get $\dom\pi_a\cap G^* \in V[c]\subseteq V[G_0]$. Note that for $a\notin F$ the partial function $\pi_a$ will not take $G^2$ to $H^2$ so $\dom\pi_a\cap G^2$ may not be in $V[H]$; this means that $U$ is unable to construct a set of the relevant $\dom\pi_a\cap G^2$ and so cannot simply take their union to recover $G^2$.
However, there is in $U'$ the set $S:=\{\dom\pi_a\cap G^2\mid a\in F\}$ which is a subset of $U$. Covering holds between $V$ and $U'$, and hence between $U$ and $U'$. Thus we can find $T\in U$ of size $\kappa$ with $S\subseteq T$. Fix a bijection $f:\kappa\rightarrow T$ in $U$; then we have $f^{-1}``S\subseteq\kappa$ with $f^{-1}``S\in U'$ and $G^2\in U[f^{-1}``S]\subseteq U[X]=V[G^0,I,G^1, X]$, contradicting the choice of $G^2$.
\end{proof}
We can weaken the assumption of covering to weak covering between $U'$ and $V$ if we also assume that the GCH holds on a tail in $V$, as follows.
\begin{theorem}
Assume Global Choice, that GCH holds on a tail in $V$, and that weak covering holds between $V$ and its set-generic extensions. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a forwards class forcing with generic $G$, formed from $\langle\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha\in\OR\rangle$ such that for all $\kappa$ there is a stationary class of singular cardinals $\theta$ with cofinality greater than $\kappa$ for which $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ is a direct limit. Let $W$ be a generic ground of $V[G]$ such that $V\subseteq W$. Then $V[G]\cap W$ is not contained in $V[c]$ for any $c\in V[G]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will follow the argument of \ref{weak_main} except that we shall make different choices of $\mathbb{P}^2$ and $G^2$, and our conclusion will be based on weak covering rather than Jensen covering.
By Global Choice we can assume that $\mathbb{P}$ has the ordinals as its underlying class. Proceed as in \ref{weak_main} up to the choice of $\kappa$. We seek a singular strong limit $\theta$ of cofinality greater than $\kappa$ for which:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The underlying set of $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ is $\theta$.
\item $\forall x\in V[G,I]_{\theta}\;\exists\alpha<\theta:x\in V[G\cap\alpha,I]$
\item $\neg\exists\alpha<\theta: G\cap\theta\in V[G\cap\alpha, I]$
\item $2^{\theta}=\theta^+$ in $V$.
\end{enumerate}
There is a stationary class of $\theta$ at which $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ is formed as a direct limit, and a club class for which $\bigcup_{\beta<\theta}\mathbb{P}_{\beta}$ has underlying set $\theta$, giving a stationary class where (a) holds. For any $x\in V[G, I]$ there is some ordinal $\alpha$ such that $x\in V[G\cap\alpha,I]$, so there is a club of $\theta$ on which (b) holds. We can assume each step in the iteration forming $\mathbb{P}$ is non-trivial so (c) will hold whenever $\theta$ is a limit ordinal. Finally (d) holds on a tail of $\theta$. Hence finding a $\theta$ which satisfies all of these requirements is possible.
Split $\mathbb{P}^{>2}$ as $\mathbb{P}^2*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^{>2}$ so that $\mathbb{P}^0*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^1*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^2$ is $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$. Split $G^{>2}$ as $G^2*G^{>2}$ accordingly.
We resume the argument of \ref{weak_main} up to the construction of the $\pi_a$ functions. Then in $U$ use (d) to enumerate $\mathcal{P}(\theta)^U$ as $\{ X_i\mid i<\theta^+\}$ and fix an injection $k:F\rightarrow\kappa$. Now $\mathbb{P}^2$ is the quotient of $\mathbb{P}^0*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^1*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^2$ by $G^0*G^1$ so its name $\dot{\mathbb{P}}^2$ has the same underlying set as $\mathbb{P}^0*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^1*\dot{\mathbb{P}}^2$, namely $\theta$. Thus $\dom\dot{\pi}_a\subseteq\theta$ for $a\in F$, and we can recover $G^2$ over $U$ by specifying in $U'$ a function $e:\kappa\rightarrow\theta^+$ such that $\dom\pi_a\cap G^2=X_{e(k(a))}$ for all $a\in F$.
Take a $\mathbb{P}^2$-name $\dot{e}\in U$ for $e$. By weak covering $(\theta^+)^U$ is preserved in $W$ so $\dot{e}$ must be forced to be bounded in $\theta$, say by $j<\theta^+$. Then $U$ can take the enumeration $\{X_i\mid i<j\}$ and modify it to an enumeration $\{Y_i\mid i<\theta\}$; now $G^2$ is recoverable over $U$ from a similar function $e':\kappa\rightarrow\theta$. However $\cf(\theta)>\kappa$ in $U'$ so again $e'$ must be bounded in $\theta$, and hence a member of $U'_{\theta}=V[G^0,I,G^1,G^2]_{\theta}$. So $G^2\in V[G^0,I,G^1,e']$, contradicting the combination of conditions (b) and (c) for $\theta$, and we are done.
\end{proof}
\section{An intermediate model theorem for class forcing} \label{class_intermediate_models}
We recall that a tame class forcing is always ZFC-preserving, by which we mean that for all generics $G$ the model $\langle V[G],G\rangle$ satisfies ZFC in the language of set theory together with a unary predicate. The presence of this predicate $G$ imposes some difficulties since, as in \ref{partial_lottery}, it may not be a class of $V[G]$. We are interested in building models of theories in the language of set theory without any additional predicates so we must avoid reliance on definability with respect to $G$.
For a class forcing $\mathbb{P}$ the $\mathbb{P}$-names for new sets are always themselves sets. This means that we do not necessarily have the maximum principle, as maximal antichains may still be class-sized. For a class $X$ in the extension $V[G]$ there will be a formula $\varphi$ and parameter $a=\dot{a}[G]$ such that $x\in X$ is equivalent to $\varphi(x, a)^{V[G]}$, so we can understand a `class name' $\dot{X}$ for $X$ as being the class of $(\dot{x}, p)$ such that $\dot{a}$ is a $\mathbb{P}$-name and $p$ is a member of $\mathbb{P}$ such that $p\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\varphi(\dot{x},\dot{a})$.
We now seek a version of the intermediate model theorem that applies to class forcing. The first step is to form a Boolean algebra version of a given class forcing, as is done in \cite[Lemma 61]{Reitz}. For a detailed treatment of Boolean completions of class forcings see \cite{HKLNS}. Here we say two class forcings $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ are \textit{forcing-equivalent} if from any $\mathbb{P}$-generic $G$ we can define a $\mathbb{Q}$-generic $H$ such that $V[G]=V[H]$, and vice-versa.
\begin{lemma} \label{form_algebra}
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a forwards class forcing with generic $G$. Then there is a class Boolean algebra that is complete under set-sized supremums and infimums and is forcing-equivalent to $\mathbb{P}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Say $\mathbb{P}$ is given by the iteration of $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in\OR$. For each $\alpha$ define $\mathbb{B}_{\alpha}$ to be the regular open algebra generated by $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$. For $\alpha<\beta$ we can embed as follows:
\begin{align*}
i_{\alpha,\beta}:\mathbb{B}_{\alpha}&\hookrightarrow\mathbb{B}_{\beta}\\
A&\mapsto\dcl(A)
\end{align*}
where $\dcl(A)$ is the downwards closure of $A$ in $\mathbb{P}_{\beta}$. Clearly $\dcl(A)$ will be open in $\mathbb{P}_{\beta}$ so we just need to check it is regular, which is to say that for every $p\in\mathbb{P}_{\beta}$ with $\dcl(A)$ dense below $p$ then in fact $p\in\dcl(A)$. Given such a $p$, we we will show that $A$ is dense below $p\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ in $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ and then the regularity of $A$ will tell us that $p\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\in A$ and since $p\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\leq p$ we will be done.
Given $u\leq p\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ in $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ take $q\in\mathbb{P}_{\beta}$ such that $q\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}=u$ and $q\leq p$. Then we can find $r\leq q$ with $r\in\dcl(A)$; this yields $r\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\leq u$ and $r\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\in A$ so we are done.
We now check that this embedding is complete. First, given $\{A_k\mid k<\lambda\}\subseteq\mathbb{B}_{\alpha}$ we want $i_{\alpha,\beta}(\bigwedge_k A_k)=\bigwedge_k i_{\alpha,\beta}(A_k)$, which is to say that $\dcl(\bigcap_k A_k)=\bigcap_k\dcl(A_k)$. Now for any $x\in\mathbb{B}_{\beta}$ we have that $x\in\dcl(\bigcap_k A_k)$ is equivalent to $x\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\in\bigcap_k A_k$, which is equivalent to $x\upharpoonright\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}\in A_k$ for all $k<\lambda$ and thence to $x\in\bigcap_k\dcl(A_k)$.
Second, given any $A\in\mathbb{B}_{\alpha}$ we want $i_{\alpha,\beta}(\neg A)=\neg i_{\alpha,\beta}(A)$, which means that $\dcl(\mathring{A^C})=\mathring{\dcl(A)^C}$. Note that any $x\in\mathbb{P}_{\beta}$ can be regarded as a pair $(x_0,\dot{x}_1)$ such that $x_0\in\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$. Now $x\in\dcl(\mathring{A^C})$ is equivalent $x_0\in\mathring{A^C}$ and thus to $\dcl(\{x_0\})\cap A=\phi$. Meanwhile $x\in\mathring{\dcl{A}^C}$ is equivalent to $\dcl(\{x\})\cap\dcl(A)=\phi$. Given $z\in\dcl(\{x\})\cap\dcl(A)$ then splitting $z$ in the same way as $x$ we have $z_0\in A$ with $z_0\leq x_0$ so $z_0\in\dcl(\{x_0\})\cap A$. Conversely given $a\in\dcl(\{x_0\})\cap A$ then we can form $(a,\dot{x}_1)\in\dcl(\{x\})\cap\dcl(A)$. Therefore $i_{\alpha,\beta}$ is a complete embedding.
These embeddings allow us to take the direct limit of the $\mathbb{B}_{\alpha}$ to form a class Boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}$ which will be set-complete, though not class-complete. Then any $\mathbb{P}$-name for a set will be a $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$-name for some $\alpha$, and so can be converted into a $\mathbb{B}_{\alpha}$-name. Similarly any $\mathbb{B}$-name for a set can be converted into a $\mathbb{P}$-name so they will give the same generic extension.
\end{proof}
Given a ground $W$ of a class forcing extension $V[G]$ such that $V\subseteq W\subseteq V[G]$ we would now like to mirror the proof of the intermediate model theorem for sets by finding a sub-algebra class forcing which generates $W$. Unfortunately there are difficulties in doing so, as illustrated by the next result.
\begin{proposition} \label{lottery_sum}
There is a forwards class forcing $\mathbb{P}$ together with generic $G$ such that if we construct the Boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}$ from \ref{form_algebra} with associated generic $G^*$ then there is a subalgebra $\mathbb{C}\leq\mathbb{B}$, complete under set-sized operations, such that $G^*\cap\mathbb{C}$ is not generic for $\mathbb{C}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider $\mathbb{P}$ the class forcing that is given by a class-size lottery sum of the individual set forcings $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}:=\Add(\kappa, 1)$ for $\kappa$ regular, which we form by taking their disjoint union and adding a top element. This forcing will select a single regular cardinal and then add a Cohen subset of it, so it is clear that it is ZFC-preserving and therefore tame.
\begin{claim}
For any sub-class $X$ of $\mathbb{P}$ the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $X$ is regular and open in $\mathbb{P}$.
\item $X\cap\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ is regular and open for each $\kappa$, and $1_{\mathbb{P}}\in X$ iff $\coprod_{\kappa}\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\subseteq X$.
\end{itemize}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
For the forwards direction we are told that $X$ is regular and open in $\mathbb{P}$. Clearly $X\cap\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ is open in each $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$. Given $p\in\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ such that $X$ is dense below $p$ in $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ then $X$ is also dense below $X$ in $\mathbb{P}$ and so $p\in X$; therefore $X$ is regular in $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$. If $1_{\mathbb{P}}\in X$ then $\coprod_{\kappa}\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\subseteq X$ by openness, and if $\coprod_{\kappa}\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\subseteq X$ then $1_{\mathbb{P}}\in X$ by regularity.
For the reverse direction it is clear that $X$ is open in $\mathbb{P}$. So we consider $p\in\mathbb{P}$ such that $X$ is dense below $p$ in $\mathbb{P}$. If $p\in\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ for some $\kappa$ then $X$ is dense below $p$ in $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$, and $X\cap\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ is regular here so $p\in X$. Otherwise $p=1_{\mathbb{P}}$ and for any $q\in\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ we have the $X$ is dense below $q$ in $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$, from which $q\in X$. Thus $\coprod_{\kappa}\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\subseteq X$ so $p=1_{\mathbb{P}}\in X$.
\end{proof}
We can therefore form a notion of $\ro(\mathbb{P})$ by taking all regular open classes $X\subseteq\mathbb{P}$ such that either $X\cap\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}=\phi$ for all but set-many $\kappa$ or $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\subseteq X$ for all but set-many $\kappa$. Classes of this form are uniformly definable from sets, so we can regard $\ro(\mathbb{P})$ as a class. It will be closed under negations and set-size suprema and infima, though not class-size ones.
Define $\mathbb{Q}$ in the same way, except that it will be a lottery sum over all $\Add(\kappa, 1)$ for regular $\kappa>\omega$. We can embed $\ro(\mathbb{Q})$ into $\ro(\mathbb{P})$ by sending $X$ to itself if $X\cap\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}=\phi$ for all but set-many $\kappa$, and to $X\cup\mathbb{A}_{\omega}$ if $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\subseteq X$ for all but set-many $\kappa$. This embedding will respect all of the set-size Boolean algebra operations in $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{P}$. It will not however respect certain class-size operations that it is possible to perform; for example the supremum of $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}$ for $\kappa>\omega$ in $\mathbb{Q}$ will be $\mathbb{Q}$ which is then embedded as $\mathbb{P}$; the same supremum in $\mathbb{P}$ will be $\mathbb{P}-\mathbb{A}_{\omega}$.
Consider now a generic $G$ for $\mathbb{P}$ that is a subset of $\mathbb{A}_{\omega}$, and $G^*$ the induced generic for $\ro(\mathbb{P})$, which will consist of all regular open subsets that meet $G\subseteq\mathbb{A}_{\omega}$. The only members of $\ro(\mathbb{Q})$ (as embedded in $\ro(\mathbb{P})$) that meet $\mathbb{A}_{\omega}$ are those $X$ such that $\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}\subseteq X$ for all but set-many $\kappa$, so the filter $G^*\cap\ro(\mathbb{Q})$ on $\ro(\mathbb{Q})$ contains only $X$ of this form. This makes it disjoint from many dense sub-classes of $\ro(\mathbb{Q})$, for example the class of all $X$ such that $X\cap\mathbb{A}_{\kappa}=\phi$ for all but set-many $\kappa$. Therefore $G^*\cap\ro(\mathbb{Q})$ is not generic for the subalgebra $\ro(\mathbb{Q})$.
It remains to show that the forcing $\mathbb{P}$ can be constructed as a full-support iteration. We build the iteration $\langle\mathbb{P}_{\alpha},\dot{\mathbb{R}}_{\alpha}\mid\alpha\in\OR\rangle$ by defining $\mathbb{P}_1=\mathbb{R}_0 = \Add(\omega, 1)\oplus\{*\}$ the lottery sum of $\Add(\omega, 1)$ and the trivial forcing. If $\aleph_{\alpha}$ is not regular then $\dot{\mathbb{R}}_{\alpha}$ will be trivial forcing. Otherwise use the maximum principle in $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ to define $\dot{\mathbb{R}_{\alpha}}$ as $\{*\}$ if any co-ordinate of $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ has a non-trivial condition, and as $\Add(\aleph_{\alpha},1)\oplus\{*\}$ if all co-ordinates of $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ are performing trivial forcing. Thus will result in $\mathbb{P}$ having a dense subset consisting of sequences which have exactly one non-trivial co-ordinate, which will be a member of some $\Add(\aleph_{\alpha},1)$. The use of full-support iteration means that this $\alpha$ may be arbitrarily large.
\end{proof}
For any forwards class forcing $\mathbb{P}$ that is not $\OR$-cc it is possible to produce a similar generic $G$ and set-complete subalgebra $\mathbb{C}$ such that $G\cap\mathbb{C}$ is not generic for $\mathbb{C}$. To do so fix a maximal antichain $\{p_{\alpha}\mid\alpha\in\OR\}$ and use the downwards cones below the $p_{\alpha}$ in place of the $\Add(\kappa,1)$.
This counterexample means that our attempts to construct an intermediate class subalgebra may result in its having an ultrafilter that is not truly generic. Fortunately it will still meet all dense sets, which is enough for most procedures involving the set-sized names. The proof that a ZFC-preserving forcing is tame depends on the use of genuine generics, so we will also have to renounce tameness for our intermediate class subalgebras. Fortunately the main purpose of tameness is the proving of ZFC-preservation, and we are already guaranteed by definition that an intermediate model will satisfy ZFC. We make the following definition.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{pseudo-class forcing} is a (not necessarily tame) set-complete class Boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}$. A \textit{pseudo-generic} for $\mathbb{B}$ is a an ultrafilter $G\subseteq\mathbb{B}$ such that if $\bar{\mathbb{B}}$ is a set-size complete subalgebra of $\mathbb{B}$ then $G\cap\bar{\mathbb{B}}$ is a generic ultrafilter for $\bar{\mathbb{B}}$, and such that $V[G]$ is a model of ZFC.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{classInts}
Assume Global Choice. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a forwards class forcing, $\varphi$ a formula and $\dot{a}$ a $\mathbb{P}$-name such that $\mathbb{P}$ forces that $\varphi(-,-,\dot{a})$ is a global well-ordering of $V[\mathbb{P}]$. Let there be a proper class of cardinals $\theta$ that are forced to remain strongly inaccessible, and such that $\varphi(-,-,\dot{a})$ is forced to reflect to $V[\mathbb{P}]_{\theta}$. Let $G$ be generic for $\mathbb{P}$ and $W$ a ground of $V[G]$ such that $V\subseteq W$. Then there is a pseudo-class forcing $\mathbb{Q}$ with pseudo-generic $H$ such that $V[H]=W$ and $H$ is definable from $G$ in $V[G]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Say $W$ is a ground of $V[G]$ via $V[G]=W[J]$ where $J$ is generic for a poset $\mathbb{S}\in W$. The global choice in $V[G]$ means there is a class surjection $f:\OR\rightarrow V[G]$ definable there. Fix $\dot{f}$ a class $\mathbb{S}$-name for $f$ that is definable in $W$. Then in $W$ we can define a surjective partial function from $\mathbb{S}\times\OR$ to $W$ by sending $(s,\gamma)$ to $w$ iff $s\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar\dot{f}(\gamma)=w$.
Therefore global choice holds in $W$, and we can find a formula $\psi$ with parameter $a\in W$ such that $\psi(a,-)$ defines in $W$ a class of ordinals that encodes $W$, and we may assume that this fact is forced by $\mathbb{P}$. Fix $\dot{a}$ a $\mathbb{P}$-name for $a$. Our assumptions about the reflectivity of the global choice in $V[G]$ also mean that we have a proper class of cardinals $\theta$ that are strongly inaccessible in $V[G]$ and for which
$$\mathrel {||}\joinrel \relbar_{\mathbb{P}}\forall\eta<\theta:\psi(\eta,\dot{a})^{\dot{W}}\leftrightarrow\psi(\eta,\dot{a})^{W_{\theta}}$$
where the class name $\dot{W}$ here comes from some formula that, in $V[G]$, defines $W$.
Take $\kappa$ such that $|\mathbb{S}|<\kappa$ and $\dot{a}\in V_{\kappa}$.
\begin{claim}
Let $\eta\in\OR$. Then there is in $V$ a set-sized Boolean $\mathbb{P}$-name for whether $\psi(\dot{a},\eta)^{\dot{W}}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\theta>\kappa,\eta$ a cardinal that is forced by $\mathbb{P}$ to remain strongly inaccessible. We can use the increasing distributivity of the iteration forming $\mathbb{P}$ to split it as $\mathbb{P}_0*\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1$ where $\mathbb{P}_0$ is a set forcing and $\mathbb{P}_0$ forces that $\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1$ is $\theta$-distributive; split $G$ correspondingly as $G_0*G_1$. Now $W_{\theta}$ is definable within $V[G]_{\theta}$ as the unique inner model satisfying $\kappa$-covering and $\kappa$-approximation whose power set of $\kappa$ is $\mathcal{P}(\kappa)^W$. But $V[G]_{\theta}=V[G_0]_{\theta}$ so there is a $\mathbb{P}_0$-name for $V[G]_{\theta}$.
Now in $\mathbb{P}_0$ we can find a Boolean name for whether $\psi(\dot{a},\eta)^{\dot{W}_{\theta}}$, which is forced to equal $\psi(\dot{a},\eta)^{\dot{W}}$. Since $\mathbb{P}_0$ embeds into $\mathbb{P}$ this gives us a set-sized name in $\mathbb{P}$.
\end{proof}
Use \ref{form_algebra} to form a set-complete Boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}$ from $\mathbb{P}$. For any ordinal $\eta$ the set-sized name from the claim allows us to take a set-sized supremum in $\mathbb{B}$ to get a valuation $[\![\psi(\dot{a},\eta)^{\dot{W}}]\!]\in\mathbb{B}$. Define $\mathbb{C}$ to be the subalgebra of $\mathbb{B}$ generated (under set-sized supremums) by these valuations for $\eta\in\OR$. Let $G^*$ be the generic of $\mathbb{B}$ induced by $G$; we claim that $W=V[G^*\cap\mathbb{C}]$.
For any $x\in W$ there is a $\theta$ such that $x$ is encoded by $\{\eta<\theta\mid\psi(a,\eta)^W\}$, which is equal to $\{\eta<\theta\mid [\![\psi(\dot{a},\eta)^{\dot{W}}]\!]\in G^*\}$, a member of $V[G^*\cap\mathbb{C}]$. Conversely given any $x\in V[G^*\cap\mathbb{C}]$ take $\dot{x}$ a name for $x$ and $\beta$ such that $\dot{x}$ is a $\mathbb{C}\cap\mathbb{B}_{\beta}$-name. Take $\theta$ such that $\mathbb{C}\cap\mathbb{B}_{\beta}$ is contained in the subalgebra generated by $\{[\![\psi(\dot{a},\eta)^{\dot{W}}]\!]\mid\eta<\theta\}$. Now $G^*\cap\mathbb{C}\cap\mathbb{B}_{\beta}$, and hence $x$, can be obtained from $\{\eta<\theta\mid\psi(a,\eta)^W\}\in W$.
We already know that $W$ is a model of ZFC, so $\mathbb{C}$ is a pseudo-class forcing with pseudo-generic $G^*\cap\mathbb{C}$.
\end{proof}
The precise requirements on the notion of global choice in the forcing extension by $\mathbb{P}$ are important here. We could try to take an arbitrary global well-ordering in $V[G]$ and reflect it down the $\langle V[G]_{\theta}\mid\theta\in\OR\rangle$ hierarchy to find $\theta$ such that the well-ordering of $V[G]_{\theta}$ is definable in $V[G]_{\theta}$. However, we might not be able to find $\theta$ such that the well-ordering is forced to be definable in $V[\mathbb{P}]_{\theta}$. For example in the construction of \ref{lottery_sum}, starting from $V=L$, there is forced to be a $\theta$ such that the formula ``$\exists x\notin L$'' reflects to $V[\mathbb{P}]_{\theta}$, but we cannot in $V$ fix a $\theta$ such that ``$\exists x\notin L$'' is forced to reflect to $V[\mathbb{P}]_{\theta}$.
Unfortunately the need here for global choice in $V[G]$ is problematic, for example it does not hold if $\mathbb{P}$ is an Easton-support iteration of $\Add(\kappa,1)$, as follows. Suppose there was a class well-ordering $\lhd$ of $V[G]$, defined with respect to parameter $a$ and with $\mathbb{P}$-name $\dot{\lhd}$. Split $\mathbb{P}$ as $\mathbb{P}_0*\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1$ and $G$ as $G_0*G_1$ so that $x\in V[G_0]$. Take $\delta$ so that $\mathcal{P}(\delta)^{V[G]}\not\subseteq\mathcal{P}(\delta)^{V[G_0]}$. Then in $V[G]$ we can define ``the $\dot{\lhd}$-least subset of $\delta$ not in $V[G_0]$'' using only parameters from $V[G_0]$, which since $\mathbb{P}_1:=\dot{\mathbb{P}}_1[G_0]$ is weakly homogeneous means it is a member of $V[G_0]$. This is a contradiction.
An additional difficulty when attempting to use this approach to apply the argument of \ref{main_sets} to class forcing is that it is not clear that the $\mathbb{P}$-generic $G$ will be definable from the $\mathbb{C}$ and $\mathbb{S}$-generics $G^*\cap\mathbb{C}$ and $J$, and this definability is necessary in order to form a $\mathbb{C}*\mathbb{S}$-name for $G$. If we are in the special case that $G$ is a class of $V[G]$ then this difficulty disappears, and we also obtain the needed Global Choice in $V[G]$ by taking a surjection $e:\OR\rightarrow V^{\mathbb{P}}$ and defining $e':\OR\rightarrow V[G]$ by $\gamma\mapsto e(\gamma)[G]$.
We leave open the question of the extent to which the global choice requirements for $V[G]$ in \ref{classInts} can be weakened or discarded. If this is possible then we might also hope to generalise it to cover any intermediate model between $V$ and $V[G]$, and not just grounds of $V[G]$.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The level statistics
problem for 1d Schr\"odinger operators with random decaying potentials were studied by many
researchers, and various interesting results have been obtained
(cf., e.g., \cite{ALS}, \cite{KS}, \cite{KN1}, \cite{KN2}, \cite{MD}, \cite{N}).
Usually, one introduces local Hamiltonians
$H_n$
in intervals of size
$n$,
and considers the point process
$\xi_n$
generated by of the suitably rescaled eigenvalues of
$H_n$.
Killip and Stoiciu \cite{KS}
showed that for CMV matrices weakly
$\xi_n$
converges to the clock process,
limit of circular $\beta$-ensemble, and the Poisson process
for the supercritical, critical, and subcritical cases, respectively.
For the Schr\"odinger operator,
similar results are obtained by Avila \emph{et al.}
\cite{ALS} (supercritical discrete model), Krichevski \emph{et al.} \cite{KVV} (critical discrete model)
and by Kotani and Nakano \cite{KN1}, \cite{KN2}, \cite{N}
(the continuous model where the random potential is a function of the Browninan motion on a torus).
The aim of the present paper
is to prove the clock convergence (i.e., convergence to the clock process)
for the Schr\"odinger operator with the alloy type potential,
\begin{eqnarray*}
H &=& - \frac {d^2}{dt^2} + V(t),
\quad
V(t) =
\sum_{j \in {\bf Z}}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
f(t-j) \,,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$\alpha > \frac 12$,
$f \in L^{\infty}$
with
$\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits f \subset [0, 1]$,
and the amplitudes
$\omega_j$
of the potential on the cells $[j, j+1)$ are
i.i.d. or, more generally, form a stochastic process with exponentially decaying correlations.
Specifically,
we consider one of the following two cases.
\\
{\bf A (i.i.d.): }
$\omega(j)$
are i.i.d., $|\omega(j)| \le 1$,
with ${\bf E}[ \omega (j) ] = 0$ and $\esm{\omega^2(j)}>0$.
Then by
\cite{KLS},
$H$
has a.s. purely a.c. spectrum on $[0, \infty)$.
\\
{\bf B (exponentially decaying correlation): }
$\{ \omega (j) \}_{j=1}^{\infty}$
is a bounded stochastic process such that
$| \omega (j) | \le 1$,
adapted to a filtration
$\{ {\cal F}_j \}_{j=1}^{\infty}$,
with exponentially decaying correlations :
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|
{\bf E}[
\omega (j) | {\cal F}_k ]
\right|
\le
e^{- \rho |j - k|},
\quad
k < j,
\quad
\rho > 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Clearly, {\bf A} is obtained as a special case of
{\bf B} by setting
${\cal F}_n$
to be the
$\sigma$-algebra
generated by
$\{ \omega (j) \}_{j=-\infty}^n$.
\begin{remark}
\label{ExampleB}
Examples of
\textbf{B} are provided,
e.g., by the following framework: let
$(\omega, {\cal F}, {\bf P}, T)$
be an ergodic dynamical system with discrete time
${\bf N}$
or
${\bf Z}$
admitting a finite Markov partition
$\Omega = C_1 \cup \cdots \cup C_M$,
$M>1$.
Pick a vector
$f = (f(1), \ldots, f(M) \in {\bf R}^M$
and
set
\begin{eqnarray*}
F(\theta)
&:=&
\sum_{i=1}^M f(i) 1_{C_i}(\theta) \,,
\\
\omega(j) &=& \omega(j,\theta) := F(T^j \theta) \,,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$1_{C_i}(\cdot)$
is the indicator function of the partition element
$C_i$.
Then
the stochastic process
$\big\{ \omega(j) \big\}_{j=1}^\infty
=
\big\{ \omega(j,\theta) \big\}_{j=1}^\infty$
satisfies \textbf{B}.
A classical
example is given by
$\Omega = {\bf T}^1 = {\bf R}/{\bf Z}$
equipped with the Haar measure, and
$T$
is the dyadic transformation (an endomorphism)
$T:\, \theta \mapsto \{2\theta\}$
(here $\{\cdot\}$
stands for the fractional part).
Another
well-known example is the so-called natural extension of
the dyadic transformation (to an isomorphism), called Baker's transformation (see its definition in Section \ref{Baker}).
Furthermore,
there are infinitely many examples given by hyperbolic automorphisms of tori
${\bf T}^\nu$,
$\nu \ge 2$
which we also discuss in Section \ref{tori}.
In the present paper
we focus on the case of the most rapid (exponential) decay of correlations, and stress
the fact that the key arguments and estimates rely on bilinear, pair correlations, so they are applicable
even to stochastic processes emerging from deterministic dynamical systems, such as mentioned above.
There are
of course more "stochastic" (viz., non-deterministic) random processes to which our techniques
apply, for example, ergodic Markov chains on a finite or countable phase space, with discrete or continuous
time.
On the other hand,
recall that there are uncorrelated stochastic processes which are not i.i.d.
For example,
one can take the dyadic transformation and set
$\omega(j,\theta) = \cos(2^j \cdot 2\pi \theta)$
; then
${\bf E}[ \omega(j) \omega(k)]=0$
for
$j<k$
by orthogonality of the standard Fourier basis on
$[0, 2\pi]$,
yet
$\omega(j)$
and
$\omega(k)$
are not independent.
Indeed, taking
$j=1$, $k=2$,
we have
${\bf E}[\omega^2(1)]>0$,
${\bf E}[\omega(2)]=0$,
but
${\bf E}[\omega^2(1) \omega(2)]
=
(2\pi)^{-1} \int_0^{2\pi} \cos^2(\theta) \, \cos(2\theta)\, d\theta \ne 0$.
Finally,
note that the condition on the decay rate of pair correlation can be substantially relaxed.
\end{remark}
Let
$H_n$ be the Dirichlet restriction
$H |_{[0, n]}$
of
$H$
on
$[0,n]$,
with
$\{ E_j (n) \}_{j \ge j_0}$
being its positive eigenvalues, and
let
$\kappa_j(n) := \sqrt{E_j(n)}$.
Let
$E_0 > 0$
be the reference energy,
$\kappa_0 := \sqrt{E_0}$,
and consider the point process
\[
\xi_n :=
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}
\delta_{n (\kappa_j(n) - \kappa_0)}.
\]
In the case
of the free Laplacian, the atoms of
$\xi_n$
are explicitly given by
$\left\{
j \pi - n \kappa_0
\right\}_j$
so that to have the convergence of
$\xi_n$,
$n \kappa_0$
needs to converge up to
$\pi$
: we have to consider a suitable subsequence
$\xi_{n_k}$
of such point processes on intervals
$[0, n_k]$.
This is
also the case in general which we henceforth assume except
Theorem \ref{strongclock}.\\
\noindent
{\bf Assumption S} :
A subsequence
$\{ n_k \}_{k=1}^{\infty}$
satisfies
\[
\kappa_0 n_k = m_k \pi + \beta + o(1),
\quad
k \to \infty
\]
for some
$m_k \in {\bf N}$
and
$\beta \in [0, \pi)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{clock1}
Assume {\bf A} and {\bf S}.
Then
there exists a probability measure
$\mu_{\beta}$
on
$[0, \pi)$
such that
\[
\lim_{k \to \infty}
{\bf E}[ e^{- \xi_{n_k}} (g) ]
=
\int_0^{\pi}
d \mu_{\beta} (\phi)
\exp \left(
- \sum_{j \in {\bf Z}}
g( j \pi - \phi )
\right),
\quad
g \in C_c({\bf R}).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{clock2}
Assume
{\bf B} and {\bf S}.
Then
the statement of Theorem \ref{clock1}
remains valid
if we take subsequence of
$\xi_{n_k}$
further.
\end{theorem}
We believe that
the statement of Theorem \ref{clock2} is actually
true without taking subsequences.
For the moment,
the problematic technical issue is
the lack of the Burkholder-Davies-Gundy
(BDG, in short) type inequality for the models with correlated amplitudes
$\omega(j)$ (cf. Assumption {\bf B}).
Resorting to
subsequences is not necessary, however, if we
work with another formulation of the problem adopted in \cite{ALS}.
For given
$n$,
rearrange the eigenvalues
$\{ \kappa_k (n) \}$
of
$H_n$
in such a way that
\[
\cdots <
\kappa'_{-1}(n) <
\kappa'_{0}(n) < \kappa_0 < \kappa'_1(n) < \kappa'_2(n) <\cdots
\]
Then one has the following result.
\begin{theorem}
{\bf (Strong clock behavior)}
\label{strongclock}
Assume {\bf A}.
We then have
\[
(\kappa'_{j+1}(n) - \kappa'_j(n)) n
\stackrel{n \to \infty}{\to} \pi,
\quad
j \in {\bf Z},
\quad
a.s.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
For the spectral property,
the argument
in this paper proves the following :
(1)
In case {\bf A},
$H$
has purely a.c. spectrum on
$[0, \infty)$
(as is shown in \cite{KLS})
(2)
In case {\bf B},
$\mu_{ac}(I) > 0$
for any interval
$I (\subset [0, \infty))$.
If
BDG inequality were true for case {\bf B}, we would have the same statement as in (1).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We can also consider the
``decaying coupling constant model"
defined as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
H'_n :=
- \frac {d^2}{d t^2}
+
n^{- \alpha} V(t)
\quad
\mbox{on}
\;\;
L^2[0, n]
\end{eqnarray*}
with Dirichlet boundary condition.
Theorems \ref{clock1}, \ref{clock2}, and
\ref{strongclock}
are also valid for
$H'_n$,
except the fact that
$\phi = \beta$
is deterministic.
The proof
is simpler : for
$H'_n$
one can show
$n^{-2 \alpha}{\bf E}[ | J^{(n)} |^2 ]
\stackrel{n \to \infty}{\to} 0$
by using the method of proof of
Proposition \ref{square}.
\end{remark}
For the proofs of these theorems,
we basically follow the strategy of \cite{KS,KN1,KN2} :
to study the behavior of the relative Pr\"ufer phase
$\Theta$.
The clock convergence
essentially follows from the H\"older continuity of
$\Theta$
with respect to
$\kappa$,
after taking expectation.
Assuming {\bf A},
this is done by decomposing
$\Theta$
into the martingale part and the remainder.
Assuming {\bf B},
we use the ``conditioning argument" used in \cite{CS} to prove an extension of the martingale inequality and that of the maximal inequality, which is one of the main ingredient of this paper.
The rest
of this paper is organized as follows.
In Section 2,
we prepare some basic tools such as Pr\"ufer variables and obtain
a representation of the Laplace transform of the main point process
in terms of the relative Pr\"ufer phase
$\Theta$,
following the argument from \cite{KS}.
In Section 3,
we prove a version of martingale inequality assuming {\bf B}.
In Section 4,
we prove a version of the maximal inequality using the results in Section 3.
In Section 5,
we assume {\bf A} and prove the $p$-th power version of the results in Section 4,
by using the BDG inequality.
In Section 6,
we prove Theorems
\ref{clock1}, \ref{clock2}, \ref{strongclock}.
In Section 7,
a more detailed discussion
(continuation to Remark \ref{ExampleB})
is given on dynamical systems satisfying {\bf B}.
Throughout
this paper,
$C$ stands for a positive constant which may change from line to line in each argument.
\section{Preliminaries}
Let
$H \psi = \kappa^2 \psi$,
$\psi(0) = 0$,
be a Schr\"odinger equation on
$[0,+\infty)$
with the Dirichlet condition at $0$, which we rewrite
as a Cauchy problem for a vector-valued function,
\[
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi \\ \psi'/\kappa
\end{array}
\right)
=
r_t (\kappa)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin \theta_t(\kappa) \\ \cos \theta_t(\kappa)
\end{array}
\right),
\quad
\theta_t(\kappa)
=:
\kappa t + \tilde{\theta}_t(\kappa).
\]
Then it follows by straightforward calculations that
\begin{eqnarray}
r_t(\kappa)
&=&
\exp \left(
\frac {1}{2\kappa} Im
\int_0^t
V(s) e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa)} ds
\right)
\label{r-eq}
\\
\tilde{\theta}_t (\kappa)
&=&
\frac {1}{2 \kappa}
\int_0^t
Re (e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa)} -1 )
V(s)
\label{integraleq}
\\
\frac {\partial \theta_t(\kappa)}{\partial \kappa}
&=&
\int_0^t
\frac {r_s^2}{r_t^2} ds
+
\frac {1}{2 \kappa^2}
\int_0^t
\frac {r_s^2}{r_t^2}
V(s)
(1 - Re \; e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa)}) ds.
\label{theta-kappa}
\end{eqnarray}
By
Sturm's oscillation theorem,
$j$-th
eigenvalue
$E_j(n)$
of
$H_n$
satisfies
$\theta_n \left(
\sqrt{E_j(n)}
\right) = j \pi$
by which we can derive the following representation of the Laplace transform of
$\xi_L$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Laplace}
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Theta^{(n)}(c)
&:=&
\theta_n(\kappa_c) - \theta_n(\kappa_0),
\\
\kappa_c &:=& \kappa_0 + \frac cn,
\quad
c \in {\bf R}
\end{eqnarray*}
then for
$g \in C_c({\bf R})$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}[ e^{- \xi_n(g)} ]
&=&
{\bf E}\left[
\exp \left(
- \sum_k
g \left(
(\Theta^{(n)})^{-1}
(
k \pi - \{\theta_n(\kappa_0) \}_{\pi {\bf Z}}
)
\right)
\right)
\right]
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\theta_n (\kappa)
&=&
[ \theta_n (\kappa) ]_{\pi}
\pi
+
\{ \theta_n (\kappa) \}_{\pi},
\quad
[x]_{\pi}
:=
\left\lfloor
\frac {x}{\pi}
\right\rfloor,
\quad
\{ x \}_{\pi}
:=
x - [x]_{\pi} \pi.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
By definition,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Theta^{(n)}(c)
&=&
c +
\tilde{\theta}_n(\kappa_c)
-
\tilde{\theta}_n(\kappa_0)
\\
&=&
c
+
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_0}Re
\int_0^n
(e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa_c)}
-
e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa_0)})
V(s) ds
+
O(n^{-1}).
\end{eqnarray*}
In view of
Lemma \ref{Laplace},
the main task is to show that the 2nd term of RHS tends to
$0$.
To that end, we introduce the functional of the potential
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(t)} (\kappa)
:=
\int_0^t
e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa)} V(s) ds
\end{eqnarray*}
and prove the H\"older continuity of
$J^{(t)}(\kappa)$
with respect to
$\kappa$.
In order to do so,
we need the martingale and the maximal inequalities which we establish in the following sections.
\section{Martingale inequality}
The strategy
of the proof of martingale inequality in case B
is based on a variant of the conditioning employed in
\cite{CS}
and the usual argument to prove the original martingale inequality.
\subsection{Notation and Statement}
In this section,
we work under a more general assumption B and set
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(m, N)} &:=&
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1} a_j \omega_j,
\quad
0 \le m \le N
\end{eqnarray*}
for some fixed
$N$,
where
$\{ \omega_k \}$
is the stochastic process satisfying the condition {\bf B} and
$a_j$
satisfies a measurability condition :
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\left|
{\bf E}[ \omega_j | {\cal F}_k ]
\right|
\le
e^{- \rho |j-k|}
\label{decay}
\\
&&
a_j
:=
\frac {b_j}{j^{\alpha}},
\quad
b_j \in
{\cal F}_{j-c \log j},
\quad
c > 0.
\label{measurable}
\end{eqnarray}
Here
we slightly abuse the notation and write
$c \log j$
instead of
$\left\lfloor c \log j \right\rfloor$.
The goal
of this section is to prove the following propositions.
\begin{proposition}
\label{square}
Suppose
\begin{eqnarray*}
| b_j (\omega) | \le c_j (\omega) \, j^{\eta},
\quad
\eta \ge 0,
\quad
\omega \in \Omega
\end{eqnarray*}
with
${\bf E}[ | c_j (\omega) |^2 ]
\le
C_{b, \eta}^2$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}[ | J^{(m, N)} |^2]
& \le &
2C_{b, \eta}^2
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{
j^{\alpha - \eta} (j - c \log j)^{\alpha - \eta}
}
+
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}
{j^{\alpha - 2\eta - 1 + c \rho}}
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{martingale}
Suppose
\begin{eqnarray*}
| b_j (\omega) |
\le
c_j (\omega)
\, j^{\eta},
\quad
\eta \ge 0,
\quad
\omega \in \Omega.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N}
\left|
J^{(m, n)}
\right|^p
\right]^{1/p}
& \le &
C_1
\left(
{\bf E}[ | J^{(m, N)} |^p ]^{1/p}
+
{\bf E}[ | D |^p ]^{1/p}
\right),
\quad
p > 1.
\\
\mbox{where }\;
D
&:=&
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha-\eta}}
+
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}{m^{\alpha - \eta}}
\right)
\sup_{m \le j \le N} c_j.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{square}}
We decompose
the sum into two parts.
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}[ | J^{(m, N)} |^2]
&=&
2\sum_{m \le i \le j \le N}
{\bf E}[ a_i \omega_i a_j \omega_j ]
\\
&=&
2\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\sum_{k=0}^j
{\bf E} \left[
a_{j-k} \omega_{j-k} a_j \omega_j
\right]
\quad
(i = j-k)
\\
&=&
2\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\left(
\sum_{k=0}^{c \log j}
+
\sum_{k=c \log j}^j
\right)
{\bf E} \left[
a_{j-k} \omega_{j-k} a_j \omega_j
\right]
\\
&=:& I + II
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$I$
is the sum with
$|i -j| \le c \log j$,
and
$II$
is the remainder.
$I$
can be estimated easily:
\begin{eqnarray}
I
& \le &
2C_{b, \eta}^2
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\sum_{k=0}^{c \log j}
\frac {1}{
j^{\alpha - \eta} (j - c \log j)^{\alpha - \eta}
}
\nonumber
\\
& \le &
2C_{b, \eta}^2
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{
j^{\alpha - \eta} (j - c \log j)^{\alpha - \eta}
}.
\label{squareone}
\end{eqnarray}
To estimate
$II$,
we use the condition
(\ref{decay}), (\ref{measurable})
: for
$k \ge c \log j$
we have
$\omega_{j-k} \in {\cal F}_{j-c \log j}$
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|
{\bf E}[ a_{j-k} a_j \omega_{j-k} \omega_j ]
\right|
&=&
\left|
{\bf E}[
a_{j-k} a_j \omega_{j-k}
{\bf E}[ \omega_j | {\cal F}_{j - c \log j} ]
]
\right|
\\
& \le &
{\bf E}
\Bigl[
\left|
a_{j-k} a_j \omega_{j-k}
\right|
\cdot
\left|
{\bf E}[ \omega_j | {\cal F}_{j - c \log j} ]
\right|
\Bigr]
\\
& \le &
e^{- \rho c \log j}
{\bf E}[ | a_{j-k} a_j \omega_{j-k} | ]
\end{eqnarray*}
which yields
\begin{eqnarray}
| II |
& \le &
2
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\sum_{k = c \log j}^j
e^{- \rho c \log j}
{\bf E}
\Bigl[
| a_{j-k} a_j \omega_{j-k} |
\Bigr]
\nonumber
\\
& \le &
2C_{b, \eta}^2
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}
{j^{\alpha- 2\eta -1 + c \rho}}.
\label{squaretwo}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{squareone}) and (\ref{squaretwo})
completes the proof of Proposition \ref{square}.
\usebox{\toy}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{martingale}}
We decompose the sum such as
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(m, N)}
&:=&
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1} a_j \omega_j
=
J^{(m, n)} + J^{(n, N)},
\quad
m \le n \le N
\end{eqnarray*}
and the 2nd term in RHS is further decomposed into
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(n, N)}
&=&
\sum_{j=n}^{N-1} a_j \omega_j
=: J_{A_n} + J_{B_n}
\\
\mbox{ where }\;
A_n
&=&
\{ j \ge n \, | \, j - c \log j \ge n \},
\quad
B_n
=
\{ j \ge n \, | \, j - c \log j \le n \}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is
easy to see that, for any
$\beta > 0$,
we can find
$d = d_{\beta} > 0$
such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sharp B_n \le d n^{\beta},
\quad
\forall \beta > 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent
(1)
For
$J_{A_n}$
we use (\ref{decay}), (\ref{measurable}) :
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|
{\bf E}[ J_{A_n} | {\cal F}_n ]
\right|
& \le &
\sum_{j \in A_n}
{\bf E}\left[
|a_j| \cdot
\left|
{\bf E}[ \omega_j | {\cal F}_{j-c\log j} ]
\right|
\middle| {\cal F}_n
\right]
=
\sum_{j \in A_n}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho +\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ].
\end{eqnarray*}
(2)
For
$J_{B_n}$
we simply use the boundedness of
$\omega_j$ :
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|
{\bf E}[ J_{B_n} | {\cal F}_n ]
\right|
& \le &
\sum_{j \in B_n}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ].
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|
{\bf E}[ J^{(n, N)} | {\cal F}_n ]
\right|
& \le &
\sum_{j \in A_n}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ]
+
\sum_{j \in B_n}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ].
\end{eqnarray*}
Since
$J^{(m, N)} = J^{(m, n)} + J^{(n, N)}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf E}[ J^{(m, N)} | {\cal F}_n ]
=
J^{(m, n)} +
{\bf E}[ J^{(n, N)} | {\cal F}_n ]
\nonumber
\\
& \ge &
J^{(m, n)}
-
\left(
\sum_{j \in A_n}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho + \alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ]
+
\sum_{j \in B_n}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ]
\right).
\label{lowerbound}
\end{eqnarray}
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
T
&:=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\inf
\left\{
n
\, \middle| \,
m \le n \le N, \;
J^{(m, n)} \ge \lambda
\right\}
&
\;
( J^{(m, n)} \ge \lambda
\mbox{ for some } n )
\\
N+1
&
\mbox{ (otherwise) }
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda
{\bf P}\left(
\sup_{n \le N}
J^{(m, n)} > \lambda
\right)
&=&
\lambda
\sum_{n=m}^N
{\bf P}(T = n)
\le
\sum_{n=m}^N
{\bf E} [ J^{(m, n)} \, ; \, T = n].
\end{eqnarray*}
Substituting
(\ref{lowerbound})
yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
\lambda
{\bf P}\left(
\sup_{n \le N}
J^{(m,n)} > \lambda
\right)
\\
& \le &
\sum_{n=m}^N
{\bf E}
\left[
{\bf E}[ J^{(m,N)} | {\cal F}_n ]
+
\sum_{j \in A_n}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+ \alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ]
+
\sum_{j \in B_n}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | | {\cal F}_n ]
\;;\;
T = n
\right]
\\
&=&
\sum_{n=m}^N
{\bf E}[ J^{(m,N)} \; ; \; T = n]
+
\sum_{n=m}^N
\sum_{j \in A_n}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+ \alpha}}
{\bf E}
\left[
| b_j | \, ; \, T = n
\right]
\\
&& \qquad +
\sum_{n=m}^N
\sum_{j \in B_n}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | ; T = n].
\end{eqnarray*}
Let
$
A :=
\{ \sup_{n \le N} J^{(m,n)} > \lambda \}.
$
We estimate
2nd and 3rd terms in RHS.
\\
(1)
2nd term :
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
\sum_{n=m}^{N-1}
\sum_{j \in A_n}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho}}
{\bf E}
\left[
| a_j | \, ; \, T = n
\right]
\\
&=&
\sum_{n=m}^{N-1}
\sum_{j=n}^{N-1}
1\left(
n \le j - c \log j
\right)
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+ \alpha}}
{\bf E}\left[
| b_j | ; T = n, \; A
\right]
\\
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+ \alpha}}
\sum_{n=m}^{j - c \log j}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | ; T = n, \; A ]
\\
&\le&
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+ \alpha}}
{\bf E} [ | b_j | \,;\, A ]
\\
& \le &
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho +\alpha-\eta}}
\right)
{\bf E} [ \sup_{m \le j \le N} c_j \,;\, A ].
\end{eqnarray*}
(2)
3rd term :
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{n=m}^{N-1}
\sum_{j \in B_n}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha}}
{\bf E}[ | b_j | \,;\, T = n]
& \le &
\sup_{n \ge m}
\left(
\frac {d n^{\beta}}{n^{\alpha-\eta}}
\right)
\sum_{n=m}^{N-1}
{\bf E}[ \sup_{j \in B_n} c_j ; T=n, A]
\\
& \le &
\left(
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}{m^{\alpha - \eta}}
\right)
{\bf E}[ \sup_{m \le j \le N} c_j ; A],
\;\;
\beta < \alpha - \eta.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
\lambda
{\bf P}\left(
\sup_{n \le N}
J^{(m, n)} > \lambda
\right)
\le
{\bf E}\left[
J^{(m, N)}
+
D
\,;\, A
\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
$D$
is defined in the statement of Proposition \ref{martingale}.
Let
$
\overline{J}^{(m, N)}
:=
\sup_{n \le N} J^{(m, n)}.
$
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E} \left[
| \overline{J}^{(m, N)} |^p
\right]
&=&
\int_0^{\infty}
p \lambda^{p-1}
{\bf P}(A) d \lambda
\\
& \le &
\int_0^{\infty} d \lambda
p \lambda^{p-2}
\int_{\Omega}
d {\bf P}
1_A (\omega)
\left(
J^{(m, N)} + D
\right)
\\
& \le &
\int_{\Omega}d {\bf P}
\left(
| J^{(m, N)}|+D
\right)
\int_0^{\infty}
d \lambda
p \lambda^{p-2}
1
\left(
\lambda < \overline{J}^{(m, N)}
\right)
\\
&=&
\frac {p}{p-1}
{\bf E}
\left[
\left(
| J^{(m, N)} | + D
\right)
( \overline{J}_N^{(m, N)} )^{p-1}
\right]
\\
& \le &
\frac {p}{p-1}
\left(
{\bf E}[ | J^{(m, N)} |^p ]^{1/p}
+
{\bf E}[ | D |^p ]^{1/p}
\right)
\cdot
{\bf E}[ (\overline{J}^{(m, N)})^p ]^{\frac {p-1}{p}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Dividing
both sides by
${\bf E}[ (\overline{J}^{(m, N)})^p ]^{\frac {p-1}{p}}$
completes the proof.
\usebox{\toy}
\section{H\"older continuity}
In this section
we assume {\bf B}
and prove a version of the maximal inequalities for
$R$
and
$J$.
\subsection{Estimate on $R$}
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
R^{(m, t)} (\kappa)
&:=&
\int_m^t
\left(
e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa)} - 1
\right)
V(s) ds \,,
\\
R^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
\left(
e^{2i \kappa s + 2i \tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa)}-1
\right)
V(s) ds,
\quad
n \in {\bf N} \,,
\\
R^{(n)}(\kappa)
&:=&
R^{(0, n)} (\kappa).
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{proposition}
\label{R2}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le t \le N} | R^{(m, t)}(\kappa) |^2
\right]
\\
& \le &
C
\Biggl\{
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{j^{\alpha}(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}}
+
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha-1+c\rho}}
+
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha}}
\right)^2
+
\left(
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}{m^{\alpha }}
\right)^2
\Biggr\}
\\
&& +
C
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{j^{2 \alpha}}
\right)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Fix $t\le N$ and set
$n = \lfloor t \rfloor$.
Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
R^{(m,t)}
&=&
R^{(m, n)} + R^{(n, t)},
\quad
| R^{(n, t)} |
\le
C n^{-\alpha},
\end{eqnarray*}
it suffices to estimate
${\bf E}[ \sup_{m \le n \le N}
| R^{(m, n)} |^2 ]$.
Here we set
\[
\hat{\theta}_j (\kappa)
:=
\tilde{\theta}_{j - c \log j} (\kappa),
\quad
c > 0.
\]
Then
we decompose
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
R^{(m, n)}(\kappa)
\nonumber
\\
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
\Biggl\{
e^{2 i\kappa s + \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
+
e^{2i \kappa s + 2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
\left(
e^{2i
\left(
\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)
\right)
}
-1
\right)
-1
\Biggr\}
f(s-j) ds
\nonumber
\\
&=:&
R_1^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
+
R_2^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
+
R_3^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
\label{decompositionR}
\end{eqnarray}
which we estimate separately. \\
(1)
$R_1$ :
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_j :=
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa s} f(s-j) ds
\cdot
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By
Proposition \ref{square}
($\eta = 0$),
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}\left[
| R_1^{(m,n)} (\kappa) |^2
\right]
& \le &
C
\Biggl\{
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {c \log j}{j^{\alpha}(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}}
+
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha-1+c \rho}}
\Biggr\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus by Proposition \ref{martingale},
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N}| R_1^{(m, n)} (\kappa) |^2
\right]
\le
C_1
{\bf E}\left[
| R_1^{(m,N)} (\kappa) |^2
\right]
+
C_2
D^2
\quad
\\
& \le &
C
\Biggl\{
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{j^{\alpha}(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}}
+
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha-1+c \rho}}
+
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha}}
\right)^2
+
\left(
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}{m^{\alpha}}
\right)^2
\Biggr\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
(2)
$R_2$ : Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_j
&=&
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa s + 2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
\left(
e^{2i
\left(
\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)
\right)
}
-1
\right)
f(s-j) ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|
e^{2i
\left(
\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)
\right)
}
-1
\right|
& \le &
2
\left|
\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)
\right|
\\
& \le &
\frac {2}{2 \kappa}
\int_{j - c \log j}^{j+1}
\left|
\left(
e^{2i \theta_u(\kappa)}-1
\right)
V(u)
\right|
du
\\
& \le &
\frac {1 + c \log j}{(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}}
\le
\frac {c' \log j}{j^{\alpha}}
\end{eqnarray*}
for large
$j$
and for some
$c'$.
Hence we have
$| R_2^{(m, n)} (\kappa) |
\le
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {c' \log j}{j^{2 \alpha}}$
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}
\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N}
| R_2^{(m, n)} (\kappa) |^2
\right]
& \le &
C
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c' \log j}{j^{2 \alpha}}
\right)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
(3)
$R_3^{(m, n)}$ :
this is similar to that for
$R_1^{(m,n)}$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}[ \sup_{n \le N} | R_3^{(m, n)} |^2 ]
\\
& \le &
C
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{
j^{\alpha } (j - c \log j)^{\alpha }
}
+
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha-1+c \rho}}
+
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha}}
\right)^2
+
\left(
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}
{m^{\alpha }}
\right)^2
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Putting
those estimates together, we complete the proof.
\usebox{\toy}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Estimate on $J$}
For a function
$g = g(\kappa)$
of
$\kappa$,
we set
\[
\triangle g :=
g(\kappa_1) - g(\kappa_2),
\quad
\kappa_1, \kappa_2 \in {\bf R}.
\]
The goal
of this subsection is to prove the H\"older continuity of
$J$
in the following sense.
\begin{proposition}
\label{J2}
Let
$\eta > 0$
such that
$0 < \eta < \alpha - \frac 12$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le t \le N} | \triangle J^{(m, t)} |^2
\right]
\le
C
| \triangle \kappa |^{2 \eta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
The proof
is \tmgray{done} based on some ideas from \cite{KU}.
Set
$n = \lfloor t \rfloor$.
We decompose
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(m,t)}(\kappa)
&=:&
J^{(m, n)}(\kappa)
+
J^{(n, t)}(\kappa)
\\
\mbox{ where }\quad
J^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
&=&
\int_m^n
e^{2 i\theta_s(\kappa)} V(s) ds,
\quad
J^{(n, t)}(\kappa)
=
\int_n^t
e^{2 i\theta_s(\kappa)} V(s) ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Out strategy is as follows:
we aim at proving the estimates
\begin{equation}
| \triangle J^{\sharp} |
\le
C_1
| \triangle J^{(m)} |
+
C_2
\sup_{m \le t \le N}
| \triangle J^{(m, t)} |
+
C_3
| \triangle \kappa |^{\eta} \,,
\label{strategy}
\end{equation}
where
$\sharp = (m, n)$
or
$(n, t)$
and
$C_2 = o(1)$
as
$m \to \infty$.
\subsubsection{Estimate for
$\triangle J^{(n, t)}$}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\triangle J^{(n, t)}
&=&
\frac {\omega(n)}{n^{\alpha}}
\int_n^t
\Biggl\{
\left(
e^{2i \kappa_1 s} - e^{2i \kappa_2 s}
\right)
e^{2i\tilde{\theta}_s (\kappa_1)} f(s-n)
\\
&& \qquad
+
e^{2i \kappa_2 s}
\left(
e^{2i \tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa_1)}
-
e^{2i \tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa_2)}
\right)
f(s-n)
\Biggr\}
\\
&=:&
\triangle J^{(n, t)}_1 + \triangle J^{(n, t)}_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we use
\begin{equation}
| e^{i \theta_1} - e^{i \theta_2} |
\le
C_{\eta}
| \theta_1 - \theta_2 |^{\eta},
\quad
\eta \in [0, 1] \,,
\label{theta}
\end{equation}
which yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
| \triangle J^{(n, t)}_1 |
& \le &
\frac {C}{n^{\alpha}}
n^{\eta}
| \triangle \kappa |^{\eta},
\quad
| \triangle J^{(n, t)}_2 |
\le
\frac {C}{n^{\alpha}}
\int_n^t
| \triangle \tilde{\theta}_s | ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
For
$\triangle J_2$,
we estimate
$\tilde{\theta}_s$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\triangle \tilde{\theta}_s
&=&
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_1}Re
\int_0^s
\left(
e^{2i \theta_u(\kappa_1)}-1
\right)
V(u)
du
-
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_2}Re
\int_0^s
\left(
e^{2i \theta_u(\kappa_2)}-1
\right)
V(u)
du
\\
&=&
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_1} Re
\int_0^s
\left(
e^{2i \theta_u(\kappa_1)}
-
e^{2i \theta_u(\kappa_2)}
\right)
V(u) du
\\
&& \quad+
\left(
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_1} - \frac {1}{2 \kappa_2}
\right)Re
\int_0^s
\left(
e^{2i \theta_u(\kappa_2)}-1
\right)V(u) du.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus
\begin{equation}
| \triangle \tilde{\theta}_s |
\le
C
\left(
| \triangle J^{(m)} |
+
| \triangle J^{(m, s)} |
+
| \triangle \kappa |
| R^{(s)} (\kappa_2) |
\right)
\label{deltathetatilde}
\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
| \triangle J_2^{(n,t)} |
& \le &
\frac {C}{n^{\alpha}}
\int_n^t
| \triangle \tilde{\theta}_s | ds
\\
& \le &
\frac {C}{n^{\alpha}}
\left(
| \triangle J^{(m)} |
+
\sup_{n \le s \le t}
| \triangle J^{(m,s)} |
+
| \triangle \kappa |
\sup_{n \le s \le t}
| R^{(s)} (\kappa_2) |
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Putting together,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
| \triangle J^{(n, t)} |
\le
\frac {1}{n^{\alpha - \eta}}
| \triangle \kappa |^{\eta}
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad
+
\frac {C}{n^{\alpha}}
\left(
| \triangle J^{(m)} |
+
\sup_{n \le s \le t}
| \triangle J^{(m,s)} |
+
| \triangle \kappa |
\sup_{n \le s \le t}
| R^{(s)} (\kappa_2) |
\right).
\label{Jnt}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Estimate for $\triangle J^{(m,n)}$}
We next decompose
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa s + 2i \hat{\theta}_s(\kappa)} f(s-j) ds
\\
&&+
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa s + 2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
\left(
e^{2i
(\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa))
}
-1
\right)
f(s-j) ds
\\
&=:&
J_1^{(m, n)}(\kappa) + J_2^{(m, n)}(\kappa) \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
The terms
$J_1^{(m, n)}(\kappa)$
and
$J_2^{(m, n)}(\kappa)$
will be estimated separately.
\paragraph{Estimate on
$J_{1}$.}
We
further decompose
\begin{eqnarray*}
\triangle J_1^{(m, n)}
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
\left(
e^{2i \kappa_1 s} - e^{2i \kappa_2 s}
\right)
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j (\kappa_1)}
f(s-j) ds
\\
&& +
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa_2 s}
\left(
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_1)}
-
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_2)}\right)
f(s-j) ds
\\
&=:&
\triangle J_{1-1}^{(m, n)}
+
\triangle J_{1-2}^{(m, n)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
(1)
$\triangle J_{1-1}$ : Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_j
&:=&
\int_j^{j+1}
\left(
e^{2i \kappa_1 s} - e^{2i \kappa_2 s}
\right)
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_1)}
f(s-j) ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using
(\ref{theta}),
we have
$
| b_j | \le C_{\eta} | \triangle \kappa |^{\eta}
j^{\eta}.
$
By Proposition \ref{square} with
$c_j (\omega) = C| \triangle \kappa |^{\eta}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}[ | J^{(m, N)} |^2]
& \le &
C
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{
j^{\alpha - \eta} (j - c \log j)^{\alpha - \eta}
}
+
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}
{j^{\alpha-2 \eta -1 + c \rho}}
\right)
| \triangle \kappa |^{2 \eta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by Proposition \ref{martingale} with
$c_j (\omega) = | \triangle \kappa |^{\eta}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\left|
\sup_{m \le n \le N}
\triangle J_{1-1}^{(m, n)}
\right|^2
\right]
\le
C{\bf E}\left[
\left|
\triangle J_{1-1}^{(m, N)}
\right|^2
\right]
+
D^2
\nonumber
\\
&&
\le
C
\Biggl\{
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {c \log j}{
j^{\alpha - \eta} (j - c \log j)^{\alpha - \eta}
}
+
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}
{j^{\alpha-2 \eta -1 + c \rho}}
\Biggr\}
| \triangle \kappa |^{2\eta}
+
D^2
\label{J1-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[
D
:=
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha-\eta}}
+
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}{m^{\alpha - \eta}}
\right)
| \triangle \kappa |^{\eta}.
\]
(2)
$\triangle J_{1-2}$ : Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_j
&=&
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa_2 s}
\left(
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_1)}
-
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_2)}
\right)
f(s-j) ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
By (\ref{deltathetatilde}),
\begin{eqnarray*}
| b_j |
\le
C | \triangle \hat{\theta}_j |
\le
C\left(
| \triangle J^{(m)} |
+
| \triangle J^{(m, j - c \log j)} |
+
| \triangle \kappa|
| R^{(j- c \log j)} (\kappa_2) |
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus by
Proposition \ref{square} with
$\eta = 0$,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
| \triangle J_{1-2}^{(m, n)} |^2
\right]
\le
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha-1+c \rho}}
+
\frac {c \log j}{ (j-c \log j)^{\alpha} j^{\alpha}}
\right)
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad\quad
\times
{\bf E} \left[
| \triangle J^{(m)} |^2
+
\sup_{m \le j \le n} | J^{(m,j)} |^2
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
\sup_{m \le j \le n} | R^{(j)} |^2
\right].
\label{J2one}
\end{eqnarray}
Using Proposition \ref{martingale} with
$\eta = 0$
and
\[
c_j (\omega)
=
| \triangle J^{(m)} |
+
| \triangle J^{(m, j - c \log j)} |
+
| \triangle \kappa|
| R^{(j- c \log j)} (\kappa_2) |,
\]
yields
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N} | \triangle J_{1-2}^{(m, n)} |^2
\right]
\le
C
{\bf E}\left[
| \triangle J_{1-2}^{(m, N)} |^2
\right]
+
{\bf E} [ |D|^2 ]
\label{J2two}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
D
&=&
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha-\eta}}
+
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}{m^{\alpha - \eta}}
\right)
\sup_{m \le j \le N} c_j (\omega).
\end{eqnarray*}
By
(\ref{J2one}), (\ref{J2two}),
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N} | \triangle J_{1-2}^{(m, n)} |^2
\right]
\nonumber
\\
&&
\le
C
\Biggl\{
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\left(
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha-1 + c \rho}}
+
\frac {c \log j}{ (j-c \log j)^{\alpha} j^{\alpha}}
\right)
+
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{c \rho+\alpha-\eta}}
\right)^2
+
\left(
\frac {d \, m^{\beta}}{m^{\alpha - \eta}}
\right)^2
\Biggr\}
\nonumber
\\
&& \qquad \times
{\bf E}\left[
| \triangle J^{(m)} |^2
+
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J^{(m, j)} |^2
+
| \triangle \kappa|^2
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R^{(j)} (\kappa_2) |^2
\right].
\label{J1-2}
\end{eqnarray}
\paragraph{Estimate on
$J_{2}$.}
Let
$
\hat{E}_{s, j}
=
e^{2i
(\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa))
}
-1.
$
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\triangle J_2^{(m, n)}
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
\Biggl\{
\left(
e^{2 i \kappa_1 s} - e^{2i \kappa_2 s}
\right)
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j (\kappa_1) }
\hat{E}_{s, j}(\kappa_1)
\\
&&+
e^{2 \kappa_2 s}
\left(
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_1)}
-
e^{2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_2)}
\right)
\hat{E}_{s, j}(\kappa_1)
\\
&&+
e^{2i \kappa_2 s + 2i \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_2)}
\left(
\hat{E}_{s, j}(\kappa_1)
-
\hat{E}_{s, j}(\kappa_2)
\right)
\Biggr\}
f(s-j) ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we use
$
| \hat{E}_{s, j}(\kappa) |
\le
C j^{- \alpha} \log j
$
unifomrly w.r.t.
$\kappa$.
Moreover by
(\ref{integraleq}),
\begin{eqnarray*}
|
\triangle \hat{E}_{s, j}
|
&=&
\left|
e^{2i (\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa_1) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_1))}
-
e^{2i (\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa_2) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_2))}
\right|
\\
& \le &
C
\left|
(\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa_1) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_1))
-
(\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa_2) - \hat{\theta}_j(\kappa_2))
\right|
\\
& \le &
C
\Biggl\{
\frac {c\log j}{(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}}
\cdot
j^{\eta} \cdot | \triangle \kappa |^{\eta}
+
\frac {c \log j}{(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}}
\sup_{j - c \log j \le u \le s}
| \triangle \tilde{\theta}_u |
\\
&&+
| \triangle \kappa |
\cdot
\frac {c \log j}{(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}}
\Biggr\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Substituting the above bound,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N} | \triangle J_2^{(m,n)} |^2
\right]
\nonumber
\\
& \le &
\left\{
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\left(
\frac {\log j}{j^{2 \alpha - \eta}}
+
\frac {c \log j}
{(j - c \log j)^{\alpha} j^{\alpha - \eta}}
+
\frac {c \log j}{(j - c \log j)^{\alpha} j^{\alpha}}
\right)
\right\}^2
| \triangle \kappa |^{2\eta}
\nonumber
\\
&&\quad+
\left\{
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\left(
\frac {c \log j}{j^{2 \alpha}}
+
\frac {c \log j}{(j - c \log j)^{\alpha}j^{\alpha}}
\right)
\right\}^2
\times
\Biggl(
{\bf E}[ | \triangle J^{(m)}|^2]
\nonumber
\\
&&\quad+
{\bf E}[
| \sup_{m \le j \le N}| \triangle J^{(m, j)} |^2
]
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
{\bf E}[
\sup_{0 \le j \le N}| R^{(j)}(\kappa_2) |^2
]
\Biggr).
\label{J22}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{J2}}
By
(\ref{Jnt}), (\ref{J1-1}), (\ref{J1-2}) and
(\ref{J22}),
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N} | \triangle J^{(m, n)} |^2
\right]
\le
a_m
| \triangle \kappa |^{2 \eta}
\\
&&
+
b_m
\left(
{\bf E}[ | \triangle J^{(m)}|^2] +
{\bf E}[
| \sup_{m \le j \le N}| \triangle J^{(m, j)} |^2
]
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
{\bf E}[
\sup_{j \le N}| R^{(j)}(\kappa_2) |^2
]
\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$a_m,b_m = o(1)$,
as
$m \to \infty$.
Take
$m \gg 1$
s.t.
$b_m < 1$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N} | \triangle J^{(m, n)} |^2
\right]
\le
c_m
| \triangle \kappa |^{2 \eta}
+
d_m
\left(
{\bf E}[ | \triangle J^{(m)}|^2]
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
{\bf E}[
\sup_{j \le N}| R^{(j)}(\kappa_2) |^2
]
\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Here
we use the fact that
$
{\bf E}[ | \triangle J^{(m)}|^2]
\le
C
| \triangle \kappa |^2
$
(which follows from
(\ref{theta-kappa}))
and
Proposition \ref{R2},
completing the proof.
\section{Holder continuity : p-th power}
In this section,
we assume {\bf A} and prove estimates on the p-th power moment of
$R$
and
$J$
using BDG inequalities.
\subsection{Estimate on R}
\begin{proposition}
\label{Rp}
Assume {\bf A}.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}
\left[
\sup_{m \le t \le N}
| R^{(m, t)} (\kappa) |^p
\right]
\le
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {{\bf E}[\omega(j)^2]}{j^{2\alpha}}
\right)^{p/2}
+
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{\alpha}}
\right)^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Set
$n = \lfloor t \rfloor$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
R^{(m,t)}
&=&
R^{(m, n)} + R^{(n, t)}
\\
R^{(n, t)}
&=&
\int_n^t
\left(
e^{2i \theta_s(\kappa)} - 1
\right)
V(s) ds,
\quad
| R^{(n, t)} |
\le
C n^{- \alpha}
\end{eqnarray*}
so that it suffices to estimate
${\bf E}[ \sup_{m \le n \le N}
| R^{(m, n)} |^2 ]$.
We decompose
\begin{eqnarray*}
R^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
&:=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
\Biggl\{
e^{2i \kappa s +
2i \tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
\\
&& \quad
+
e^{2i \kappa s +
2i \tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
\left(
e^{2i
(\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa)
-
\tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa))
}
-1
\right)
-1
\Biggr\}
f(s-j) ds
\\
&=:&
R_1^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
+
R_2^{(m,n)}(\kappa)
+
R_3^{(m,n)}(\kappa).
\end{eqnarray*}
which is slightly different from
(\ref{decompositionR}). \\
(1)
$R_1^{(m,n)} (\kappa)$ :
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}[ | R_1^{(n)}(\kappa) |^2 ]
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
{\bf E}
\Biggl[
\frac {\omega(j)^2}{j^{2\alpha}}
\Biggl|
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa s + 2i
\tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
f(s-j) ds
\Biggr|^2
\Biggr]
\le
C
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {{\bf E}[\omega(j)^2]}{j^{2\alpha}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By BDG,
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R_1^{(m, j)}(\kappa)|^p
\right]
\le
C
{\bf E} \left[
| R_1^{(m, N)}(\kappa) |^2
\right]^{p/2}
=
C
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {{\bf E}[\omega(j)^2]}{j^{2\alpha}}
\right)^{p/2}.
\label{Rpone}
\end{equation}
(2)
$R_2^{(m,n)}(\kappa)$ :
Here we use
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|
e^{2i (
\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa)
-
\tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa)
)}
-1
\right|
& \le &
2
| \tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa)
-
\tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa) |
\le
C j^{- \alpha}
\end{eqnarray*}
and the fact that
$\omega(j)$
is bounded, yielding
\begin{equation}
{\bf E} \left[
\sup_{m \le n \le N}
| R_2^{(m,n)}(\kappa) |^p
\right]
\le
C
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{2\alpha}}
\right)^p.
\label{Rptwo}
\end{equation}
(3)
$R_3^{(m,n)}(\kappa)$ :
this is similar to (1) above :
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R_3^{(m, j)} |^p
\right]
\le
{\bf E}\left[
| R_3^{(m, N)} |^2
\right]^{p/2}
\le
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {
{\bf E}[\omega(j)^2]
}
{ j^{2 \alpha} }
\right)^{p/2}.
\label{Rpthree}
\end{equation}
By (\ref{Rpone}),
(\ref{Rptwo}), and
(\ref{Rpthree}),
we complete the proof.
\usebox{\toy}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Estimate on J}
\begin{proposition}
\label{Jp}
Assume {\bf A}.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le t \le N}
| J^{(m, t)} |^p
\right]
\le
| \triangle \kappa |^{p \eta},
\quad
p \ge 2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Set
$n = \lfloor t \rfloor$.
Then
we decompose
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(m, t)}(\kappa)
&=:&
J^{(m, n)}(\kappa)
+
J_0^{(n, t)}(\kappa)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{(m, n)}(\kappa)
&=&
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa s +
2i \tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
f(s-j) ds
\\
&& \quad +
\sum_{j=m}^{n-1}
\frac {\omega(j)}{j^{\alpha}}
\int_j^{j+1}
e^{2i \kappa s +
2i \tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa)}
\left(
e^{2i
(\tilde{\theta}_s(\kappa)
-
\tilde{\theta}_j(\kappa))
}
-1
\right)
f(s-j)
\\
&=:&
J_1^{(m, n)}(\kappa)
+
J_2^{(m, n)}(\kappa).
\end{eqnarray*}
Out strategy is
to obtain inequalities similar to
(\ref{strategy}).
\\
\noindent
(0) Estimate for
$\triangle J_0$ :
this can be done as
(\ref{Jnt}).
\begin{eqnarray*}
| \triangle J_0 |
& \le &
\frac {1}{n^{\alpha - \eta}}
| \triangle \kappa |^{\eta}
+
\frac {1}{n^{\alpha}}
\Biggl(
\sup_{s \le t} | \triangle J^{(s)} |
+
| \triangle \kappa |
\sup_{s \le t} | R^{(s)} |
\Biggr).
\end{eqnarray*}
(1)Estimate for
$\triangle J_1$ :
By the argument used
in the proof of Proposition \ref{J2},
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
| \triangle J_{1}^{(m, N)} |^2
\right]
\le
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {{\bf E}[\omega(j)^2]}{j^{2\alpha-2\eta}}
\\
&& \times
\Biggl(
| \triangle \kappa |^{2 \eta}
+
{\bf E}
[| \triangle J^{(m)} |^2]
+
{\bf E}[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J^{(m, j)} |^2]
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
{\bf E}[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R^{(j)} (\kappa_2) |^2]
\Biggr).
\end{eqnarray*}
Let
$p \ge 2$.
Taking
$p/2$-th power on both sides,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
| \triangle J_{1}^{(m, N)} |^2
\right]^{p/2}
\le
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {{\bf E}[\omega(j)^2]}{j^{2\alpha-2\eta}}
\right)^{p/2}
\Biggl\{
| \triangle \kappa |^{p\eta}
+
{\bf E}
[ | \triangle J^{(m)} |^2 ]^{p/2}
\\
&&\qquad\qquad\quad
+
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J^{(m, j)} |^2
\right]^{p/2}
+
| \triangle \kappa |^{p}
{\bf E}[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R^{(j)} (\kappa_2) |^2]^{p/2}
\Biggr\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we use the following facts. \\
\noindent
(i)
Burkholder-Davies-Gundy inequality (BDG) :
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}\left[
| \triangle J_1^{(m, N)} |^2
\right]^{p/2}
\simeq
{\bf E}
\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J_1^{(m, j)} |^p
\right]
\end{eqnarray*}
(ii)
Using
$
{\bf E}[ |X| ]
\le
{\bf E}[ |X|^p ]^{1/p}
$
valid for
$p \ge 1$,
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
\left|
\triangle J^{(m, j)}
\right|^2
\right]
&=&
{\bf E}\left[
\left|
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
\triangle J^{(m, j)}
\right|^2
\right]
\le
{\bf E}\left[
\left|
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
\triangle J^{(m, j)}
\right|^p
\right]^{2/p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using (i), (ii) above,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J_1^{(m, j)} |^p
\right]
\le
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {{\bf E}[\omega(j)^2]}{j^{2\alpha-2\eta}}
\right)^{p/2}
\Biggl\{
| \triangle \kappa |^{p\eta}
+
{\bf E}
[ | \triangle J^{(m)} |^p ]
\nonumber
\\
&& \qquad\qquad
+
{\bf E}\left[
\left|
\sup_{m \le j\le N}
\triangle J^{(m, j)}
\right|^p
\right]
+
| \triangle \kappa |^{p}
{\bf E}[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R^{(j)} (\kappa_2) |^2]^{p/2}
\Biggr\}.
\label{Jpone}
\end{eqnarray}
(2)
Estimate for
$\triangle J_2$ :
by the argument
in the proof of Proposition
\ref{J2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J_2^{(m, j)} |^2
\le
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{2 \alpha - \eta}}
\right)^2
\Biggl\{
| \triangle \kappa |^{2 \eta}
+
| \triangle J^{(m)} |^2
\\
&& \qquad\qquad\qquad
+
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J^{(m, j)} |^2
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R^{(j)} (\kappa_2) |^2
\Biggr\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Take the
$p/2$-th power,
and then expectation.
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J_2^{(m, j)} |^p
\right]
\le
\left(
\sum_{j=m}^{N-1}
\frac {1}{j^{2 \alpha - \eta}}
\right)^p
\Biggl\{
| \triangle \kappa |^{p\eta}
+
{\bf E}\left[
| \triangle J^{(m)} |^p
\right]
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad
+
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| \triangle J^{(m, j)} |^p
\right]
+
| \triangle \kappa |^p
{\bf E}\left[
\sup_{m \le j \le N}
| R^{(j)} (\kappa_2) |^p
\right]
\Biggr\}.
\label{Jptwo}
\end{eqnarray}
(3)
Putting together :
now the rest of the argument is quite similar to that of Proposition \ref{J2},
so that we omit the details.
\usebox{\toy}
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorems}
The following
two propositions are the key ingredients of the proof of the clock convergence.
\begin{proposition}
\label{Theta}
(1)
Assume {\bf A}.
We then have
\[
\Theta^{(n)}(c)
\to c,
\quad
\mbox{for all}
\quad
c \in {\bf R},
\quad
a.s.
\]
(2)
Assume {\bf B}
and
let
$\beta > 0$
satisfies
$2 \eta \beta > 1$.
Then
\[
\Theta^{(k^{\beta})}(c)
\to c,
\quad
\mbox{for all}
\quad
c \in {\bf R},
\quad
a.s.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\mbox{}\\
Proof of (2) :
Assume {\bf B}.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Theta^{(N)}(c) -c
&=&
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_c}
Re \;
\triangle J^{(N)}
+
\left(
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_c}
-
\frac {1}{2 \kappa_0}
\right)
Re \;
R^{(N)}(\kappa_0).
\end{eqnarray*}
By Propositions
\ref{R2}, \ref{J2},
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf P}\left(
| \Theta^{(N)}(c) - c | \ge \epsilon
\right)
& \le &
\frac {C}{\epsilon^2}
{\bf E}
\left[
| \triangle J^{(N)} |^2
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
| R^{(N)}(\kappa_0) |^2
\right]
\\
& \le &
\frac {C}{\epsilon^2}
\left(
| \triangle \kappa |^{2 \eta}
+
| \triangle \kappa |^2
\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
where we put
$\triangle\kappa
=
\kappa_c - \kappa_0
=
\frac cn$.
Take
$\beta > 0$
such that
$
2 \eta \beta > 1
$
and consider a subsequence of
$N$ ;
$N := k^{\beta}$.
Let
\[
B_{k, \epsilon}(c)
:=
\left\{
| \Theta^{(k^{\beta})}(c) - c |
\ge
\epsilon
\right\},
\quad
k = 1, 2, \cdots,
\quad
\epsilon > 0.
\]
Then
by the Borel--Cantelli lemma,
${\bf P}\left(
\limsup_{k \to \infty} B_{k, \epsilon}(c)
\right) = 0$,
so that
\[
{\bf P}\left(
\bigcap_{l \ge 1}
\limsup_{k \to \infty} B_{k, \frac 1l}(c)
\right) = 0.
\]
Therefore
$\Theta^{(k^{\beta})}(c) \to c$,
a.s.
for any fixed
$c \in {\bf R}$.
Since
$h(c) := c$
is continuous ant non-decreasing,
\[
\Theta^{(k^{\beta})}(c)
\stackrel{k \to \infty}{\to} c
\]
on the compliment of the event
$\left(
\bigcup_{c \in {\bf Q}}
\bigcap_{l \ge 1}
\limsup_{k \to \infty} B_{k, \frac 1l}(c)
\right)$.\\
\noindent
Proof of (1)
Assume {\bf A}.
Then
Proposition \ref{Jp} yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf P}\left(
| \Theta^{(N)}(c) - c | \ge \epsilon
\right)
& \le &
\frac {C}{\epsilon^p}
{\bf E}
\left[
| \triangle J^{(N)} |^p
+
| \triangle \kappa |^p
| R^{(N)}(\kappa_0) |^p
\right]
\\
& \le &
\frac {C}{\epsilon^p}
\left(
| \triangle \kappa |^{p \eta}
+
| \triangle \kappa |^p
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking
$p \gg 1$
s.t.
$p \eta > 1$
would give us the a.s. convergence
without taking further subsequence.
\usebox{\toy}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{thetatilde}
For any fixed
$\kappa$,
\[
\tilde{\theta}_n (\kappa)
\stackrel{n \to \infty}{\to}
\tilde{\theta}_{\infty}(\kappa).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since
$\tilde{\theta}_n (\kappa)
=
\frac {1}{2 \kappa}
Re \; R^{(n)}(\kappa)$,
it suffices to show the convergence of
$R^{(n)}(\kappa)$.
By Proposition \ref{R2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf E} \left[
\sup_{2^k \le n \le 2^{k+1}}
| R^{(2^k, n)}(\kappa) |^2
\right]
&\le&
C
\sum_{2^k \le j \le 2^{k+1}}
\frac {1}{j^{2 \alpha - \epsilon}}
+
\left(
\sum_{2^k \le j \le 2^{k+1}}
\frac {1}{j^{2 \alpha - \epsilon}}
\right)^2
+
\frac {1}{
2^{2(\alpha - \eta - \beta)k}}
\\
& \le &
\frac {C}{2^{(2 \alpha-1-\epsilon)k}}
\end{eqnarray*}
for
$\epsilon > 0$
sufficiently small, by taking
$\eta+ \beta$
sufficiently small.
By
Chebyshev's inequality,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf P}\left(
\sup_{2^k \le n \le 2^{k+1}}
| R^{(2^k, n)}(\kappa) |^2
\ge
\frac {1}{k^4}
\right)
& \le &
C
\frac {k^4}{2^{(2 \alpha-1 - \epsilon)k}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the Borel-Cantelli lemma,
with probability one
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{2^k \le n \le 2^{k+1}}
| R^{(2^k, n)}(\kappa) |
\le
\frac {1}{k^2}
\end{eqnarray*}
for
$k \gg 1$,
implying that
$\{ R^{(n)}(\kappa)\}_n$
is Cauchy.
\usebox{\toy}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{inverse}
{\bf (\cite{KN1}, Lemma 3.3)}
Let
$\Psi_n, n=1,2, \cdots$,
and
$\Psi$
are continuous and increasing functions such that
$\lim_{n \to \infty}\Psi_n(x)=\Psi(x)$
pointwise.
If
$y_n \in Ran \Psi_n$,
$y \in Ran \Psi$
and
$y_n \to y$,
then it holds that
\[
\Psi_n^{-1}(y_n)
\stackrel{n \to \infty}{\to}
\Psi^{-1}(y).
\]
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof of Theorems \ref{clock1}, \ref{clock2}}\\
In the representation
of the Laplace transform of
$\xi_n$
(Lemma \ref{Laplace}),
we use
Propositions \ref{Theta}, \ref{thetatilde},
and
Lemma \ref{inverse}.
\usebox{\toy}\\
For the proof of Theorem \ref{strongclock},
for given
$n$,
rearrange the eigenvalues
$\{ \kappa_k (n) \}$
of
$H_n$
such that
\[
\cdots <
\kappa'_{0}(n) < \kappa_0 < \kappa'_1(n) < \cdots
\]
\begin{lemma}
\label{estimate}
For any fixed
$k$,
$\kappa'_k(n)
=
\kappa_0 + o(1),
\quad
n \to \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition of
$\kappa'_k(n)$,
\begin{equation}
(m_n+ k) \pi
=
\theta_n (\kappa'_k(n))
=
\kappa'_k(n) n + \tilde{\theta}_n (\kappa'_k(n))
\label{star}
\end{equation}
Write
$\kappa_0 n = m_n \pi + \beta_n$,
$m_n \in {\bf N}$,
$\beta_n \in [0, \pi)$.
Substituting
$m_n \pi = \kappa_0 n - \beta_n$
into
$(\ref{star})$
yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\kappa'_k(n)
=
\kappa_0
+
\frac {
- \beta_n + k \pi - \tilde{\theta_n}(\kappa'_k(n))
}
{n}
\end{eqnarray*}
By
(\ref{integraleq}),
$n^{-1} \tilde{\theta}_n (\kappa'_k(n)) \to 0$.
\usebox{\toy}
\end{proof}
{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{strongclock}}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\theta_n (\kappa'_j(n))
&=&
[ \theta_n (\kappa_0) ]_{\pi}
+ j \pi
\\
\theta_n (\kappa'_{j+1}(n))
&=&
[ \theta_n (\kappa_0) ]_{\pi}
+ (j+1) \pi
\end{eqnarray*}
from which we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\kappa'_{j+1}(n) - \kappa'_j(n))n
-
(\tilde{\theta}_{n}(\kappa'_{j+1}(n)) -\tilde{\theta}_{n}(\kappa'_j(n)))
=
\pi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here
we note that, by Proposition \ref{Jp}, the family
$\{ J^{(N)} (\kappa) \}$
is tight as continuous function-valued process.
Hence
$\tilde{\theta}_n (\kappa) \to \tilde{\theta}_{\infty}(\kappa)$
locally uniformly w.r.t.
$\kappa$.
Since
$\kappa'_k (n) \to \kappa_0$
by
Lemma \ref{estimate}, we have
$\tilde{\theta}_n(\kappa'_k(n))
\to
\tilde{\theta}_{\infty}( \kappa_0 )$.
\usebox{\toy}
\section{Deterministic potentials}
\label{intro}
\subsection{Symbolic dynamical systems}
Let
${\cal A} = (a_1, \ldots, a_M)$
be an abstract finite set ("alphabet"),
and consider the
probability spaces
$(\Omega, {\cal F}, {\bf P})$,
$(\Omega_+, {\cal F}_+, {\bf P}_+)$
where
\[
\Omega = {\cal A}^{\bf Z}, \; \Omega_+ = {\cal A}^{\bf N},
\]
${\cal F}$
(resp., ${\cal F}_+$)
is the sigma-algebra generated by the cylinder subsets
\[
C_{i_1, \ldots, i_k}(A_1, \ldots, A_k)
:=
\{\omega: \, \omega_{i_j}\in A_j, \, j=1, \ldots, k\}
\]
(in the case of
${\cal F}_+$,
the indices $i_j$ are non-negative), and
${\bf P}$
(resp., ${\bf P}_+$)
is a probability measure on
${\cal F}$
(resp., on ${\cal F}_+$)
invariant under the shift endomorphism
(isomorphism, in the case of $\Omega$)
$T$
defined by
\[
(T \omega)_i = \omega_{i+1}.
\]
For brevity,
below we often write
$\Omega_\bullet$,
${\cal F}_\bullet$
etc., where
$\bullet$
is "nothing" or "$+$".
In all cases,
we keep the same notation for the shift transformation
$T$.
In a number
of interesting applications, the pair
$({\bf P}_\bullet,T)$
is markovian, i.e.,
${\bf P}_\bullet$
is a Markov measure w.r.t.
$T$:
\[
{\bf P}\{
\omega_{t+1}= a
\,|\,
{\cal F}_{\le t } \}
=
{\bf P}\{
\omega_{t+1} = a \,|\,
{\cal F}_{= t }
\}
\]
where
${\cal F}_{\le t}$
(resp., ${\cal F}_{= t}$)
is generated by the values of the symbols
$\omega_i$
with
$i\le t$
(resp., $i=t$).
Equivalently,
for any
$a, b, b_{-1}, \ldots \in {\cal A}$,
one has
\[
{\bf P}\{
\omega_{t+1} = a
\,|\,
\omega_t = b, \omega_{t-1} = b_{-1}, \ldots
\}
=
{\bf P}\{
\omega_{t+1} = a
\,|\, \omega_t = b
\} =
\Pi_{ab}~,
\]
for some stochastic matrix
$\Pi = (\Pi_{ab})$,
with
$\sum_a \Pi_{ab}=1$.
A particular
subclass of Markov systems is formed by the Bernoulli shifts, where
${\bf P}_\bullet$
is a product measure ${\bf P}_\bullet = \mu^{{\bf Z}_\bullet}$, and $\mu$ is a probability measure
on ${\cal A}$ endowed with the maximal sigma-algebra containing all singletons $\{a\}$, $a\in{\cal A}$.
\subsection{Symbolic representations for some hyperbolic systems}
\subsubsection{Dyadic expansion of the unit circle}
\label{sssec:dyadic}
Here
$\Omega = {\bf T}^1 = {\bf R}/{\bf Z}$,
and
we identify it, as a measure (in fact, probability)
space with the interval
$[0,1)$
endowed with the Haar (Lebesgue, in this case) measure
${\bf P}$.
Consider
the measurable transformation
$T: \Omega \to \Omega$
defined by
\[
T: x \mapsto \{2x\} \equiv 2x \pmod 1.
\]
The Lebesgue
measure is
$T$-invariant: for any measurable subset
$A\subset \Omega$,
${\bf P}{ T^{-1} A} = {\bf P}{A}$.
It suffices
to check the latter identity for the intervals
$A = [x,y)$
where it is obvious, since
\[
T^{-1} [x,y) =
\left[ \frac{x}{2}, \frac{y}{2} \right)
\cup
\left[ \frac{x}{2} + \frac 12, \frac{y}{2} + \frac 12 \right),
\]
and each of the two disjoint intervals in the above RHS has length $(y-x)/2$.
Naturally,
$T$
is only an endomorphism, but not isomorphism, for it is not invertible, so it generates a semi-group
$\{T^t, \, t\in {\bf Z}_+\}$.
The standard
symbolic representation for this dynamical system is obtained with the help of the binary expansion of the real numbers
$x\in[0,1)$,
\[
x =
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\omega_i}{2^{i+1}},
\]
so the identification
$x$
with the infinite word
$(\omega_0, \omega_1, \ldots)\in\{0,1\}^{{\bf Z}_+}$
is a bijection, if one excludes the words having an infinite tail of the form
$(\ldots, \omega_n, 1, 1, 1, \ldots)$,
using the identity
\[
\sum_{i=n+1}^\infty 2^{-i-1} = 2^{-n-1}.
\]
For example,
$(0, 1, 1, 1, \ldots)$
and
$(1, 0, 0, 0, \ldots)$ are two dyadic representations
of the number
$\frac 12$.
We only
define the transformations defined (and, where applicable, invertible) Lebesgue-a.e.
It is
straightforward that
$T$
becomes the left shift on the set of the words
$\omega = (\omega_0, \omega_1, \ldots)$.
\subsubsection{Baker's transform}
\label{Baker}
Baker's transform,
or baker's map (N.B.: here "baker" is not a family name but merely a profession)
is a particular realization of the Bernoulli shift considered in Sect.~\ref{sssec:dyadic}.
From the
symbolic dynamics point of view, it is
obtained from the dyadic expansion of the circle by a canonical procedure extending an endomorphism
(with time given by a semi-group ${\bf N} = {\bf Z}_+$)
to an isomorphism (invertible measure-preserving
transformation with time ${\bf Z}$).
Curiously,
the geometrical realization is quite simple:
$T = {\cal C} \circ {\cal E}$,
where
\[
{\cal E}(x, y) = (2x, y/2)~,
\]
so that
${\cal E}\big([0,1]^2\big) = [0,2]\times [0, \frac 12]$,
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def.baker}
{\cal C}(x,y) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
(x,y), & (0 \le x < 1)
\\
(x-1, y +\frac 12), & \mbox{ (otherwise)}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The second
stage consists, geometically, in cutting the rectangle
$[0,2]\times [0, \frac 12]$
into two halves, then leaving
$[0,1]\times [0, \frac 12]$
invariant and putting
$[1,2]\times (0, \frac 12]$
on top of the first rectangle.
To obtain
a symbolic dynamics representation
$T_{\cal A}$
of
$T$, use the dyadic expanstions
\[
x = \sum_{i=0}^{+\infty} \omega_i 2^{-i-1}\,, \quad
y = \sum_{i=1}^{+\infty} \omega_{-i} 2^{-i}
\]
and set
\[
\Phi: (x,y) \mapsto (\ldots, \omega_{-2}, \omega_{-1}, \omega_{0}, \omega_{1}, \ldots).
\]
Then
$T_{\cal A} = \Phi \circ T \circ \Phi^{-1}$
is the left shift on infinite words
$\omega\in\{0,1\}^{\bf Z}$.
Indeed,
on the
$x$-coordinate
$T={\cal C}\circ {\cal E}$
acts exactly as the dyadic extension, since
${\cal E}$
acts so, while
${\cal C}$
adds to the
$x$-coordinate either
$0$
or
$-1 = 0 \pmod 1$.
The dyadic
digits of
$y$,
shift to the left, for
${\cal E}$
is multiplication by
$1/2$
in the
$y$-direction;
this determines all digits of the image
$T(x,y)$
with negatives indices except the place no.
$(-1)$.
As to this symbol, the definition
(\ref{eq:def.baker})
clearly shows that
it equals
$0$ if
$x<1/2$,
i.e., if
$\omega_0=0$,
and
$1$
otherwise, so in both cases it is given by
$\omega_0$.
It is readily
seen that
$\omega_0(x,y)$,
as function of the phase point
${\bf u} = (x,y)\in{\bf T}^2$,
is
merely the indicator function of the rectangle
$C_0:=[0,\frac 12)\times [0,1)$.
Respectively,
\[
\omega_t({\bf u}) = 1_{C_0}({\bf u}), \;\; t\in{\bf Z}.
\]
Equivalently,
introducing the partition
$\Omega = C_0 \sqcup C_1$,
$C_1 = \Omega\setminus C_0$,
one can identify the word
$(\omega_t({\bf u}), t\in {\bf Z})$
with the sequence of the ordinal numbers
of the partition elements visited by the trajectory
$\{T^t {\bf u}\}$.
Since
$T$
shrinks the vertical coordinate
$y$
by the factor
$1/2$,
and
$T^{-1}$
does the same to the horizontal coordinate
$x$,
the cylinder sets
\[
\bigcap_{t=-n}^n
\{{\bf u}:\, T^t {\bf u} \in C_{a_t}\}, \;\; a_t \in\{0,1\},
\]
have exponentially decaying diameter as
$n\to \infty$.
\subsubsection{Algebraic automorphisms of tori}
\label{tori}
In the general case
$\nu \ge 2$
, the construction of Markov partitions for hyperbolic
toral automorphisms was proposed by Sinai \cite{Sin68}.
This construction
is rather technical
and particularly tedious for the tori of dimension
$\nu >2$
, so we we give only an upshot
in the case
$\nu=2$,
and refer the interested reader to the original paper \cite{Sin68}
and to the books on ergodic theory,
e.g.,
\cite{Bow75,HW09,KFS82,Man87,Shu86}.
Consider
a unimodular matrix with integer entries
\[
M =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
c & d \\
\end{array}
\right) \in SL(2, {\bf Z}),
\]
thus having eigenvalues
$(\lambda_1, \lambda_2) = (\lambda, \lambda^{-1})$,
and assume that
$|\lambda|>1$,
so the
modulus of the second eigenvalue is smaller than $1$.
The most famous example is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cat.map}
M =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 1 \\
1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\quad
\lambda_{1,2} = \frac{3 \pm \sqrt{5}}{2}.
\end{equation}
Since
$M$,
acting in
${\bf R}^2$
by multiplication, maps the lattice
${\bf Z}^2 \hookrightarrow {\bf R}^2$
into itself, it also acts on the factor-space
${\bf R}^2/{\bf Z}^2 = {\bf T}^2$.
In the case
(\ref{eq:cat.map})
it is usually called Arnold's Cat Map.
The inequalities
$|\lambda^{-1}| < 1 < |\lambda|$
mean that
$M$
is hyperbolic: it has an extending and contracting
eigenspaces. An astute geometrical procedure allows one to partition the torus into a finite
union of parallelepipeds
$C_a$,
$a \in {\cal A} = \{a_1, \ldots, a_N\}$,
with sides parallel to the extending and contracting eigenspaces, in such a way that
\begin{itemize}
\item
for a.e.
${\bf u} = (x,y)\in {\bf T}^2$, the sequence of symbols $(a_{k(t)}, t\in {\bf Z})$
such that
\[
T^t {\bf u} \in C_{a_{k(t)}}, \;\; t\in{\bf Z},
\]
determines the point
${\bf u}$
uniquely; in other words, the torus point
${\bf u}$
is identified
with the sequence of the ordinal numbers of the parallelepipeds it visits under the dynamics
$\{T^t\}$;
\item
under
the above identification, the Lebesgue measure on
${\bf Z}^2$
corresponds to a Markov measure w.r.t. the shift
$T$:
writing
${\bf u} \leftrightarrow (\ldots, \omega_{-1},
\omega_0, \omega_1, \ldots)$,
one has
\[
{\bf P}
\{ \omega_{t+1} = a \,|\, \omega_t = b, \omega_{t-1} = b_{-1}, \ldots
\}
=
{\bf P}
\{ \omega_{t+1} = a \,|\, \omega_t = b
\} = \Pi_{ab},
\]
for some irreducible stochastic matrix
$\Pi$.
Such a partition is called a Markov partition for the dynamical system
$(\Omega,{\cal F},{\bf P},T)$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Local regularity, quasi-locality and decay of correlations}
For our purposes, the key feature of the Markov partitions is exponential decay
of the diameter of a cylinder set in the torus
\[
{\cal X}_{(-n, \dots, n)}(\alpha_{-n}, \ldots \alpha_n)
=
\{x(\omega) \in {\bf T}^\nu:\, \omega_i = \alpha_{j}, -n \le i \le n \}
\]
as
$n\to +\infty$.
The geometrical
mechanism of this decay is essentially the same as for the
baker's map, although the decay exponent is determined by the eigenvalues of the generating
linear map
${\cal L}$.
Therefore,
for any two points
$x,y$
whose symbolic representations ("letters"
$\omega_i(x)$
and
$\omega_i(y)$)
agree on a long interval of indices,
$i\in\{-n -n+1, \ldots, n\}$,
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dist.x.y}
\mbox{dist}_{{\bf T}^\nu}(x,y) \le q^n, \; q\in(0,1)~.
\end{equation}
Consequently,
for any continuous function
$f:\,{\bf T}^\nu\to {\bf R}$
with continuity modulus
\[
s_f(\epsilon) :=
\sup_{
y\in B_{\epsilon}(x)
} \,
\big| f(y) - f(x)\big|
\]
one has for the points
$x,y$
satisfying
(\ref{eq:dist.x.y})
\[
\big| f(y) - f(x)\big|
\le
s_f( q^n)~.
\]
In particular, for any H\"{o}lder continuous function of order $\beta\in(0,1]$, we have
$$
\big| f(y) - f(x)\big| \le C \tilde q^n~, \;\; \tilde q = q^\beta \in(0,1).
$$
In all
considered examples, the existence of a Markov partition gives rise to the quasi-locality
of the deterministic random potentials as functions of symbols in the infinite words
$(\omega_i)_{i\in {\bf Z}_\bullet}$.
Introduce
the following notation: for a function
$f: {\cal A}^{{\bf Z}_\bullet} \to {\bf R}$
and an index subset
$I\subset {\bf Z}_\bullet$,
let
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Var}_I (f) :=
\sup_{ \omega', \omega:\,
\pi_{I}\omega'
=
\pi_{I}\omega}
\big| f(\omega') - f(\omega) \big| ,
\end{equation}
where
$\pi_I(\omega)$
is the finite sub-word of
$\omega$
formed by the letters
$(\omega_i, \, i\in I)$.
\begin{definition}
A function
$f: {\cal A}^{{\bf Z}_\bullet} \to {\bf R}$
is called quasi-local if there exists
$C=C(f)>0$
and
$q\in(0,1)$
such that for any $
n\ge 1$
and any finite word
$(\omega_{-n}, \omega_{-n+1}, \ldots, \omega_n)$
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Var}_{[-m,n]}(f)
\le C q^{m\wedge n}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
In turn,
the quasi-locality implies exponential decay
of correlations (this decay may be slower for the sampling functions
$f$
featuring lower regularity that
H\"{o}lder continuity).
The bottom line
is that in the above mentioned examples of hyperbolic dynamical systems
on tori
${\bf T}^\nu \cong [0,1)^\nu \subset {\bf R}^\nu$,
the corresponding deterministic potentials
feature a fast decay of correlations sufficient for the extension of the Kolmogorov's
connection between the convergence in mean square and the a.s. convergence of the random series
\[
\sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{v_j}{j^\alpha},
\;\;
\alpha\in \left( \frac 12, 1 \right].
\]
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgement }
The authors
would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for
Mathematical Sciences for its hospitality during the programme
``Periodic and Ergodic Spectral Problems"
supported by EPSRC Grant Number EP/K032208/1.
This work is partially supported by
JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Number 26400145(F.N.)
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
Motivated by recent discoveries of interesting multiorbital superconductors,
unconventional pairing mechanisms
driven by the orbital degrees of freedom
have attracted increasing attention.
For example, in FeSe families and some heavy fermion superconductors,
the superconductivity (SC) appears next to the non-magnetic orbital order phase.
Such a phase diagram indicates a significant role of the
orbital fluctuations on the pairing mechanism.
From a theoretical point of view,
it has been a big challenge to explain the emergence of the
orbital order/fluctuations based on realistic
multiorbital Hubbard models microscopically.
In fact, only the spin fluctuations develop
whereas the orbital fluctuations remain small
within the conventional mean-field-level approximations,
such as the random-phase-approximation (RPA) and
the fluctuation-exchange (FLEX) approximation
\cite{Bickers}.
Thus, non-magnetic orbital order cannot be explained
based on the mean-field-level approximations.
The reason for this failure would be that the
interplay between orbital and spin fluctuations,
which is described by the vertex correction (VC),
is totally neglected in the RPA and FLEX.
Recently, the orbital order in Fe-based superconductors
has been naturally explained by taking the Aslamazov-Larkin VC (AL-VC)
into account \cite{Onari-SCVC,Onari-SCVCS,Yamakawa-FeSe}.
In order to study the VCs,
the functional-renormalization-group (fRG)
is a very powerful and reliable theoretical method.
Both the charge-channel and spin-channel VCs are
calculated in an unbiased way by solving the RG equation,
since the particle-particle and particle-hole
channels are included on the same footing
without violating the Pauli principle.
Using the fRG theory, strong orbital fluctuation emerges
in two-orbital Hubbard models in the presence of moderate spin fluctuations,
as revealed in Refs. \cite{Tsuchiizu1,Tsuchiizu2}.
These fRG studies confirmed the validity of the
orbital fluctuation mechanism driven by the
orbital-spin mode-coupling due to the AL-VC
\cite{Onari-SCVC,Yamakawa-FeSe}.
Theoretically, it is natural to expect that
the developed orbital fluctuations mediate the pairing formation.
The orbital fluctuations can induce not only the
singlet SC (SSC), but also the triplet SC (TSC).
By performing the fRG theory for the multiorbital models for Sr$_2$RuO$_4$,
in which the TSC ($T_{\rm c}=1.5$ K) is expected to be realized
\cite{Maeno,Maeno2,Sigrist-Rev,Ishida,Nomura,Wang,RG-Scaffidi,Kivelson},
orbital-fluctuation-mediated TSC has been proposed.
In the frequently-used Migdal-Eliashberg (ME) approximation,
the SSC pairing interaction is
$\frac32{\hat U}^{0;s}{\hat \chi}^s(q){\hat U}^{0;s}
-\frac12{\hat U}^{0;c}{\hat \chi}^c(q){\hat U}^{0;c}$,
and the TSC pairing interaction is
$-\frac12{\hat U}^{0;s}{\hat \chi}^s(q){\hat U}^{0;s}
-\frac12{\hat U}^{0;c}{\hat \chi}^c(q){\hat U}^{0;c}$,
where ${\hat U}^{0;c(s)}$ is the bare Coulomb interaction matrix
for the charge (spin) channel \cite{Onari-SCVC}.
Within the ME approximation,
spin-fluctuation-mediated SSC is expected
when ${\hat \chi}^s(q)$ and ${\hat \chi}^c(q)$ are comparable,
because of the factor $\frac32$ for ${\hat \chi}^s(q)$
in the SSC pairing interaction.
However, this expectation is never guaranteed beyond the ME approximation
since ${\hat U}^{0;c}$ may be enlarged by the VC at low energies,
which is actually realized as we explain in the present paper.
In this paper,
we analyze the two-orbital Hubbard model
for the $(\a,\b)$-bands in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ by using the fRG theory.
The aim of the present study is
to confirm the realization condition for the
orbital-fluctuation-mediated SC by going beyond the ME approximation.
For this purpose, we solve the gap equation by including
the VC for the bare electron-boson coupling (EBC),
which we call the $U$-VC.
Due to the $U$-VC, the effective EBC for the charge (spin) channel,
${\hat U}^{c(s)}(k,k')$, deviates from
the bare Coulomb interaction ${\hat U}^{0;c(s)}$.
By applying the fRG theory, we find the relation
$|{\hat U}^{c}(k,k')|\gg |{\hat U}^{0;c}|$ due to the charge-channel $U$-VC
in the presence of moderate spin fluctuations.
In contrast,
${\hat U}^{s}(k,k')$ is significantly suppressed by the spin channel $U$-VC
at low energies.
For these reasons,
orbital-fluctuation-mediated SC will be realized
in various multiorbital systems,
such as in Fe-based superconductors and Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
We stress that the phonon-mediated attractive pairing
is also enlarged by the factor $({\hat U}^{c}(k,k')/{\hat U}^{0;c})^2$.
The Fermi liquid theory tells that the same $U$-VC causes
(i) the enhancement of the orbital susceptibility and
(ii) that of the orbital-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction.
This fact means that (i) and (ii) are realized simultaneously.
This expectation will be confirmed by the present fRG study.
\section{$U$-VC for the susceptibilities and gap equation}
\label{sec:diagram}
First, we introduce the dressed EBC due to the $U$-VC,
and formulate the susceptibilities ${\hat \chi}^{c,s}(q)$
and the gap equation in the presence of the same $U$-VC.
Figure \ref{fig:fig1} (a) shows the definition of the
dressed EBC for the charge and spin channels,
${\hat U}^{c}(k,k')$ and ${\hat U}^{s}(k,k')$,
which are irreducible with respect to bare Coulomb interactions
${\hat U}^{0;c}$ and ${\hat U}^{0;s}$:
The definitions of ${\hat U}^{0;c}$ and ${\hat U}^{0;s}$
in the orbital basis are given in later section,
and they were introduced in Refs. \cite{Takimoto,Onari-SCVC}.
We put $k=(\k,\e_n)=(\k,(2n+1)\pi T)$ and
$q=(\q,\w_l)=(\q,2l\pi T)$ hereafter.
The solid and wavy lines represent the electron Green function ${\hat G}(k)$
and ${\hat \chi}^{x}(q)$ ($x=c,s$), respectively.
The rectangle ($\Gamma^{I(U),x}$) is the VC for the bare EBC ${\hat U}^{0;x}$,
which we call the $U$-VC.
$\Gamma^{I(U),x}$ is irreducible with respect to ${\hat U}^{0;x}$
to avoid the double counting of the RPA-type diagrams.
In the present fRG study,
the $U$-VC is automatically obtained in solving the RG equation.
In later section, we also calculate $U$-VC
due to the Aslamazov-Larkin term perturbatively,
which is the second-order terms with respect to ${\hat \chi}^{x}(q)$.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{
(a) The effective interaction ${\hat U}^{x}$ for $x=c$ ($+$) and $x=s$ ($-$),
which we call the dressed EBC.
The filled circle represents the Coulomb interaction ${\hat U}^{0;x}$,
and the rectangle ($\Gamma^{I(U),x}$) gives the $U$-VC.
$\Gamma^{I(U),x}$ is irreducible with respect to ${\hat U}^{0;x}$
to avoid the double counting of the RPA-type diagrams.
(b) Beyond the RPA:
The irreducible susceptibility with the VC,
where ${\hat \Lambda}^{x}={\hat U}^{x}\{{\hat U}^{0;x}\}^{-1}$.
(c) Beyond the ME approximation:
The gap equation with the three-point VCs for the coupling constant ($U$-VC).
Only the single fluctuation exchange term is shown.
}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:fig1} (b), we explain
the VC for the irreducible susceptibility:
The bare susceptibility without the VC is
$\chi_{l,l',m,m'}^0(q)= -T\sum_{n}G_{l,m}(k+q)G_{m',l'}(k)$,
where $G_{l,m}(k)$ is the Green function in the orbital basis.
Then, the RPA susceptibility is
${\hat \chi}^x_{\rm RPA}(q)
={\hat \chi}^0(q)[{\hat 1}-{\hat U}^{0;x}{\hat \chi}^0(q)]^{-1}$.
By using the three-point vertex
${\hat \Lambda}^{x}={\hat U}^{x}\{{\hat U}^{0;x}\}^{-1}$,
the dressed irreducible susceptibility is given as
$\Phi^x(q)= -T\sum_{n}G(k+q)G(k)\Lambda^{x}(k+q,k)$,
where the orbital indices are omitted for simplicity.
Then, the susceptibility with full VCs is obtained as
${\hat \chi}^x_{\rm with \mbox{-} VC}(q)
={\hat \Phi}^x(q)[{\hat 1}-{\hat U}^{0;x}{\hat \Phi}^x(q)]^{-1}$.
Figure \ref{fig:fig1} (c) shows the gap equation
due to the single-fluctuation-exchange term
in the presence of the $U$-VC for the EBC.
Within the RPA and the ME approximation,
the pairing interaction for the singlet state is
${\hat V}_{s,{\rm RPA}}(k,k')=\frac32 {\hat I}_{\rm RPA}^s(k-k')
-\frac12 {\hat I}_{\rm RPA}^c(k-k')-{\hat U}^{0;s}$,
where
${\hat I}_{\rm RPA}^x(q)= {\hat U}^{0;x}
({\hat \chi}^x_{\rm RPA}(q)+\{{\hat U}^{0;x}\}^{-1}){\hat U}^{0;x}$.
By including the VCs for both ${\hat \chi}^x_{\rm RPA}$ and
the coupling constant ${\hat U}^{0;x}$, the
pairing interaction with full VCs is given as
${\hat V}_{s,{\rm with\mbox{-}VC}}(k,k')=\frac32 {\hat I}_{\rm with\mbox{-}VC}^s(k,k')
-\frac12 {\hat I}_{\rm with\mbox{-}VC}^c(k,k')-{\hat U}^{0;s}$,
where
${\hat I}_{\rm with\mbox{-}VC}^x(k,k')= {\hat U}^{x}(k,k')
({\hat \chi}^x_{\rm with\mbox{-}VC}(k-k')+\{{\hat U}^{0;x}\}^{-1}){\hat U}^{x}(-k,-k')$.
Therefore, the enhancement of the pairing interaction
due to the charge-channel $U$-VC is naturally expected
when the orbital fluctuations are realized by the $U$-VC,
in terms of the Fermi liquid theory.
For the purpose of analyzing the $U$-VC,
the fRG theory is very useful since the $U$-VC for
${\hat \chi}^{x}(q)$ ($x=s,c$) and that for the gap equation
are generated on the same footings in terms of the parquet approximation.
This is a great merit of the fRG theory
\cite{RG-Review}.
In the present study, we use the RG+cRPA method,
which enables us to perform very accurate numerical study
\cite{Tsuchiizu1}.
\section{RG+cRPA study for the two-orbital Hubbard model}
\label{sec:RG-exp}
In this section, we analyze the 2-orbital
($d_{xz}$, $d_{yz}$) Hubbard model,
as a canonical simple multiorbital systems.
We apply the
renormalization-group plus constrained-RPA (RG+cRPA) method,
which was developed in Refs. \cite{Tsuchiizu1,Tsuchiizu2,Tsuchiizu3}.
By solving the RG differential equation, we obtain the
renormalized 4-point vertex $\hat{\Gamma}^{x}_{{\rm RG}}$ ($x=s,c$)
and susceptibilities $\chi ^{c(s)}(q)$
by taking account of the $U$-VC
in a systematic and in an unbiased way.
The superconducting state and the
transition temperature ($T_{\rm c}$)
are obtained by calculating the SSC and TSC
susceptibilities, as formalized and performed
in Ref. \cite{Tsuchiizu2}.
\subsection{Model Hamiltonian and the four-point vertex given by the RG+cRPA}
\label{sec:UVC1}
First, we introduce the 2-orbitals square lattice Hubbard model,
which describes the ($d_{xz}$, $d_{yz}$)-orbital bandstructure
in $\rm{Sr_{2}RuO_{4}}$.
We set the kinetic term of the Hamiltonian as
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{0}=\sum_{k,\sigma}\sum_{l,m}\xi_{k}^{l,m}
c^{\dagger}_{k,l,\sigma}c_{k,m,\sigma} ,
\label{eqn:H0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $l, m$ takes $1$ or $2$, which corresponds to $d_{xz}$ or $d_{yz}$.
$\xi^{l,m}_{k}$ is defined as
$\xi^{1,1}_{k}=-2t\cos k_{x} -2t^{''}\cos k_{y}$,
$\xi^{2,2}_{k}=-2t\cos k_{y} -2t^{''}\cos k_{x}$,
$\xi^{1,2}_{k}=\xi^{2,1}_{k}=-4t^{'}\sin k_{x} \sin k_{y}$.
Hereafter, we set the hopping parameters
($t^{}$, $ t^{'}$, $ t^{''})=(1, 0.1, 0.1)$:
The unit of energy in the present study is $t=1$.
The number of electrons is fixed as $n=n_{xz}+n_{yz}=4\times (2/3)=2.67$.
The obtained band dispersion and Fermi surfaces (FSs) are shown in
Figs. \ref{fig:FS} (a) and (b), which reproduce
FS{$\alpha$} and FS{$\beta$} in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
This model has been analyzed as a canonical multiorbital model
in various theoretical studies,
such as the anomalous Hall effect
\cite{Kontani-AHE}.
In the RG+cRPA method, each band is divided into
the higher-energy part ($|\e_{u,\k}|>\Lambda_0$) and
the lower-energy part ($|\e_{u,\k}|<\Lambda_0$).
In order to perform the renormalization procedure,
the lower-energy part is divided into $N_p/2$ patches.
Figure \ref{fig:FS} (c) shows the contours for
$|\e_{u,\k}|=\Lambda_0=1$ and the center of patches $1\sim64$.
In addition, we introduce the on-site Coulomb interaction term,
which contains the intra-orbital and inter-orbital Coulomb interactions
$U$ and $U'$, the Hund's coupling $J$, and the pair hopping interaction $J'$.
The bare Coulomb interaction term is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
H_{int}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i}\sum_{l l' m m'}
\sum_{\sigma \sigma' \rho \rho'}U_{ll'mm'}^{0;\sigma \sigma' \rho \rho'}
c^{\dagger}_{i l \sigma}
c_{i l' \sigma'}
c_{i m \rho}
c^{\dagger}_{i m' \rho'} ,
\label{eqn:HUU} \\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
U_{ll'mm'}^{0;\sigma \sigma' \rho \rho'}
=\frac{1}{2}U^{0;s}_{ll'mm'}
\vec{\bf{\sigma}}_{\sigma \sigma'} \cdot \vec{\bf{\sigma}}_{\rho' \rho}
+\frac{1}{2}U^{0;c}_{ll'mm'}\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}\delta_{\rho',\rho} ,
\label{eqn:HU}
\end{eqnarray}
where $U^{0;c}_{ll'mm'}=(-U, U'-2J, -2U'+J, -J', 0)$ and
$U^{0;s}_{ll'mm'}=(U, U', J, J', 0)$ in the cases of
($l=l'=m=m'$, $l=m\neq l'=m'$, $l=l'\neq m=m'$, $l=m'\neq l'=m$ and otherwise).
Hereafter, we assume the relation $J=J'=(U-U')/2$.
The antisymmetrized full four-point vertex
${\hat \Gamma}(\k+\q,\k;\k'+\q,\k')$,
which is the dressed vertex of the
bare vertex ${\hat U}^{0}$ in Eq. (\ref{eqn:HU})
in the microscopic Fermi liquid theory \cite{AGD},
is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:FS} (d).
Reflecting the SU(2) symmetry of the present model,
${\hat \Gamma}$ is uniquely decomposed into the
spin-channel and charge-channel four-point vertices
by using the following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Gamma_{ll'mm'}^{\sigma \sigma' \rho \rho'}(\k+\q,\k;\k'+\q,\k')
\nonumber \\
&& \ \ \ \ \ \ =\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_{ll'mm'}^{s}(\k+\q,\k;\k'+\q,\k')
\vec{\bf{\sigma}}_{\sigma \sigma'} \cdot \vec{\bf{\sigma}}_{\rho' \rho}
\nonumber \\
&& \ \ \ \ \ \ \
+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma^{c}_{ll'mm'}(\k+\q,\k;\k'+\q,\k')
\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}\delta_{\rho',\rho} ,
\label{eqn:Gamma2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma, \sigma', \rho, \rho'$ are spin indices.
We stress that ${\hat \Gamma}^{c,s}$
are fully antisymmetrized, so the requirement by
the Pauli principle is satisfied.
We note that
${\hat \Gamma}^{\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow}
=\frac12 {\hat \Gamma}^c+\frac12 {\hat \Gamma}^s$,
${\hat \Gamma}^{\uparrow\uparrow\downarrow\downarrow}
=\frac12 {\hat \Gamma}^c-\frac12 {\hat \Gamma}^s$,
and
${\hat \Gamma}^{\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow}
={\hat \Gamma}^s$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig2d.eps}
\caption{(Color online)
(a) Band dispersion of 2-orbital Hubbard model
and (b) FSs composed of the $d_{xz}$-orbital (green)
and $d_{yz}$-orbital (red).
(c) The centre of patches ($1\sim64$) on the FSs.
The arrows represents the nesting vector.
The tip and the tail of each arrow correspond to
$(i_\a,i_\b)=(6,37),(8,38),(10,39)$.
(d) Definition of the full four-point vertex
$\Gamma_{ll'mm'}^{\sigma \sigma' \rho \rho'}(\k+\q,\k;\k'+\q,\k')$
in the microscopic Fermi liquid theory.
}
\label{fig:FS}
\end{figure}
\subsection{RG+cRPA Theory}
\label{sec:RG+cRPA}
We analyze the present model by using the RG+cRPA method,
which was introduced in our previous papers
\cite{Tsuchiizu1,Tsuchiizu2,Tsuchiizu3}
in detail.
In this method, we introduce the original cutoff energy $\Lambda_{0}$
in order to divide each band
into the higher and the lower energy regions:
The higher-energy scattering processes are calculated by using the cRPA:
The lower-energy scattering processes are analyzed by
solving the RG equation,
in which the initial vertices in the differential equation
are given by the cRPA.
The lower energy region is divided into $N_p/2$ patches
for each band as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:FS} (c).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(Color online)
The one-loop RG equation for the four-point vertex.
The crossed lines represent the electron Green function with cutoff
$\Lambda$.
The slashed lines represent the
electron propagations having the energy shell $\Lambda$.
}
\label{fig:FS2}
\end{figure}
In the RG formalism,
the four-point vertex function is determined
by solving the differential equations, called
the RG equations.
In the band representation basis,
the explicit form of the RG equations is given by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{d\Lambda}
\Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k_1,k_2;k_3,k_4)
&=&
-\frac{T}{N}\sum_{k,k'}
\left[
\frac{d}{d\Lambda}
G(k) \, G(k')
\right]
\Bigl[
\Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k_1,k_2;k,k') \, \Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k,k';k_3,k_4)
\nonumber \\
&& {}
- \Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k_1,k_3;k,k') \, \Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k,k';k_2,k_4)
- \frac{1}{2} \Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k_1,k; k',k_4) \,
\Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k,k_2;k_3,k')
\Bigr] ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $G(k)$ is the Green function multiplied by the
Heaviside step function $\theta(|\e_{u,\k}|-\Lambda)$, and
$k$ is the compact notation of the momentum, band, and spin index:
$k=(\k, \e_n, u, \sigma)$.
The diagrammatic representation of the RG equations
is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:FS2}.
The first two contributions in the rhs represent the particle-hole
channels and the last contribution is the
particle-particle channel.
The four-point vertex $\Gamma_\mathrm{RG}(k_1,k_2;k_3,k_4)$
is obtained by solving the above RG differential equation
from $\Lambda_0$ to the lower cutoff energy $\w_c$.
In a conventional fRG method,
$\Lambda_0$ is set larger than the bandwidth $W_{\rm band}$,
and the initial value is given by the bare Coulomb interaction
in Eq. (\ref{eqn:HU}).
In the RG+cRPA method,
we set $\Lambda_0<W_{\rm band}$, and the initial value is given by
the constraint RPA to include the higher-energy processes
without over-counting of diagrams \cite{Tsuchiizu1}.
The merits of the RG+cRPA method are listed as:
(i) The higher-energy processes are accurately calculated
within the cRPA by introducing the fine (such as $128\times128$) $\k$-meshes.
This method is justified since the VCs are less important at higher energies.
In the conventional $N_p$-patch fRG method,
numerical errors due to the violation of the momentum-conservation
becomes serious at higher-energy processes.
(ii) The scattering processes contributed by the valence-bands
(=Van-Vleck processes), which are important in multiorbital systems
to derive physical orbital susceptibility,
are taken into account in the RG+cRPA method.
Especially, the Van-Vleck processes are crucial to
obtain the orbital susceptibilities without unphysical behaviors.
The full four-point vertex in Fig. \ref{fig:FS} (d)
is expressed in the band basis.
On the other hand, we solve the four-point vertex
in the orbital basis in the present RG+cRPA study, expressed as
${\Gamma}_{uu'vv'}^{\s\s'\rho\rho'}(\k_1,\k_2;\k_3,\k_4)$.
These expressions are transformed to each other
by using the unitary matrix $u_{l,u}(\k)=\langle l,\k|u,\k \rangle$.
In the present RG+cRPA study,
we assume that each $\k_i$ is on the FSs, so
we are allowed to drop four band indices $u,u',v,v'$.
In this paper, we set $\Lambda_{0}=1.0$ ($<$ band width) and $N_p=64$,
and introduce the logarithmic energy scaling parameter
$\Lambda_{l}=\Lambda_{0}e^{-l}$ ($l\ge0$)
in solving the RG equation.
We verified that reliable results are obtained
by setting $\Lambda_{0}\sim W_{\rm band}/2$.
\subsection{Phase diagram obtained by the RG+cRPA}
\label{sec:RG}
First, we calculate the spin/charge susceptibilities
and SSC/TSC susceptibilities at $T=5\times 10^{-4}$
by performing the RG+cRPA analysis.
The renormalization is fulfilled till $\Lambda_{l}$
reaches $\Lambda_{l_c}=10^{-2}T$
(i.e., $l_c={\rm ln}(\Lambda_0/10^{-2}T)$).
The charge (spin) susceptibilities in the multiorbital model is
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{c(s)}_{l l' m m'}(q)=\int^{\beta}_{0} d\tau \frac{1}{2}\left\langle A^{c(s)}_{l l'}({\bm q},\tau)A^{c(s)}_{m' m}({\bm -\q},0)\right\rangle e^{i\w_l\tau},
\label{eq:suscep}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{c(s)}_{l\, l'}({\bm q})=\sum_{\bm k}
(c^{\dagger}_{{\k} l' \uparrow}
c_{{\k+\q} l \uparrow}+(-)
c^{\dagger}_{{\bm k} l' \downarrow}
c_{{\k+\q} l \downarrow}) .
\label{eqn:A}
\end{eqnarray}
The obtained susceptibilities are shown in the
Figs. \ref{fig:phase} (a) and (b) :
$\chi^c_{x^2-y^2}({\bm q})=\sum_{l , m}(-1)^{l+m}\chi^{c}_{l, l, m, m}({\bm q})$
is the orbital susceptibility with respect to the
orbital polarization $n_{xz}-n_{yz}$,
and $\chi^{s}({\bm q})=\sum_{l , m}\chi^{s}_{l, l, m, m}({\bm q})$
is the total spin susceptibility.
We set the parameters $(U, J/U)=(3.10, 0.08)$ and $T=5\times10^{-4}$,
which corresponds to the black circle in
the phase diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:phase} (c).
Both $\chi^{s}(\q)$ and $\chi^c_{x^2-y^2}(\q)$
has the maximum around the nesting vector ${\bm Q}=(2\pi/3, 2\pi/3)$,
and the relation $\chi^{s}(\Q)\approx \chi^c_{x^2-y^2}(\Q)$ is realized.
The strong peak in $\chi^{s}(\Q)$ has been observed by the
neutron inelastic scattering study for Sr$_2$RuO$_4$
\cite{neutron}.
In addition to this result, the STM study \cite{STM}
indicates that the TSC in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$
mainly originates from the electronic correlation in the ($\a,\b$)-bands.
We stress that the strong enhancement of $\chi^c_{x^2-y^2}$
cannot be obtained in the RPA.
This fact means that the strong orbital fluctuations
originate from the $U$-VC, shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1} (b),
calculated by the RG method appropriately.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online)
(a) $\q$-dependence of obtained total spin susceptibility $\chi^{s}(\q)$
enlarged at ${\bm q} \approx (2\pi/3,2\pi/3)$.
(b) Obtained quadrupole susceptibility $\chi^c_{x^2-y^2}(\q)$.
(c) SC phase diagram obtained by RG+cRPA method.
}
\label{fig:phase}
\end{figure}
Secondly, we calculate the TSC (SSC) susceptibilities
$\chi^{\rm{SC}}_{t(s)}$ by the RG+cRPA method.
It is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{\rm{SC}}_{t(s)}= \frac{1}{2}\int^{\beta}_{0} d\tau
\left\langle B^{\dagger}_{t(s)}(\tau)B_{t(s)}(0)\right\rangle ,
\label{eqn:suscepSC}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{t(s)}=\sum_{{\bm k}\in {\rm FS}}\Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k})
c_{{\bm k},\uparrow}c_{{\bm -\k},\uparrow(\downarrow)} .
\label{eqn:B}
\end{eqnarray}
The gap function $\Delta_{t(s)}({\bm q})$
in Eq. (\ref{eqn:B}) is uniquely determined
by maximizing the SC susceptibilities
\cite{Tsuchiizu2}.
The obtained numerical results for
$T=5\times10^{-4}$ and $\Lambda_{l_c}=10^{-2}T$
are summarized as the phase diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:phase} (c).
The boundary of the orbital and magnetic orders are shown
by the broken lines, and the relation
$\chi^s(\Q)= \chi^c_{x^2-y^2}(\Q)$ holds on the dotted line.
The boundaries for the TSC and SSC transition
are shown by the solid lines.
Thus, the TSC and SSC states are respectively realized below the
orbital and magnetic order boundaries,
for wide range of parameters.
We stress that the strong orbital fluctuations and the TSC state
is obtained for $J/U\lesssim O(0.1)$,
which is comparable to the ratio $J/U=0.0945$ in FeSe
derived from the first-principles study.
The present result is substantially improved
compared to the previous phase diagram for $\Lambda_0=1$
in Ref. \cite{Tsuchiizu2},
in which the strong orbital fluctuations appear only for $J/U<0.03$.
The reason for this improvement is that
four-point vertex in Ref. \cite{Tsuchiizu2} is underestimated
since we included only the processes that rigorously satisfy
the momentum conservation in solving the RG equation.
In the present study, we allow the scattering processes
if the momentum conservation is satisfied within the patch resolution,
according to a similar manner explained in
Ref. \cite{Metzner,Honerkamp,RG-Review}.
This improved method was utilized in the study of the
charge-density-wave
in curate superconductors \cite{Tsuchiizu3}.
The obtained TSC gap function belongs to the $E_{u}$ representation,
and approximately follows the following $\k$-dependence:
($\Delta_{t,x}({\bm k})$,$\Delta_{t,y}({\bm k})$)
$\propto (\sin 3k_{x},\sin 3k_{y})$.
The SSC gap function belongs to $A_{1g}$ or $B_{1g}$ symmetry
in the phase diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:phase} (c),
similarly to our previous study in Ref. \cite{Tsuchiizu2}.
Until now, many theoretical studies on the mechanism of the
TSC in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ have been performed.
They are roughly classified into the following two scenarios.
One of them is that the TSC is realized mainly
in a two-dimensional (2D) FS$\gamma$ composed by the $d_{xy}$-orbital \cite{Nomura, Wang}.
Nomura and Yamada explained the TSC state by using
the higher-order perturbation theory \cite{Nomura}.
In addition, Wang {\it et al}. performed the 2D RG and
discussed that the TSC is realized on the FS$\gamma$ in the presence of spin fluctuations at
$\q =(0.19\pi,0.19\pi)$. On the other hand, the TSC originating from the q1D FSs had been discussed
by applying the perturbation theory \cite{Kivelson, RG-Scaffidi} and the RPA \cite{Takimoto}.
Takimoto proposed the orbital-fluctuation-mediated TSC in the RPA \cite{Takimoto}. However,
under the realistic condition $U' < U$, the TSC could not overwhelm the SSC in the RPA.
In contrast to the RPA, the present authors obtained the TSC state in the wide parameters range with
realistic condition $U' < U$ by using the RG+cRPA theory.
As shown in the following section, these results originate from the important roles
of the $U$-VC which is neglected in the RPA.
From the experimental aspect, many efforts have been devoted to reveal the electronic state and the gap structure in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
For example, strong AFM fluctuations at $\Q$ by the nesting of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ bands were observed by neutron scattering spectroscopy \cite{neutron}.
In addition, a large SC gap with 2$|\Delta| \approx 5T_{c}$ was observed by the scanning tunneling microscopy measurement \cite{STM}. The authors expected that the observed large gap appears on the q1D FSs, since the tunneling will be dominated by the ($d_{xz}$,$d_{yz}$) orbitals that stand along the $z$ axis. These experiments indicate that the active bands of the TSC in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ is q1D FSs.
\section{Origin of orbital fluctuation mediated SC:
Significant Role of the $U$-VC}
In the previous section, we explained that the
orbital-fluctuation-mediated TSC state is obtained
for realistic parameter range by using the improved RG+cRPA method.
In this section, we reveal the microscopic reason
why the orbital-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction
becomes superior to the spin-fluctuation-mediated one
in the case that ${\hat \chi}^s(q)$ and ${\hat \chi}^c(q)$ are comparable.
This is the main aim of the present paper.
\subsection{Gap equation beyond the ME scheme
}
Here, we study the SC state by analyzing the linearized gap equation
based on the pairing interaction obtained by the RG equation
\cite{RG-gapeq}.
The gap equation in the band basis is given as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\lambda_{t(s)} \Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k}) =\nonumber \\
&&-\int_{\rm FS} \frac{d{\bm k'}}{v_{{\bm k'}}} {V}^{\w_c}_{t(s)}({\bm k},{\bm k'}) \Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k'}) \ln{\frac{1.13\omega_{c}}{T}} ,
\label{eqn:gap-eq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k})$ is the TSC (SSC) gap function on the FSs,
which has odd (even) parity.
In Eq. (\ref{eqn:gap-eq}),
$\k$ and $\k'$ are the momenta on the FS$\a$ and FS$\beta$,
$\lambda_{t(s)}$ is the eigenvalue of the gap equation,
and ${V}^{\w_c}_{t(s)}$ is the pairing interaction
given by the RG equation, by setting the lower-energy cutoff
as $\Lambda_{l_c}= \omega_c$ (i.e., $l_c= {\rm ln}(\Lambda_0/\omega_c)$).
The expression of the pairing interaction is given below.
We choose the cutoff $\omega_c$ so as to satisfy $\w_c \gg T$,
and assume that the renormalization of the susceptibilities
${\hat \chi}^{s,c}(\q)$ saturates for $\Lambda_l<\w_c$.
In deriving Eq. (\ref{eqn:gap-eq}), we used the relation
$\int_{-\w_c}^{\w_c} d\e_{\k'} \frac1{2\e_{\k'}}{\rm th}(\e_{\k'}/2T)
= {\rm ln} (1.13\w_c/T)$.
In the present RG study,
the pairing interaction in the band
is directly given by solving the RG equation
for the four-point vertex ${\Gamma}_{{\rm RG}}$,
till the lower-energy cutoff $\Lambda_{l_c}= \omega_c$.
We set $\w_c=12T= 6\times 10^{-3}$.
By using the four-point vertex given by the RG+cRPA
in the band basis representation,
the pairing interaction in Eq. (\ref{eqn:gap-eq})
with the $U$-VC is given as
\begin{eqnarray}{V}^{}_{t,{\rm RG}}({\bm{k},\bm{k}'})&=&
-\frac{1}{4}{\Gamma}^{s}_{{\rm RG}}(\k,\k';-\k',-\k)
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{1}{4}{\Gamma}^{c}_{{\rm RG}}(\k,\k';-\k',-\k) ,
\label{eqn:V1t} \\
{V}^{}_{s,\rm{RG}}(\k,\k')&=&
\frac{3}{4}{\Gamma}^{s}_{{\rm RG}}(\k,\k';-\k',-\k)
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{1}{4}{\Gamma}^{c}_{{\rm RG}}(\k,\k';-\k',-\k) .
\label{eqn:V1s}
\end{eqnarray}
In ${V}^{}_{t(s),{\rm RG}}(\k,\k')$,
the $U$-VC for the pairing interaction shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1} (c)
is automatically included.
In Fig. \ref{fig:diagram},
we show the typical diagrams included in ${\Gamma}_{\rm RG}$:
The bare Coulomb interaction term is given in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (a).
The single- and crossing-fluctuation-exchange terms are
shown in Figs. \ref{fig:diagram} (b) and (c), respectively.
The particle-particle ladder term is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (d),
which is expected to be small when $\w_c\gg T_{\rm c}$.
The typical diagrams for the $U$-VC are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (e).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{
(a) The bare interaction, (b) single-fluctuation-exchange term,
(c) crossing-fluctuation-exchange term, and
(d) the lowest particle-particle term.
(e) Typical diagrams for the $U$-VC.
For the charge sector,
the Maki-Thompson (MT) term is negligibly smaller than the AL term
in the presence of moderate spin fluctuations.
The $O(\{U^0\}^3)$-terms in MT and AL terms are dropped
to avoid the double counting.
In (a)-(e), spin indices are not written explicitly.}
\label{fig:diagram}
\end{figure}
In order to verify the importance of the $U$-VC,
we also introduce the pairing interaction within the ME scheme:
For this purpose, we solve the RG equation for ${\hat \chi}^{c(s)}_{\rm RG}$
till the lower cutoff $\Lambda_{l_c}=\w_c$.
We set $\w_c=12T= 6\times 10^{-3}$.
Using the obtained ${\hat \chi}^{c(s)}_{\rm RG}$,
the antisymmetrized four-point vertex
in the single-fluctuation-exchange approximation is expressed
in the orbital basis as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\Gamma}^{s}_{\chi,12,34}= \hat{U}^{0;s}_{12,34}
+(\hat{U}^{0;s}\hat{\chi}^{s}(1-2)\hat{U}^{0;s})_{12,34}
\nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
-\frac{1}{2}(\hat{U}^{0;c}\hat{\chi}^{c}(1-3)\hat{U}^{0;c})_{13,24}
\nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
+\frac{1}{2}(\hat{U}^{0;s}\hat{\chi}^{s}(1-3)\hat{U}^{0;s})_{13,24} ,
\label{eqn:V3s} \\
&&{\Gamma}^{c}_{\chi,12,34}=\hat{U}^{0;c}_{12,34}
+(\hat{U}^{0;c}\hat{\chi}^{c}(1-2)\hat{U}^{0;c})_{12,34}
\nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
-\frac{1}{2}(\hat{U}^{0;c}\hat{\chi}^{c}(1-3)\hat{U}^{0;c})_{13,24}
\nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
-\frac{3}{2}(\hat{U}^{0;s}\hat{\chi}^{s}(1-3)\hat{U}^{0;s})_{13,24} .
\label{eqn:V3c}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\hat{U}^{0;c(s)}$ is the bare Coulomb interaction
in Eq. (\ref{eqn:HU}), and
$\hat{\chi}^{c(s)}_{{\rm RG}}$ is the $(2\times2)\times(2\times2)$ matrix.
The diagrammatic expression for $\hat{V}^{}_{t(s),\chi}$
is given by dropping the $U$-VC in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (b).
The pairing interaction $V_{t,\chi}(\k,\k')$ [$V_{s,\chi}(\k,\k')$]
in the absence of the $U$-VCs are obtained by
inputting Eqs. (\ref{eqn:V3s})-(\ref{eqn:V3c})
into Eq. (\ref{eqn:V1t}) [Eq. (\ref{eqn:V1s})], respectively,
after performing the unitary transformation by using $u_{l,u}(\k)$.
Then, ${\hat \chi}^{s,c}(1-2)$ [${\hat \chi}^{s,c}(1-3)$]
in Eqs. (\ref{eqn:V3s}) and (\ref{eqn:V3c}) is replaced with
${\hat \chi}^{s,c}(\k-\k')$ [${\hat \chi}^{s,c}(\k+\k')$].
\subsection{Analysis of the $U$-VC based on the RG+cRPA method}
Hereafter, we show the numerical results for
the parameters ($U=3.10$, $J/U=0.08$, $\w_c=12T=6\times 10^{-3}$),
which corresponds to the black circle in
the phase diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:phase} (c).
The renormalization of ${\hat \chi}^{s,c}(\q)$ saturates for $\Lambda_l<\w_c$.
First, we solve the gap equation (\ref{eqn:gap-eq})
using the pairing interaction ${\hat V}_{t,{\rm RG}}$ and
${\hat V}_{s,{\rm RG}}$ in Eqs. (\ref{eqn:V1t})-(\ref{eqn:V1s}).
Figures \ref{fig:gap} (a) and (b) show the
obtained gap functions for the TSC state $\Delta_{t,x}(\theta)$
and the SSC state $\Delta_{s}(\theta)$, respectively,
The eigenvalues are $\lambda_t=0.47$ and $\lambda_s=0.26$, respectively.
The obtained $E_{1u}$ TSC gap and $A_{1g}$ SSC gap are
essentially equivalent to the gap structures
derived from the SC susceptibilities in Eq. (\ref{eqn:suscepSC})
by the RG+cRPA: see Ref. \cite{Tsuchiizu2}.
Thus, the present gap equation analysis is essentially
equivalent to the RG study for the SC state,
in which the SC gap function is uniquely obtained
by maximizing the SC susceptibility.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{(Color online)
(a) $E_{1u}$-type TSC Gap function $\Delta_{t,x}(\theta)$
on the FS$\a$ and FS$\b$ as functions of $\theta$.
(b) $A_{1g}$-type SSC Gap function $\Delta_{s}(\theta)$.
(c) $\bar{\lambda}_{t(s)}$ for ${\hat V}_{t(s),{\rm RG}}$
as functions of $\w_c$.
(d) $\bar{\lambda}_{t(s)}$ for ${\hat V}_{t(s),{\chi}}$.
}
\label{fig:gap}
\end{figure}
Using the solution of the gap equation $\Delta_{t(s)}(\k)$,
the averaged pairing interaction
$\bar{\lambda}_{t(s)}={\lambda}_{t(s)}/{\rm ln}(1.13\w_c/T)$
is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\lambda}_{t(s)}
= \frac{\displaystyle
\int_{{\rm FS}} \frac{d\bm{k}}{v_{\bm{k}}}
\int_{{\rm FS}} \frac{d\bm{k}'}{v_{\bm{k'}}}
V_{t(s)}^{\w_c}({\k,\k'}) \Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k}) \Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k'})
}
{\displaystyle
\int_{{\rm FS}} \frac{d{\bm k}}{v_{\bm k}} \Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k})
\Delta_{t(s)}({\bm k})} .
\label{eqn:averaged}
\end{eqnarray}
Figure \ref{fig:gap} (c) shows the obtained
$\bar{\lambda}_{t}$ and $\bar{\lambda}_{s}$
as functions of $\Lambda_l$,
where $\Delta_{t}(\k)$ and $\Delta_{s}(\k)$ are fixed to the
gap structures shown in Figs. \ref{fig:gap} (a) and (b), respectively.
Note that the relation $T_{{\rm c},t(s)}=1.13\w_c\exp(-1/\bar{\lambda}_{t(s)})$.
The scaling curve of $\bar{\lambda}_{t,s}$ saturates
to a constant when $\Lambda_l$ is smaller than $T$,
which is shown by the vertical dotted lines.
We find the approximate relation $\bar{\lambda}_{t} \sim 3\bar{\lambda}_{s}$
in Fig. \ref{fig:gap} (c), irrespective of the relation
$\chi^s(\Q)\sim\chi^c_{x^2-y^2}(\Q)$ shown in Figs. \ref{fig:phase} (a) and (b).
In order to verify the importance of the $U$-VC,
we solve the gap equation by using ${\hat V}_{x,\chi}$,
in which the $U$-VC is absent.
Figure \ref{fig:gap} (d) shows the obtained
$\bar{\lambda}_{t}$ and $\bar{\lambda}_{s}$
as functions of $\Lambda_l$.
Here, $\Delta_{t}(\k)$ and $\Delta_{s}(\k)$ are fixed to
Figs. \ref{fig:gap} (a) and (b), respectively.
(Similar result is obtained even if
the solution of the gap equation for ${\hat V}_{t(s),\chi}$ is used.)
Thus, the relation $\bar{\lambda}_{t} \sim \bar{\lambda}_{s}/3$
is obtained if the $U$-VC is dropped.
Therefore,
the relation $\bar{\lambda}_{t} \gg \bar{\lambda}_{s}$ is realized
when $\hat{V}^{}_{t(s),{\rm RG}}$ is used,
while the opposite relation $\bar{\lambda}_{t} \ll \bar{\lambda}_{s}$
is obtained for $\hat{V}^{}_{t(s),\chi}$.
Thus, we can concluded that the TSC is realized by
the enhancement of the orbital-fluctuation-mediated pairing
interaction by the charge-channel $U$-VC,
and/or the suppression of the spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing
by the spin-channel $U$-VC.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{(Color online)
Spin- and charge-channel pairing interactions
obtained by using the RG+cRPA method:
(a) Spin-channel interaction ${\tilde \Gamma}^s_\chi(\k,\k')$
and (b) charge-channel one ${\tilde \Gamma}^c_\chi(\k,\k')$
in the absence of the $U$-VC.
(c) ${\tilde \Gamma}^s_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
and (d) ${\tilde \Gamma}^c_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
in the presence of the $U$-VC.
Here, ($\k,\k'$) is the pair of momenta for ($i_\a,i_\b$).
(e) The ratios
${\tilde \Gamma}^c_\chi(\k,\k')/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_\chi(\k,\k')$
and ${\tilde \Gamma}^c_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
as functions of $U$.
$\k$ and $\k'$ are set as the start and end positions
of the nesting vector shown in Fig. \ref{fig:FS} (b).
We take the average over the ellipsoidal area.
}
\label{fig:interaction}
\end{figure}
To understand the role of the $U$-VC in more detail,
we directly examine the momentum-dependence of
the spin- (charge-) channel interaction without the $U$-VC
${\tilde \Gamma}^{s(c)}_\chi(\k,\k') \equiv \Gamma^{s(c)}_\chi(\k,\k';-\k',-\k)$
in addition to those with the $U$-VC
${\tilde \Gamma}^{s(c)}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k') \equiv
\Gamma^{s(c)}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k';-\k',-\k)$.
Figures \ref{fig:interaction} (a)-(d)
show the obtained interactions for
the parameters ($U=3.10$, $J/U=0.08$, $\w_c=12T=6\times 10^{-3}$).
Here, $i_\a$ and $i_\b$ correspond to the patches
on FS-$\a$ and FS-$\b$, respectively.
In each panel, the pairs of patches inside the solid ellipsoidal,
$(i_\a,i_\b)=(6,37),(8,38),(10,39)$, correspond to the nesting vector
$\k\rightarrow \k'$ depicted by the arrows in Fig. \ref{fig:FS} (c).
As shown in Figs. \ref{fig:interaction} (a) and (b),
both ${\tilde \Gamma}^{s}_\chi(\k,\k')$ and ${\tilde \Gamma}^{c}_\chi(\k,\k')$
take large positive values when
($i_\a,i_\b$) is inside the solid ellipsoidal.
Here, $\k-\k'\approx \Q \equiv (2\pi/3,2\pi/3)$.
These large interactions originates from the peak structure of
$\chi^{s}(\q)$ and $\chi^c_{x^2-y^2}(\q)$
at $\q\approx \Q$, as shown in Figs. \ref{fig:phase} (a) and (b).
It is found that, in the absence of the $U$-VC,
${\tilde \Gamma}^{s}_\chi(\k,\k')$
becomes larger than
${\tilde \Gamma}^{c}_\chi(\k,\k')$ inside the
ellipsoidal area [$(i_\a,i_\b) \approx (7,37)$]
in Figs. \ref{fig:interaction} (a) and (b).
For this reason, the relation ${\bar \lambda}_s \gg {\bar \lambda}_t$
is realized by neglecting the $U$-VC, shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gap} (d).
Figures \ref{fig:interaction} (c) and (d) show
the spin- and charge-channel interactions
${\tilde \Gamma}^{s}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$ and ${\tilde \Gamma}^{c}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
in the presence of the $U$-VC.
Both ${\tilde \Gamma}^{s}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$ and
${\tilde \Gamma}^{c}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
take large positive values when $\k-\k'\approx\Q$.
In the presence of the $U$-VC,
${\tilde \Gamma}^{c}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
becomes larger than
${\tilde \Gamma}^{s}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
inside the ellipsoidal area.
By making comparison between
Figs. \ref{fig:interaction} (a) and (c) [(b) and (d)],
the spin-channel [charge-channel] interaction
is reduced [enlarged] by the $U$-VC.
For this reason, ${\bar \lambda}_t \gg {\bar \lambda}_s$
is realized by taking the $U$-VC into account correctly,
shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gap} (c).
We note that the large negative values
in Figs. \ref{fig:interaction} (c) and (d)
at $(i_\a,i_\b)=(6+16,37),(8+16,38),(10+16,39)$
originate from ${\hat \chi}^c(\k+\k')$ for $\k+\k'\approx\Q$,
since its contribution is enlarged by the charge-channel $U$-VC
in ${\tilde \Gamma}^{s,c}_{\chi}(\k,\k')$.
Figure \ref{fig:interaction} (e) shows the ratios
${\tilde \Gamma}^c_\chi(\k,\k')/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_\chi(\k,\k')$ and
${\tilde \Gamma}^c_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$
at $(i_\a,i_\b) \approx (8,38)$ [$\k-\k'\approx\Q$]
given by the RG+cRPA as functions of $U$.
We set $\w_c=12T=6\times10^{-3}$ and $J/U=0.08$.
$\k$ and $\k'$ are set as the start and end positions
of the nesting vector shown in Fig. \ref{fig:FS} (c).
For $U\rightarrow+0$,
both ${\tilde \Gamma}^c_\chi/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_\chi$ and
${\tilde \Gamma}^c_{\rm RG}/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_{\rm RG}$ are equal to $-1$.
They change to positive for $U \gtrsim 1$
since ${\tilde \Gamma}^c_{\chi({\rm RG})}$ changes to positive.
For $U\gtrsim2$, ${\tilde \Gamma}^c_\chi/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_\chi \ll1$
whereas ${\tilde \Gamma}^c_{\rm RG}/{\tilde \Gamma}^s_{\rm RG}\gg1$.
This result means that ${\tilde \Gamma}^{c(s)}_{\rm RG}$
is enlarged (suppressed) by the $U$-VC for wide range of $U$.
To summarize,
the spin-channel [charge-channel] interaction
is drastically reduced [enlarged] by the $U$-VC,
by making comparison between
Figs. \ref{fig:interaction} (a) and (c) [(b) and (d)].
We stress that, except for the magnitude, the structure of
${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$ and that of
${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_{\chi}(\k,\k')$ ($x=s,c$)
are very similar.
In addition, when $\k$ and $\k'$ are on the same FS,
both ${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_{\rm RG}$
and ${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_\chi$ remain small.
These facts reveal the importance of the single-fluctuation-exchange term
in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (b), since the
multi-fluctuation-exchange terms such as in
Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (c) give different momentum dependence.
On the basis of the Fermi liquid theory,
the same charge-channel $U$-VC enlarges the charge
irreducible susceptibility ${\hat \Phi}^c(q)$ and
the pairing interaction, as we show in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}.
Thus, the orbital-fluctuation-mediated pairing
will be strongly magnified by the $U$-VC
when the orbital fluctuations are driven by the VC.
\subsection{Analysis of the $U$-VC based on the perturbation theory}
\label{sec:UVC2}
In the previous section, we found the significant role of the
$U$-VC on the pairing interaction.
The orbital-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction
is strongly magnified by the charge channel $U$-VC.
We also found the strong suppression of
the spin-fluctuation-mediated interaction
due to the spin-channel VC in multiorbital systems.
In this section, we perform the diagrammatic calculation for the $U$-VC
shown in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (e),
and confirm that the charge channel $U$-VC
is strongly enlarged by the AL-VC.
In addition, the suppression by the spin channel $U$-VC
is mainly given by the $(U^0)^3$-term.
The charge- and spin-channel MT-terms in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (e)
are expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{c, {\rm MT}}_{l'm'lm} (k,k')
&=& \frac{T}{2} \sum_{q} \sum_{abcd} U^{0;c}_{l'm'bc}
\big\{ I^{c}_{aldm}(q)+3 I^{s}_{aldm}(q) \big\}
\nonumber \\
& &\times G_{ab}(k+q)G_{cd} (k'+q),
\\
U^{s, {\rm MT}}_{l'm'lm} (k, k')
&=& \frac{T}{2} \sum_{q} \sum_{abcd} U^{0;s}_{l'm'bc}
\big\{ I^{c}_{aldm}(q) - I^{s}_{aldm}(q) \big\}
\nonumber \\
& &\times G_{ab} (k+q) G_{cd} (k'+q),
\end{eqnarray}
where
${\hat I}^x(q)= {\hat U}^{0;x}
({\hat \chi}^x_{\rm RPA}(q)+\{{\hat U}^{0;x}\}^{-1}){\hat U}^{0;x}$.
Also, the charge- and spin-channel AL-terms in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (e) are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&U^{c, {\rm AL}}_{l'm'lm} (k, k')
= \frac{T}{2} \sum_{q} \sum_{abcdefgh} U^{0;c}_{l'm'af} \nonumber \\
&& \times \big\{ \Lambda_{abcdef} (k - k', q) + \Lambda_{fcbeda} (k - k', - q - k + k') \big\} \nonumber \\
&& \times \big\{ I^{c}_{bclg} (q + k - k') I^{c}_{mhed} (q) + 3 I^{s}_{bclg} (q + k - k') I^{s}_{mhed} (q) \big\} \nonumber \\
&& \times G_{gh} (k' - q) ,
\label{eqn:ALc} \\
&&U^{s, {\rm AL}}_{l'm'lm} (k, k')
= \frac{T}{2} \sum_{q} \sum_{abcdefgh} U^{0;s}_{l'm'af} \nonumber \\
&& \times \big\{ \Lambda_{abcdef} (k - k', q) + \Lambda_{fcbeda} (k - k', - q - k + k') \big\} \nonumber \\
&& \times \big\{ I^{s}_{bclg} (q + k - k') I^{c}_{mhed} (q) + I^{c}_{bclg} (q + k - k') )I^{s}_{mhed} (q) \big\} \nonumber \\
&& \times G_{gh} (k' - q)
\nonumber \\
&& + \delta U^{s, {\rm AL}}_{l'm'lm} (k, k'),
\label{eqn:ALs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a\sim h$ are orbital indices, and
${\hat \Lambda}(q,q')$ is the three-point vertex given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda_{abcdef} (q, q') = - T \sum_{p} G_{ab} (p + q) G_{cd} (p - q') G_{ef} (p) .
\end{eqnarray}
The last term in Eq. (\ref{eqn:ALs}) is given as
$\delta U^{s, {\rm AL}}_{l'm'lm} (k, k')
=\frac{T}{2} \sum_{q} \sum_{abcdefgh} U^{s, 0}_{l'm'af}
\big\{ \Lambda_{abcdef} (k - k', q) -
\Lambda_{fcbeda} (k - k', - q - k + k') \big\}
2 I^{s}_{bclg} (q + k - k') I^{s}_{mhed} (q) G_{gh} (k' - q)$,
which is found to be very small.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig8.eps}
\caption{(Color online)
(a) The ratios
$(U^x_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm diagram} \equiv
(U^x_{\rm with\mbox{-}{\it U}VC}(\k,\k')/U^x_{\rm no\mbox{-}{\it U}VC}(\k,\k'))^2$ ($x=c,s$)
given by the diagrammatic calculation as functions of the
spin Stoner factor $\a_S$.
For $U$-VC, we perform the diagrammatic calculation for
Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (e).
(b) Third-order term with respect to $U$ for $U$-VC:
We put $U=U'$ and $J=0$ for simplicity.
This term is scaled as $\sim (2N_{\rm orb}-1)$,
where $N_{\rm orb}$ is the number of $d$-orbital.
(c) $(U^x_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm RG} \equiv
{\tilde \Gamma}^x_{\rm RG}/{\tilde \Gamma}^x_{\chi}$
given by the RG+cRPA method for $2.0\le U \le 3.1$.
Inset: $(U^s_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm RG}$ for $0\le U\le 3.1$.
}
\label{fig:perturbation}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:perturbation} (a) shows the ratios
$(U^x_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm diagram} \equiv
(U^x_{\rm with\mbox{-}{\it U}VC}(\k,\k')/U^x_{\rm no\mbox{-}{\it U}VC}(\k,\k'))^2$ ($x=s,c$)
at $(i_\a,i_\b) \approx (8,38)$ [$\k-\k'\approx\Q$]
given by the diagrammatic calculation as functions of
the spin Stoner factor $\a_S$.
For $U$-VC, we perform the diagrammatic calculation for
Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (e).
The double counting of the $O(\{U^0\}^3)$-terms
is carefully eliminated.
Note that $\a_S$ is the largest eigenvalue of
${\hat \Gamma}^s{\hat\chi}^0(\Q)$,
and the relation $\chi^s(\Q)\propto (1-\a_S)^{-1}$ holds.
We find that $(U^c_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm diagram}$ gradually increases as the system
approaches to the magnetic quantum-critical-point ($\a_S\rightarrow1$).
The relation $(U^c_{\rm eff}/U^0)_{\rm diagram}^2\gg1$ originates from the
charge-channel AL-term since Eq. (\ref{eqn:ALc})
is approximately proportional to
$\sum_\q \chi^s(\q)\chi^s(\q+\Q) \sim (1-\a_S)^{-1}$.
In contrast, $(U^s_{\rm eff}/U^0)_{\rm diagram}^2$ is suppressed by the $U$-VC,
since the small spin-channel AL-term in Eq. (\ref{eqn:ALs})
is proportional to $\sum_\q \chi^s(\q)\chi^c(\q+\Q)$.
We verified that the relation $(U^s_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm diagram} \ll1$
mainly originates from the $O(\{U^0\}^3)$-term shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:perturbation} (b):
Its negative contribution is significant in multiorbital systems
since the diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:perturbation} (b)
is scaled as $\sim(2N_{\rm orb}-1)$, where
$N_{\rm orb}$ is the number of $d$-orbital.
Figure \ref{fig:perturbation} (c) shows
$(U^x_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm RG}
\equiv {\tilde \Gamma}^x_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')/{\tilde \Gamma}^x_{\chi}(\k,\k')$
($x=s,c$) at $(i_\a,i_\b) \approx (8,38)$ [$\k-\k'\approx\Q$]
obtained by the RG+cRPA study as function of $U$.
Here, $\w_c=12T=6\times10^{-3}$ and $J/U=0.08$.
This ratio is expect to give the square of the $U$-VC
when ${\hat \chi}^{s,c}(\q)$ develops strongly
in the strong-coupling region ($U\gtrsim2.5$),
in which the single-fluctuation-exchange term in
Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (b) becomes significant.
The obtained relations
$(U^c_{\rm eff}/U^0)_{\rm RG}^2\gg1$ and $(U^s_{\rm eff}/U^0)_{\rm RG}^2 \ll1$
in the strong-coupling region
are consistent with the results given by the
perturbation theory in Fig. \ref{fig:perturbation} (a).
The inset shows $(U^s_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm RG}$ for wide range of $U$:
The origin of its $U$-linear term for $U\sim0$ would be
some $U^2$-diagrams dropped in ${\tilde \Gamma}^x_{\chi}$,
which are less important for the strong-coupling region.
(Note that $(U^c_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2_{\rm RG}$ diverges at $U\approx 1.5$
since ${\tilde \Gamma}^x_{\chi}(\k,\k')$ changes its sign with $U$;
see in Fig. \ref{fig:interaction} (e).)
In summary,
the significant role of the $U$-VC has been confirmed
on the basis of the perturbation theory and the RG+cRPA theory.
Due to the $U$-VC,
the orbital- or charge-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction
is magnified by $(U^c_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2\gg1$
in the strong-coupling regime.
In contrast, the spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction
is suppressed by $(U^s_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2\ll1$,
and this suppression is prominent in multiorbital systems.
In the strong-coupling regime,
consistent results are obtained by the different two methods
shown in Figs. \ref{fig:perturbation} (a) and (c).
They do not coincide in the weak coupling regime
because of the different definitions of $(U^x_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2$
in Figs. \ref{fig:perturbation} (a) and (c).
\section{Discussions}
\label{sec:dis}
In this paper,
we analyzed the two-orbital Hubbard model by using the RG+cRPA theory
in order to confirm the realization condition for the
orbital-fluctuation-mediated SC.
To go beyond the ME approximation,
we solved the gap equation by including the VC for the EBC,
which is called the $U$-VC.
Due to the $U$-VC, the effective EBC for the charge (spin) channel,
${\hat U}^{c(s)}$, deviates from
the bare Coulomb interaction ${\hat U}^{0;c(s)}$.
We verified the relation
$|{\hat U}^{c}|\gg |{\hat U}^{0;c}|$ due to the charge-channel $U$-VC
in the presence of moderate spin fluctuations.
In contrast,
${\hat U}^{s}$ is significantly suppressed by the spin channel $U$-VC.
For these reasons,
orbital-fluctuation-mediated SC will be realized
in various multiorbital systems,
such as in Fe-based superconductors and Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
On the basis of the Fermi liquid theory,
the same charge-channel $U$-VC enlarges the charge
irreducible susceptibility ${\hat \Phi}^c(q)$ and
the pairing interaction, as we show in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}.
Thus, the orbital-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction
should be strongly enlarged by the square of the $U$-VC
when the orbital fluctuations are driven by the VC
in terms of the Fermi liquid theory.
In fact, the importance of the single-fluctuation-exchange term
in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (b) is
supported by the very similar momentum dependence
between ${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_{\rm RG}(\k,\k')$ and
${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_{\chi}(\k,\k')$ ($x=c,s$)
in Fig. \ref{fig:interaction} (a)-(d),
except for the magnitude.
The drastic difference in magnitude between
${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_{\rm RG}$ and ${\tilde \Gamma}^{x}_{\chi}$
demonstrates the significance of the $U$-VC.
We verified that the
crossing-fluctuation-exchange term in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (c),
which should have different momentum dependence,
is small in magnitude based on the perturbation method.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig9.eps}
\caption{The gap equation due to the $e$-ph interaction,
where the dotted line represents the phonon propagator
and $g$ is the $e$-ph coupling constant.
Due to the charge-channel $U$-VC
caused by spin fluctuations,
the phonon-mediated attractive interaction is
enlarged by the factor $(U^c_{\rm eff}/U^0)^2\gg1$.
}
\label{fig:phonon}
\end{figure}
We stress that the phonon-mediated attractive pairing
is also enlarged by the factor $({U}_{\rm eff}^{c}/{U}^{0})^2\gg1$,
as we explain in Fig. \ref{fig:phonon}.
The $s_{++}$-wave state in the single-layer FeSe
may be given by the electron-phonon ($e$-ph) attractive interaction
enhanced by the charge-channel $U$-VC.
Note that the relation $({U}_{\rm eff}^{c}/{U}^{0})^2\gg1$
in the presence of moderate spin fluctuations is realized
only in two- and three-dimensional systems.
If we apply the local approximation,
the charge-channel VC is proportional to the square of $\sum_q\chi^s(q)$,
which is less singular even for $\a_S\approx 1$.
In multiorbital models,
the spin-fluctuation-mediated pairing interaction
is strongly suppressed by the factor $({U}_{\rm eff}^{s}/{U}^{0})^2\ll1$.
This result does not contradict to the enhancement of spin susceptibility
$\chi^s(\q)$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig:diagram} (a),
since the $U$-VC is effective only at low energies,
whereas the irreducible susceptibility $\Phi^s$ in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1} (b)
is given by the integration for wide energy range.
In the context of the fRG,
$\chi^s(\q)$ starts to increase in the early stage of the renormalization,
whereas the $U$-VC develops in the later stage.
\acknowledgments
We are grateful to W. Metzner and C. Honerkamp
for useful comments and discussions. This study has been supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.
|
\section{Introduction}
In general relativity, hidden symmetries of spacetime such as
Killing tensors \cite{Stackel:1895} and
Killing-Yano tensors \cite{Yano:1952,Tachibana:1969,Kashiwada:1968,Kora:1980}
have helped us in understanding various phenomena
in a strong gravitational field.
An important example is the Kerr spacetime,
which describes an isolated stationary rotating black hole in a vacuum.
In the Kerr spacetime, the geodesic equations can be solved
by separation of variables due to the presence of a Killing tensor \cite{Carter:1968}.
It is also known that the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations can be solved
by separation of variables due to the presence of a Killing-Yano tensor
\cite{Carter:1977,Carter:1979}.
Moreover, if a four-dimensional spacetime possesses a (nondegenerate rank-2)
Killing-Yano tensor,
the canonical form for metrics is provided in the Carter-Plebanski form \cite{Dietz:1982}
and it is shown that the Kerr spacetime with a NUT parameter
is the only vacuum solution of the Einstein equations
with such hidden symmetry \cite{Carter:1968,Plebanski:1975}.
In recent years, hidden symmetries of higher-dimensional black hole
spacetimes have been uncovered
(see, e.g., \cite{Frolov:2008,Yasui:2011} for reviews).
In mathematics, (conformal) Killing tensors \cite{Heil:2015}
and (conformal) Killing-Yano tensors \cite{Semmelmann:2002}
have been studied from the modern geometric point of view.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss novel generalisations of
Killing tensors, as well as Killing-Yano tensors,
to stretch the concept of hidden symmetries of spacetime.
Various generalisations have been proposed in the past.
A remarkable one is the generalised (conformal) Killing-Yano tensors
introduced by Wu \cite{Wu:2009} and
Kubiz\v{n}\'ak, Kunduri and Yasui \cite{Kubiznak:2009}.
The authors replaced the Levi-Civita connection in the Killing-Yano
equation by connections with totally skew-symmetric torsion
\footnote{It should be remarked that the idea of considering connections
with totally skew-symmetric torsion was already
proposed by Strominger \cite{Strominger:1986}
in the context of string theories, where such a torsion is identified
with the 3-form flux livinging in the theories.}.
Recently, the generalised (conformal) Killing-Yano tensors
have been studied well in the context of string theories
\cite{Houri:2010,Houri:2013,Chow:2015,Chervonyi:2015,Santillan:2012,Batista:2015}.
On the other hand, such a generalisation does not affect the Killing equation.
Killing equations defined by connections with totally skew-symmetric torsion are,
if the connections satisfy the metric condition, completely equivalent
to the ordinary Killing equation with the Levi-Civita connection.
To generalise Killing tensors, we consider certain connections
which are torsion-free but do not satisfy the metric condition.
We replace the Levi-Civita connection in the Killing equation
by these connections.
Physically, this generalisation is justified
by considering rational first integrals of geodesic equations.
It is known that ordinary Killing tensors are introduced by
considering polynomial first integrals of geodesic equations.
The condition that a polynomial function is a first integral
leads us to the Killing equation.
In analogy with this, when we consider the condition
that a rational function is a first integral,
we are naturally led to introduce the generalised Killing equation
(see Sec.\ II for details).
In this paper, we shall restrict our analysis to the geodesic equations
on a space or spacetime $(M,g_{\mu\nu})$.
The Hamiltonian
is given by
\be
H = \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\nu}p_\mu p_\nu \,, \label{Hamiltonian}
\ee
where $g^{\mu\nu}$ is the inverse of $g_{\mu\nu}$.
We will use $x^\mu$ and $p_\mu$ as canonical coordinates
and momenta of a particle on $M$, respectively.
Geometrically, $(x^\mu,p_\mu)$ may be considered as local coordinates on $T^*M$.
Following the Kozlov's notaion \cite{Kozlov:2014}, we consider a rational first integral $F$,
which has the form
\be
F = \frac{P}{Q} \,, \label{basic1}
\ee
where $P$ and $Q$ are nonzero polynomials of degree $r$ and $s$ in $p_\mu$,
i.e., $F$ is rational in $p_\mu$.
We assume that $r \geq s$, which can be done without loss of generality
because, if $F$ is a first integral, $F^{-1}$ is also a first integral.
We also assume that $P$ and $Q$ are relatively prime
in the sense that
as polynomials in $p_\mu$ they have no common root.
Moreover, a rational first integral is said to be {\it irreducible}
if the degrees of $P$ and $Q$ cannot be reduced by using the Hamiltonian
or other first integrals.
For example, if $p_y/p_x$ is a first integral,
$(p_y+Hp_x)/p_x$ and $(p_x^2+p_y^2)/p_xp_y$ are also first integrals
but they are not irreducible.
Besides, we introduce the notion of {\it inconstructible}
rational first integrals, which has been little discussed
in previous works.
It is obvious that if $P$ and $Q$ are first integrals,
$F$ is a first integral.
Still obvious is that if there exists
a function on $M$, $\psi=\psi(x^\mu)$,
such that $\bar{P}=\psi P$ and $\bar{Q}=\psi Q$
are first integrals, $F=\bar{Q}/\bar{P}$ is a first integral.
This suggests that the rational first integrals which can be
constructed from two polynomial first integrals are not so meaningful.
Hence, we distinguish the ones from the others
which cannot be constructed from two first integrals.
Such rational first integrals are said to be inconstructible.
Although there is a possibility that $\psi$ is a function on $T^*M$,
$\psi=\psi(x^\mu,p_\mu)$, we do not think about such a case in this paper.
In mathematical physics, the study of rational first integrals
was already initiated by Darboux \cite{Darboux:1896}.
Related to it, a lot of works have been conducted.
Yet, many of them are about autonomous systems
and their significance in general relativity is unclear.
A striking example in general relativity is the Collinson-O'Donnell
solution \cite{Collinson:1992},
which is a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations
admitting a rational first integral of the geodesic equations.
However, as we will show in Sec.\ III, the rational first integral
is not inconstructible, so that the Collinson-O'Donnell
solution is not a nontrivial example in that sense.
Hence, it is another purpose of this paper to obtain nontrivial examples
for solutions in general relativity admitting an inconstructible rational first integral.
This paper is organised as follows: In the next section, we discuss the conditions
that $F$ is a first integral of geodesic equations
and show that they naturally introduce a generalisation of Killing tensors.
For Killing vectors, this was introduced by Collinson \cite{Collinson:1986}.
After introducing the notion of inconstructible generalised Killing tensors,
we provide a method for checking whether a generalised Killing tensor is
inconstructible.
We also show that the defining equation of the generalised Killing tensors
can be written in the same form as ordinary Killing tensors, where
the Levi-Civita connection is replaced by certain connections.
Furthermore, we provide the integrability conditions
for generalised Killing vectors in terms of the present connections.
In Sec.\ III, by using the method we provided in Sec.\ II,
we investigate whether the rational first integral
of the Collinson-O'Donnell solution is inconstructible.
In Sec.\ IV, we construct several metrics admitting an inconstructible rational first integral
in two and four dimensions, by using the Maciejewski-Przybylska system \cite{Maciejewski:2004}.
At the same time, we investigate their geometric properties
described by the metrics obtained.
In Sec.\ V, we generalise other hidden symmetries:
conformal Killing tensors, Killing-Yano tensors
and conformal Killing-Yano tensors.
Sec.\ VI is devoted to summary and discussion.
\section{Generalised Killing tensors}
\subsection{Rational first integrals and generalised Killing tensors}
The condition that $F$, given by Eq.\ \eref{basic1},
is a first integral for a Hamiltonian $H$, given by Eq.\ \eref{Hamiltonian},
leads to
\be
\{P,H\}Q - \{Q,H\}P = 0 \,, \label{eq3}
\ee
where $\{~,~\}$ is the Poisson bracket.
Introduced an auxiliary function $A$,
it is equivalent to
\be
\{P,H\} = AP \,, \quad \{Q,H\} = AQ \,, \label{basic3}
\ee
where $A$ is called a {\it cofactor} of $P$ and $Q$.
When $P$ and $Q$ are homogeneous polynomials, they are written as $P = \xi^{\mu_1\cdots \mu_r}p_{\mu_1}\cdots p_{\mu_r}$ and $Q = \eta^{\mu_1\cdots \mu_s}p_{\mu_1}\cdots p_{\mu_s}$, where $\xi_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_r}$ and
$\eta_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_s}$ are totally symmetric tensors.
Substituting these expressions into Eqs.\ \eref{basic3} together with the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamiltonian}) and evaluating it order by order in $p_\mu$, we find that $A$ is required to be a polynomial of linear order in $p_\mu$, so that writing $A$ as $A = f^\mu p_\mu$, we are able to rewrite Eqs.\ \eref{basic3} as
\be
\nabla_{(\nu}\xi_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_r)} = f_{(\nu}\xi_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_r)} \,, \quad
\nabla_{(\nu}\eta_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_s)} = f_{(\nu}\eta_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_s)} \,, \label{GKSeq}
\ee
where $\nabla_\mu$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection and
the round bracket denotes symmetrisation of indices.
If $P$ and $Q$ are inhomogeneous polynomials, we divide them into the parts by order, i.e., $P=\sum_{k=0}^{r}P_k$ and $Q=\sum_{k=0}^{s}Q_k$ where $P_k$ and $Q_k$ denote the order-$k$ parts of $P$ and $Q$, respectively. We then find in the similar fashion above that since the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamiltonian}) is homogeneous, $A$ is required to be a polynomial of linear order in $p_\mu$, and $P_k$ and $Q_k$ satisfy
\be
\{P_k,H\} = AP_k \,, \quad \{Q_k,H\} = AQ_k \,, \label{basic3_2}
\ee
for every $k$, which lead to Eqs.\ (\ref{GKSeq}) order by order in $p_\mu$. Hence, if a Hamiltonian is homogeneous, we have only to consider the case when $P$ and $Q$ are homogeneous. Eqs.\ (\ref{GKSeq}) have the same form as the Killing tensor equations if $f_\mu=0$. This motivates us to introduce the following definition for generalised Killing tensors.
\begin{definition}
A symmetric tensor $K_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_p}$ is called a generalised Killing tensor
if there exists a 1-form $f_\mu$ satisfying the differential equation
\be
\nabla_{(\nu}K_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_p)}
= f_{(\nu}K_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_p)} \,, \label{GKSeq2}
\ee
where $f_\mu$ is called the associated 1-form of $K_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_p}$.
In particular, a generalised Killing tensor is called a Killing tensor
if the associated 1-form vanishes.
\end{definition}
For rank 1, they are the generalised Killing vectors
introduced by Collinson \cite{Collinson:1986}.
To obtain a rational first integral of geodesic equations,
we need to find a pair of generalised Killing tensors $\xi_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_r}$ and $\eta_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_s}$
satisfying the conditions \eref{GKSeq}
with a common associated 1-form $f_\mu$.
This pair is called a Killing pair \cite{Vaz:1992,Collinson:1992}.
It is worth commenting that in the defining equation (\ref{GKSeq2}), the associated 1-form $f_\mu$ is uniquely determined. If there were two different associated 1-forms $f^{(1)}_\mu$ and $f^{(2)}_\mu$, it would lead to the existence of the 1-form $k_\mu\equiv f^{(2)}_\mu-f^{(1)}_\mu$ which satisfies
\be
k_{(\nu}K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p)}=0 \,. \label{forproof}
\ee
However, such a 1-form does not exist because it is possible to show that if one component of $k_\mu$ is nonzero, all the components of $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ must vanish: Let $k_i$ be a nonzero component of $k_\mu$ $(0 \leq i \leq n= \dim M)$. Then the $(i, i, \cdots, i)$ component of Eq.\ \eref{forproof}, $k_i K_{i i \cdots i} = 0$, induces $K_{i i \cdots i} = 0$. Next, for $j \neq i$, the $(i, i, \cdots, i, j)$ component of Eq.\ \eref{forproof}, $n K_{ii\cdots ij} k_i + K_{ii\cdots ii} k_j =0$, leads to $K_{ii\cdots ij} = 0$. Moreover, for $\ell \neq j, i$, the $(i, i, \cdots, i, j, \ell)$ component of Eq.\ \eref{forproof}, $(n-1) K_{ii\cdots ij\ell} k_i + K_{ii\cdots ij} k_\ell + K_{ii \cdots i\ell} k_j =0$, leads to $K_{ii\cdots ij\ell} = 0$. In the repetitive manner, it is shown that all the components of $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ vanish.
We find some properties of the generalised Killing tensors.
Given two generalised Killing tensors,
their symmetric tensor product is also a generalised Killing tensor.
If two generalised Killing tensors have the common associated 1-form,
their linear combination is also a generalised Killing tensor.
The following property is about
a functional multiplication of a generalised Killing tensor.
\begin{prop}
Suppose $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ is a generalised Killing tensor.
Then, $\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}\equiv \psi K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$
is also a generalised Killing tensor for an arbitrary function $\psi$.
\end{prop}
{\it Proof.}\quad
Since $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ satisfies Eq.\ \eref{GKSeq2}, we have
\ba
\nabla_{(\nu}\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p)}
&=& K_{(\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}\partial_{\nu)}\psi
+ f_{(\nu}K_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_p)} \psi \nonumber\\
&=& \bar{f}_{(\nu}\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_p)}\,,
\ea
where $\bar{f}_\mu=f_\mu + \partial_\mu \ln \psi$.\hfill$\Box$\\
From this proposition, it turns out that a functional
multiplication of a Killing tensor
is also a generalised Killing tensor.
However, not all generalised Killing tensors
can be written as a functional multiplication of a Killing tensor.
A generalised Killing tensor $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$
is said to be {\it inconstructible} if there exists no function $\psi$
such that $\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}\equiv \psi K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$
is a Killing tensor.
This notion is important due to the fact that
if we construct a rational first integral from
two constructible generalised Killing tensors with a common associated 1-form,
the first integral obtained becomes constructible.
\begin{prop}
A generalised Killing tensor is constructible if
and only if the associated 1-form is closed.
\end{prop}
{\it Proof.} Let $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ be a generalised Killing tensor, which satisfies Eq.\ \eref{GKSeq2}. (if) Since the associated 1-form $f_\mu$ is closed, $\nabla_{[\mu}f_{\nu]}=0$,
there exists a function $\psi$
such that $f_\mu=\partial_\mu \ln \psi$.
Using this function, we define
$\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}\equiv \psi^{-1} K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ and
find that $\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ is a Killing tensor,
which satisfies the Killing equation $\nabla_{(\nu}\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p)}=0$.
(only if) Since $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ is constructible, there exists a function $\psi$ such that $\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}\equiv \psi^{-1} K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ is a Killing tensor.
Using this, we obtain
\be
\nabla_{(\nu}K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p)}
= \nabla_{(\nu}\Big(\psi\bar{K}_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p)}\Big)
= \Big(\partial_{(\nu}\ln \psi\Big) K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p)} \,.
\ee
Since $f_\mu$ must be given uniquely, $f_\mu$ is written by $f_\mu=\partial_\mu \ln \psi$.
Hence, if $K_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ is constructible, then $f_\mu$ is closed.\hfill$\Box$\\
Given a rational first integral, we obtain a pair of generalised Killing tensors with the common associated 1-form.
Proposition II.3 states that
by investigating whether the associated 1-form
is closed or not, we can check whether
a rational frist integral is inconstructible.
Using this fact, we investigate
several concrete examples of rational first integrals
in the next two sections.
\subsection{Geometric formulation of generalised Killing tensors}
Let us introduce the connection ${\cal D}_\mu$ on $\bigotimes^n T^*M$
which acts on a tensor $T_{\mu_1\dots\mu_n}$ as
\be
{\cal D}_\mu T_{\nu_1\dots\nu_n} = \nabla_\mu T_{\nu_1\dots\nu_n}
- \sum_{i=1}^n A_{(\mu}
T_{|\nu_1\cdots\nu_{i-1}|\nu_i)\nu_{i+1}\dots\nu_n} \,,
\label{connection_2}
\ee
where $A_\mu$ is a 1-form.
This connection is torsion-free, and
the metric condition does not hold, ${\cal D}_\mu g_{\nu\rho}\neq 0$.
Hence, the curvature tensor of ${\cal D}_\mu$, defined by
${\cal R}_{\mu\nu\rho}{}^\sigma V_\sigma\equiv
({\cal D}_\mu {\cal D}_\nu-{\cal D}_\nu {\cal D}_\mu) V_\rho$,
has antisymmetry with respect to the initial two indices,
${\cal R}_{\mu\nu\rho}{}^\sigma=-{\cal R}_{\nu\mu\rho}{}^\sigma$,
and the Bianchi identities ${\cal R}_{[\mu\nu\rho]}{}^\sigma=0$
while antisymmetry of the latter two indices does not hold.
Using this connection, we can show that
the generalised Killing tensor equation \eref{GKSeq2}
is written in the form
\be
{\cal D}_{(\mu}K_{\nu_1\dots \nu_p)} = 0 \,, \label{GKSeq3}
\ee
with the identification of $f_\mu=p A_\mu$.
The point is that this equation has same form as the ordinary Killing tensor equation,
where the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla_\mu$ is replaced
by the present connection ${\cal D}_\mu$.
This fact is suggestive to generalise other hidden symmetries.
Since ordinary Killing tensors form a (graded) Lie algebra
with respect to the Schouten-Nijenhuis (SN) bracket of the Levi-Civita connection
\cite{Dubois-Violette:1995,Cariglia:2011},
it would be interesting to ask whether generalised Killing tensors do as well.
Unfortunately, it fails with respect to the SN bracket of neither the Levi-Civita connection
nor the present connection.
\subsection{Integrability conditions}
An application of introducing the torsion-free connection \eref{connection_2} is that
the integrability conditions for generalised Killing tensors
can be written in a simple form.
For simplicity, let us consider generalised Killing vectors,
which are given by
\be
{\cal D}_{(\mu}\xi_{\nu)}= 0 \,. \label{GKV}
\ee
The integrability conditions for generalised Killing vectors
were already provided by Collinson\cite{Collinson:1986},
which are written in terms of the Riemann tensor and the associated 1-form
but the expressions provided are rather complicated.
On the other hand, we now obtain from Eq.\ \eref{GKV} the equations
\ba
{\cal D}_\mu \xi_\nu &=& L_{\mu\nu} \,, \\
{\cal D}_\mu L_{\nu\rho} &=&
- {\cal R}_{\nu\rho\mu}{}^\sigma \xi_\sigma \,,
\ea
where $L_{\mu\nu}\equiv {\cal D}_{[\mu}\xi_{\nu]}$.
Hence, the integrability conditions
for generalised Killing vectors are given by
\be
{\cal D}_{[\mu}{\cal R}_{|\rho\sigma|\nu]}{}^\lambda \xi_\lambda
+ {\cal R}_{\mu\nu[\rho}{}^\lambda L_{\sigma]\lambda}
+ {\cal R}_{\rho\sigma[\mu}{}^\lambda L_{\nu]\lambda} = 0 \,,
\ee
which has same form as those for ordinary Killing vectors
but the Riemann tensor $R_{\mu\nu\rho}{}^\sigma$ has been
replaced by the curvature tensor ${\cal R}_{\mu\nu\rho}{^\sigma}$.
This is also available for generalised Killing tensors of arbitrary rank.
The integrability conditions
for second-rank Killing tensors have been provided
in terms of the Riemann tensor \cite{Hauser:1975}.
Replacing the Riemann tensor with
the curvature tensor of ${\cal D}_\mu$,
we will obtain the integrability conditions
for second-rank generalised Killing tensors.
\section{Collinson-O'Donnell solution}
Vaz and Collinson \cite{Vaz:1992} have found the canonical forms for the metrics of spacetimes
in four dimensions admitting a pair of generalised Killing vectors
under the assumption that one of the generalised Killing vectors is hypersurface orthogonal.
Using one of the results,
which is the case when one of the generalised Killing vectors is null
and not orthogonal to another, Collinson and O'Donnell \cite{Collinson:1992}
have obtained the solutions of the vacuum Einstein equations,
which were classified into two cases.
The solution of Case 2 was given in the form
\ba
ds^2 &=& - \frac{y}{x}dtdx + \frac{yt}{x^2}dx^2
+ \frac{\alpha^2}{2\sqrt{y}}(dy^2+dz^2) \\
& & - \frac{2\sqrt{y}\,\alpha^2}{x}dx\left(
\frac{f}{\sqrt{y}} dy - g \sqrt{y} dz\right) \,, \nonumber
\label{metric_CD_case2}
\ea
where $\alpha$ is a constant,
$f$ and $g$ are arbitrary functions of $y$ and $z$ satisfying
the differential equations
\be
\partial_yf-y \partial_zg = -\frac{C^2}{y^2\sqrt{y}} \,, \quad
\partial_zf+y \partial_yg = \frac{C}{y\sqrt{y}} \label{cond_fg}
\ee
with a constant $C$.
For this metric, the geodesic equations
admit an irreducible rational first integral
\be
F = \frac{p_x}{p_t} \,,
\ee
and a pair of generalised Killing vectors
$\partial_t$ and $\partial_x$ can be found
with the common associated 1-form $(2/x) dx$.
We note that $F$ is a rational first integral
even if $f$ and $g$ do not satisfy Eq.\ \eref{cond_fg}.
Since the associated 1-from is closed,
we find from Proposition II.3 that
the rational first integral is constructible.
Indeed, we find that
$x \partial_t$ and $x \partial_x$ are independent Killing vectors,
and the rational first integral is given by $F=Q_2/Q_1$
with two independent polynomial first integrals $Q_1=x p_t$ and $Q_2=x p_x$.
The solution of Case 1 is obtained as the limiting case.
Indeed, if we take $y\to 1 + \epsilon y$ and $z\to\epsilon z$
with $f\to \epsilon f$, $g\to\epsilon g$ and
$\alpha^2\to\alpha^2/\epsilon^2$ and then send $\epsilon\to 0$,
we obtain the metric
\ba
ds^2 &=& - \frac{1}{x}dtdx + \frac{t}{x^2}dx^2 \nonumber\\
& &+ \frac{\alpha^2}{2}(dy^2+dz^2)
- \frac{2\alpha^2}{x}dx(
f dy-g dz) \,, \label{metric_CD_case1}
\ea
where $f$ and $g$ are functions of $y$ and $z$ satisfying
\be
\partial_yf- \partial_zg = -C^2 \,, \quad
\partial_zf+ \partial_yg = C \,.
\ee
Since this metric still has two independent Killing vectors $x \partial_x$ and $x \partial_t$, two generalised Killing vectors
$\partial_t$ and $\partial_x$ are not inconstructible.
It consequently follows that the rational first integral is not inconstructible.
\section{Metrics admitting an inconstructible rational first integral}
\subsection{Two dimensions}
To construct metrics admitting an inconstructible rational first integral in two dimensions,
we consider the Maciejewski-Przybylska system \cite{Maciejewski:2004}.
The Hamiltonian is given by
\be
H = \frac{1}{2}(p_x^2+p_y^2)
+ f(p_x,p_y) (x p_x-\alpha yp_y) \,, \label{Hamiltonian_MP}
\ee
where $\alpha$ is a constant and $f(p_x,p_y)$ is a function of $p_x$ and $p_y$.
The Hamiltonian admits a first integral of the form
\be
F = p_x^\alpha p_y \label{FI_MP}
\ee
for arbitrary $\alpha$ and $f$.
To obtain a rational first integral,
we assume that $\alpha$ is a negative rational number.
Actually, setting $\alpha=-s/r$ with relatively prime,
positive integers $r$ and $s$,
we have a rational first integral $F^r = p_y^r/p_x^s$.
Moreover, we take $f=p_x+p_y$ to make the Hamiltonian quadratic.
Then, the Hamiltonian describes geodesic flows on a two-dimensional surface
with the metric
\be
ds^2 = \frac{(1-2 \alpha y)dx^2
-2 (x- \alpha y)dx dy+(1+2x)dy^2 }{Q(x,y)} \,, \label{metric1}
\ee
where
\be
Q(x,y) = 1+2x-2 \alpha y-(x+\alpha y)^2 \,. \label{func_Q}
\ee
A single parameter $\alpha$ is contained.
First, we focus on the case when $\alpha=-1$.
In this case, the metric \eref{metric1} is flat.
Since the first integral is given by $F=p_y/p_x$,
$\partial_x$ and $\partial_y$ are generalised Killing vectors.
The common associated 1-form
is dual to $- (\partial_x + \partial_y)$.
Since the associated 1-form is closed,
it turns out from Proposition 2.3 that $\partial_x$
and $\partial_y$ are constructible.
More explicitly, we perform the coordinate transformation
\be
x=u+v+\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2) \,, \quad
y=u-v+\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2) \,.
\ee
In the $(u,v)$ coordinates, the metric is given by $ds^2=du^2+dv^2$
and the generalised Killing vectors are given by
\ba
&& \partial_x = \frac{1-v}{1+u}\partial_u + \partial_v
= \frac{1}{1+u}\left(
\partial_u +\partial_v - (v\partial_u-u\partial_v)\right) \,, \\
&& \partial_y = \frac{1+v}{1+u}\partial_u - \partial_v
= \frac{1}{1+u}\left(
\partial_u-\partial_v +(v\partial_u-u\partial_v) \right) \,.
\ea
Indeed, they are constructible.
For general $\alpha=-s/r$, since $F^r=p_y^r/p_x^s$ is a rational first integral,
$(\partial_x)^s$ and $(\partial_y)^r$
are respectively generalised Killing tensors
with the common associated 1-form which is dual to $-s (\partial_x +\partial_y)$.
Since the associated 1-form is not closed except for $\alpha=-1$,
the rational first integral is inconstructible for $\alpha\neq -1$.
Thus, we have constructed the metric \eref{metric1}
admitting an inconstructible rational first integral of the geodesic equations in two dimensions,
with the exception for the flat case ($\alpha=-1$).
\subsection{Four dimensions}
We are able to generalise the Maciejewski-Przybylska system \eref{Hamiltonian_MP}
to the $n$-dimensional system.
The Hamiltonian is given by
\be
H = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n p_i^2
+ f(p_1,\dots,p_n) \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i x^i p_i \,, \label{Hamiltonian_MP_Ddim}
\ee
where $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$ are constants and
$f(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ is a function of $p_1,\dots,p_n$.
The Hamiltonian admits a first integral
\be
F = p_1^{\beta_1}p_2^{\beta_2}\cdots p_n^{\beta_n} \,, \label{rfi_MP}
\ee
where $\beta_1,\dots,\beta_n$ are constants satisfying the condition
\be
\alpha_1\beta_1 + \alpha_2\beta_2 + \dots + \alpha_n\beta_n = 0 \,.
\ee
We remark that this system is integrable because Eq.\ \eref{rfi_MP} describes $n-1$ constants of motion at the same time.
In fact, introducing $n-1$ constants $Q_i$ $(i=2,\dots,n)$,
we obtain the relations
$p_i = Q_i p_1^{\alpha_i/\alpha_1}$ for $i=2,\dots,n$.
Moreover, substitute these relations into the Hamiltonian
and consider the energy $H=Q_1$, then, in principle,
all the momenta can be written as functions of $x^\mu$
including $n$ constants $Q_i$, $p_i = p_i(x^1,\dots,x^n;Q_1,\dots,Q_n)$.
When we take $f$ as $f=a_1 p_1+a_2p_2 + \dots + a_n p_n$,
where $a_1,\dots,a_n$ are constants,
the Hamiltonian \eref{Hamiltonian_MP_Ddim} describes
geodesic flows on the $n$-dimensional curved space
with the inverse metric
\be
g^{ii} = 1 + 2 a_i\alpha_i x^i \,, \quad
g^{ij} = a_j \alpha_i x^i + a_i\alpha_j x^j \,.
\ee
For simplicity, let us consider the Maciejewski-Przybylska
in four dimensions.
Moreover, we adopt the following setup:
$a_1=a_2=a_3=1$, $a_4=-\sqrt{-1}$, $\alpha_1=1$, $\alpha_2=-\alpha$ and
$\alpha_3=\alpha_4=0$.
Under this setup, the Hamiltonian
is independent of the coordinates $x^3$ and $x^4$,
so that $p_3$ and $p_4$ are first integrals.
Since another first integral is given by $F=p_1^{\beta_1}p_2^{\beta_2}$
with $\beta_1-\beta_2 \alpha=0$,
we normalise $\beta_2$ as $\beta_2=1$ and then obtain $\beta_1=\alpha$.
Moreover, identifying the coordinates $x^1,x^2,x^3$ as $x,y,z$ and $x^4$
as $\sqrt{-1}\,w$, we obtain the Hamiltonian
\ba
H &=& \frac{1}{2}(p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2-p_w^2) \nonumber\\
& & + (p_x+p_y+p_z+p_w)(xp_x-\alpha yp_y)
\ea
with the first integrals $p_z$, $p_w$ and $F=p_x/p_y^\alpha$.
Hence, we obtain one-parameter family of four-dimensional metrics
admitting integrable geodesic flows.
In particular, when we take $\alpha=-1$, the metric becomes scalar-flat.
Namely, the scalar curvature vanishes while the Ricci tensor is nonzero.
The components of the scalar-flat metric are given by
\ba
&& g_{xx} = \frac{1+2y}{K(x,y)} \,, \quad
g_{yy} = \frac{1+2x}{K(x,y)} \,, \quad
g_{xy} = \frac{-x-y}{K(x,y)} \,, \nonumber\\
&& g_{zz} = \frac{1+2x+2y+2xy}{K(x,y)} \,, \quad
g_{zw} = \frac{-x^2-y^2}{K(x,y)} \,, \nonumber\\
&& g_{xz} = \frac{y^2-xy-x}{K(x,y)} \,, \quad
g_{yz} = \frac{x^2-xy-y}{K(x,y)} \,, \\
&& g_{ww} = \frac{2(x-y)^2-1-2x-2y+2xy}{K(x,y)} \,, \nonumber\\
&& g_{xw} = \frac{-y^2+xy+x}{K(x,y)} \,, \quad
g_{yw} = \frac{-x^2+xy+y}{K(x,y)} \,, \nonumber \label{metric2}
\ea
where
\be
K(x,y) = 1+2x+2y+2xy-x^2-y^2 \,.
\ee
This metric admits a rational first integral $F=p_y/p_x$,
which is inconstructible.
Thus, we have constructed the scalar-flat metric \eref{metric2}
admitting an inconstructible rational first integral of the geodesic equations in four dimensions.
We expected the scalar-flat metric being a solution
of the Einstein-Maxwell equations in four dimensions,
but it ended up in failure unfortunately.
\section{Generalised hidden symmetries}
\subsection{Generalised conformal Killing tensors}
For the integration of the equations of motion in a constrained system with $H=0$,
it is sufficient to find a quantity conserved at least along the zero energy orbits.
Denoted by $F$, such a quantity is expressed by the condition $\{H,F\}=LH$ with some function $L$.
If we consider $F$ as polynomial in momenta,
the condition leads to the conformal Killing tensor equation
\be
\nabla_{(\mu}K_{\nu_1\dots \nu_p)}
= g_{(\mu\nu_1}N_{\nu_2\cdots\nu_p)} \,, \label{CKS}
\ee
where $N_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_{p-1}}$ is a symmetric tensor.
In analogy to this, we consider $F$ as a rational quantity in momenta.
When $F$ is given by Eq.\ \eref{basic1}, the condition is written as
\be
\{H,P\}=AP+L_1H \,, \quad
\{H,Q\}=AQ+L_2H \,,
\ee
where $A$, $L_1$ and $L_2$ are some functions
related to $L$ by $L=L_1Q-L_2P$.
Hence, writing $P$, $A$ and $L_1$ as
$P=K^{\mu_1\dots\mu_p}p_{\mu_1}\dots p_{\mu_p}$,
$A=f^\mu p_\mu$ and $L_1=N^{\mu_1\dots\mu_{p-1}}p_{\mu_1}\dots p_{\mu_{p-1}}$,
we obtain the generalised Killing tensor equation
\be
{\cal D}_{(\mu}K_{\nu_1\dots \nu_p)}
= g_{(\mu\nu_1}N_{\nu_2\cdots\nu_p)} \,, \label{GCKS}
\ee
where ${\cal D}_\mu$ is the connection given by Eq.\ \eref{connection_2}.
If ${\cal D}_\mu$ were the Levi-Civita connection,
this equation would be the conformal Killing tensor equation.
Hence, we call the symmetric tensor $K_{\mu_1\dots\mu_p}$ satisfying
the equation \eref{GCKS} a generalised conformal Killing tensor.
In the same manner as generalised Killing tensors, we need to find a pair
of generalised conformal Killing tensors with a common connection
to obtain a rational quantity conserved only along the zero energy orbits.
\subsection{Generalised (conformal) Killing-Yano tensors}
Employing the connection ${\cal D}_\mu$,
we may define the generalised Killing-Yano tensor
$f_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ by the differential equation
\be
{\cal D}_{(\mu}f_{\nu_1)\nu_2\cdots\nu_p} = 0 \,, \label{GKY}
\ee
where $f_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$ is a $p$-form.
If the connection ${\cal D}_\mu$ is the Levi-Civita connection,
this equation is the Killing-Yano equation.
In the similar fashion, we are also able to define
the generalised conformal Killing-Yano tensor $f_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$
by the differential equation
\be
{\cal D}_{(\mu}f_{\nu)\rho_1\cdots\nu_{p-1}}
= g_{\mu\nu}\xi_{\rho_1\cdots \rho_{p-1}}
+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^i g_{\rho_i(\mu}
\xi_{\nu)\rho_1\cdots\hat{\rho}_i\cdots\rho_{p-1}} \,, \label{GCKY}
\ee
where the hat ($\hat{~}$) eliminates the index and
\be
\xi_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_{p-1}}
= \frac{1}{n-p+1} {\cal D}^\nu f_{\nu\mu_1\cdots \mu_{p-1}}
\ee
is called the associated $(p-1)$-form of $f_{\mu_1\cdots\mu_p}$
and $n$ is the dimension of a space or spacetime.
If the connection ${\cal D}_\mu$ is the Levi-Civita connection,
this equation is the conformal Killing-Yano equation.
It is remarkable that these generalised (conformal) Killing-Yano tensors
are also related to rational first integrals of geodesic equations
because the "square" of a generalised (conformal) Killing-Yano
tensor, $K_{\mu\nu}\equiv f_{\mu\rho_1\cdots \rho_{p-1}}
f_\nu{}^{\rho_1\cdots\rho_{p-1}}$, becomes
a generalised (conformal) Killing tensor.
Further investigation are left as a future problem.
\section{Summary and discussion}
In this paper, we have discussed rational first integrals of geodesic equations.
We introduced the notion of inconstructible rational first integrals,
which cannot be constructed from two polynomial first integrals,
and showed in Proposition 2.3 that a rational first integral is
not inconstructible if and only if the associated 1-form of the generalised Killing tensors
read from the rational first integral is closed.
Using this fact, we showed that the rational first integral of the Collinson-O'Donnell solution is not inconstructible.
We also constructed several examples for metrics in two and four dimensions
admitting an inconstructible first integral of geodesic equations
by using the Maciejewski-Przybylska system.
In particular, we obtained a scalar-flat metric in four dimensions.
Unfortunately, the scalar-flat metric is not a solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations.
Hence, it would be an important task in general relativity
to construct a physically interesting solution of Einstein equations.
We have discussed novel generalisations of hidden spacetime symmetries,
which are related to rational first integrals of geodesic equations.
The generalised Killing tensors \eref{GKSeq3} are defined
by the Killing equation with the Levi-Civita connection
replaced by the torsion-free connection \eref{connection_2}.
In the similar fashion, we introduced the generalised
conformal Killing tensors \eref{GCKS}, Killing-Yano tensors \eref{GKY}
and conformal Killing-Yano tensors \eref{GCKY}.
In this paper, we have worked based on some geometric aspects of hidden symmetries.
However, as the concept of hidden spacetime symmetries have helped us
in understanding various gravitational phenomena especially in black hole physics,
it would be meaningful to consider their applications.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Jiro Soda for useful comments. This work
was supported by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.\ 26$\cdot$1237.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the observations of \mbox{H II}\ regions, broad H$\alpha$ lines with widths in excess of 100\,km\,s$^{-1}$ have been reported in a number of papers. For example, \citet{Castaneda90} reported a broad feature with FWHM$\sim 500$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ in the H$\alpha$ and [N\,II] emission lines of the giant extragalactic \mbox{H II}\ region NGC\,5471, while for an extragalactic \mbox{H II}\ region in NGC\,2363, \citet{Roy92} discovered an even wider feature with FWHM$\sim2400$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. This is seen in H$\alpha$, H$\beta$ and in the [O\,III] lines. In both these cases, the broad features are present in the forbidden as well as the recombination lines, showing that we are dealing with excitation of high-velocity plasma such as stellar winds or supernova remnants.
Certainly, fast bulk motions powered by mechanical energy input from the exciting stars has been identified by \citet{Rozas06} in bright, isolated \mbox{H II}\ regions in spiral galaxies. However, the velocities involved here are $\lesssim 100$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. For objects displaying broader features such as NGC\,2363, \citet{Binette09} developed a plausible model based upon photo-evaporating dense clouds embedded in a fast stellar wind. Here turbulent mixing and entrainment of the photo-evaporated material into the stellar wind flow was shown to reproduce the observed line profiles in both the forbidden and the recombination lines.
Up to the present, broad H$\alpha$ features with widths in excess of 1000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ have not been reported in `normal' \mbox{H II}\ regions excited by one or a few central stars. In this paper, we provide very high dynamic range spectrophotometry with good resolution ($R=7000$) using the Wide-Field Spectrograph \citep[WiFeS,][]{Dopita07,Dopita10} for six high-surface brightness, young, but otherwise normal \mbox{H II}\ regions around single O-stars or small clusters. Five of these are located in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) or the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), and we also have data on a Galactic \mbox{H II}\ region, the Orion Nebula (M42). For all six objects observed, we find broad Lorentzian tails underlying the H$\alpha$ line extending out to an apparent radial velocity of at least $\sim7600$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Here we demonstrate that these wings are not the result of bulk motions, but arise as a consequence of Raman scattering fluorescence of O\,I and Si\,II resonance lines and stellar UV continuum which excite H\,I to a virtual level near the Ly$\beta$ transition. This is the first time this process has been observed in \mbox{H II}\ regions.
\section{Observations}
The spectroscopic data were obtained the Wide-Field Spectrograph. This instrument, an image-slicing double-beam integral-field spectrograph, is mounted at the Nasmyth focus of the Australian National University 2.3m telescope located at the Siding Spring Observatory, Australia. It provides 25$\times$38 spaxels each $1\times$\,1\arcsec\ in angular size. We used the $R=7000$ gratings, in two separate setups which allows us to construct continuous spectra with adequate overlap of coverage between gratings. Our data cover the full wavelength range $3300-8950$\AA\, at a velocity resolution of $\Delta v =45\,$km\,s$^{-1}$.
The observational data were obtained during two runs covering the nights of October 21-23, 2014, and November 10-15, 2015. In the case of M42, we observed a bright but moderately featureless region centered at RA = 05hr 35m 12.3s, Dec = -05:22:24 (J2000), with the long axis of the WiFeS aperture oriented E--W.
All the remaining objects fitted entirely within the WiFeS field of view, allowing us to extract their global spectra.
In order to properly correct for saturation of the CCD in the cores of the strong lines, stepped exposure times were used (e.g. 10s, 100s and 800s in Orion and 20s, 60s and 900s in N88A). Absolute photometric calibration of the data cubes was made using the STIS spectrophotometric standard stars HD\,009051, HD\,031128 and HD\,200654\footnote{Fluxes available at: \newline {\url{www.mso.anu.edu.au/~bessell/FTP/Bohlin2013/GO12813.html}}}. In addition, the B-type stars HIP\,18926, HIP\,111085, and HIP\,106768 were used to provide improved telluric calibration. Separate corrections for the OH and H$_2$O telluric absorption features were made. Arc and bias frames were also taken regularly, and internal continuum lamp flat fields and twilight sky flats were taken in order to provide sensitivity corrections in both the spectral and spatial directions.
The data were reduced using the {\tt PyWiFeS v0.7.3} pipeline written for the instrument \citep{Childress14a, Childress14b}. In brief, this produces a data cube which has been wavelength calibrated, sensitivity corrected (including telluric corrections), photometrically calibrated, and from which the cosmic ray events have been removed. Because the {\tt PyWiFeS} pipeline uses an optical model of the spectrograph to provide the wavelength calibration, the wavelength solution is good across the whole field, and does not rely on any interpolation of the data, since each spaxel is assigned a precise wavelength and spatial coordinate.
From each data cube, we extracted integral spectra of the \mbox{H II}\ region in the case of the LMC and SMC objects based on the observed spatial extent of the nebula in H$\alpha$. In the case of the Orion nebula, we extracted the spectrum from most of the data cube, avoiding regions of suspected emission line saturation or regions known to contain the shock-excited Herbig-Haro knot, HH\,202. A complete description of the spectrophotometry extracted from these spectra and the extraction technique will be given in a future paper.
\section{The Broad wings on H$\alpha$}
In each of the six \mbox{H II}\ regions we observed, we identified low-level broad wings in H$\alpha$ which were not present in other emission lines of similar intensity. This is shown in Figure \ref{fig1} where the spectra have been reduced to rest wavelength, and ordered in decreasing intensity of the broad component. As we demonstrate below, these wings can be well fit by a Lorentzian function. In the case of the Orion nebula, these wings are also visible (but not remarked upon) in the MUSE spectrum presented by \citet{Weilbacher15}. In Orion, we measure the peak flux to be only $1.3\times10^{-4}$ of the main H$\alpha$ line. The noise in the background nebular continuum is $<10^{-6}$ of the peak H$\alpha$ intensity. In the case of Orion, we also detect broad wings on H$\beta$, and in the case of SMC N88A we see broad wings in H$\beta$ and, faintly, in H$\gamma$ as well. We can eliminate the possibility that these wings are of instrumental origin through the following arguments:
\begin{itemize}
\item{The design of the WiFeS instrument is such as to keep ghosts, scattering or grating artefacts to a very low level. The slicer itself fully fills the field with less than 5\,$\mu$m spaces between the 1.75\,mm slices. In addition, the light from each slice passes through a slice mask to eliminate scattered light. Furthermore the transmissive VPH gratings provide very high spectral purity. Finally, the camera employs optimised anti-reflection coatings, and is designed to eliminate ghost images at the CCD.}
\item{The wings are still visible in the short exposure images, where the H$\alpha$ line is not saturated in its core, eliminating the possibility that CCD saturation is generating an artefact.}
\item{The wings are not visible in other objects with similar spectra and surface brightness. In Figure \ref{fig2}, we present a comparison of SMC N88A with the low-excitation planetary nebula IC\,418. Despite the strength of the [N\,II] and H$\alpha$ lines in this object, there is no evidence of the extended wings seen in SMC N88A.}
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{fig1.eps}
\end{centering}
\caption{The observation of broad wings around H$\alpha$ in six bright \mbox{H II}\ regions. The data are presented on a log scale, and have been offset in flux in order to separate the spectra and to order them by strength of the broad wings. In the objects with the strongest features, these wings can be traced at least as far as 6730\AA\ which, if interpreted as a velocity would correspond to 7600\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Note that in Orion, there is a secondary broad feature at about 6475\AA\, and that in LMC N191 there is a pronounced dip in the broad component near the line center, which may be stellar absorption. The continuum is a mixture of nebular continuum and flux from the exciting stars which causes the tilt in the baseline.} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{fig2.eps}
\end{centering}
\caption{A comparison of SMC N88A with the very bright low-excitation planetary nebula IC\,418. Note the absence of broad wings of H$\alpha$ in the IC\,418 spectrum} \label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\section{Raman Scattering}
Raman scattering is the process whereby resonance line photons generated by an ion of one atom excite a second ion of a different atom (usually Hydrogen) to a virtual state, immediately followed by radiative decay to another state in the same ion. This process is strongly favoured when the excited virtual state lies very close to a quantised state in the second ion, since the virtual state density increases rapidly as a quantised state is approached. { The effect of this is that the Raman scattering cross section closely approximates to a Lorenzian function centred on the resonant (Rayleigh) wavelengths of the scattering atom. This was given for the specific specific example of Hydrogen by \citet{Nussbaumer89}.}
The process was first observed (but not identified) in novae by \citet{Joy45} and \citet{Thackeray74} and in symbiotic stars by \citet{Allen76}. In these objects broad lines are seen at 6830\AA\ an 7090\AA. These lines were first identified by \citet{Schmid89} as being the result of Raman scattering of the O\,VI resonance doublet $\lambda\lambda1032,1038$ by excitation to virtual states of hydrogen lying close to the Ly$\beta$ transition, followed by radiative decay to the excited 2s$^2$S state. Since then, O\,VI Raman scattering has been described in many papers, and due to other resonances such as the He\,II $\lambda 1025$ line, see \citet{Sekeras15} and references therein. Furthermore, Raman scattered He\,II features were identified in Planetary Nebulae (PNe) by \citet{Pequignot97} and these have since been identified in other PNe \citep{Groves02,Lee06,Kang09}. O\,VI Raman scattering was also discovered in the Planetary Nebula NGC\,6302 by \citet{Groves02}.
A detailed description of the Raman scattering process by emission lines is to be found in \citet{Nussbaumer89}, where a number of other candidate ions which may initiate Raman scattering are also given, including Raman scattering of the O\,I resonance line. Since a UV line is scattered into an optical frequency photon, this process multiplies the original difference in wavelength between the Raman scattered transition producing broad H$\alpha$ wings and the Ly$\beta\ \lambda1025$ level by approximately the ratio of the wavelengths of H$\alpha$ to Ly$\beta$, or 6.4. It also multiplies intrinsic line widths and profiles by a similar factor.
The theoretical solution to the problem of the formation of broad wings by Raman scattering in Symbiotic stars is given by \citet{Jung04} who showed the importance of Raman Scattering of the stellar UV continuum in the formation of broad wings. This theory was later applied to PNe by \citet{Lee09}, and to Active Galaxies by \citet{Chang15}. In this theory, the width of the stellar UV Raman-scattered wings depends on the column density of neutral hydrogen and the shape of the far wings can be approximated by $F_{\lambda} \propto \left(\lambda-\lambda_{\mathrm Ly_{\beta}}\right)^{-2}$. Raman scattering of the stellar UV continuum may also account for the broad wings of H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$, which result from excitation of H\,I into virtual levels near the $n=4$ and $n=5$ states, respectively.\vspace{0.4cm}
\subsection{O\,I Raman scattering}
In the case of the \mbox{H II}\ regions observed here, the formation of the broad H$\alpha$ feature is a combination of stellar UV Raman scattering { (which for a flat EUV continuum spectrum has a Lorentzian profile), and Raman scattering by O\,I (for which the shape of the Raman Scattered profile primarily reflects the shape of the O\,I resonance line)}:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{O\,I}~~ 2p^3 3d~^3\mathrm{D}^0_{1,2,3}\stackrel{\rm \lambda1025.76}{\rightarrow } 2p^4~{^3\mathrm{P}}_2\; \label{1}
\end{equation}
for this transition, the (vacuum) wavelength lies very close to that of the Ly$\beta$ line; $ \lambda1025.72$. The { slight difference between the two ensures that Raman scattered feature due to this process is centered (in air) at 6565.38\AA.}
We approximate the shape of the combined Raman scattered feature by a Lorentzian function, since this gives an accurate description to the shape of the far wings of H$\alpha$, and is well behaved closer to the core. { However, since the stellar EUV Raman scattering approximated to a Lorenz function, and the Raman scattered O\,I line is that of an optically-thick resonance line profile, a better approximation to the summed (O\,I + Stellar UV) Raman scattering profile is more like a Voigt function.} Unfortunately this could not be constrained near the line centre due to the presence of the strong H$\alpha$ and [N\,II] emission lines, which are a factor $\sim10^4$ times stronger than the Raman feature. The parameters of our Lorentzian fits are given in Table \ref{Table1}. Note that, as predicted, the peak wavelengths are displaced red-ward of the peak of the H$\alpha$, although the observed shift is somewhat greater than the prediction, at an average rest wavelength of 6568.4\AA. This is probably in part the result of the residual telluric absorption, which preferentially affects the blue wing of the broad feature. However \citet{Jung04} also predict the H$\alpha$ wing profiles to have a higher asymmetry on the red side than the blue side. Such an effect would also help to produce the peak shift we see in our simple line fitting. Finally, velocity shifts can also be produced by relative motion between the H\,I-- and the O\,I--emitting gas. However, given that these two ions are strongly coupled to each other by charge exchange, such shifts are likely to be very small.
The variation in the width of the Lorentz fit reflects the variation in the H\,I column density between different objects according to the \citet{Jung04} theory. The ratio of the peak of the broad feature to the narrow line, given in the last column of Table \ref{Table1}, is remarkably constant -- lying between $0.9\times10^{-4}$ and $1.8\times10^{-4}$. { However, the Raman Scattering profile arises from the combination of the local
stellar EUV continuum flux (which is HII region geometry dependent), and from the density of H I atoms (which is both ionisation and pressure dependent). The H$\alpha$ emission line itself arises simply from recombination throughout the ionised nebula. Thus our observation that the peak flux ratio is constant within a factor of three is not very constraining on the physics.}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Measured Raman scattering parameters in \mbox{H II}\ Regions}\label{Table1}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{llcccc}
\hline
{\bf O I + Stellar UV Raman line:} & & & & & \\
Object: & Measured & Rest & Peak Flux & Lorentz &Peak Flux Ratio \\
& $\lambda$(\AA) &$\lambda$(\AA) & (erg/cm$^2$/s$^{-1}$\AA$^{-1}) $ & FWHM (\AA) & (wrt. H$_\alpha$) \\
\hline
Orion (M42) & 6566.7$\pm$0.3 & 6566.4$\pm$0.3 & 9.30$\pm$0.2 E-14 & 91$\pm$8 & 1.1E-4 \\
LMC N11A & 6577.5$\pm$1.5 & 6570.6$\pm$1.6 & 2.90$\pm$0.3 E-15 & 71$\pm$6 & 1.0E-4 \\
LMC N191A & 6573.2$\pm$2.5 & 6567.4$\pm$2.6 & 2.25$\pm$0.5 E-15 & 109$\pm$5 &1.4E-4 \\
SMC N81A & 6572.8$\pm$2.5 & 6569.0$\pm$2.6 & 1.45$\pm$0.2 E-15 & 98$\pm$10 & 0.9E-4 \\
SMC N88A & 6571.6$\pm$2.5 & 6567.6$\pm$2.6 & 3.25$\pm$0.5 E-13 & 137$\pm$20 & 1.8E-4 \\
SMC N456 & 6574.2$\pm$2.5 & 6569.7$\pm$2.6 & 1.65$\pm$0.7 E-15 & 87$\pm$5 & 1.5E-4 \\
\hline
{\bf Si II Raman line:} & & & & & \\
Object: & Measured & Rest & Peak Flux & Gaussian & Peak Flux Ratio\\
& $\lambda$(\AA) &$\lambda$(\AA) & (erg/cm$^2$/s$^{-1}$\AA$^{-1}) $ & FWHM (\AA) & (wrt. H$_\alpha$) \\
\hline
Orion (M42) & 6472.4$\pm$1.5 & 6472.1$\pm$1.6 & 1.7$\pm$0.2 E-14 & 27.0$\pm$2.5 & 2.1E-5 \\
LMC N11A & 6486.0$\pm$3 & 6479.0$\pm$3.0 & 1.1$\pm$0.2 E-15 & 19$\pm$6 & 3.8E-5 \\
SMC N88A & 6475.5$\pm$3 & 6471.5$\pm$3.0 & 6.6$\pm$0.2 E-16 & 36$\pm$6 & 3.6E-5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table*
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{fig3.eps}
\end{centering}
\caption{The fit to the Raman scattering profiles of O\,I and Si\,II in the Orion Nebula (M42) and in SMC N88A. The O\,I Raman profile is best fit with a Lorentzian, the broad wings of which result from Raman scattering of the stellar UV continuum (see text), while the Si\,II bump is better fit with a simple Gaussian.} \label{fig3}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Si\,II Raman scattering}
We have also identified a second Raman scattering which most likely gives rise to the secondary broad feature -- evident in the Orion nebula at about 6475\AA, and also detected in SMC N88A and LMC N11A. Here Raman scattering is caused by the Si\,II line:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Si\,II}~~ {3s^2}5s~^2\mathrm{S_{1/2}} \stackrel{\rm \lambda1023.70}{\rightarrow }{3s^2}3p~{^2\mathrm{P}}^{o}_{3/2} \label{2}
\end{equation}
In this case we expect the Raman scattered `H$\alpha$' line for this process to be centred (in air) at 6480.1\AA. This feature is detectable only in three objects, M42 , LMC N11A, and SMC N88A, and is best fit to the observations by a Gaussian; see Table \ref{Table1}. The width of the Raman features suggest an intrinsic line width in the Si\,II 1023.7\AA\ line of 0.46 -- 0.87\AA. Again, the ratio of the peak flux in the Si\,II feature to the peak H$\alpha$ flux is almost constant, in the range $2.1-3.8\times10^{-5}$. The mean rest wavelength of the peak of this feature (6474.2\AA) is somewhat smaller than the theoretical prediction, but again it is affected by the residual Telluric H$_2$O absorption, which in this case lies in the red wing of the feature. In Figure \ref{fig3} we show the quality of the fits to the O\,I and Si\,II Raman scattering profiles for the two objects showing the strongest features, Orion and SMC N88A. The region of Telluric H$_2$O absorption referred to above lies in the approximate wavelength range 6470-6570\AA.
\section{Radiative Pumping of O\,I and Si\,II Lines}
A striking feature of Figure \ref{fig1} is the correlation between the Raman scattered wing intensity, and the intensities of the O\,I $\lambda\lambda$ 5958.6, 6046.3 and 7002.0\AA\ lines, and the Si\,II $\lambda\lambda$ 5978.9, 6347.1 and 6371.4\AA\ permitted lines. Both of these correlations are related to the fact that these species co-exist in a region with a strong Ly$\beta$ radiation field, and therefore can be radiatively pumped by this radiation field to their excited states, as we will now demonstrate.
\subsection{The Si\,II Permitted lines}
For the Si\,II lines, the observed enhancement in the permitted lines is directly caused by Ly$\beta$ radiative pumping to the excited state,
\begin{equation}
3s^2 3p~{^2\mathrm{P}}^{o}_{3/2} \stackrel{\rm Ly\beta}{\rightarrow } 3s^2 5s~^2\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\,
\end{equation}
which then gives rise to the radiative cascade:
\begin{eqnarray}
3s^2 5s~^2\mathrm{S}_{1/2} \stackrel{\lambda 5978.9}{\rightarrow } 3s^2 4p~^2\mathrm{P}^o_{3/2} \\
3s^2 4p~^2\mathrm{P}^0 \stackrel{\lambda\lambda 6347.1,~6371.4}{\rightarrow } 3s^2 4s~^2\mathrm{S} \\
3s^2 4s~^2\mathrm{S} \stackrel{\lambda\lambda 1526.7,~1533.4}{\rightarrow } 3s^2 3p~^2\mathrm{P}^{o} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
Since the transition which leads to the Raman scattering is the same that is involved in radiative pumping, it is therefore not surprising that the strength of the Raman-scattered wings is correlated to the strength of the lines involved in the cascade from the radiatively pumped upper level.
\subsection{The O\,I Permitted lines}
The mechanism enhancing the intensity of the O\,I lines is a little more complicated than for the Si\,II lines, but again is ultimately the result of strong pumping by the local Lyman series radiation field. In this case, radiative pumping of the O\,I transition,
\begin{equation}
2s^2 2p^4~{^3\mathrm{P}}_2 \stackrel{\rm Ly\beta}{\rightarrow } 2s^2 2p^3 3d~^3\mathrm{D}^0_{1,2,3}\, \label{OI}
\end{equation}
is followed either by the radiative cascade
\begin{eqnarray}
2s^2 2p^3 3d~^3\mathrm{D}^0_{1,2,3} \stackrel{\rm \lambda11290}{\rightarrow } 2s^2 2p^3 3p~^3\mathrm{P}\\
2s^2 2p^3 3p~^3\mathrm{P} \stackrel{\rm \lambda8448.6} {\rightarrow } 2s^2 2p^3 3s~^3\mathrm{S}^0\\
2s^2 2p^3 3s~^3\mathrm{S}^0 \stackrel{\rm \lambda1302.2} {\rightarrow } 2s^2 2p^4~{^3\mathrm{P}} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
{ or else by direct decay back to the ground state. When the optical depth of O\,I transition is high, the population in the excited state is effectively Case B, and the only effective radiative decay path is through the radiative cascade given above. The build-up of the population of the $3p~^3\mathrm{P}$ state due to radiative pumping gives rise to a very strong enhancement in the strength of the fluorescent $\lambda8448.6$ line. A detailed description of this process was developed by \citet{Kastner95}. In the case of M42, our observed flux in this line exceeds 2\% of H$\beta$, confirming that the $2
p^4~^3\mathrm{P} - 3d~^3\mathrm{D}^0$ transition is optically thick.
To explain the enhancement in the $\lambda\lambda$ 7002.0, 5958.6, and 6046.3\AA transitions is somewhat more complex, since these cannot be directly radiatively fed from the $^3\mathrm{D}^0$ state. However, if the radiative pumping by Ly$\beta$ into this state is high, then its population will be much higher than in LTE. Such rapid radiative pumping is made possible by the very close coincidence in wavelength between Ly$\beta~\lambda1025.722$ and the O I resonance line at $\lambda1025.762$. The difference in wavelength between these is 0.04\AA\, which is less than the thermal plus turbulent width of the H I line corresponding to 0.075\AA\ in this part of the nebula \citep{Dopita72}. This raises the possibility of collisional excitation into still more highly excited states, such as the $4d~^3\mathrm{D}^0$, $5d~^3\mathrm{D}^0$ and $6s~^3\mathrm{S}^0$ levels. Each of these can then radiatively decay to the $3p~^3\mathrm{P}$ state, giving rise to the observed transitions at $\lambda\lambda$ 7002.0, 5958.6, and 6046.3\AA, respectively.
\section{Conclusions}
Using very high signal to noise and extremely high dynamic range integral field data obtained for six normal \mbox{H II}\ regions we have established, for the first time, the existence of Raman scattering of O\,I, Si\,II and of the stellar UV continuum with H\,I in these regions. Furthermore, we have both found, and explained a correlation between this Raman scattering and the enhancement of permitted lines by radiative pumping of O\,I and Si\,II into excited states by the Lyman series emission and the stellar EUV radiation field.
The transition zone near the ionisation fronts of these \mbox{H II}\ regions can provide the appropriate conditions to support these Raman scattering processes. First, both O\,I and Si\,II co-exist at high fractional ionisation with the H\,I in this zone. Second, the temperature is lower here and the atom density higher, which increases the recombination rate. This is also an essential condition to support the high photon density in the Ly$\beta$ radiation field which is required for radiative pumping, since it only takes a few scatterings to degrade a Ly$\beta$ photon into a Ly$\alpha$ plus an H$\alpha$ photon. Thirdly, the column density of H\,I is high, increasing the probability of Raman scattering. A high column density also supports the production of the broad Raman scattering wings around H$\alpha$ as has been demonstrated theoretically by \citet{Jung04}.\vspace{0.2cm}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Dopita, Kewley and Nicholls acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (ARC) through Discovery project DP130103925. Groves acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council as the recipient of a Future Fellowship (FT140101202). This research has made use of \textsc{SAOImage DS9} \citep{Joye03}, developed by Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Omitted proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:swic}}\label{app:lem:swic}
\input{prf-lem-swic.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:swir}}\label{app:lem:swir}
\input{prf-lem-swir.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:swirconst}}\label{app:lem:swirconst}
\input{prf-lem-swirconst.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:sconic} \& \ref{lem:sconir}}
\label{app:lem:scon}
Throughout the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:sconic} and \ref{lem:sconir}, we use
the following notations,
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{bal}_\tau = \mathsf{bal}_\tau(v_{(1, \tau - 1)}),~
\mathsf{bal}^{(t)}_\tau = \mathsf{bal}_\tau(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t, v_{(t + 1, \tau)}),~
s_\tau = s_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_\tau),~s^{(t)}_\tau = s_\tau(\mathsf{bal}^{(t)}_\tau),
\end{align*}
where the superscript ${}^{(t)}$ means the valuation of stage $t$ is replaced
by some $v'_t$.
We also enhance both lemmas by generalizing the conclusions to a border set
of direct mechanisms (beyond the direct mechanism we map the bank account
mechanism $B$ to).
For any given bank account mechanism $B$, let $M$ be any direct mechanism
that has the same allocation rule and generates the same revenue with $B$.
Formally,
\begin{align}\label{prf:scon:constr}
\forall t \in[T], v_{(1, T)} \in \mathcal{V}_{(1, T)},~&
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
x_t(v_{(1, t)}) = z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) \\
\displaystyle
\sum_{\tau = 1}^T p_\tau(v_{(1, \tau)}) = \sum_{\tau = 1}^T
\Big(q_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_\tau, v_\tau) + s_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_{\tau})\Big)
\end{array}\right. \\
\Longrightarrow~&
\sum_{\tau = 1}^T u_\tau(v_{(1, \tau)}; v_\tau)
= \sum_{\tau = 1}^T \big(\hat{u}_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_\tau, v_\tau; v_\tau)
- s_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_\tau)\big). \label{eq:utlequiv}
\end{align}
Then Lemma \ref{lem:sconic} and \ref{lem:sconir} work for $M$ accordingly.
\input{prf-lem-sconic.tex}
\input{prf-lem-sconir.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:mechtrans}}\label{app:lem:mechtrans}
\input{prf-lem-mechtrans.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:symmstrong}}\label{app:lem:symmstrong}
\input{prf-lem-symm.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:corebam}}\label{app:thm:corebam}
\input{prf-thm-corebam.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bl}}\label{app:thm:bl}
\input{prf-thm-bl.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:3appspddpsupb}}\label{app:lem:3appspddpsupb}
\input{prf-lem-3appspddpsupb.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:sbd}}\label{app:lem:sbd}
\input{prf-lem-sbd.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:3appbam}}\label{app:lem:3appbam}
\input{prf-lem-3appbam.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:pairb}}\label{app:lem:pairb}
\input{prf-lem-pairb.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dp}}\label{app:thm:dp}
\input{prf-thm-dp.tex}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:icallo}}\label{app:lem:icallo}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:icallo}]
Note that for one item per stage case, the mechanism is truthful within any
stage $t$, if and only if $\hat{u}_t(\xi, v_t; v_t)$ is increasing and convex in
$v_t$, and $z_t(\xi, v_t)$ is the sub-gradient of $\hat{u}_t$ with respective to
$v_t$. It is equivalent to $z_t(\xi, v_t)$ being non-negative and increasing
in $v_t$, and $\hat{u}_t$ being the integration of $z_t(\xi, v_t)$ over $v_t$.
$z_t(\xi, v_t)$ is non-negative and increasing in $v_t$, if and only if
$z_t(\xi, v_t)$ is a convex combination of step functions, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
z_t(\xi, v_t) = \int_0^{+\infty} w_t(\xi, v) \cdot \mathcal{I}[v_t \geq v] \mathrm{d} v
= \int_0^{v_t} w_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v,
\end{align*}
where $\int_0^{+\infty}w_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v = 1$ and $w_t(\xi, v) \geq 0$.
Particularly, for discrete types, to compute the optimal mechanism, we could
assume that $w_t(\xi, v)$ is non-zero only at points $v^1_t, \ldots,
v^{k_t}_t$.
To prove this, for any $v^*$ such that $v^i_t < v^* < v^{i + 1}_t$, we show
that if $w_t(\xi, v^*) > 0$, we can weakly improve the objective value without
either breaking any constraint, or changing the values of $g(\xi, v^i_t)$.
Let $w'_t(\xi, v) = w_t(\xi, v)$ except for three points, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
w'_t(\xi, v^i_t) &= w_t(\xi, v^i_t) + \frac{v^{i + 1}_t - v^*}
{v^{i + 1}_t - v^i_t}w_t(\xi, v^*), \\
w'_t(\xi, v^{i + 1}_t) &= w_t(\xi, v^i_t) + \frac{v^* - v^i_t}
{v^{i + 1}_t - v^i_t}w_t(\xi, v^*), \\
w'_t(\xi, v^*) &= 0.
\end{align*}
Then it is straightforward to verify the following facts.
\begin{align*}
& w'_t(\xi, v) \geq 0, \\
& \int_0^{+\infty} w'_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
= \int_0^{+\infty} w_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v = 1, \\
& y'_t(\xi, v^j_t) = \int_0^{v^j_t} w'_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
= \int_0^{v^j_t} w_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
= y_t(\xi, v^j_t), \forall j \neq i \\
& y'_t(\xi, v^i_t) = \int_0^{v^i_t} w'_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
= \int_0^{v^i_t} w_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
+ \frac{v^{i + 1}_t - v^*}{v^{i + 1}_t - v^i_t}
w_t(\xi, v^*)
> y_t(\xi, v^i_t), \\
& \hat{u}'_t(\xi, v^j_t; v^j_t)
= \int_0^{v^j_t} y'_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
= \int_0^{v^j_t} y_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
= \hat{u}_t(\xi, v^j_t; v^j_t), \forall j \leq i \\
& \hat{u}'_t(\xi, v^j_t; v^j_t)
= \int_0^{v^j_t} y'_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
= \int_0^{v^j_t} y_t(\xi, v) \mathrm{d} v
+ \int_{v^i_t}^{v^{i + 1}_t}
\Big(y'_t(\xi, v) - y_t(\xi, v)\Big) \mathrm{d} v \\
& \qquad \qquad = \hat{u}_t(\xi, v^j_t; v^j_t), \forall j \geq i + 1 \\
\Longrightarrow &
g'(\xi, v^j_t) = g(\xi, v^j_t), \forall j \\
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
& \int_{v^i_t}^{v^{i + 1}_t} \Big(y'_t(\xi, v) - y_t(\xi, v)\Big) \mathrm{d} v
= \int_{v^i_t}^{v^{i + 1}_t} \int_0^v
\Big(w'_t(\xi, \nu) - w_t(\xi, \nu)\Big) \mathrm{d} \nu \mathrm{d} v \\
=& \int_{v^i_t}^{v^{i + 1}_t} \int_{v^i_t}^v
\Big(w'_t(\xi, \nu) - w_t(\xi, \nu)\Big) \mathrm{d} \nu \mathrm{d} v
= \int_{v^i_t}^{v^{i + 1}_t} \int_{\nu}^{v^{i + 1}_t}
\Big(w'_t(\xi, \nu) - w_t(\xi, \nu)\Big) \mathrm{d} v \mathrm{d} \nu \\
=& \big(v^{i + 1}_t - v^i_t\big) \cdot
\big(w'_t(\xi, v^i_t) - w_t(\xi, v^i_t)\big) +
\big(v^{i + 1}_t - v^*\big) \cdot
\big(w'_t(\xi, v^*) - w_t(\xi, v^*)\big) \\
&+\big(v^{i + 1}_t - v^{i + 1}_t\big) \cdot
\big(w'_t(\xi, v^{i + 1}_t) - w_t(\xi, v^{i + 1}_t)\big) \\
=& \big(v^{i + 1}_t - v^i_t\big) \cdot
\frac{v^{i + 1}_t - v^*}{v^{i + 1}_t - v^i_t}w_t(\xi, v^*)
+ \big(v^{i + 1}_t - v^*\big) \cdot
\big(-w_t(\xi, v^*)\big)
+ 0 = 0.
\end{align*}
As desired, no constraint gets violated, but objective value gets improved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:concaveapprox}}
\label{app:lem:concaveapprox}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:concaveapprox}]
Since $\varphi$ is concave, hence $\beta_a \geq \beta_b$. If they coincide,
i.e., $\beta_a = \beta_b$, then we are done, and $\varphi$ must be the line
segment that connects $(a, \varphi(a))$ and $(b, \varphi(b))$.
Otherwise, $\beta_a - \beta_b > 0$, and since $|\beta_a|, |\beta_b| <
+\infty$, $\beta_a - \beta_b < +\infty$.
By adding a linear offset to $\varphi$, we assume WLOG that $\varphi(a) =
\varphi(b) = 0$. Hence $\beta_a > 0 > \beta_b$. Note that $\max_\xi
\varphi(\xi)\min\{\varphi(a), \varphi(b)\}$ is not increased after adding the
linear offset.
Then for any $\delta > 0$, we make $n$ queries to the evaluation oracle of
$\varphi$ at $l_1, \ldots, l_m, l_{m + 1}, \ldots, l_n$, where $l_m$ is the
last point such that $\varphi(l_{m - 1}) \leq \varphi(l_m) >
\varphi(l_{m + 1})$. Since $\varphi$ is concave, such $m$ is unique.
Then points $l_1, \ldots, l_m$ are adaptively chosen according to the
following equations, until $\varphi$ starts to decrease.
\begin{align*}
& l_0 = a, l_i = \min\{l_{i - 1} + \delta / \beta_{i - 1}, b\}, \\
& \beta_0 = \beta_a,~
\beta_i = \frac{\varphi(l_i) - \varphi(l_{i - 1})}{l_i - l_{i - 1}}
- \frac{\varphi(l_i)}{l_i - b}.
\end{align*}
Since $\varphi$ is concave, $\beta_i \geq 0$, and $\beta_i \leq \beta_a -
\beta_b < +\infty$. Hence $l_i > l_{i - 1}$, as long as $l_{i - 1} < b$. Thus
$m < +\infty$.
For the last half of points, $l_{m + 1}, \ldots, l_n$, are chosen similarly
but in the reverse order, starting from $l_{n + 1} = b$ until the next point
is less than $l_m$.
In the remainder of the proof, we show that $m \leq 2\max_\xi\varphi(\xi) /
\delta + \log(\beta_a - \beta_b)/(-\beta_b)$, which then implies
that $n \leq 4\max_\xi\varphi(\xi) / \delta +
\log(\beta_a - \beta_b)^2/(-\beta_a\beta_b)$.
Note that to achieve a given multiplicative approximation ratio $\kappa$,
we can let $\delta = \kappa \cdot \varphi(\frac{a + b}2)$, because
$2\varphi(\frac{a + b}2) \geq \max_{\xi} \varphi(\xi) \geq
\varphi(\frac{a + b}2)$.
Then by connecting points $(a, \varphi(a)), (l_1, \varphi(l_1)), \ldots,
(l_n, \varphi(l_n)), (b, \varphi(b))$, we get a lower bound $\underline{\varphi}$ for
$\varphi$, which is concave and piece-wise linear, and has at most $n + 1$
pieces. The upper bound is simply $\overline{\varphi}(\xi) = \underline{\varphi}(\xi) + \delta$.
From now on, we only consider $0 \leq i \leq m$. For any $l_i \leq l \leq
l_{i + 1}$, $\varphi(l)$ is $\delta$-approximated by the line segment that
connects $(l_i, \varphi(l_i))$ and $(l_{i + 1}, \varphi(l_{i + 1}))$, i.e.,
by the concavity of $\varphi$,
\begin{align*}
\varphi(l) \geq \frac{\varphi(l_i)(b - l)}{b - l_i},\quad
\varphi(l) \leq \frac{\varphi(l_{i - 1})(l - l_i)}{l_{i - 1} - l_i}
+ \frac{\varphi(l_i)(l_{i - 1} - l)}{l_{i - 1} - l_i}.
\end{align*}
The gap between the upper and lower bounds of $\varphi(l)$ is,
\begin{align*}
& \frac{\varphi(l_{i - 1})(l - l_i)}{l_{i - 1} - l_i}
+ \frac{\varphi(l_i)(l_{i - 1} - l)}{l_{i - 1} - l_i}
- \frac{\varphi(l_i)(b - l)}{b - l_i}
\\
&= \bigg(\frac{\varphi(l_i) - \varphi(l_{i - 1})}{l_i - l_{i - 1}}
- \frac{\varphi(l_i)}{l_i - b}\bigg)l +
\bigg(\frac{\varphi(l_i)l_{i - 1} - \varphi(l_{i - 1})l_i}
{l_{i - 1} - l_i}
- \frac{\varphi(l_i)b}{b - l_i}\bigg) \\
&= \beta_i l + \bigg(\frac{\varphi(l_i)l_{i - 1} - \varphi(l_{i - 1})l_i}
{l_{i - 1} - l_i}
- \frac{\varphi(l_i)b}{b - l_i}\bigg)
\\
&\leq \beta_i (l_i + \delta / \beta_i) + \bigg(\frac{\varphi(l_i)l_{i - 1}
- \varphi(l_{i - 1})l_i}{l_{i - 1} - l_i}
- \frac{\varphi(l_i)b}{b - l_i}\bigg) \\
&= \delta + \varphi(l_i) - \varphi(l_i) = \delta.
\end{align*}
Then, we show that $m$ is small, so the $\delta$-approximation is achieved
by a few of queries. Let $\beta^*_i$ be defined as follows,
\begin{align*}
\beta^*_i = \beta_i + \frac{\varphi(l_i)}{l_i - b} - \beta_b
\geq \beta_i + \frac{\beta_b(l_i - b)}{l_i - b} - \beta_b = \beta_i.
\end{align*}
Note that $\varphi(l_m) > 0 = \varphi(b)$, hence $l_m < b$, then for
$i \leq m - 1$,
\begin{align*}
& \beta_i = \frac{\varphi(l_i) - \varphi(l_{i - 1})}{l_i - l_{i - 1}}
- \frac{\varphi(l_i)}{l_i - b}
\geq \frac{\varphi(l_i) - \varphi(l_{i - 1})}{l_i - l_{i - 1}}
= \beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1}, \\
& \beta^*_i(l_{i + 1} - l_i) \geq \beta_i(l_{i + 1} - l_i)
= \beta_i \cdot \frac{\delta}{\beta_i} = \delta, \\
\Longrightarrow~&
\delta - (\beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1} + \beta_b)(l_{i + 1} - l_i) \leq
(\beta^*_{i + 1} - \beta_b)(l_{i + 1} - l_i)
= \varphi(l_{i + 1}) - \varphi(l_i), \\
\Longrightarrow~& \delta \leq
(\beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1} + \beta_b)(l_{i + 1} - l_i)
+ \varphi(l_{i + 1}) - \varphi(l_i) \\
&~~= \frac{(\beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1} + \beta_b)\delta}{\beta_i}
+ \varphi(l_{i + 1}) - \varphi(l_i), \\
\Longrightarrow~& m\delta \leq
\sum_{i = 0}^{m - 1} \bigg(
\frac{(\beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1} + \beta_b)\delta}{\beta_i}
+ \varphi(l_{i + 1}) - \varphi(l_i)\bigg) \\
&~~= \varphi(l_m) + \delta \sum_{i = 0}^{m - 1}
\frac{\beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1} + \beta_b}{\beta_i} \\
&~~\leq \max_{\xi} \varphi(\xi) + \frac{(m + k)\delta}2 \\
\Longrightarrow~& m \leq \frac{2\max_{\xi} \varphi(\xi)}\delta + k,
\end{align*}
where there are at most $k$ different $i$'s such that
$(\beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1} + \beta_b) / \beta_i \geq 1/2$. Because
\begin{align*}
\frac{\beta^*_i - \beta^*_{i + 1} + \beta_b}{\beta_i} \geq \frac12
\Longrightarrow \beta^*_i \geq (\beta_i - \beta^*_i) + 2\beta^*_{i + 1} - 2\beta_b
\geq 2\beta^*_{i + 1}.
\end{align*}
Since for any $i \leq m - 1$, $\beta^*_i \leq \beta_a - \beta_b$,
$\beta^*_{i + 1} \geq - \beta_b$, and $\beta^*_i \geq \beta^*_{i + 1}$, $k$
must be no more than $\log (\beta_a - \beta_b) / (-\beta_b)$.
Combining with the last half of points, we have
\begin{align*}
n \leq \frac{4}{\delta}\max_{\xi}\varphi(\xi)
+ \log \frac{(\beta_a - \beta_b)^2}{-\beta_a\beta_b}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
\input{intro.tex}
\input{settings.tex}
\input{main-results.tex}
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
\section{Approximation of Optimal Mechanism}\label{sec:3app}
By Theorem \ref{thm:rep}, the revenue optimal bank account mechanism is
optimal among any mechanism. However, the optimal bank account mechanism can
still be complicated. This observation is formalized in a later section.
Later in this section, we will use an example to informally illustrate this
observation.
%
%
%
%
\subsection{A simple BAM that $3$-Approximates the optimal revenue}
In this section we present a very simple BAM whose revenue is a
$3$-approximation of the revenue of the revenue optimal mechanism. By
Theorem \ref{thm:rep} we know that the optimal revenue is achieved by a
BAM, so our strategy will be to first provide an upper bound on the maximum
revenue that a BAM mechanism can extract. Then we will craft three
individual mechanisms achieving one of the components of the upper bound as
revenue. Then we will argue that their combination is a constant
approximation to the optimal revenue.
We begin with an upper bound on the revenue of a BAM. The following theorem
is a version of Theorem 3 in our previous paper where bank accounts were
introduced \cite{mirrokni2016dynamic}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:bl}
For any BAM $B$,
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Rev}(B) \leq \textsc{Rev}(M^\SM) +
\E_{v_{(1, T)}} \bigg[\sum_{\tau = 1}^T s_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_\tau)\bigg].
\end{align*}
where $M^\SM$ denotes the optimal history-independent mechanism, i.e.,
within each stage, run the single-stage optimal mechanism.
\end{theorem}
%
There is a simple mechanism that achieves the first part of the upper bound,
which is the optimal history-independent mechanism itself. In the case where
a single item is sold per stage, this is achieved by running Myerson's
optimal auction in each stage. The main challenge is to come up with a
mechanism whose revenue approximates the sum of spends of \emph{any} BAM.
We start by providing an bound on the the sum of spends $\sum_{\tau = 1}^T
s_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_\tau)$ for any history $v_{(1,T)}$. Denote
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Val}_t = \int_{\mathcal{V}_t} \mathbf{1} \cdot v \mathrm{d} \mathcal{F}(v),
\end{align*}
then
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3appspddpsupb}
For any BAM, the spend and deposit in any stage can be bounded as follows:
\begin{align*}
& s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) \leq \min \{\mathsf{bal}_t, \mathrm{Val}_t\}, \\
& d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) \leq \mathbf{1} \cdot v_t.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sbd}
For any BAM $B$, and any history $v_{(1, t)} \in \mathcal{V}_{(1, t)}$ of length
$t \in [T]$. The sum of spends of $B$ on history $v_{(1, t)}$ can be
bounded as follows,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\tau = 1}^t s_\tau(\mathsf{bal}_\tau)
\leq \sum_{\tau = 1}^t s^*_\tau(\mathsf{bal}^*_\tau),
\end{align*}
where $s^*_\tau$ and $d^*_\tau$ are the spend and deposit policies of a
bank account mechanism $B^*$, defined as follows,
\begin{align*}
& s^*_\tau(\mathsf{bal}^*_\tau) = \min\{\mathsf{bal}^*_\tau, \mathrm{Val}_\tau\}, \\
& d^*_\tau(\mathsf{bal}^*_\tau, v_\tau) = \mathbf{1} \cdot v_\tau,
\end{align*}
and $\mathsf{bal}^*_\tau$ is the balance of $B^*$ updated accordingly.
\end{lemma}
%
%
%
%
%
The intuition behind Lemma \ref{lem:sbd} is: (i) for any fixed history
$v_{(1, t)}$, increasing any stage deposit $d_\tau$ into the bank account
never disables the seller to spend from the bank account at any stage as
before, so we can set each of the stage deposit $d_\tau$ to reach its upper
bound $\mathbf{1} \cdot v_\tau$; (ii) after increasing the stage deposits, they
become a sequence of constant incoming flows to the bank account, so taking
money out from the bank account as much as possible at each stage is clearly
the optimal way to maximize the cumulative spends until any stage.
The takeaway from Lemma \ref{lem:sbd} is that in order to maximize the sum
of spends, we should try to keep the balance as large as possible by
depositing as much as possible and at the same time we should try to spend
as much as possible. Instead of trying to find a BAM with those two
properties simultaneously, we define two mechanisms: the first one has the
largest possible deposit in each stage. This is called the {\em
give-for-free} mechanism where all items are given to the buyer for free at
every stage. Here the utility of the buyer is maximized and all the utility
is deposited in the bank account. The second mechanism seeks to spend as
much as possible from the balance in each round. This is called {\em
posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle mechanism}. This mechanism will post a
price for the grand-bundle ensuring that the buyer will have enough utility
in expectation so that he is comfortable with a large spend from his/her
bank account.
%
%
Then, by the approach stated earlier, the uniform randomization of these
three mechanisms (optimal history-independent mechanism, give-for-free
mechanism, and posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle mechanism)
$3$-approximates the optimal revenue.
To formalize our reasoning so far, let $M^\SM = \langle x^\mathsf{S}_{(1, T)},
p^\mathsf{S}_{(1, T)} \rangle$ denote the optimal history independent mechanism,
i.e., within each stage, separately run the single-stage optimal
mechanism\footnote{If there is only one item for sale for each stage, then
$M^\SM$ denotes the mechanism that runs separate Myerson auction for each
stage.}.
Let $\langle x^\mathsf{P}_t(\theta, \boldsymbol{\cdot}), p^\mathsf{P}_t(\theta, \boldsymbol{\cdot}) \rangle$ be
the posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle mechanism with parameter $\theta$ for
stage $t$, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{eq:parapp}
x^\mathsf{P}_t(\theta, v_t) = \mathbf{1} \cdot \mathcal{I}[v_t \cdot \mathbf{1} \geq r_t(\theta)],~
p^\mathsf{P}_t(\theta, v_t) =
r_t(\theta) \cdot \mathcal{I}[v_t \cdot \mathbf{1} \geq r_t(\theta)],
\end{align}
where $r_t(\theta)$ is the posted-price such that the expected buyer
utility yielded by the single-stage posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle
mechanism is exactly $\theta$, formally,
\begin{align}
r_t(\theta) = r,~s.t.,~
\int_{\mathcal{V}_t} (v \cdot \mathbf{1} - r) \cdot \mathcal{I}[v \cdot \mathbf{1} \geq r] \mathrm{d} v
= \theta,
\Longrightarrow \E_{v_t}\big[u^\mathsf{P}_t(\theta, v_t; v_t)\big] = \theta.
\label{eq:pppu}
\end{align}
Since the function $\int_{\mathcal{V}_t} (v \cdot \mathbf{1} - r) \cdot \mathcal{I}[v \cdot \mathbf{1}
\geq r] \mathrm{d} v$ is continuous in $\theta$, a price $r_t(\theta)$ exists for
every $\theta$ in the interval $[0, \mathrm{Val}_t]$. Note that the integration
above is the expected utility when the items are sold as a grand bundle at
posted-price $r$ in stage $t$.
\begin{framed}
\begin{mechanism}[$3$-Approximation BAM]\label{mech:3app}
Consider the following BAM, $B$ --- the uniform randomization of the
optimal history-independent mechanism $M^\SM$, the
posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle mechanism (with parameter
$3s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)$ for each stage $t$), and the give-for-free mechanism.
Formally defined as follows, where $\mathsf{bal}_t$ is defined by $d_t$ and
$s_t$ according to the balance update formula (\ref{eq:defbal}).
\begin{align}
z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) &= \frac13 \Big(x^{\mathsf{S}}_t(v_t) + \mathbf{1} +
x^{\mathsf{P}}_t\big(3s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t), v_t\big)\Big),
\label{eq:3all} \\
q_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) &= \frac13 \Big(p^{\mathsf{S}}_t(v_t) +
p^{\mathsf{P}}_t\big(3s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t), v_t\big)\Big),
\label{eq:3pay} \\
d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) &= \frac{\mathbf{1} \cdot v_t}3, \label{eq:3dps} \\
s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) &= \min\{\mathsf{bal}_t, \mathrm{Val}_t / 3\}, \label{eq:3spd}
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{Val}_t = \int_{\mathcal{V}_t} \mathbf{1} \cdot v \mathrm{d} \mathcal{F}_t(v)$.
\end{mechanism}
\end{framed}
Such a uniform randomization ensures that for any core BAM $B'$, the
following properties hold simultaneously.
\begin{itemize}
\item The one third fraction on the optimal history-independent mechanism
ensures enough revenue from per stage payment $q_t$:
\begin{align*}
\forall t \in [T], \mathsf{bal}_t, \mathsf{bal}'_t \geq 0, v_t \in \mathcal{V}_t,~
q_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) \geq \frac13 q'_t(\mathsf{bal}'_t, v_t).
\end{align*}
\item The one third fraction on the posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle
mechanism with parameter\footnote{Since it is only one third
fraction on the posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle mechanism, having
parameter $3s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)$ ensures the buyer utility yielded from
this one third fraction being exactly $s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)$.} $3s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)$
ensures enough spend $s_t$ from the bank account in each stage:
%
%
\begin{align*}
\forall t \in [T], \mathsf{bal}_t \geq 0,~
s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) \geq \frac13 s'_t(\mathsf{bal}_t).
\end{align*}
\item The one third fraction on the give-for-free mechanism ensures
enough deposit $d_t$ into the bank account in each stage:
\begin{align*}
\forall t \in [T], \mathsf{bal}_t, \mathsf{bal}'_t \geq 0, v_t \in \mathcal{V}_t,~
d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) \geq \frac13 d'_t(\mathsf{bal}'_t, v_t).
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3appbam}
Mechanism \ref{mech:3app} is a BAM.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:3app}
Mechanism \ref{mech:3app} $3$-approximates the optimal revenue.
In particular, if $M^\SM$ is given, then such BAM can be explicitly
constructed.
\end{theorem}
\input{prf-thm-3app.tex}
In particular, for the case where only one item is sold in each stage, the
optimal history-independent mechanism is the separate Myerson auction for
each stage. So we can explicitly construct Mechanism \ref{mech:3app} in this
case.
Also note that, the optimal history-independent mechanism is unknown for
general cases. However, there have been many recent results concerning
approximately optimal mechanism for certain valuation assumptions
\cite{hart2012approximate,li2013revenue,babaioff2014simple,cai2016duality}.
The following corollary allows us to transform these approximately optimal
mechanisms into an approximately optimal mechanism in our setting.
\begin{corollary}
If there is a history-independent mechanism $M$ approximates $M^\SM$, i.e.,
$\textsc{Rev}(M) \allowbreak \geq \alpha \textsc{Rev}(M^\SM)$, one can explicitly construct a BAM
$B$ that approximates the optimal dynamic mechanism $B^\mathsf{OPT}$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Rev}(B) \geq \frac{\alpha}{2\alpha + 1} \textsc{Rev}(B^\mathsf{OPT}).
\end{align*}
$B$ is a randomization of $M$, the give-for-free mechanism, and the
posted-price-for-the-grand-bundle with
$r_t\big((2 + 1 / \alpha)s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)\big)$ for each $t$, on weights
$1 / (2\alpha + 1)$, $\alpha / (2\alpha + 1)$, and $\alpha /
(2\alpha + 1)$, respectively.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Global connectivity is necessary to achieve any constant
approximations}
%
We show by example that the bank account structure (or some other
structure that summarizes the entire history) is necessary to achieve
a constant approximation as the complementary to the $3$-approximation
results.
A {\em local mechanism} is a submechanism that only involves a subset of
stages regardless of the valuation distribution, and is completely
independent with what happens in other stages. For example, the stage
mechanisms of a history-independent mechanism are local mechanisms, which
operates independently with each other.
\begin{observation}\label{obsv:conn}
Any dynamic mechanism that can be decomposed into several independent
local mechanisms cannot be optimal --- in fact, it cannot guarantee any
constant approximation.
In particular, it is also true for the mechanisms that are distributions
over such mechanisms.
\end{observation}
The observation above informally states the fact that a global structure
such as the ``bank account'' introduced in this paper is essential to
preserve the optimal revenue.
\begin{example}[Necessity of global connectivity]\label{example:hard}
Consider a dynamic mechanism $M$ that can be decomposed into two
independent local mechanisms, i.e., there exists $T'$, $1 < T' < T$, such
that the outcomes of stages $T' + 1$ to $T$ are independent with what has
happened in the first $T'$ stages.
We construct the following valuation distributions,
\begin{itemize}
\item the first and the $(T' + 1)$-th items are i.i.d. equal-revenue
distributions (see Example \ref{example:bam});
\item all other items have $0$ valuations.
\end{itemize}
By our assumption, $M$ treats the two items with equal-revenue valuations
independently, and can extract revenue at most $1$ from each such stage
without violating the ex-post IR constraint. (Because all other zero-valued
items can be ignored.)
However, for example \ref{example:bam}, we have shown a BAM with revenue
$2 + \ln \ln v_{\max} \gg 2$ (as $v_{\max}$ tends to infinity) on a similar
instance. To adjust the mechanism introduced in Example \ref{example:bam}
to this example, let $B$ be a BAM as follows,
\begin{align*}
& \mathsf{bal}_1 = 0, z_1(\mathsf{bal}_1, v_1) = 1, q_1(\mathsf{bal}_1, v_1) = 1,
d_1(\mathsf{bal}_1, v_1) = v_1 - 1, s_1(\mathsf{bal}_1) = 0; \\
& z_{T' + 1}(\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}, v_{T' + 1})
= \mathcal{I}[v_{T' + 1} \geq v_{\max} / e^{\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}}], \\
& q_{T' + 1}(\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}, v_{T' + 1})
= z_{T' + 1}(\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}, v_{T' + 1})
\cdot v_{\max} / e^{\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}}, \\
& d_{T' + 1}(\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}, v_{T' + 1}) = 0,
s_{T' + 1}(\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}) = \min\{\ln v_{\max}, \mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1}\}; \\
& \forall t \neq 1, T' + 1,~z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) = 0, q_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) = 0,
d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) = 0, s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) = 0. \\
\Longrightarrow &
\textsc{Rev}(B) = \E_{v_1,v_{T' + 1}}[q_1(v_1) + q_{T' + 1}(v_{(1, T' + 1)})
+ s_1(\mathsf{bal}_1) + s_{T' + 1}(\mathsf{bal}_{T' + 1})] \\
&~~~~ = 2 + \E_{v_1}\big[\min\{v_1 - 1, \ln v_{\max}\}\big]
= 2 + \ln \ln v_{\max}.
\end{align*}
In other words, the gap between BAM (hence the optimal mechanism) and
independent local mechanisms can be arbitrarily far on such instances.
\end{example}
\section{Constant approximation via deterministic BAM}\label{sec:dapp}
\input{subs-dbam.tex}
\section{Computing Optimal Bank Account Mechanism via Dynamic Programming}
\label{sec:fptas}
In this section, we put forward a dynamic programing algorithm and FPTAS to
compute the optimal mechanism for the discrete type case. We
show a proof for the one item per stage case (see Appendix
\ref{app:thm:dp}), and argue that it can be directly generalized to
the multi-item per stage case by using the method from
\cite{cai2012algorithmic}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:dp}
The optimal bank account mechanism can be computed through a dynamic
programming algorithm.
Moreover, for any $\epsilon > 0$, there is an FPTAS to achieve an
$\epsilon$-approximation (multiplicative) of the optimal revenue for the
one item per stage case with discrete valuation distributions for each
stage.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
For any $\epsilon > 0$, there is an FPTAS to achieve an
$\epsilon$-approximation (multiplicative) of the optimal revenue for the
general (multi-item per stage) case with discrete valuation distributions.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch of Theorem \ref{thm:dp}]
We outline the proof idea here and leave the complete proof to Appendix
\ref{app:thm:dp}.
By Theorem \ref{thm:rep}, we assume that the optimal mechanism is a core
BAM $B^{g, y}$. By Theorem \ref{thm:corebam} and Lemma \ref{lem:symmstrong},
it is without loss of generality to assume that $g_t(h_t) = \textsc{Utl}(B | h_t)$.
Since $y_t$ is the sub-gradient of $g_t$ and $g_t$ is symmetric, we denote
$z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t)$ as $y_t\big(g_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}), v_t\big)$, by
overloading the definition of $y_t$.
We claim that the optimal mechanism can be computed via a dynamic program
with state function $\phi_t(\xi)$, which is the optimal revenue for the
sub-problem (consists of stages $t + 1$ to $T$) but with additional
constraint that the promised utility must equal to $\xi$ $(U_t = \xi)$.
Formally,
\begin{align*}
\phi_t(\xi) = \max_{B : g_t(v_{(1, t)}) = \xi} \E_{v(t + 1, T)}\bigg[
\sum_{\tau = t + 1}^T y_t\big(g_t(v_{(1, \tau - 1)}), v_\tau\big)
\cdot v_\tau - \mathsf{bal}_{T + 1}\bigg].
\end{align*}
It can be computed from $\phi_{t + 1}(\xi)$ by the following program.
\begin{align}
\mathrm{maximize} \quad & \E_{v_t}\Big[
y_t(\xi, v_t) \cdot v_t + \phi_{t+1}\big(g(\xi, v_t)\big)\Big]
\label{prog:conv} \\
\mathrm{subject~to} \quad & \hat{u}_t(\xi, v_t; v_t) \geq
\hat{u}_t(\xi, v'_t; v_t),~\forall v_t \in \mathcal{V}_t \nonumber \\
& g(\xi, v_t) = \xi + \hat{u}_t(\xi, v_t; v_t)
- \E_{v'_t}\big[\hat{u}_t(\xi, v'_t; v'_t)\big] \geq 0,
~\forall v_t \in \mathcal{V}_t \nonumber
\end{align}
Then $\max_{\xi \geq 0} \phi_0(\xi) = \max_B \textsc{Rev}(B)$ is the optimal
revenue, and function $\phi_0(\xi)$ can be computed via dynamic program
starting from $\phi_T(\xi) = -\xi$. For any $t$, $\phi_t(\xi)$ is a concave
function, and once the optimal revenue is determined, we can recover the
entire mechanism by solving program (\ref{prog:conv}) for each stage.
For discrete type space cases, program (\ref{prog:conv}) can be written as
an LP that can be efficiently solved by techniques introduced in
\cite{cai2012algorithmic}. Moreover, since $\phi_t(\xi)$ is concave, it can
be bounded by two concave piece-wise linear functions within any constant
$\delta > 0$. Since the number of pieces of the bounds is at most $O(N /
\delta)$\footnote{$N$ is the input size}, this dynamic algorithm admits an
FPTAS.
\end{proof}
We conjecture that the computation of the exact solution is likely to be
hard, because in general cases, the description of the BAM could be
exponentially large (since there could be exponentially many different values
of balance).
In addition, if one wants to further generalize the results for continuous
valuation distributions by discretization of the valuation domain, one needs
to relax the IC and IR constraints to $\epsilon$-IC and $\epsilon$-IR, which
may be an interesting future direction.
\section{Setting}\label{sec:setting}
Consider the problem of selling a sequence of items to a buyer who has
additive valuations for the items. At each stage, there can be any number of
items for sale, but each item only appears in one stage. The order in which
the items arrive are fixed and commonly known, and the items cannot be sold
in stages after they have arrived. At each stage $t \in [T]$, a type
(valuation) $v_t \in \mathcal{V}_t = \mathbb{R}^{k_t}_+$ of the buyer ($k_t$ is the number
of items for sale at stage $t$) is privately drawn from a public distribution
$\mathcal{F}_t$, i.e., $v_t \sim \mathcal{F}_t$. We assume that the prior distributions
$\mathcal{F}_t$'s are independent stage-wise, while within each stage, the
distribution can be correlated over different items. Moreover, we assume that
all valuations have finite expectations ($\E[\mathbf{1} \cdot v_t] <
+\infty$)\footnote{We use $\mathbf{1}$ to denote a vector in which all entries are
$1$. Similarly for $\mathbf{0}$.}. This assumption is to rule out the cases where
the buyer faces two different strategies that both lead to infinite
utilities.
According to the definition above, $v_t$ is, in general, a multidimensional
vector. None of our proofs, except the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dp}, makes
use of the assumption that $v_t$ is single dimensional. For the proof of
Theorem \ref{thm:dp}, it still extends to the case where $v_t$ is
multidimensional, by using the technique from \cite{cai2012algorithmic}.
We also remark that all of our results extend to the setting with discounted
utilities over time.
The stage outcome at stage $t$ is specified by a pair $(x_t, p_t)$, where
$x_t \in \mathcal{X}_t = [0,1]^{k_t}$ denotes the allocation vector at stage $t$ and
$p_t \in \mathbb{R}$ denotes the stage payment. The buyer utility from this stage
is
\begin{align*}
u_t(\boldsymbol{\cdot}; v_t) = x_t(\boldsymbol{\cdot}) \cdot v_t - p_t(\boldsymbol{\cdot}).
\end{align*}
The seller's objective is to design a {\em mechanism} that maximizes the
total revenue $\sum_{\tau = 1}^T p_t$. For convenience, we use $v_{(\tau,
\tau')} = v_\tau, \ldots, v_{\tau'}$ to denote the vector of buyer's types
from stage $\tau$ to $\tau'$. Similarly, $x_{(\tau, \tau')} = x_\tau, \ldots,
x_{\tau'}$, $p_{(\tau, \tau')} = p_\tau, \ldots, p_{\tau'}$. We use
$\mathcal{V}_{(\tau, \tau')} = \mathcal{V}_\tau \times \cdots \times \mathcal{V}_{\tau'}$ to denote
the buyer's type spaces from stage $\tau$ to $\tau'$.
\subsection{Dynamic Mechanisms}
In this paper, we consider {\em direct mechanisms}, where the agent reports
its private type to the mechanism in each stage.
\begin{definition}[Direct Mechanism]\label{def:mech}
A direct mechanism is a pair of allocation rule and payment rule. An
allocation rule is a mapping $x_t : \mathcal{V}_{(1, t)} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}_t$ that
specifies at any given stage the probability of allocation of an item to
the agent conditioned on the history, i.e., the sequence of types
reported so far. A payment rule $p_t : \mathcal{V}_{(1, t)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
specifies the payment the agent should make to the auctioneer at stage
$t$, also conditioned on the sequence of types reported so far.
\end{definition}
We are interested in mechanism satisfying two properties: incentive
compatibility (IC) and individual rationality (IR) constraints. In dynamic
mechanism design, there are various flavors of those notions. The flavors
we will be interested in this work are as follows. For IC, we will consider
incentive compatible in perfect Bayesian equilibrium, which means that at
any given history, truth-telling is the best response for current and
future stages in expectation over the randomness of future types. For IR,
we will be interested in Ex-post individually rationality, which means that
for any type realization, the buyer's overall utility is non-negative.
Notice that this is stronger than requiring individual rationality in
expectation, where the buyer's utility is non-negative in expectation over
his type.
To make those notions formal, let a bidding strategy $b_{(t + 1, T)} =
\langle b_t \rangle_{(t + 1, T)}$ be a family of (possibly randomized)
maps $b_t : \mathcal{V}_{(1, t)} \rightarrow \mathcal{V}_t$ specifying which type to report
at each stage given the history of types observed so far. For a fixed
bidding strategy $b_{(t + 1, T)}$, let $U^{b_{(t + 1, T)}}_t(v_{(1, t)})$
be the total utility that the buyer can obtain in expectation over his type
from stages $t + 1$ to $T$ of the mechanism given that types $v_{(1, t)}$
were reported in the stages $1$ to $t$ and the bidding strategy is employed
from that point on. Formally:
%
%
\begin{align}
U^{b_{(t + 1, T)}}_t(v_{(1, t)}) = \E_{v_{(t + 1, T)}}\bigg[
\sum_{\tau = t + 1}^T u_{\tau}
\big(v_{(1, t)}, b_{t + 1}(v_{(1, t + 1)}), \ldots,
b_{\tau}(v_{(1, \tau)}); v_{\tau}\big)\bigg].
\label{eq:efu}
\end{align}
We use $U_t$ without superscript to denote the expected utility yielded by
truthful bidding. This term is often called the promised utility
\cite{li2013dynamic}, since it is the utility that the mechanism promises
that the buyer will obtain in expectation if he/she behaves truthfully.
Now we can define IC and IR precisely. We say that the mechanism satisfies
IC if at any given stage his present utility plus expected future utility
is maximized by bidding truthfully in the current and future stages. In
other words, for each time $t \in [T]$, every type history $v_{(1, T)} \in
\mathcal{V}_{(1, T)}$, any deviating report at this timestep $v'_t \in \mathcal{V}_t$ and
any bidding strategy for the following timesteps $b_{(t + 1, T)}$, we
have:
\begin{align}\label{mech:defic}
\textbf{IC:} \quad
u_t(v_{(1, t)}; v_t) + U_t(v_{(1, t)})
\geq u_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t; v_t)
+ U^{b_{(t + 1, T)}}_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t);
\end{align}
We say that a mechanism satisfies individual rationality if for \emph{every
history of types} the utility is non-negative:
\begin{align}\label{mech:defir}
\textbf{IR:} \quad
\sum_{\tau = 1}^T u_\tau(v_{(1, \tau)}; v_\tau) \geq 0.
\end{align}
It will be convenient to define a simplified notion of IC, called stage-wise
IC, which we will show to be equivalent to the previous notion. We say that
a mechanism is stage-wise IC if at any given stage, reporting truthfully at
the current and future steps dominates deviating in the current step and
reporting truthfully from that point on:
\begin{align}\label{mech:ic}
\textbf{Stage-wise IC:} \quad
u_t(v_{(1, t)}; v_t) + U_t(v_{(1, t)})
\geq u_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t; v_t) + U_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t);
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:swic}
IC (\ref{mech:defic}) is equivalent to stage-wise IC (\ref{mech:ic}).
\end{lemma}
The advantage to work with stage-wise IC is that we can focus on the
current stage and ignore deviations from this point on. Using backwards
induction, we will argue that IC and stage-wise IC are equivalent.
It is also convenient to define stage-wise IR, which means that at any
given stage $t$, the utility is non-negative.
\begin{align}\label{mech:ir}
\textbf{Stage-wise IR:} \quad u_t(v_{(1, t)}; v_t) \geq 0.
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:swir}
IR (\ref{mech:defir}) is implied by stage-wise IR (\ref{mech:ir}).
\end{lemma}
Clearly stage-wise IR implies IR, but not the other way round. What we will
show in the next lemma, however, is that if there is a mechanism that is IC
and IR, we can construct a mechanism that is IC and stage-wise IR with the
same allocation rule and the same revenue. The idea is that if a mechanism
is ex-post IR, one can anticipate the payments to earlier stages in such a
way the buyer is never required to pay more than his actual value. An
extreme case of this reduction is the one where the buyer pays his bid in
every round except the last, where the buyer is paid the difference between
all the bids charged during the mechanism and his payment in the original
mechanism.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:swirconst}
For any IR direct mechanism $M = \langle x_{(1, T)}, p_{(1, T)} \rangle$,
there is another direct mechanism $M' = \langle x'_{(1, T)}, p'_{(1, T)}
\rangle$, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{lem:swicir:p1}
$\forall t \in [T],~x_t \equiv x'_t$,
\item \label{lem:swicir:p2}
$\forall v_{(1, T)} \in \mathcal{V}_{(1, T)},~
\sum_{\tau = 1}^T p_\tau(v_{(1, \tau)}) =
\sum_{\tau = 1}^T p'_\tau(v_{(1, \tau)})$,
\item \label{lem:swicir:p3}
$M'$ is stage-wise IR,
\item \label{lem:swicir:p4}
and $M'$ is IC, if and only if $M$ is IC.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
In light of Lemma \ref{lem:swic} to \ref{lem:swirconst}, we can use the
stage-wise IC (\ref{mech:ic}) as the equivalent definition of IC, and
assuming that a direct mechanism satisfies stage-wise IR constraint
(\ref{mech:ir}) is without loss of generality.
For any mechanism $M$, denote the overall expected revenue by $\textsc{Rev}(M)$,
overall expected buyer utility by $\textsc{Utl}(M)$, and overall expected
social welfare by $\textsc{Eff}(M)$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Rev}(M) &= \E_{v_{(1, T)}}\bigg[
\sum_{\tau = 1}^T p_\tau(v_{(1, \tau)})\bigg], \\
\textsc{Utl}(M) &= U_0 = \E_{v_{(1, T)}}\bigg[\sum_{\tau = 1}^T
u_\tau(v_{(1, \tau)}; v_\tau)\bigg], \\
\textsc{Eff}(M) &= \textsc{Utl}(M) + \textsc{Rev}(M).
\end{align*}
Moreover, define the conditional expected utility with partially realized
types $v_{(t, t')}$,
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Utl}(M | v_{(t, t')}) = \E_{V_{(1, T)}} \bigg[
\sum_{\tau = 1}^T u_\tau(V_{(1, \tau)}; V_\tau) \Big|
V_{(t, t')} = v_{(t, t')}\bigg].
\end{align*}
A mechanism is {\em deterministic}, if for each stage $t$, $x_t \in \{0,
1\}^{k_t}$. A mechanism is {\em history-independent}, if both $x_t$ and
$p_t$ only depend on $v_t$, but not $v_{(1, t - 1)}$.
\section{Bank account mechanisms}\label{sec:bam}
Designing dynamic mechanism is a hard task, mostly because the design space
is so large. To remedy this situation, we propose a class of mechanisms,
called {\em bank account mechanisms}, that are simpler and can be shown to
contain the revenue optimal mechanism. Moreover, they are based on a simple
principle that is easy to reason about: the mechanism keeps a bank balance
for the buyer and the allocation rule depend on the bank balance and not on
the full history of the mechanism.
%
Bank account mechanisms were introduced in \cite{mirrokni2016dynamic}. Here
we show that this framework can be used to reduce the problem of designing
dynamic mechanisms to the problem of designing a family of parametrized
single-shot mechanism. To understand the spirit of this reduction, we bring
the reader attention to the fact that the stage-wise IC constraint looks very
much like the IC constraint in single-shot mechanism design for period $t$,
when the quantity $p_t(v_{(1, t)}) - U_t(v_{(1, t)})$ is used instead of
payments. To see that, rewrite the IC constraint (\ref{mech:ic}) as follows:
\begin{align*}
x_t(v_{(1, t)}) \cdot v_{t} - \big(p_t(v_{(1, t)}) - U_t(v_{(1, t)})\big)
\geq x_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t) \cdot v_{t} - \big(p_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t)
- U_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v'_t)\big),
\end{align*}
which can be considered as the IC condition for some one-shot stage
mechanism with allocation rule $\hat{x}_{t \vert v_{(1, t - 1)}}(\boldsymbol{\cdot}) =
x_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, \boldsymbol{\cdot})$ and payment rule $\hat{p}_{t \vert
v_{(1, t - 1)}} (\boldsymbol{\cdot}) := \big(p_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, \boldsymbol{\cdot}) -
U_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}, \boldsymbol{\cdot})\big)$.
Furthermore, rewrite the stage payment of a dynamic mechanism as
$p_t(v_{(1, t)}) = \hat{p}_{t \vert v_{(1, t - 1)}}(v_t) + U_t(v_{(1, t)})$.
This suggests us that the stage payment of any dynamic mechanism can be
decomposed into the payment $\hat{p}_{t \vert v_{(1, t - 1)}}(v_t)$ of some
one-shot stage mechanism and a dynamic component $U_t(v_{(1, t)})$, i.e., the
truthful utility from stages $t + 1$ to $T$.
As a result, it is without loss of generality to think of any dynamic
mechanism as a sequence of per-stage IC mechanisms, described by allocation
rule $\hat{x}_{t \vert v_{(1, t - 1)}}(\boldsymbol{\cdot})$ and payment rule
$\hat{p}_{t \vert v_{(1, t - 1)}}(\boldsymbol{\cdot})$, as well as an additional
per-stage charge $U_t(v_{(1, t)})$ (a temporary utility deficit), which will
eventually be compensated via future per-stage IC mechanisms.
By the incentive compatibility of the per-stage mechanism, according to the
Envelope theorem \cite{rochet1985taxation}, the per-stage allocation rule is
the sub-gradient of the per-stage utility,
\begin{align}\label{eq:envic}
\frac{\partial \big(u_t(v_{(1, t)}; v_t) + U_t(v_{(1, t)})\big)}
{\partial v_t}
= \frac{\partial \big(\hat{x}_{t \vert v_{(1, t - 1)}}(v_t) \cdot v_t -
\hat{p}_{t \vert v_{(1, t - 1)}}(v_t)\big)}
{\partial v_t}
= x_t(v_{(1, t)}).
\end{align}
So, given the allocation rule of the per-stage mechanisms, according to our
reinterpretation, the only flexibility of the seller is to design the
per-stage charge $U_t(v_{(1, t)})$, the truthful utility for the buyer in
future stages.
We are now ready to formally define a bank account mechanism (BAM). Imagine
that the buyer has a bank account in his name. In each stage, before the
buyer reports his type, the mechanism moves a certain amount of money from
the account to the seller (we call it spend), then the buyer reveals his
type and a single-shot IC mechanism is run. In the end of the mechanism,
depending on the buyer's reported type, a certain amount of money is
deposited in the bank account. The amount deposited still belongs to the
buyer, so it doesn't correspond to a payment at the current step. The right
way to think about a deposit is an amount of money that the buyer is setting
aside so that the mechanism can spend.
Intuitively, the balance can be regarded as an explicit way to realize
per-stage charge $U_t$ --- the change of balance of each stage specifies two
things: (i) the amount of utility to compensate previously promised utilities;
and (ii) the amount of newly promised utility starting from this stage.
First we define a generic bank account mechanism and then we discuss which
properties it needs to have to satisfy IC and IR.
%
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth]{Resources/Promised-Utilities.pdf}%
~~~~~~~%
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth]{Resources/Balance.pdf}
\caption{Describing dynamic mechanisms with $U_t$'s (left) incurs a
recursive structure over $U_t$. Introducing bank account balance
(right) helps us to get rid of such recursions, i.e., the deposits
$d_t$ and spends $s_t$ are rather independent with each other.}
\label{fig:balance}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}[Bank Account Mechanism]\label{def:bam}
A bank account mechanism $B$ is a tuple $\langle z_{(1, T)},\allowbreak q_{(1, T)},
\allowbreak \mathsf{bal}_{(1, T)},\allowbreak d_{(1, T)}, s_{(1, T)} \rangle$, where for each $t$,
\begin{itemize}
\item allocation rule $z_t : \mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathcal{V}_t \rightarrow
\mathcal{X}_t$, that maps balance and stage type to stage allocation,
\item payment rule $q_t : \mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathcal{V}_t \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$,
that maps balance and stage type to stage payment,
\item balance function $\mathsf{bal}_t: \mathcal{V}_{(1,t-1)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ is
defined recursively by the following equation,
\begin{align}\label{eq:defbal}
\forall v_t,~\mathsf{bal}_{t + 1} = \mathsf{bal}_t - s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) +
d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t),
\end{align}
where $\mathsf{bal}_1 = 0$. Mathematically, $\mathsf{bal}_t$ is a function of
history $v_{(1, t - 1)}$. We will often refer to
$\mathsf{bal}_t(v_{(1, t - 1)})$ simply as $\mathsf{bal}_t$ and think of it as a
variable that is updated in the course of the mechanism as the
types are revealed.
\item deposit policy $d_t : \mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathcal{V}_t \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$,
that maps balance and stage type to a non-negative real that is to
be added to the current balance,
\item spend policy $s_t : \mathbb{R}_+ \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, that maps balance
to a real (no more than balance), that is to be subtracted from the
current balance.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Resources/BAM.pdf}
\caption{Transfer in bank account mechanisms. Revenue comes from both
Spending (Step 1) and Payment (Step 2). In principle, the balance
in the bank account belongs to the buyer, but the seller can spend
it according to policy $s_t$.}
\label{fig:bam}
\end{figure}
At stage $t$, a bank account mechanism works as follows, (see Figure
\ref{fig:bam})
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{stp:spd}
The seller spends the balance by $s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)$, before learning the
buyer's stage type $v_t$. ($s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)$ directly transfers to the
seller's revenue.)
\item \label{stp:all}
Upon receiving buyer's report $v_t$, the seller allocates according
to $z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t)$ to the buyer and charges $q_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t)$.
\item \label{stp:dps}
The buyer deposits an amount of $d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t)$ to the bank
account.
\end{enumerate}
It is useful to describe how a bank account mechanism maps to a direct
revelation mechanism. Given a description of a BAM in terms of $z_{(1, T)},
\allowbreak q_{(1, T)},\allowbreak \mathsf{bal}_{(1, T)},\allowbreak d_{(1, T)}, s_{(1, T)}$ we map it to the
direct mechanism described by $x_{(1,T)}, p_{(1,R)}$.
For the allocation rule, we define:
\begin{align*}
x_t(v_{(1, t)}) = z_t\big(\mathsf{bal}_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}), v_t\big).
\end{align*}
The payment to the seller is given by:
\begin{align*}
p_t(v_{(1, t)}) = s_t\big(\mathsf{bal}_t(v_{(1, t - 1)})\big)
+ q_t\big(\mathsf{bal}_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}), v_t\big)
\end{align*}
While the deposit $d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t)$ is not present in the description above,
it affects the mechanisms in the sense that it dictates how the balance is
updated from one step to the other.\\
Consider the following example that illustrates the bank account mechanism.
\begin{example}\label{example:bam}
For the $T = 2$, one item per stage case. Let the valuation of each item
be independently identically drawn from the {\em equal revenue
distribution}, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}_1 = \mathcal{F}_2 = \mathcal{F},~
\mathcal{F}(v) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & v \leq 1 \\
1 - 1 / v, & 1 < v < v_{\max} \\
1, & v \geq v_{\max}
\end{array}\right..
\end{align*}
The following is a bank account mechanism for this setting.
\begin{itemize}
\item Starting with $\mathsf{bal}_1 = 0$, spend $0$ from the balance, i.e.,
$s_1(0) = 0$ (Step \ref{stp:spd}).
\item The first item is sold at posted-price $1$ (Step \ref{stp:all}).
\item The buyer deposits money of amount $v_1 - 1$ to the bank account,
i.e., $d_1(0, v_1) = v_1 - 1$ (Step \ref{stp:dps}).
\item All the balance so far are spent at the beginning of stage $2$,
i.e., $s_2(\mathsf{bal}_2) = \mathsf{bal}_2$ (Step \ref{stp:spd}).
\item The second item is sold at posted-price $v_{\max} / e^{v_1 - 1}$
(Step \ref{stp:all}).
\item The buyer deposit nothing at stage $2$, i.e., $d_1(\mathsf{bal}_2,v_2) = 0$
(Step \ref{stp:dps}).
\end{itemize}
First of all, one can verify that $B$ is IC and IR: it is straightforward
to verify that $B$ is IR and IC for stage $2$. For stage $1$, (1) reporting
$v'_1 < 1$ yields utility $0$, since the buyer neither gets the first item
($v'_1$ is less than the reserve), nor gets the second item (the reserve is
higher than $v_{\max}$); (2) reporting any $v'_1 \geq 1$ makes no
difference to the buyer than truthfully reporting,
\begin{align*}
& v_1 - 1 - (v'_1 - 1) + \E_{v_2 \geq r(v'_1)} \big(v_2 - r(v'_1)\big)
= v_1 - v'_1 + \ln v_{\max} - \ln r(v'_1) \\
&~= v_1 - v'_1 + \ln v_{\max} - \ln v_{\max} + \ln e^{v'_1 - 1}
= v_1 - 1.
\end{align*}
In fact, it is not hard to show that the bank account mechanism described
above is revenue optimal among all dynamic mechanisms, with optimal revenue
$2 + \ln\ln v_{\max}$, while any history independent mechanism can obtain
revenue at most $2$.
\end{example}
To sum up, the spend $s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t)$ in Step \ref{stp:spd} can be considered as
a prepayment for items to be sold in stage $t$. Then, based on the prepayment,
the seller provides a per-stage mechanism (allocation and payment) to the
buyer for stage $t$ in Step \ref{stp:all}. The prepayment and mechanism are
carefully chosen so as to guarantee stagewise IC. Finally, the buyer deposits
part of his/her utility to the bank account balance in Step \ref{stp:dps} to
enable prepayments of the future stages.
\subsection{Conditions for IC and IR bank account mechanisms}
%
We discuss now sufficient conditions for a bank account mechanism to
satisfy IC and IR constraints. At any given stage $t$, the type $v_t$
reported can affect the agent in two ways: it will influence the utility
he/she gets in the single-shot mechanism defined by $z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, \boldsymbol{\cdot}),
q(\mathsf{bal}_t, \boldsymbol{\cdot})$ and it will affect how much is deposited in his bank
account, which will in turn affect how much is spent in future rounds. If
somehow we can design the mechanism such that the agent is indifferent
about how much we deposit in his/her account and spend from his/her account
(i.e., indifferent about the actual balance he/she has), then we can focus
on making the stage mechanism truthful.
Define the utility of the $\langle z, q \rangle$-mechanism at stage $t$ as
when the type is $v_t$ and the reported type is $v'_t$ as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:hu}
\hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v'_t; v_t) =
z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v'_t) \cdot v_t - q_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v'_t).
\end{align}
The expected utility in stage $t$ of the corresponding direct mechanism is:
\begin{align}
\E_{v_t} \big[u_t(v_{(1, t)}; v_t)\big] =
- s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) + \E_{v_t} \big[\hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t; v_t)\big].
\end{align}
Our next lemma shows that if the previous expression is independent of the
bank balance $\mathsf{bal}_t$, it is enough for the $\langle z, q \rangle$-mechanism
to be truthful as a single-shot mechanism for every bank balance $\mathsf{bal}_t$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sconic}
Bank account mechanism $B$ is IC, if the following two conditions are
satisfied,
\begin{align}
& \forall t \in [T],~\mathsf{bal}_t, \mathsf{bal}'_t \geq 0,~v_t, v'_t \in \mathcal{V}_t,
\nonumber \\
& \hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t; v_t) \geq \hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v'_t; v_t),
\label{cond:sic} \\
& s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) - s_t(\mathsf{bal}'_t) =
\E_{v_t} \big[\hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t; v_t)
- \hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}'_t, v_t; v_t)\big].
\label{cond:spd}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sconir}
Bank account mechanism $B$ is IR, if the following condition is satisfied,
\begin{align}
\hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t; v_t) \geq d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t). \label{cond:ir}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
%
In the remainder of this paper, we use {\em BAMs} to refer to bank account
mechanisms satisfying (\ref{cond:sic})-(\ref{cond:ir}). Given the previous
lemmas, we refer (\ref{cond:sic}) and (\ref{cond:spd}) as IC constraint for
BAMs, and (\ref{cond:ir}) as IR constraint for BAMs.
%
%
%
%
\subsection{It is without loss of generality to focus on Bank Account
Mechanisms}
The reason why we can focus on bank account mechanisms instead of general
dynamic mechanisms (other than the fact that they are simple) is formally
justified by the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:rep}
For any direct mechanism $M$, there is a BAM $B$, such that,
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Rev}(B) \geq \textsc{Rev}(M),~\textsc{Utl}(B) = \textsc{Utl}(M).
\end{align*}
In addition, if $M$ is deterministic, $B$ is deterministic.
\end{theorem}
Before conducting the proof of this theorem, we first need to understand
that the set of BAMs is a strict subset of the set of direct mechanisms. In
fact, for any BAM that defines the same balance for two different
histories, $\mathsf{bal}_{t + 1}(v_{(1, t)}) = \mathsf{bal}_{t + 1}(v'_{(1, t)})$, the
submechanisms after the two histories must be identical, since balance is
the only history related information stored in a BAM. This is not the case
for general direct mechanisms, which may be path-dependent.
Our idea is to conduct a two-step reduction from $M$ to $B$: firstly, from
any direct mechanism $M$ to a {\em symmetric} direct mechanism $M'$. We say
that a mechanism is symmetric if whenever conditioned on any two histories
at time $t$, if the expected utility is the same then the allocation and
payment rules are also the same. Formally:
\begin{definition}[Symmetric Mechanism]\label{def:symm}
Given any direct mechanism $M$ define the equivalence relation
$v_{(1, t - 1)} \sim v'_{(1, t - 1)}$ between histories as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:equiv}
v_{(1, t)} \sim v'_{(1, t)} \iff
\textsc{Utl}(M | v_{(1, t)}) = \textsc{Utl}(M | v'_{(1, t)}).
\end{align}
We say that mechanism $M$ is {\em symmetric}, if for any pair of
equivalent histories, $v_{(1, t - 1)} \sim v'_{(1, t - 1)}$, the
corresponding submechanisms are identical, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\forall t \leq t' \leq T, v_{(t, t')} \in \mathcal{V}_{(t, t')},~
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
x_{t'}(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v_{(t, t')})
= x_{t'}(v'_{(1, t - 1)}, v_{(t, t')}) \\
p_{t'}(v_{(1, t - 1)}, v_{(t, t')})
= p_{t'}(v'_{(1, t - 1)}, v_{(t, t')})
\end{array}\right..
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Our first step is to show that for any mechanism, it is possible to
construct a symmetric mechanism where the utility is the same and the
revenue is at least as large:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:mechtrans}
For any direct mechanism $M$, there is a symmetric direct mechanism $M'$
such that
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Utl}(M') = \textsc{Utl}(M),~\textsc{Rev}(M') \geq \textsc{Rev}(M).
\end{align*}
In particular, if $M$ is deterministic, $M'$ is also deterministic.
\end{lemma}
The second step in the reduction is to show that any symmetric direct
mechanism can be converted to a BAM.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:symm}
For any symmetric direct mechanism $M'$, there is a Core BAM $B$ such
that
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Utl}(B) = \textsc{Utl}(M'),~\textsc{Rev}(B) = \textsc{Rev}(M').
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
In fact, we will show that any mechanism can be converted to a specific
type of BAM, which we will denote {\em Core BAM}. The rest of this section
is devoted to proving the previous lemmas, which taken together constitute
a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:rep}. We will start by defining the concept of
Core BAM which will be central to our analysis.
Let $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_0 \cup \mathcal{H}_1 \cup \cdots \cup \mathcal{H}_T$ be the set of all
histories, where $\mathcal{H}_t = \mathcal{V}_{(1, t)}$ is the set of all histories of
length $t$ ($0 \leq t \leq T$). In particular, $\mathcal{H}_0 = \{\emptyset\}$.
For any $0 \leq t \leq T$, Let $g_t$ be a function that maps a history of
length $t$ to a real number, and $y_t$ (for $t \geq 1$) be a function that
maps a history of length $t$ to a stage allocation.
\begin{align*}
& g_t : \mathcal{H}_t \rightarrow \mathbb{R},~\forall 0 \leq t \leq T; \\
& y_t : \mathcal{H}_t \rightarrow \mathcal{X}_t,~\forall t \in [T].
\end{align*}
%
%
Intuitively, we will construct a BAM, called core BAM, that yields the same
conditional utility as $g$ and the same allocation as $y$, where $g$ and
$y$ denote $g_0, \ldots, g_T$ and $y_1, \ldots, y_T$, respectively.
\begin{definition}[Core BAM]\label{def:corebam}
Consider the following construction of bank account mechanism based on
$g$ and $y$, denoted as $B^{g, y}$.
\begin{align}
& \mathsf{bal}_{t + 1}(v_{(1, t)}) = g_t(v_{(1, t)}) - \mu_t,
\label{eq:bbal} \\
& z_t\big(\mathsf{bal}_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}), v_t\big) = y_t(v_{(1, t)}),
\label{eq:ball} \\
& q_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) = z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) \cdot v_t
- \int_\mathbf{0}^{v_t} z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v) \mathrm{d} v,
\label{eq:bpay} \\
& d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) = \hat{u}_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t; v_t),
\label{eq:bdps} \\
& s_t(\mathsf{bal}_t) = \mathsf{bal}_t + d_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v_t) - \mathsf{bal}_{t + 1},
\label{eq:bspd}
\end{align}
where for $t < T$, $\mu_t = \inf_{v_{(1, t)}} g_t(v_{(1, t)})$;
$\mu_T = \min\big\{0, \inf_{v_{(1, T)}} g_T(v_{(1, T)})\big\}$.
When the construction above is a valid BAM, we call it a {\em core BAM}.
\end{definition}
%
For the construction in Definition \ref{def:corebam} to be valid BAM we
need certain conditions to be satisfied. For equation (\ref{eq:ball}) to be
well-defined, we need that $y_t(v_{(1, t)}) = y_t(v'_{(1, t - 1)}, v_t)$
whenever $g_t(v_{(1, t - 1)}) = g_t(v'_{(1, t - 1)})$, otherwise equation
(\ref{eq:ball}) would imply different values of $z_t$ for the same bank
balance. Also for IC constraint (\ref{cond:sic}) to be satisfied, we need
the allocation function $y_t(v_{(1, t)})$ to be weakly increasing in $v_t$.
In Theorem \ref{thm:corebam} we will provide necessary and sufficient
conditions on $g_t$ and $y_t$ for the mechanism to be a valid core BAM.
%
%
We also want to remind that reader that our theorems hold in the case where
more than one item is auctioned in each stage. In the first time the reader
reads our theorems, we recommend him to focus on the single-item per round
case and interpret the integrals as one-variable integrals. However, they
hold in general multi-dimensional case as well, by interpreting the
integration in (\ref{eq:bpay}) as a multidimensional path-integral $\mathbf{0}$
to $v_t$. If $z_t(\mathsf{bal}_t, v)$ is the sub-gradient of some multi-dimensional
valued input, then the value of the integral is independent of the
integration path. As we will see in Theorem \ref{thm:corebam}, a necessary
condition for the mechanism $B^{g, y}$ to be a Core BAM is that $y_t$ is
the sub-gradient of $g_t$.
Core BAM is a key construction throughout this paper because it is without
loss of generality to restrict to Core BAMs, as we will prove that Theorem
\ref{thm:rep} is still true even if we replace BAM by Core BAM in the
statement of the theorem.
Now we are ready to prove the lemmas. Both of the proofs are constructive.
The idea to prove Lemma \ref{lem:mechtrans} is sketched as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Given a direct mechanism $M$, we construct equivalence classes
defined by (\ref{eq:equiv}).
\item For each equivalence class, select a {\em representative history}
$v^*_{(1, t - 1)}$ such that the revenue from the
submechanism at this history dominates the expected revenue from
the submechanisms at the histories in this equivalence class.
\item At history $v_{(1, t - 1)}$ and stage type $v_t$, $M'$ simulates
what $M$ does at history $v^*_{(1, t - 1)}$ with stage type $v_t$.
%
\item However, applying such simulation to histories at stage $t$ will
destroy the equivalence relation in stage $t + 1$ since it changes
the utilities in stage $t + 1$.
\item Our idea is to replace each history with its representative history
inductively, stage by stage (so that when the replacement procedure
is applied up to stage $t$, then equivalence relation in stage
$t + 1$ is determined).
\item The so-constructed mechanism is symmetric and we verify that it
satisfies the desirable properties.
\end{enumerate}
The representative history in an equivalent class is a history in this
class such that the seller's revenue at this history is no less than the
expected revenue in this equivalence class. Clearly, such a history always
exists. Intuitively, by replacing all histories in an equivalent class with
such a representative history, one can ensure that the seller's expected
revenue weakly increases while the buyer's utility remains the same.
Instead of directly proving Lemma \ref{lem:symm}, we prove the following
stronger version: for each symmetric direct mechanism, one can construct a
Core BAM with the same overall outcome.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:symmstrong}
For any symmetric direct mechanism $M$, $B^{g, y}$ is a BAM, if
\begin{align}\label{eq:lemsymmstat}
\forall 0 \leq t \leq T, h_t \in \mathcal{H}_t, g_t(h_t) = \textsc{Utl}(M | h_t),~
\forall t \in [T], h_t \in \mathcal{H}_t, y_t(h_t) = x_t(h_t).
\end{align}
Moreover, $B^{g, y}$ has the same overall allocation and payment, as a
result,
\begin{align*}
\textsc{Utl}(B^{g, y}) = \textsc{Utl}(M) = g_0(\emptyset),~\textsc{Rev}(B^{g, y}) = \textsc{Rev}(M).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Then the proof of this lemma is to verify that so-constructed $B^{g, y}$ is
indeed a BAM.
%
%
%
In light of Theorem \ref{thm:rep}, it is without loss of generality to
consider core BAMs only for the purpose of this paper. Most of our results
(approximation and computation) rely on the construction of core BAMs.
However, as mentioned, the construction $B^{g, y}$ is not guaranteed to be
a core BAM for an arbitrary pair of $g$ and $y$. At the end of this section,
we characterize the set of pairs of $g$ and $y$ such that $B^{g, y}$ is a
Core BAM (Theorem \ref{thm:corebam}). The characterization will be used to
construct feasibility constraints for finding the optimal Core BAMs in
Section \ref{sec:fptas}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:corebam}
$B^{g, y}$ is a core BAM, if and only if for any $t \in [T]$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $y_t$ is the sub-gradient of $g_t$ with respect to $v_t$ with
range being $\mathcal{X}_t$, i.e., $y_t(v_{(1, t)}) =
\partial g_t(v_{(1, t)}) / \partial v_t$ and $y_t(v_{(1, t)}) \in
\mathcal{X}_t$.
\item $g_t$ is {\em consistent}, {\em symmetric}, convex in $v_t$ and
weakly increasing in $v_t$.
\end{itemize}
Consistency and symmetry are defined as follows,
\begin{align*}
& \forall t \in [T],
v_{(1, t)}, v'_{(1, t)} \in \mathcal{V}_{(1, t)} \\
\text{consistent:} & \quad g_{t - 1}(v_{(1, t - 1)})
- \E_{v_t}\big[g_t(v_{(1, t)})\big] = c_t, \\
\text{symmetric:} & \quad g_{t - 1}(v_{(1, t - 1)})
= g_{t - 1}(v'_{(1, t - 1)})
\Longrightarrow g_t(v_{(1, t)}) = g_t(v'_{(1, t - 1)}, v_t),
\end{align*}
where $c_t$ is a constant.
\end{theorem}
%
%
%
As a result, it is without loss of generality to study BAMs and Core BAMs
in the rest of the paper.
Figure \ref{fig:hrch} visualizes our findings so far. For more details and
intuitions behind, we refer the readers to Appendix (along with the proof
of Theorem \ref{thm:corebam}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{Resources/Hierarchy.pdf}
\caption{The intersection of OPTs and Core BAMs is
non-empty.}
\label{fig:hrch}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
The analysis of experimental data on the elastic proton-proton differential cross-section at collision energy $\sqrt{s}\!=\!7$~TeV measured by the TOTEM Collaboration \cite{Antchev:2011zz} has revealed a new, intriguing feature of hadronic interactions: at high energies, the inelasticity density of the collision does not reach a maximum at zero impact parameter. Rather, peripheral collisions, where the effective geometric overlap of the colliding protons is smaller, are more inelastic or, equivalently, are more effective in the production of secondary particles than central ones. This phenomenon, not observed before at lower collision energies, has been referred to as \textit{hollowness}~\cite{Arriola:2016bxa} or \textit{grayness}~\cite{Alkin:2014rfa,Dremin:2015ujt,Troshin:2016frs} of proton-proton collisions by the authors of the first analyses where it was identified.
Our own independent analysis of LHC and ISR data, to be described below, confirms that the inelasticity density of the collision
\eq{\label{Gin}
G_{\rm{in}}(s,\vec{b})\equiv\frac{{\rm d}^2\sigma_{\rm{inel}}}{{\rm d}^2b} ={2\rm{Im}}\widetilde{T}_{\rm{el}}(s,\vec{b})-\vert\widetilde{T}_{\rm{el}}(s,\vec{b})\vert^2\,,
}
where $\widetilde{T}_{\rm{el}}(s,\vec{b})$ is the scattering amplitude in the impact parameter representation, reaches a maximum at $b\ne 0$ for a collision energy $\sqrt{s}\!=\!7$~TeV, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fits}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.56]{GinANDFit.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption[a]{Normalised inelasticity density, $G_{\rm{in}}$, for LHC and ISR energies as a function of the impact parameter. Sub-pannel: fits to ${\rm d}\sigma_{\rm{el}}/{\rm d} t$ data.}
\label{fits}
\end{figure}
The \textit{hollowness} effect challenges the standard geometric interpretations of proton-proton collisions. In particular, it precludes models where the scattering amplitude is built in terms of a positive dependence on the convolution of the density profiles of the two colliding protons. Indeed, it can be shown that the inelasticity density associated to any elastic scattering amplitude thus constructed presents a maximum at zero impact parameter, regardless how intricate the internal structure of one individual proton may be \cite{Arriola:2016bxa}. These observations suggest that the scattering problem may be best formulated in terms of sub nucleonic degrees of freedom which internal dynamics and correlations should be non-trivial with increasing collision energy. Such is the view adopted in this work, where we consider hot spots to be the effective degrees of freedom in terms of which to discuss the properties of the scattering amplitude.
The idea that the gluon content of the proton is concentrated in domains of small radius $R_{hs}$, much smaller than the proton electromagnetic radius that controls the valence quark distribution $R_{hs}\ll R_p$, is strongly supported by theoretical and phenomenological arguments. Further, lattice QCD calculations confirm the smallness of the correlation length of the gluon field strengths inside hadrons~\cite{DiGiacomo:1992hhp}. Such domains of high gluonic density have been dubbed \textit{gluonic drops} or \textit{hot spots} in the literature. While the existence of hot spots inside hadrons is
widely accepted, the debate on their ultimate dynamical origin remains open. It is commonly assumed that the gluon content of the proton is radiatively generated from valence quarks in DGLAP or BFKL-like cascades. In this view hot spots relate directly to the Fock space of valence partons, for which they would provide an effective description. However, the question arises of how and why the resulting glue is confined to a region of small radius. While the intrinsic non-perturbative nature of glue drops has been advocated in~\cite{Shuryak:2003rb,Schafer:1996wv,Braun:1992jp}, the possibility that the hot spots dynamics can be fully described in terms of weakly coupled physics --at least in some kinematic window-- has also been entertained in the literature~\cite{Kovner:2002xa}. More phenomenological approaches combine both views of the problem including non-perturbative gluon masses in order to regulate the long-range Coulomb tails characteristic of perturbative emission kernels~\cite{Kopeliovich:1999am, Schlichting:2014ipa}.
In this work we shall not delve into those arguments and simply assume that hot spots are adequate degrees of freedom to discuss inclusive proton-proton scattering at high energies. Our main assumption about their dynamical properties is that collisions between hot spots are fully absorptive over distances smaller than their radius, $R_{hs}$. Hence, in our effective description, hot spots appear as small black disks of average radius $R_{hs}$. We also assume implicitly that their ultimate dynamical origin is correlated to the valence partons, since we model the proton as composed of $N_{hs}\!=\!3$ hot spots.
Our goal is to construct the elastic scattering amplitude in proton-proton collisions in impact parameter representation.
We describe $pp$ interactions as a collision of two systems, each one composed of three hot spots. According to the Glauber model, the natural framework to describe high-energy scattering of composite particles, the elastic amplitude for a collision of particles $A$ and $B$ with the hot spots frozen in transverse positions $\lbrace \vec{s}_i \rbrace $ has the form:
\eq{\label{expansion}T_{\rm{el}}(\vec{b})=1-\prod_{i=1}^3\prod_{j=1}^3\left[1-\Theta(\vec{b}+\vec{s}_i^A-\vec{s}_j^B)\right]\,, }
where $\Theta$ denotes the scattering amplitude of the $i$-th and $j$-th hot spots interaction and $\vec{b}$ is the impact parameter of the collisions. The physical elastic amplitude is obtained after averaging Eq.~\ref{expansion} over the transverse positions of the hot spots as given by their probability distributions $D(\vec{s}_1,\vec{s}_2,\vec{s}_3)$ in the projectile and target, $A$ and $B$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{telast}
\widetilde{T}_{\rm{el}}(\vec{b})\!=\!\displaystyle\int\prod_{k,l}{\rm d}^2s_k^{A}{\rm d}^2s_l^BD_A(\{\vec{s}_k^A\})D_B(\{\vec{s}_l^B\})
T_{\rm{el}}(\vec{b})\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The general structure that we shall consider for the joint probability distribution for the transverse positions of hot spots inside a proton has the following form:
\eq{\label{DD}
D(\lbrace\vec{s}_i\rbrace)=C \left(\prod_{i=1}^3 d(\vec{s}_i;R)\right)\times f(\vec{s}_1,\vec{s}_2,\vec{s}_3).
}
The constant $C$ is a normalisation constant to ensure that the probability distribution is normalised to unity: $\int\lbrace{\rm d}^2s_i\rbrace D(\lbrace s_i\rbrace)\!=\!1$. The next term corresponds to the product of three uncorrelated probability distributions for a single hot spot, $d(\vec{s}_i)$. In order to facilitate a full analytical calculation of the scattering amplitude, we shall assume them to be of a gaussian form:
\eq{\label{d}
d(\vec{s}_i;R)=\exp\left(-\displaystyle s_i^2/R^2\right),
}
where $R$ is the average radius of the $d$ distribution. It should not be confused with the proton radius itself $R_p$. Additionally we also consider the following baseline functional form for the uncorrelated part of the probability distribution:
\eq{\label{dip}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^3 d(\vec{s}_i;R)\right)\rightarrow \int_{0}^{\infty}{\rm d} x~xe^{-x}\displaystyle \left(\prod_{i=1}^3 d(\vec{s}_i;\sqrt{x}R)\right).
}
In the absence of non-trivial correlations the latter form yields, after Fourier transforming back to momentum space, a dipole electromagnetic form factor $\mathcal{F}(t)\!\sim \!1/(1-t^4/R^4)^2$, in better agreement with data than a purely Gaussian one. Nonetheless, the main conclusions of this work are not affected by either choice. Finally, all the correlation structure is encoded in the function $f$ which, by definition, is not factorisable in the spatial coordinates of the hot spots. We write
\eq{\label{corr}
f(\vec{s}_1,\vec{s}_2,\vec{s}_3)=\delta^{(2)}(\vec{s}_1+\vec{s}_2+\vec{s}_3)\displaystyle\prod_{\substack{{i<j}\\{i,j=1}}}^3\left(1-e^{-\mu\vert\vec{s}_i-\vec{s}_j\vert^2/R^2}\right).}
The $\delta$-function in Eq.~\ref{corr} ensures that the hot spots system is described with respect to the proton centre of mass, thus preventing it from acquiring unphysical transverse momentum. Next, we implement repulsive short-range correlations between all pairs of hot spots controlled by an effective repulsive core $r_c\equiv R/\mu$. In the limit $\mu\to\infty$ we recover the uncorrelated case. While we have no clear dynamical justification for these correlations, their main role in our calculation is to enforce a larger transverse separation between hot spots with respect to the completely uncorrelated case. Indeed, all realistic models for the electromagnetic nucleon form factors entail non-trivial spatial correlations between the constituent quarks: diquark models, where the proton is envisaged as a bound diquark state interacting with the third quark via gluon flux tubes, depict a rod-like structure of a typical string length $l_s\!\sim\!1.5$ fm. In turn, baryon junction models, where the Wilson lines link the three valence quarks at a junction, yield a more triangular structure of the proton. We argue that three-dimensional realisations of both diquark and baryon junction models, when projected onto the reaction plane, produce a similar correlation structure as the two dimensional repulsive core correlations in Eq.~\ref{corr}. In Fig.~\ref{s1s2} we show the average transverse distance between two hot spots yielded by the uncorrelated distribution, corresponding to $\mu\to\infty$, a correlated one with $r_c\!=0.3$ fm and the corresponding value for two three-dimensional triangular distributions projected onto the reaction plane: equilateral and a highly asymmetric isosceles one, which we take as proxies for baryon junction and diquark models. The results for the probability distribution given by Eqs.~\ref{DD}-\ref{corr} provide a good interpolation between the aforementioned, more realistic models of proton substructure.
In the Glauber formulation of the scattering process adopted here, the main effect of correlations in the transverse positions is to reweight the contribution of the different terms of the multiple scattering series spanned by Eqs.~\ref{expansion} and \ref{telast} with respect to the uncorrelated case. For instance, in baryon junction models, terms where the three hot spots in one proton undergo simultaneous scattering with constituents of the target are strongly suppressed, since the three vertices of an equilateral triangle cannot overlap in the transverse plane, unlike the uncorrelated case.
The other parameter that controls the amount of effective overlap for different scattering configurations, and hence their relative contribution to the scattering series, is the hot spot radius.
To conclude the description of our model we have to specify the elastic scattering amplitude between two hot spots separated a transverse distance $s_{ij}$. Again, in order to facilitate full analytic calculations, we resort to a Gaussian parametrisation:
\eq{\Theta(s_{ij})=\mathrm{i}\,\exp\left(-\displaystyle s_{ij}^2/2R_{hs}^2\right)(1-\mathrm{i}\rho_{hs})\,.
\label{theta}}
This amplitude can be thought as resulting from the convolution of two gaussian density distributions for a single hot spot, each of radius $R_{hs}$. The absorptive part of Eq.~\ref{theta} is equal to unity for head-on collisions, in line with our assumption of hot spot as small black discs. Although hadronic amplitudes are expected to be mostly imaginary at high energies, we allow for a constant real part $\rho_{hs}$, i.e independent on the momentum transfer, in order to match the non-zero values measured experimentally. It should be noted that all the energy dependence in our model has been left implicit so far. As discussed below, it is encoded in the transverse growth of the hot spot radius $R_{hs}$ with increasing collision energy, that, together with $R$, $r_c$ and $\rho_{hs}$ are the four parameters of our model.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.56]{s1s2.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption[a]{Mean transverse separation squared between pairs of hot spots as a function of the mean transverse position for different $D(\lbrace\vec{s}_i\rbrace)$.}
\label{s1s2}
\end{figure}
Before discussing the results of our model, we briefly present an independent analysis of experimental data on the differential elastic cross section measured at the LHC and ISR at collision energies 7 TeV and 62.5 GeV respectively.
To describe the data on ${\rm d}\sigma_{\rm{el}}/{\rm d} t=(1/4\pi)\left|T_{\rm{el}}(s,t)\right|^2$ we use the following parametrisation:
\eq{\label{fitT}
{\rm{Im}}T_{\rm {el}}(s,t)&=a_1e^{b_1t}+a_2e^{b_2t}+a_3e^{b_3t}\,,\nonumber \\
{\rm{Re}}T_{\rm{el}}(s,t)&=c_1e^{d_1t}\,,}
with the fit parameters $a_i$ and $c_i$ subject to the constraints: $\sigma_{\rm{tot}}\!=\!2\displaystyle\Sigma_ia_i$ and $\rho\!=\!\displaystyle\Sigma_i\displaystyle (c_i/a_i)$, where the values of $\sigma_{\rm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ correspond to the experimental measurements given in \cite{Antchev:2011zz,Amaldi:1979kd}. For the LHC case we use the extrapolated $\rho$ value provided by the COMPETE Collaboration \cite{Cudell:2002xe}, same as the TOTEM collaboration in their data analysis. With this set up we obtain a very good description of ${\rm d}\sigma_{\rm{el}}/{\rm d} t$, $\chi^2/\rm{d.o.f}\sim 1.1\div 2$, and confirm the hollowness effect in LHC experimental data, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fits}. Fits with a larger number of free parameters lead to similarly good data description.
In order to prove that our model actually accounts for the onset of hollowness effect at high energies, we scan the parameter space looking for the presence of a dip of the inelasticity density at zero impact parameter and a monotonically decreasing scattering amplitude, as dictated by data. I.e, we impose the following conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle\left.\frac{{\rm d}^2 \widetilde{T}_{\rm{el}}(s,b)}{{\rm d}^2 b}\right|_{b=0}<0,\\
\displaystyle\left.\frac{{\rm d}^2 G_{\rm{in}}(s,b)}{{\rm d}^2 b}\right|_{b=0}>0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We shall refer to the region of parameter space that fulfills the two above conditions as hollowness region.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.56]{rc03withGrid.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.56]{rc05withGrid.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.25cm}
\caption[a]{Hollowness region (filled-dashed) and phenomenologically compatible regions with LHC and ISR data in the ($R_p$,$R_{hs}$)-plane for $r_c\!=\!0.3$ (top) and $0.5$~fm (bottom).}
\label{rc03PS}
\end{figure}
A first, important result is that it is not possible to obtain a growing behaviour of $G_{\rm{in}}(s,b)$ at zero impact parameter in the absence of non-trivial correlations, i.e for $\mu\to \infty$ in Eq.~\ref{corr} or, equivalently for zero correlation distances $r_c\!=\!0$. Indeed, in this case the full calculation of the physical scattering amplitude simplifies and it can be shown that $G''_{\rm{in}}(b=0) <0$ in all cases, regardless the specific functional form for the uncorrelated weights in Eq.~\ref{d}.
In turn, for non-zero values of the correlation length $r_c\!<\!R$, we find a wide region of the parameter space compatible with the hollowness effect. In Fig.~\ref{rc03PS} we show the hollowness region --represented as a dashed area in the plots-- in the $(R_p,R_{hs})$-plane for $r_c\!=\!0.3$ (top) and 0.5 fm (bottom), where we have defined $R_p^2\equiv R^2+R_{hs}^2$, the effective proton radius resulting from the convolution of the hot spots distribution with their own density distribution. Results in both plots were obtained with $0.05\!<\!\rho_{hs}\!<\!0.15$. We observe that the hollowness region enlarges with increasing correlation distance $r_c$. For fixed $R_p$ and $r_c$, the hollowness effect kicks in at some finite value of the hot spot radius $R_{hs}$. For instance, fixing $R_p$ to the value of the measured proton charge radius $R_p\approx 0.88$~fm the hollowness region starts at $R_{hs}\ge 0.34$ and $0.24$~fm for $r_c\!=\!0.3$ and $0.5$~fm respectively. The results shown in Fig.~\ref{rc03PS} correspond to the pure gaussian distribution built from Eq.~\ref{d}. The use of the dipole-like distributions in Eq.~\ref{dip} leads to the same qualitative conclusions on the appearance of the hollowness effect and to very similar quantitative estimate of the corresponding hollowness regions.
In order to ensure the compatibility of our results with other global features of experimental data, we now explore the phase space region of our model that is compatible with the measured values of the total cross section and the ratio of real and imaginary parts of the scattering amplitude at LHC and ISR energies:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\rm{tot}}&=&2{\rm{Im}}T_{\rm{el}}(s,0)=2\displaystyle\int{\rm d}^2b~{\rm{Im}}\widetilde{T}_{\rm{el}}(s,\vec{b})\, \\
\rho&=&\displaystyle\frac{{\rm{Re}}T_{\rm{el}}(s,0)}{{\rm{Im}}T_{\rm{el}}(s,0)},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\sigma_{\rm{tot}}=43.32\pm 0.23$~mb, $\rho=0.095\pm 0.018$ at 62.5 GeV (ISR) \cite{Amaldi:1979kd} and $\sigma_{\rm{tot}}=98.3\pm 2.8$~mb, $\rho=0.14^{+0.01}_{-0.08}$ at 7 TeV (LHC).
Upon imposing these further phenomenological restrictions we see how the phase space region phenomenologically compatible with ISR data falls outside the hollowness region. In turn, the subspace compatible with LHC data at 7 TeV fully overlaps with it, both results in perfect agreement with empiric observations. These phenomenologically allowed regions are represented in Fig.~\ref{rc03PS} as dark solid areas. It is also shown the subspace of parameter space compatible with the COMPETE predictions $\sigma_{\rm{tot}}\!=\!111.5\pm10$ mb and $\rho\!=\!0.14^{+0.01}_{-0.08}$ for collision energy 13 TeV which, same as for 7 TeV, is fully contained within the hollowness region. We hence predict that the hollowness effect should also be observed for the collision energy of the Run II at the LHC,13 TeV, provided the COMPETE predictions hold.
We hence conclude that the main dynamical process underlying the onset of the hollowness effect is the transverse diffusion or growth of the hot spots with increasing collision energy, which is the main result of this work.
Further, the measured growth of the total proton-proton cross section can be simultaneously accounted for by the same mechanism. Presumably, other soft, genuinely non-perturbative contributions to the cross section may also have influence in the scattering amplitude. However, we have tested that our main conclusions are not affected if we add an additional, energy independent gaussian contribution to Eq.~\ref{telast}, provided that this new soft component contributes less than a 50\% or 25\% of the total cross section at ISR and LHC energies respectively.
In summary, we propose that the explanation to the rather counterintuitive hollowness effect --whereby proton peripheral collisions are more destructive than central ones at high energies-- lies in the interplay between the different internal scales of the proton: proton radius, hot spot radius and transverse correlation length. The relative enhancement of the destructive interference terms in the multiple scattering series --known as \textit{shadowing} corrections-- induced by non-trivial probability densities for the hot spots transverse positions and the swelling hot spots radius with increasing energy yield the observed depletion of the inelasticity density in central collisions. These effects may have observable consequences in other sets of experimental data on proton collisions. Arguably, they could impact significantly the interpretation of data specially sensitive to the initial collision geometry, like the correlation and flow analysis of proton-proton collisions and the possible production of small drops of Quark Gluon Plasma in such collisions, a highly debated topic nowadays.
\section{Acknowledgements} We are grateful to Enrique Arriola for many illuminating discussions. This work is funded by a FP7-PEOPLE-2013-CIG Grant of the European Commission, reference QCDense/631558, and by Ram\'on y Cajal and MINECO projects reference RYC-2011-09010 and FPA2013-47836.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\IEEEPARstart{R}{ecent} years have seen an unprecedented growth in wireless data traffic and this growth is not slowing down. Compared to 2016, aggregate smartphone traffic is expected to increase almost tenfold by 2020 \cite{cisco}. One
promising technology to help meet the needs of heavily loaded future cellular networks is \emph{Device-to-Device} (D2D) communications. The major benefit of D2D is that it allows for direct communication between proximate user equipment without the need of base stations, hence potentially offering higher data transfer speeds, lower latency, decreased interference, increased spectral efficiency and lower overall power consumption \cite{janis,doppler,fodor,yu,asadi}.
Another uprising technology is wireless \emph{caching} at either directly on user terminals \cite{maddah, jeon, gerami, guocooperative}, or both user terminals and base stations \cite{altman, golrezaeibase, bastug, jidisse}. Wireless D2D caching is an enticing future technology where data could be stored and distributed directly between mobile terminals -- especially if the involved mobile terminals are geographically close to each other and can thus form D2D \emph{clusters} \cite{afshang}. Geographically constrained caching is of particular interest since the popularity of data is highly location dependent \cite{jidisse}.
Wireless content caching and data distribution through direct links have been proposed in several works such as \cite{ott}, where delay-tolerant networking is considered for message dissemination and forwarding. In \cite{lenders} a wireless peer-to-peer type of application is studied and it is shown that caching can greatly increase the application-level throughput. The potential of coded wireless D2D caching is investigated in \cite{jipaper}, while \cite{golrezaeibase} shows that D2D caching can improve the throughput of wireless video transmission. A method for minimizing the energy consumption of D2D caching nodes is analyzed in \cite{chenenergy}, whereas a joint transmission and caching policy that reduces both the total energy consumption at the base station and the economical cost for the operator is presented in \cite{gregori}. In \cite{afshang}, the authors study clusters-centric D2D networks and demonstrate significant improvements in the network performance.
Joint use of caching and erasure coding for D2D clusters has been proposed in our previous work \cite{globecom,macom} for instantaneous repairs. This work has been extended in \cite{pedersen} to efficiently scheduled repairs. Further work on distributed storage with D2D communications has been done in \cite{wangwu}, where a combination of D2D and social networks is considered. In \cite{globecom} we looked for a way to strictly minimize the amount of data traffic in caching clusters and found that repetition coding yields the best results for the considered system model. We then found in \cite{macom} that the optimal coding method, \emph{i.e.}, the coding method which minimized a predetermined cost function, highly depends on the popularity of the file.
A clear drawback of geographically constrained wireless caching is unconstrained user mobility -- when a caching node moves away from the caching cluster, its content is lost. To avoid this, we introduce erasure coding to ensure data availability. The focus of this article is studying the performance of such coded caching clusters. The main contributions of this article can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We construct a system model for a clustered wireless D2D caching community based on stochastic geometry.
\item Closed-form expressions for the expected energy cost based on signal attenuation of both uncoded and coded D2D caching methods are derived, and we further examine under which conditions coded caching outperforms uncoded caching without redundancy.
\item It is shown that coded caching can yield significant cost savings in terms of both the overall energy consumption and economical cost savings from a operator's point of view.
\end{itemize}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:d2d}, we present the system model used throughout this work. In Section~\ref{sec:methods}, we introduce the proposed caching methods. Analytical cost estimates are derived in section Section~\ref{sec:cost}, while simulation results are presented, and compared with the analytical results, in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{sec:conclu}.
\section{System Model}
\label{sec:d2d}
We begin by introducing the system model assumed throughout the paper. We model a cluster of mobile terminals with data storage capabilities -- or \emph{nodes} -- by a disk of radius $r$. The expected number of nodes present in the cluster is denoted by $m$, and the nodes are assumed to be uniformly distributed inside the disk. A single base station is located at a distance $v>r$ from the center of the cluster. A graphical representation of the model is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:cluster}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) circle (4cm);
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v0) at (111:.5) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v1) at (8.4:.8) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=red,minimum size=.01cm] (v3) at (192:1.5) {$ $}
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v4) at (213:2.3) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v5) at (262:1.5) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v6) at (282:3.1) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v7) at (102:3.3) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v8) at (12:3.6) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v9) at (352:1.6) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v10) at (220:3.1) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v11) at (174:2.3) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,fill=black,minimum size=.01cm] (v12) at (102:2.0) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v13) at (201:.4) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v14) at (112:2.5) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v15) at (232:2.1) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v16) at (63:2.5) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v17) at (300:2.7) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v18) at (300:2.7) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v19) at (80:1) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v20) at (135:1.47) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v21) at (331:1.27) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v21) at (341:2.47) {$ $};
\node[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=.01cm] (v21) at (135:3.00) {$ $};
\node[left=8.5cm of v3] (BS) {\BS{BS}};
\node[draw=none,minimum size=.00cm] (cen) at (225:.15) {$ $};
\node[draw=none,minimum size=0cm] (bor) at (45:4.15) {$ $};
\node[draw=none,minimum size=.00cm] (BS1) at (200.8978:11.7745) {};
\node[draw=none,minimum size=.00cm] (BS2) at (269:4.2) {};
\draw[->] (v11) -- node[above] {} (v3);
\draw[->] (v0) -- node[above] {} (v3);
\draw[->] (v4) -- node[left] {$ $} (v3);
\draw[->] (v5) -- node[above] {$ $} (v3);
\draw[<->] (BS) -- node[above] {$ $} (v3);
\draw[->] (cen) -- node[above] {$r$} (bor);
\draw[<->] (BS1) -- node[above] {$v$} (BS2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{D2D caching cluster system model. Instead of contacting a remote base station, users in the cluster are able to communicate with each other through direct links.}
\label{fig:cluster}
\end{figure}
The nodes inside the cluster form a D2D caching community. We assume that each node knows about the content stored in every other node, and any two nodes can communicate data. We further assume that all data transmission links are error-free.
The time dynamics of the system are modeled as follows. The time that an arbitrary node remains active in the cluster follows an exponential distribution with expected value $T$. We define a \emph{failure} as the event when a node becomes inactive by leaving the system and denote the \emph{node failure rate} by $\lambda = 1/T$. With these parameters, we can model the instantaneous state of the system via an M/M/$\infty$ Markov model (cf. Figure~\ref{fig:markov_system}), which has been widely used to model wireless cellular systems with exponential dwell times \cite{tanganalysis, hungrandom, thaj}. In this work, we only consider the steady state of the chain with $m$ nodes in the cluster on average. Hence, the probability that the system is in state $j$, \emph{i.e.}, that there are $j$ nodes in the cluster, can be written as \cite{harrison}
\begin{align}
\pi(j) = \frac{m^j}{j!}e^{-m}.\label{marko}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[->, >=stealth', auto, semithick, node distance=3cm]
\tikzstyle{every state}=[fill=white,draw=black,thick,text=black, minimum width=1.5cm]
\node[state] (A) {$m-1$};
\node[state] (B) [right of=A] {$m$};
\node[state] (C) [right of=B] {$m+1$};
\node[state,draw=none] (d1)[left of=A] {$\cdots$};
\node[state,draw=none] (d2)[right of=C] {$\cdots$};
\path (A) edge[bend left=50,above] node{$m\lambda$} (B)
edge[bend left=50,below] node{$(m-1)\lambda$} (d1)
(B) edge[bend left=50,above] node{$m\lambda$} (C)
edge[bend left=50,below] node{$m\lambda$} (A)
(C) edge[bend left=50,above] node{$m\lambda$} (d2)
edge[bend left=50,below] node{$(m+1)\lambda$} (B)
(d1) edge[bend left=50,above] node{$m\lambda$} (A)
(d2) edge[bend left=50,below] node{$(m+2)\lambda$} (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{M/M/$\infty$ Markov chain. The state refers to the number of users in the cluster.}
\label{fig:markov_system}
\end{figure}
We henceforth consider a single data file of unit size without loss of generality. Each user in the cluster can request the file anytime. The request interval of a user follows an exponential distribution with expected value $1/\omega$, where we call $\omega$ the \emph{request rate} or, by slight abuse of terminology, the \emph{file popularity}. We concentrate on the case $\omega < \lambda$ as we assume that the vast majority of the users request the file only once during their visit to the cluster.
\section{Caching Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
In this article, we consider three different methods to cache the file on the nodes. These caching methods are introduced in the following subsections.
\paragraph{Simple caching} A single node stores a full copy of the file. The file is not protected against storage node failures since no redundancy is enabled. As soon as the caching node leaves the system, the data file is lost from the caching community and the next requesting node needs to download the entire file from the base station. This node then automatically becomes the new caching node and, as long as it remains active in the cluster, all file requests from other nodes are served by this node through D2D communications. The system can be modeled with a Markov chain as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:markov_caching}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[->, >=stealth', auto, semithick, node distance=3cm]
\tikzstyle{every state}=[fill=white,draw=black,thick,text=black, minimum width=1.5cm]
\node[state] (A) {$(0,0)$};
\node[state] (B) [right of=A, below=0.4cm of A] {$(1,0)$};
\node[state] (C) [right of=A, above=0.4cm of A] {$(0,1)$};
\node[state] (D) [right of=B] {$(1,1)$};
\node[state] (E) [right of=C] {$(0,2)$};
\node[state] (d2) [right of=D] {$(1,2)$};
\node[state] (d3) [right of=E] {$(0,3)$};
\node[state,draw=none] (d4)[right of=d3] {$\cdots$};
\node[state,draw=none] (d5)[right of=d2] {$\cdots$};
\path
(A) edge[bend left=30,left] node{$m\lambda$} (C)
(B) edge[bend left=30,above] node{$m\lambda$} (D)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$\lambda$} (A)
(C) edge[bend left=30,above] node{$m\lambda$} (E)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$\lambda$} (A)
edge[bend left=0,right] node{$\omega$} (B)
(D) edge[bend left=30,above] node{$m\lambda$} (d2)
edge[bend left=-10,right] node{$\lambda$} (C)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$\lambda$} (B)
(E) edge[bend left=30,above] node{$m\lambda$} (d3)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$2\lambda$} (C)
edge[bend left=0,right] node{$2\omega$} (D)
(d2)
edge[bend left=30,above] node{$m\lambda$} (d5)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$2\lambda$} (D)
edge[bend left=-10,right] node{$\lambda$} (E)
(d3)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$3\lambda$} (E)
edge[bend left=0,right] node{$3\omega$} (d2)
edge[bend left=30,above] node{$m\lambda$} (d4)
(d4)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$4\lambda$} (d3)
(d5)
edge[bend left=30,below] node{$3\lambda$} (d2)
edge[bend left=-10,right] node{$\lambda$} (d3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Simple caching Markov chain state diagram. State $(x,y)$ refers to having $x\in\{0,1\}$ caching nodes and $y=0,1,2,3,...$ empty nodes in the cluster.}
\label{fig:markov_caching}
\end{figure}
The steady state probabilities of the upper chain are $\pi_j-\zeta_j$ and the lower chain $\zeta_j$, where $\pi_j$ are the M/M/$\infty$ probabilities from \eqref{marko}, and $\zeta_j$ fulfil the recursion $$
\zeta_{j+1} = \left(\frac{m}{j} + \frac\omega\lambda + 1\right)\zeta_j - \frac{m}{j}\zeta_{j-1} - \frac\omega\lambda \pi_j~,
$$
with $\zeta_0=0$. Note that, for the purposes of this article, we do not need to find the steady state probabilities. Instead, in Section \ref{subsec:savings_general}, we derive an approximation of the performance metric. We use the chain of Figure \ref{fig:markov_caching} only to model the behavior of the system with computer simulations in order to empirically measure the performance of simple caching. This will be done later in Section \ref{sec:analysis}.
\begin{remark}
Another way to cache and disseminate the file in the cluster would be to store a replica of the file on each of the nodes that requests it. However, it is easy to see that in order for this method to work and the cluster to fill up with replicas, the file request rate should be higher than the node passing rate, i.e., $\omega > \lambda$. This in turn would mean that the average user downloads the file more than once during its stay in the cluster. We focus on the more realistic case where the average number of requests per node lifetime is less than one, i.e., $\omega < \lambda$, which means that redundancy must be actively maintained or else the cached data will be lost.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Replication}
The most elementary way of adding redundancy to the system is simply to store multiple copies of the entire file on separate nodes. We refer to this strategy as $n$-replication, where $n\ll m$ nodes store a replica of the file. When the system operates under this method, the file can be retrieved, or a lost node repaired, by contacting simply one of the storage nodes. The obvious downside of replication is that it consumes more storage space than coded storage. Furthermore, the \emph{repair bandwidth}, that is, the amount of data traffic that replacing a lost storage node incurs, is equal to the size of the entire file. Hence, the repair bandwidth is equal to the \emph{reconstruction bandwidth}, which we define as the amount of data traffic incurred when a users downloads and reconstructs the data file.
\paragraph{Regenerating Codes}
We interpret the considered system as a \emph{Distributed Storage System} (DSS) which is composed of $n \ll m$ storage nodes\footnote{With a slight abuse of notation, we denote by $n$ the number of nodes storing a replica in case of $n$-replication, and the length of an $(n,k,d)$ MDS code used for the DSS. The meaning of $n$ will always be clear from the context or clarified otherwise.}. The original data file is encoded into $n$ coded fragments of size $\alpha$ each. Storage nodes are assigned one of the coded fragments, and the entire file can be recovered by contacting any $k < n$ storage nodes, a feature also referred to as the \emph{Maximum Distance Seperability} (MDS) property of a code. This property is what allows the system to be resistant against arbitrary failure sequences.
To maintain redundancy, whenever a storage node fails, it is instantly replaced with a \emph{newcomer} node that is randomly chosen from the empty nodes present in the cluster. This newcomer node contacts any $d \le n-1$ storage nodes, downloads $\beta$ units of data from each and stores $\alpha$ units of data. Note that the new content in the newcomer node does not need to be exactly the data that were lost in the failed node. Hence, we consider \emph{functional repair}, which ensures that both the MDS and the regeneration property hold after an arbitrary failure.
Throughout this paper, we assume instant repair after failures so that no matter which coding method is used, there are always $n$ caching nodes in the cluster as long as the Markov chain in Figure \ref{fig:markov_system} never goes to a state lower than $n$, which we deem a valid assumption as we only investigate the case $n \ll m$, and thus the probability of finding the chain in small states is extremely small\footnote{For example, if $m=100$ and $n=6$, values which we will later use in our simulations, the probability that the number of nodes in the cluster drops to $n$ or below is approximately $5.5 \times 10^{-35}$.}.
A DSS is determined by the tuple $(n,k,d,\alpha,\gamma)$, whereof the triple $(n,k,d)$ consists of the \emph{storage degree}, \emph{reconstruction degree} and \emph{repair degree}. In other words, reconstructing the data file requires contacting $k$ out of total $n$ storage nodes, while repairing the contents of a lost node requires contacting $d$ nodes. In addition, the parameter tuple $(\alpha,\gamma)$ consists of the fragment size $\alpha$ stored in each of the $n$ storage nodes, and the \emph{repair bandwidth} $\gamma$, that is the total number of units of data that a newcomer needs to download for repairing a lost node. Note that when repairing, each storage node involved in the repair process transmits $\beta$ units of data to the newcomer node, so that $\gamma = d\beta$.
A given tuple of parameters $(n,k,d,\alpha,\gamma)$ is \emph{feasible} if a code with such $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ exists. For a result on the existence of feasible parameter tuples, we refer to \cite[Thm.~1]{dimakis}. More importantly, there is a natural tradeoff between $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ given by a piecewise linear function. Codes lying on this tradeoff curve are called regenerating codes. Hence, regenerating codes offer an optimal tradeoff between storage space consumption and repair bandwidth, while maintaining the MDS property. Furthermore, any $d$ nodes can be contacted to resurrect a lost node while maintaining these properties after repairs. Hence, regenerating codes are an attractive choice.
In this work, we consider two types of regenerating codes: codes attaining one of the two extremal points, \emph{i.e.}, the points where either the storage space consumption or repair bandwidth is minimized. These codes are known as \emph{minimum storage regenerating} (MSR) codes and \emph{minimum bandwidth regenerating} (MBR) codes, respectively. For a file of unit size, these points are achieved by the pairs \cite{dimakis}
\begin{align}
\left(\alpha_{\text{MSR}},\gamma_{\text{MSR}}\right) &= \left(\frac{1}{k},\frac{d}{k(d-k+1)}\right), \label{MSRab}
\\
\left(\alpha_{\text{MBR}},\gamma_{\text{MBR}}\right) &= \left(\frac{2d}{k(2d-k+1)},\frac{2d}{k(2d-k+1)}\right). \label{MBRab}
\end{align}
It has been shown that, in the typical case $k \leq d \leq n-1$ which we assume throughout this work, code constructions exists for both the MSR and the MBR point, see \emph{e.g.}, \cite{rashmi}. Note that the reason we do not consider traditional MDS erasure codes, such as Reed-Solomon codes, is that, for the purpose of this work, they are merely a special case of MSR codes with $k = d$.
\section{Cost Estimates}
\label{sec:cost}
In order to compare the three considered methods, we need to determine a reference function which measures the overall expected costs in terms of transmission energy. We start by establishing a general underlying model.
The main performance metric of the system is the overall energy \emph{cost}, which we define as the sum of the \emph{transmission cost} and the \emph{storage cost}. We refer to the {transmission cost} of a transmission scheme as the sum of the expected overall transmission costs, that is, the transmit power consumption of the base station and D2D community caused by data traffic of a fixed file of unit size, both due to data retrieval or repair. In addition, we also establish a {storage cost}, so that neglectfully caching large amounts of data is not a viable option. Wasting storage space would result in a waste of transmission energy as the short-distance D2D links could not be efficiently utilized if only a few different files fit on the storage space of the caching community, and consequently, the traditional downlink with the base station would be needed more often. Hence, we \emph{translate storage into transmit power}.
We represent the cost of storing a unit of data by a constant $\sigma$. Finding the data transmission costs requires analyzing the stochastic geometrical properties of the cluster, which we will do in the following to derive the cost of reconstruction and repair.
As depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:cluster}, our system consists of a base station located at a distance $v$ away from the center of the caching cluster, and a cluster of nodes, uniformly distributed in a disk of radius $r \ll v$. We implement full channel inversion at the transmitter, which implies that the expected required downlink transmit power to communicate one unit of data over distance $x$ becomes $x^{\Gamma}$, where $\Gamma$ is the pathloss exponent. We consider two different pathloss exponents\footnote{We assume that the base station antennas are located much higher than the D2D users. Without loss of generality, throughout this work we use values $\Gamma_\text{BS} = 2$ for the pathloss between the base station and a node in the cluster, and $\Gamma_\text{D2D} = 4$ for the pathloss between two nodes in the D2D community, when numerical values are needed similarly to, \emph{e.g.}, \cite{guodevice}.}: one for the downlink from the base station to the nodes in the cluster ($\Gamma_{\text{BS}}$), and another for communications in D2D mode ($\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}$).
The expected required transmit power for communication between two nodes in the cluster is denoted by $L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(i,n)$, which is the expected $\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}^\text{th}$ power of the distance from an arbitrary node in the disk to its $i^\text{th}$ nearest caching node, assuming that there are $n$ uniformly distributed storage nodes present in a disk of radius $r$. In other words, $L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(i,n)$ is also the expected cost of transmitting a unit of data between two nodes in the disk. Thus, the first step towards estimating the transmission costs of the individual methods is to derive the quantity $L_{r,\Gamma}(i,n)$. To that end, we will need the following result.
\emph{Let two circles of radii $R$ and $r\leq R$ be separated by distance $v$. For any triple $(R,r,v)$, the intersection area $A(R,r,v)$ of the two circles is given by the function }
\begin{align}
A(R,r,v) = \begin{cases}
\pi r^2 &\mbox{ if } v \le R-r \\
\pi r^2 - \eta(r,\mu) + \eta(R,\mu) &\mbox{ if } R-r < v \le \sqrt{R^2-r^2} \\%\mu(R,r,v)
\eta(r,\mu) + \eta(R,\mu) &\mbox{ if } \sqrt{R^2-r^2} < v \le r+R \\
0 &\mbox{ if } v > r+R,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\mu \coloneqq \mu(R,r,v) &\coloneqq \frac{1}{v}\sqrt{(r+R-v) (r-R+v) (-r+R+v) (r+R+v)},\nonumber \\
\eta(x,\mu) &\coloneqq x^2\sin^{-1}\left(\frac{\mu}{2x}\right) - \sqrt{\left(\frac{\mu}{2}+x\right) \left(\left(\frac{\mu}{2}+x\right)-\mu\right) \left(\left(\frac{\mu}{2}+x\right)-x\right)^2}.\nonumber
\end{align}
For further details on circle intersection calculations, see \emph{e.g.} \cite{circlecircle}. Now let $P(t)$ be a node in the cluster, where $t$ denotes its distance from the origin of the disk. Using the computed area of intersection, we can find the probabilities needed for our calculations. Of interest for our purposes is the expected distance between the node $P(t)$ and it's $q^\text{th}$ nearest node out of $n$ nodes, which can be computed as (see \cite{srinidist} for further details)
\begin{align}
E(n,q,r,t) = &\int\limits_{0}^{r}\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{q-1}{\binom{n}{i}}\left(\frac{A(r,x,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^i\left(1-\frac{A(r,x,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^{n-i}\right)dx \nonumber \\
+ &\int\limits_{r}^{r+t}\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{q-1}{\binom{n}{i}}\left(\frac{A(x,r,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^i\left(1-\frac{A(x,r,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^{n-i}\right)dx.\nonumber
\end{align}
Moreover, we are interested in the expected value of the $\Gamma^\text{th}$ power of the distance between $P(t)$ and its $q^\text{th}$ nearest neighbor, which becomes
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}_{\Gamma}(n,q,r,t) = \Gamma&\left(\int\limits_{0}^{r}x^{\Gamma-1}\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{q-1}{\binom{n}{i}}\left(\frac{A(r,x,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^i\left(1-\frac{A(r,x,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^{n-i}\right)dx\right. \nonumber \\
+ &\left.\int\limits_{r}^{r+t}x^{\Gamma-1}\left(\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{q-1}{\binom{n}{i}}\left(\frac{A(x,r,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^i\left(1-\frac{A(x,r,t)}{\pi r^2}\right)^{n-i}\right)dx\right),\nonumber
\end{align}
the expected value of which is given by
\begin{align}
L_{r,\Gamma}(q,n) = \frac{2}{r^2}\int\limits_{0}^{r}t\mathcal{E}_{\Gamma}(n,q,r,t)dt,
\end{align}
where we have used the probability density function $f(t)=\frac{2t}{r^2}\quad (0\leq t\leq r)$ corresponding to the random variable representing the distance between a randomly chosen point in a disk of radius $r$ and the center of the disk.
Lastly, to measure the performance of simple caching, we find the expectation of the $\Gamma_{\text{BS}}^\text{th}$ power of the distance from a node in the cluster to the base station by integrating the complementary cumulative density function of the distance:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}_{\Gamma_{\text{BS}}}(r,v) = \Gamma_{\text{BS}} \int\limits_{0}^{v+r}{x^{\Gamma_{\text{BS}}-1}\left(1-\frac{A(x,r,v)}{\pi r^2}\right) dx}.
\label{EBS}
\end{align}
For clarity, the notation is summarized in the appendix in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}.
\subsection{Cost Functions Considering Overall Energy Savings}
\label{subsec:savings_general}
We begin by finding the costs of each of the considered caching methods. We only consider the expectations of the costs and thus directly use the expected numbers of nodes to perform calculations. We later verify the validity of this approach with computer simulations in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \underline{Simple Caching.} The dynamics of the system under simple caching are modeled according to the Markov chain in Figure~\ref{fig:markov_caching}. Instead of a full steady state analysis of the chain, for the sake of simplicity, we derive an approximation for the expected cost in the following. When the file is cached, there is one node caching the entire file with no redundancy, so the cost of repair vanishes. There are, on average, $m-1$ nodes in the cluster generating requests as the single caching node does not need to download the file itself. Thus, the expected number of requests during the lifetime of the caching node is $(m-1)\omega T = (m-1)\frac{\omega}{\lambda}$. Once the caching node leaves the cluster, the next file request will be directed to the base station. The expected time in which this happens is approximately\footnote{Strictly speaking, when the caching node has left the cluster, we should take the transient period in which the system returns back to steady state into account to find the exact expected value of the cost of simple caching. Since $\lambda < \omega$ and $m$ is large, though, this approximation is accurate enough for our purposes as will be demostrated later by the numerical results.} $\frac{1}{m\omega}$, and an expected number of $(m-1)\frac\omega\lambda + 1$ requests, including the local file retrievals in the cluster and the remote retrieval from the base station, are generated in time $T+\frac{1}{m\omega}=\frac 1\lambda+\frac{1}{m\omega}$.
The cost of retrieving the file from the caching node is $L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,1)$, whereas the cost of retrieving it from the base station is $\mathcal{E}_{\Gamma_{\text{BS}}}(r,v)$. Further, as long as the file is cached, it incurs a storage cost of $\sigma$. Using the approximation\footnote{This follows from the Taylor series expansion of $f(x,y)=x/y$ centered at the point $\left(E(X),E(Y)\right)$ when $y$ has support on $[0,\infty)$. This expansion can be truncated to $E(X/Y) \approx E(X)/E(Y) - \text{Cov}(X,Y)/E(Y)^2 + \text{Var}(Y)E(X)/E(Y)^3$ \cite{kendall}. In the interest of space, instead of providing a full analysis of the error term, we will demonstrate the predictive ability of our estimate through numerical simulations, see Figures \ref{fig:sim}, \ref{fig:simMSRrocks} and \ref{fig:reprules}.} $E(X/Y) \approx E(X)/E(Y)$, where $X,Y$ are two random variables and $E(\cdot)$ denotes expectation, the cost of simple caching can be approximated as
\begin{align}
\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Simple Caching})}} \approx \frac{(m-1)\frac{\omega}{\lambda} L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,1) + \mathcal{E}_{\Gamma_{\text{BS}}}(r,v) + \sigma}{\frac{1}{\lambda}+\frac{1}{m\omega}}
\label{scequ}
\end{align}
The accuracy of this approximation, in the special cases considered in this work, is verified by numerical results in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}. Note that there is nothing we can optimize about this caching method -- we use \eqref{scequ} only as a baseline to measure the improvement achieved by storage coding methods ``replication" and ``regenerating codes" which will be introduced in the following.
\item \underline{Replication.} When replication is used, we assume $n$ storage nodes storing an entire replica of the file. On average, there are $m-n$ empty nodes each of which generates file requests at rate $\omega$. For reconstructing the file, the requesting node contacts the nearest storage node, so that the reconstruction cost is $L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,n)$, so the reconstruction cost becomes
\begin{align*}
(m-n)\omega L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,n).
\end{align*}
To repair a failed node, the newcomer node contacts the nearest out of the surviving $n-1$ storage nodes. The repair cost is hence given by $L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,n-1)$. Thus, as there are $n$ storage node each failing at rate $\lambda$, the reconstruction cost becomes
\begin{align*}
n\lambda L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,n-1).
\end{align*}
The storage cost in this scenario is simply $n\sigma$. Now recall that each node in the cluster generates requests at rate $\omega$, and each node passes through the cluster at rate $\lambda$. Therefore, the cost of replication becomes
\begin{align}
\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Replication})}} = (m-n)\omega L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,n) + n\lambda L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(1,n-1) + n\sigma
\label{repequ}
\end{align}
The only parameter to be optimized for replication is the number of replicas $n$. Examining \eqref{repequ}, it is a straightforward, yet important observation that increasing $n$ decreases the expected distances between the nodes and the number of empty nodes that request the file, but increases the total failure rate, and consequently the total repair cost, and the total storage cost. Note that similar observations have been made before for similar distance-dependent cost functions, see \emph{e.g.} \cite{altman} and references therein. For the purposes of our work we emphasize that to minimize the cost of replication it is crucial to find a suitable value of $n$, as will be demonstrated later in this work.
\item \underline{Regenerating Codes.} In a system operating under this scheme, there are both storage nodes storing a fragment of the data file and empty nodes present in the cluster. We hence need to consider two types of requests. When one of the $n$ storage nodes requests the file, it contacts $k-1$ out of the remaining $n-1$ storage nodes and downloads $\alpha$ units of data from each, which yields cost
\begin{align*}
n\omega \alpha\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1}{L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}}(i,n-1).
\end{align*}
When one of the empty nodes requests the file, $k$ out of the $n$ storage nodes need to be contacted, thus yielding a cost
\begin{align*}
(m-n)\omega \alpha\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(i,n)}
\end{align*}
since the expected number of empty nodes in the cluster is $m-n$.
When a storage node is lost, one of the empty nodes acts as the newcomer, contacts $d$ of the remaining $n-1$ surviving nodes, and downloads $\beta$ units of data from each, generating a total repair bandwidth of $\gamma = d\beta$. Thereby, the repair cost becomes
\begin{align*}
n\lambda \beta\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}{L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(i,n-1)}.
\end{align*}
The storage cost using regenerating codes is simply $n\alpha\sigma$, so the total cost of using regenerating codes amounts to
\begin{empheq}[box=]{align}
\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Regenerating})}} =\ &n\omega \alpha\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1}{L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}}(i,n-1) +(m-n)\omega \alpha\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(i,n)} \nonumber \\
&+ n\lambda \beta\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}{L_{r,\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}}(i,n-1)} + n\alpha\sigma,
\label{regeequ}
\end{empheq}
\end{enumerate}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions of $(k,d)$ and are given by \eqref{MSRab} for MSR and \eqref{MBRab} for MBR codes.
We immediately see that the same observations about varying the storage degree $n$ that we made for replication apply to \eqref{regeequ} as well. Further, for regenerating codes we also need to choose the optimal values of $k$ and $d$, as well as either the MSR or MBR point, to minimize the cost for given system parameters and file popularity. Maximizing the repair degree $d$ minimizes both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for MBR and $\beta$ for MSR, and maximizing the reconstruction degree $k$ minimizes the amount of redundancy for MSR. However, high values of $k$ and $d$ imply that distant nodes need to be contacted, and as the transmission cost is proportional to the $\Gamma^\text{th}$ power of the distance, we conclude that naively ignoring the distance-dependency and only optimizing with regard to the amount of data traffic does not necessarily imply the lowest cost.
\subsection{Savings from an Operator's Point of View}
\label{subsec:operator}
So far we have been only concerned with saving overall transmission power by taking advantage of both caching on devices and direct data transmission between users. However, users in the cluster can be selfish in nature and thus may not have a motive for sharing their storage and battery to enable a caching system such as the one presented in this work. Thus, we now focus on the case where we assume that users sharing their resources are rewarded by the operator with lower charges if maintaining the community implies economical savings for the operator. Similar incentives have been proposed earlier in the literature \cite{chencaching,wugame,alogame,gregori}.
It is a natural question to ask whether from an operator's point of view the maintenance -- or \emph{upkeep} -- of such a D2D community pays off. To measure economical profit, we consider the ratio of the costs of downlink transmissions, and D2D traffic and upkeep costs.
Deriving the cost of traditional downlink communications is straightforward. There are $m$ nodes generating requests at frequency $\omega$, and this cost thus amounts to
\begin{align*}
\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Downlink})}} = m\omega \mathcal{E}_{\Gamma_{\text{BS}}}(r,v),
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{E}_{\Gamma_{\text{BS}}}(r,v)$ is as in \eqref{EBS}.
To weigh the costs of D2D data transmission and storage, we say that transmitting a unit of data in D2D mode over unit distance incurs a cost $\Theta$ for the operator, while storing a unit of data costs $\sigma$. In other words, these are the incentives offered to a caching user: $\Theta$ represents the economical benefit that a caching user gains from distributing data by using transmit power and $\sigma$ represents the benefit that a caching user gains when storing data. Now similarly to \eqref{scequ}, \eqref{repequ} and \eqref{regeequ}, we find the upkeep costs to be
\begin{align}
\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Upkeep})}} = \begin{cases}
\Theta\cdot \chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Simple Caching})}} - \frac{\sigma(\Theta-1)}{\frac{1}{\lambda}+\frac{1}{m\omega}} &\mbox{ for simple caching}, \\
\Theta \cdot\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Replication})}} - n\sigma(\Theta-1) &\mbox{ for replication}, \\
\Theta\cdot \chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Regenerating})}} - n\alpha\sigma(\Theta-1) &\mbox{ for regenerating codes}.
\end{cases}\nonumber
\end{align}
In other words, when data are distributed and cached redundantly, the operator avoids the cost of data transmission from the base station altogether, but has to pay a cost of $\Theta$ for each transmitted unit of data over unit distance and $\sigma$ for each unit of data cached on a user equipment.
We now define the caching gain of an operator as
\begin{align}
G = \frac{\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Downlink})}}}{\chi{\scriptstyle{(\text{Upkeep})}}}
\label{opegain}
\end{align}
which we call \emph{operator gain}. In the next section, we present numerical results of both operator gains and overall energy consumption cost savings.
\section{Numerical Results}
\label{sec:analysis}
In this section, we illustrate the performance of the four considered caching methods with respect to the derived performance metric with the help of numerical results. We investigate three cases: low, moderate and high storage cost, while the parameters of replication ($n$) and regenerating codes $(n,k,d)$ are chosen from a small interval so that the cost function is minimized. Further, we study the operator gains for short and long distances from the cluster to the base station.
For all cases in this section, we fix $m=100$, $\lambda = 1$, $r=1$, $\Gamma_{\text{BS}}=2$ and $\Gamma_{\text{D2D}}=4$, while $\sigma$ is varied. For the overall energy consumption results we fix $v=20$, while two values, $v=10$ and $v=20$, are considered for the operator gain. We choose $n \in [2,6]$ for replication, and $n \in [3,6]$ for regenerating codes, so that the cost is minimized for a given $\omega$. The theoretical curves (solid lines) in the figures are numerical values using the derived cost functions \eqref{scequ}, \eqref{repequ} and \eqref{regeequ}, while the simulated values (dots) are obtained by computing steady state averages of long Monte Carlo simulations for the Markov chains depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:markov_caching} for simple caching and Figure~\ref{fig:markov_system} for regenerating codes and replication to verify the theoretical calculations. For all simulations, the initial number of nodes in the cluster is $m=100$ and the file is cached when the simulation starts. The simulation length is $10^4$ expected node lifetimes $T=1$ for each data point.
In the setting of Figure~\ref{fig:sim}, each of the four caching methods becomes useful depending on the value of $\omega$. When the file popularity is low, maintaining redundancy wastes more transmission energy than is saved by D2D requests, and thus simple caching is preferred.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{nicepic
\caption{Costs versus file popularity for storage cost $\sigma=2$.}
\label{fig:sim}
\end{figure}
For a higher popularity, in the magnified range in the figure, we see that MBR coding is the optimal method as it has a lower repair bandwidth than MSR coding. This is where maintaining redundancy starts to pay off, and the cost function is dominated by the cost of repair as requests and thus file reconstructions are relatively rare compared to node failures.
When the popularity grows even larger, file requests become more abundant, and the cost of reconstruction starts dominating the cost function. Due to its low reconstruction bandwidth, MSR coding outperforms the other methods in this range of $\omega$. Finally, when the popularity is very high, replication yields the lowest cost. The reason why replication outperforms MSR, even though the reconstruction bandwidths are equal for both methods, is because replication only requires contacting the nearest storage node, while MSR requires contacting several nodes and the transmission energy cost increases proportionally to the fourth power of the distance.
Table \ref{tab:costsavings} shows example values on how much redundancy can decrease the cost compared to simple caching. We see that the performance gains are very notable for high file popularities.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
$\log_{10}\omega$ & Savings (\%) & Caching method \\ \hline
-3.5 & 41.1 & \textcolor{red}{MBR} \\ \hline
-3 & 80.1 & \textcolor{blue}{MSR} \\ \hline
-2.5 & 92.3 & \textcolor{blue}{MSR} \\ \hline
-2 & 96.2 & \textcolor{blue}{MSR} \\ \hline
-1.5 & 97.3 & \textcolor{blue}{MSR} \\ \hline
-1 & 97.4 & \textcolor{blue}{MSR} \\ \hline
-0.5 & 96.7 & \textcolor{blue}{MSR} \\ \hline
0 & 96.1 & Replication \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Cost savings compared to simple caching with the corresponding optimal coding methods and file popularities for $\sigma=2$, \emph{i.e.}, the setting in Figure~\ref{fig:sim}.}
\label{tab:costsavings}
\end{table}
As previously mentioned, the code parameters $(n,k,d)$ for regenerating codes and $n$ for replication for the setting in Figure~\ref{fig:sim} were found through exhaustive searches, and they are depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:opt1}. In all cases, $n \in [2,6]$ for replication, and $n \in [3,6]$ for regenerating codes. It is a natural choice to have a relatively low upper bound for $n$ as $k$ and $d$ are upper-bounded by $n-1$, and it is impractical to establish a large number of simultaneous D2D connections.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{niceMBR}
\caption{Optimal MBR code parameters $(n,k,d)$.}
\label{fig:optMBR}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{niceMSR}
\caption{Optimal MSR code parameters $(n,k,d)$.}
\label{fig:optMSR}
\end{subfigure}\\[1ex]
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{nicerep}
\caption{Optimal number of replicas for replication $n$.}
\label{fig:optREP}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Optimal parameters in the setting of Figure~\ref{fig:sim}.}
\label{fig:opt1}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:optMBR}, we see the optimal code parameters for MBR coding. When the file popularity is low, both $k$ and $d$ are relatively high as the repair bandwidth ought to be low. We see an interesting dip of all parameter values approximately in the range $\omega \in (0.01,0.1)$. This is where the storage degree $n$ should be lowered to find an optimal balance between the number of failures and the reconstruction and repair degrees. Recall that the higher the storage degree, the higher the expected number of failures in a given time interval, while the lower the storage degree, the higher the expected transmission distances. Thus, finding the optimal $n$ is not trivial. If the popularity is high, it is the reconstruction energy that should be minimized. We see that $k$ should be low and $n$ should be high, which means that, for reconstruction, only the nearest storage nodes need to be contacted, and having a high density of storage nodes in turn implies short transmission distances.
In Figure~\ref{fig:optMSR}, the optimal code parameters for MSR coding are depicted. The repair degree $d$ and reconstruction degree $k$ should be kept low as this ensures that only the nearest storage node needs to be contacted. Also, it is more important for the failure rate to be low for relatively low popularities. When the popularity $\omega$ increases, so does the optimal storage degree $n$. This is again because the higher the storage node density in the cluster, the lower the expected transmission distances. Note that in this case the storage cost is relatively low and that a higher storage cost affects the behavior of the optimal parameter curves, as will be shown later in Figure~\ref{fig:MSRcodeparams}.
Lastly, Figure~\ref{fig:optREP} shows how the optimal storage degree $n$ for replication grows with increasing file popularity. As noted before, when the file popularity is high, it is important that the nearest replica is as close to the requesting user as possible -- thus the total number of replicas should be high, despite high total failure rates and storage costs.
We further illustrate the impact of the choice of the storage degree $n$ on the cost of replication in Figure~\ref{fig:replication}. We see that when the file popularity is low, it is unfavorable to have a high storage degree as this implies a high number of failures and thus plenty of upkeep and storage costs. To the contrary, when the popularity is high, it is important that the expected distance to the nearest caching node is short, and thus the number of replicas should be high. Based on these reasons, another interesting observation we make is that, despite assuming instant repairs, replication with one redundant copy, \emph{i.e.}, 2-replication, is not always the optimal method. Note that this is, as expected, a different result than that of \cite{globecom}, where we ignored distances and found that instant repair with 2-replication is optimal since it yields the lowest total failure rate.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{replicationrep}
\caption{Cost of replication \eqref{repequ} versus file popularity for various storage degrees $n$. The lowest storage degree offers best results for low file popularities as the failure rate is low, but performs poorly for high popularities due to long transmission distances.}
\label{fig:replication}
\end{figure}
In the previous setting, the storage cost $\sigma$ was chosen to be relatively low. Next, we investigate a case where the storage cost is much higher. This represents a case where there are plenty of potential files to be cached and it is important not to carelessly waste storage space so that as many files can be offloaded to the D2D community as possible.
In Figure~\ref{fig:simMSRrocks} we present cost versus file popularity for $\sigma=100$. We see that, as expected, MSR coding performs very well when the storage cost is high, as it is designed to minimize both the reconstruction bandwidth and the storage space consumption, while still maintaining a low repair bandwidth.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{MSRrocks}
\caption{Costs versus file popularity for $\sigma=100$. When the file popularity and storage cost are high, MSR outperforms the other methods.}
\label{fig:simMSRrocks}
\end{figure}
We underline that, although replication is a very simple method to add redundancy and it yields a low reconstruction cost as only the nearest caching node must be contacted, its drawback is wasteful storage space consumption. This leads to high storage costs, and consequently, MSR can yield a much lower total cost. This is illustrated in Table \ref{tab:costsavingsMSR} where we see significant cost savings when MSR is used as opposed to replication.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
$\log_{10}\omega$ & Savings (\%) \\ \hline
-2 & 35.8 \\ \hline
-1.5 & 35.1 \\ \hline
-1 & 33.0 \\ \hline
-0.5 & 26.9 \\ \hline
0 & 16.9 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Cost savings by using MSR coding compared to replication with $\sigma=100$. When storage space is expensive, regenerating codes offer significant savings compared to naive replication.}
\label{tab:costsavingsMSR}
\end{table}
The optimal values for the parameters of MSR with varying $\omega$ in the setting of Figure~\ref{fig:simMSRrocks} are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:MSRcodeparams}. Interestingly, the optimal choice is to set $d=k$. This implies that here \emph{traditional MDS coding is optimal}, which has been noted also in \cite{pedersen} for certain scenarios. Note that when $n=k+1$ and $d=k$ are the optimal parameters, which holds for most of the popularity values in Figure~\ref{fig:MSRcodeparams}, we can simply use the \emph{parity check code} with $k$ storage nodes and a single parity node. For very high file popularities, we see a similar dip in the optimal code parameters as in Figure \ref{fig:optMBR}, where both the reconstruction degree $k$ and the repair degree $d$ should be slightly lowered to obtain lower transmission distances for reconstruction and repair.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{MSRcodeparams}
\caption{Optimal MSR code parameters $[n,k,d]$ for the case of Figure~\ref{fig:simMSRrocks}.}
\label{fig:MSRcodeparams}
\end{figure}
Finally, we assume a very low storage cost of $\sigma=0.01$ in Figure~\ref{fig:reprules}. As expected, replication is the preferred method. Numerical computations show that the optimal number of replicas is the maximum (six) for the whole popularity range considered. As the storage cost is very low, it is important to minimize the reconstruction and repair cost by minimizing the expected distance to the nearest caching node, that is, to fill up the cluster with as many replicas as possible.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{reprules}
\caption{Costs versus file popularity for $\sigma=0.01$. When the storage cost is low, replication is preferred.}
\label{fig:reprules}
\end{figure}
We now turn our attention to the gains from an operator's point of view by plotting an example of \eqref{opegain}. In Figure~\ref{fig:operight}, we fix $\sigma = 100$ and $\Theta = 1$, and vary the base station distance ($v=10$ or $v=20$). These results present the ratio $G$ of the cost of only using the base station and the cost of caching the file using a given caching method. For example, when $\omega = 0.1$ and $v = 20$, using the base station is approximately $10^{1.5}\approx 32$ times more costly than maintaining a system using MSR coding.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{operight}
\caption{Theoretical operator gains $G$ \eqref{opegain} versus file popularity $\omega$ when $v=20$ (solid line) and $v=10$ (solid line with marker), with $\sigma=100$ and $\Theta=1$.}
\label{fig:operight}
\end{figure}
The green line at zero in the figure is used as the reference to represents the case where downloading the file from the base station performs equally compared to a given caching method. Whenever a curve is above this reference line, it is beneficial to cache the file with the corresponding method. Here the storage cost is as high as in the setting of Figure~\ref{fig:simMSRrocks}.
We see that, for high file popularity, MSR outperforms the other methods. Although not depicted, the optimal MSR code parameters are $n=k+1=6$ and $d=k=5$, which again implies that the \emph{parity check code is optimal}. We also see that when the distance from the cluster to the base station increases from $10$ to $20$, there is approximately a lift of $0.5$ in the curves, which means that, roughly speaking, the operator gain increases threefold. The general trend is that the operator gain increases quickly with file popularity and base station distance, which implies that especially remote caching clusters can greatly benefit from D2D caching.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclu}
We have studied the prospective benefits of distributed storage coding in a D2D caching
cluster, where communication cost grows with distance due to increasing pathloss. Our main objective has been optimizing the overall energy-efficiency of the network in terms of energy costs of communication and storage. We have found
that distributed storage coding can save more than 90\% in energy consumption compared to
caching without redundancy in a realistic scenario. Especially an error correcting code with
minimum storage overhead, here a parity check code or an MDS code, offers
plenty of offload potential when storage space is moderately to highly expensive. However, when storage costs are low as compared to communication costs, simple repetition coding is preferred. When communication costs dominate over storage costs in the D2D community, physical proximity is of utmost
importance due to pathloss. Further, we have shown
that storage coding offers plenty of cost saving potential also from an operator's
point of view, part of which can be used to incentivize users to participate in a D2D caching community.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Majid Gerami, Ejder Ba\c{s}tu\u{g}, Toni Ernvall, Pasi Lassila, and Lasse Leskel\"a for fruitful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $n = \prod\limits_{i=1}^r p_i^{a_i}$ be the unique prime decomposition of a positive integer $n$. In 1977, Alladi and Erd\H os \cite{AE} introduced the additive function $$A(n) := \sum_{i=1}^r a_i \cdot p_i.$$ Among several other things they proved that $A(n)$ is uniformly distributed modulo 2. This was obtained from the identity
\begin{equation} \label{mod2dist}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{A(n)}}{n^s} \; = \; \frac{2^s+1}{2^s-1} \cdot \frac{\zeta(2s)}{\zeta(s)}
\end{equation}
together with the known zero free region for the Riemann zeta function.
As a consequence they proved that there exists a constant $c > 0$ such that
$$
\sum_{n\le x} (-1)^{A(n)} = \mathcal O\left( x \, e^{-c \sqrt{\log x \log\log x}} \right),
$$
for $x \to \infty.$
\vskip 4pt
In 1969 Delange \cite{Del} gave a necessary and sufficient condition for uniform distribution in progressions for integral valued additive functions which easily implies that $A(n)$ is uniformly distributed (mod $q$) for all $q \ge 2$ (although without a bound for the error in the asymptotic formula).
The main goal of this paper is to show that $A(n)$ is uniformly distributed modulo $q$ for any integer $q \ge 2$ with an explicit bound for the error.
\vskip 4pt
Unfortunately, it is not possible to obtain such a simple identity as in (\ref{mod2dist}) for the Dirichlet series
$$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\; \frac{e^{2\pi i \frac{h A(n)}{q}}}{ n^{s}}$$
when $q > 2$ and $h,q$ are coprime. Instead we require a representation involving a product of rational powers of Dirichlet L-functions which will have branch points at the zeros of the L-functions.
The uniform distribution of $A(n)$ is a consequence of the following theorem (\ref{MainTheorem}) which is proved in \S 3.
To state the theorem we require some standard notation. Let $\mu$ denote the Mobius function and let $\phi$ denote Euler's function. For any Dirichlet character $\chi\hskip -3pt\pmod{q}$ (with $q > 1$) let $\tau(\chi) = \sum\limits_{\ell\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}} \chi(\ell) e^{\frac{2\pi i\ell}{q}}$
denote the associated Gauss sum and let $L(s, \chi)$ denote the Dirichlet L-function associated to $\chi.$
\vskip 10pt
\begin{theorem} \label{MainTheorem}
Let $h,q$ be fixed coprime integers with $q > 2.$ Then for $x \to \infty$ we have the asymptotic formula
$$\sum_{n\le x} e^{2\pi i \frac{h A(n)}{q}} \; = \; \begin{cases}
C_{h,q} \cdot x \, (\log x)^{-1 + \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}} \Big(1 + \mathcal O\left( (\log x)^{-1}\right)\Big) & \text{if} \; \mu(q) \ne 0,\\
&\\
\mathcal O\left( x\, e^{-c_0\,\sqrt{\log x}} \right)& \text{if} \; \mu(q) = 0,
\end{cases}$$
where $c_0>0$ is a constant depending at most on $h, q$,
$$C_{h,q} = \frac{V_{h,q}\cdot \sin\left(\frac{\mu(q) \,\pi }{\phi(q)} \right)}{\pi}\, \Gamma\left(1 - \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)} \right) \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(1, \,\chi)^{\frac{\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(h)}{\phi(q)}},$$
and
$$V_{h,q} := \exp\left[ - \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\sum_{p\mid q}\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{kp^{k}} \; + \; \sum_{p\,\mid \,q} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{k}} \; + \; \sum_p \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i p h k}{q}} - e^{\frac{2\pi i p^k h}{q}} }{k \, p^{k}}\right].$$
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} has the following easily proved corollary.
\begin{corollary} \label{corollary}
Let $q >1$ and let $h$ be an arbitrary integer. Then
$$\sum_{n\le x} e^{2\pi i \frac{h A(n)}{q}} = \mathcal O\left( \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}} \right).$$
\end{corollary}
The above corollary can then be used to obtain the desired uniform distribution theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm2}
Let $h,q$ be fixed integers with $q > 2.$ Then for $x\to\infty$, we have
$$\underset {A(n)\; \equiv\; h\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}} {\sum_{n \,\le \, x}} \hskip -10pt 1 \; = \;\frac{x}{q} \; + \; \mathcal O\left( \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}} \right).$$
\end{theorem}
We remark that the error term in theorem \ref{thm2} can be replaced by a second order asymptotic term which is not uniformly distributed (mod $q$).
\vskip 5pt
The proof of theorem (\ref{MainTheorem}) relies on explicitly constructing an L-function with coefficients of the form $e^{2\pi i \frac{h A(n)}{q}}$. It will turn out that this L-function will be a product of Dirichlet L-functions raised to complex powers. The techniques for obtaining asymptotic formulae and dealing with branch singularities arising from complex powers of ordinary L-series were first introduced by Selberg \cite{Sel}, and see also Tenenbaum \cite{Ten} for a very nice exposition with different applications.
In \cite{Ivic}, \cite{IE1}, \cite{IE2} one finds a larger class of additive functions where these methods can also be applied yielding similar results but with different constants. \vskip 20pt
\section{On the function $L(s, \psi_{h/q})$}
Let $h,q$ be coprime integers integers with $q > 1$. In this paper we shall investigate the completely multiplicative function $$\psi_{h/q}(n) := e^{\frac{2\pi i hA(n)}{q}}.$$
Then the L-function associated to $\psi_{h/q}$ is defined by the absolutely convergent series
\begin{equation} \label{Lfunction}
L(s, \psi_{h/q}) := \; \sum_{n=1}^\infty \psi_{h/q}(n) n^{-s},
\end{equation}
in the region $\Re(s) > 1,$ and has an
Euler product representation (product over rational primes) of the form
\begin{equation} \label{EulerProduct}
L(s, \psi_{h/q}) := \prod_p \left(1 - \frac{ e^{\frac{2\pi i h p}{q}} }{p^s} \right)^{-1} .
\end{equation}
\vskip 8pt
The Euler product (\ref{EulerProduct}) converges absolutely to a non-vanishing function for $\Re(s) > 1.$ We would like to show it has analytic continuation to a larger region.
\vskip 10pt
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma1} Let $\Re(s) > 1.$ Then
$$\log\big(L(s, \psi_{h/q})\big) = \sum_p \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} \; + \; T_{h,q}(s)$$
where, for any $\epsilon > 0$, the function
$$T_{h,q}(s) := \sum_p \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i p h k}{q}} - e^{\frac{2\pi i p^k h}{q}} }{k \, p^{sk}}$$ is holomorphic for $\Re(s) > \frac12 + \epsilon$ and satisfies $|T_{h,q}(s)| = \mathcal O_\epsilon\left(1\right)$ where the $\mathcal O_\epsilon$-constant is independent of $q$ and depends at most on $\epsilon$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Taking log's, we obtain
\begin{align*} \label{logL}
\log\big( L(s, \psi_{h/q}) \big) & = \sum_p \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i p h k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}}\\
& = \sum_p \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} \; + \;\sum_p \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i p h k}{q}} - e^{\frac{2\pi i p^k h}{q}} }{k \, p^{sk}}.
\end{align*}
Hence, we may take
$$T_{h,q}(s) = \sum_p \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i p h k}{q}} - e^{\frac{2\pi i p^k h}{q}} }{k \, p^{sk}},$$ which is easily seen to converge absolutely for $\Re(s) > \frac12.$
\end{proof}
\pagebreak
\vskip 10pt
For $q > 2,$ let $\chi$ denote a Dirichlet character $\hskip-4pt \pmod{q}$ with associated Gauss sum
$\tau(\chi).$ We also let $\chi_0$ be the trivial character $\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}.$
\vskip 8pt
We require the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma2}
Let $h, q\in \mathbf Z$ with $q > 2$ and $(h,q) = 1.$ Then
$$ e^{\frac{2\pi i h}{q}} = \left(\frac{1}{\phi(q)} \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0} {\sum_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \tau(\chi)\cdot \overline{\chi(h)} \right) \; + \; \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $(h,q) = 1,$ it follows that for $\chi\hskip-3pt\pmod{q}$ with $\chi \ne \chi_0,$
$$\tau(\chi) \, \overline{\chi(h)} = \sum_{\ell=1}^q \chi(\ell) e^{\frac{2\pi i \ell h}{q}}.$$
This implies that
\begin{align*} \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0} {\sum_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \tau(\chi)\, \overline{\chi(h)} & = (\phi(q)-1) \,e^{\frac{2\pi i h}{q}} \; + \; \underset{(\ell,q)=1}{\sum_{\ell=2}^q }\left( \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0} {\sum_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \,\chi(\ell)\right) e^{\frac{2\pi i \ell h}{q}}\\
& = (\phi(q)-1) \,e^{\frac{2\pi i h}{q}} \; - \; \underset{(\ell,q)=1}{\sum_{\ell=1}^q } e^{\frac{2\pi i \ell h}{q}} \; + \; e^{\frac{2\pi i h}{q}}.
\end{align*}
The proof is completed upon noting that the Ramanujan sum on the right side above can be evaluated as
$$\underset{(\ell,q)=1}{\sum_{\ell=1}^q } e^{\frac{2\pi i \ell h}{q}} = \sum_{d\mid (q,h)} \mu\left(\frac{q}{d}\right) \,d \; = \; \mu(q).$$
\end{proof}
\vskip 5pt
\begin{theorem} \label{Identity}
Let $s\in\mathbf C$ with $\Re(s)>1.$ Then we have the representation
$$L(s, \psi_{h/q}) = \left(\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(s,\overline{\chi})^{\frac{\tau(\chi)\overline{\chi(h)}}{\phi(q)}}\right) \cdot \zeta(s)^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}\cdot e^{U_{h,q}(s)},$$
where
$$U_{h,q}(s) := - \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\sum_{p\mid q}\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{kp^{sk}} \; + \; \sum_{p\,\mid \,q} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} \; + \; \sum_p \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i p h k}{q}} - e^{\frac{2\pi i p^k h}{q}} }{k \, p^{sk}}$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If we combine lemmas (\ref{lemma1}) and (\ref{lemma2}) it follows that for $\Re(s) > 1$,
\begin{align*}
\log\big( L(s, \psi_{h/q}) \big) & = \sum_p \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} \; + \; T_{h,q}(s)\\
& = \sum_{p\,\nmid \,q} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} \; +\;\sum_{p\,\mid \,q} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} + \; T_{h,q}(s) \\
& = \; \sum_{p\,\nmid \,q} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{ \left(\frac{1}{\phi(q)} \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0} {\sum\limits_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \tau(\chi)\cdot \overline{\chi(h\,p^k)} \; + \; \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\right)}{k \, p^{sk}} \; +\;\sum_{p\,\mid \,q} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} + \; T_{h,q}(s).
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
\log\big( L(s, \psi_{h/q}) \big)
& = \;\frac{1}{\phi(q)} \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0} {\sum_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \tau(\chi) \overline{\chi(h)}\, \log(L(s, \overline{\chi}) \; + \; \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)} \log\big( \zeta(s) \big)\nonumber\\
&\hskip 40pt - \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\sum_{p\mid q}\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{kp^{sk}} \; + \; \sum_{p\,\mid \,q} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{e^{\frac{2\pi i h p^k}{q}}}{k \, p^{sk}} \; + \; T_{h,q}(s).
\end{align*}
The theorem immediately follows after taking exponentials.
\end{proof}
The representation of $L(s, \psi_{h/q})$ given in theorem \ref{Identity} allows one to analytically continue the function $L(s, \psi_{h/q})$ to a larger region which lies to the left of the line $\Re(s) = 1 +\varepsilon$ ($\varepsilon > 0$). This is a region which does not include the branch points of $L(s, \psi_{h/q})$ at the zeros and poles of $L(s,\chi), \zeta(s)$.
\vskip 8pt
Assume that $q > 1$ and $\chi\hskip -3pt \pmod{q}$. It is well known (see \cite{Dav}) that the Dirichlet L-functions $L(\sigma+it,\chi)$) do not vanish in the region
\begin{equation} \label{ZeroFreeRegionL}
\sigma \ge \begin{cases}
1 - \frac{c_1}{\log q|t|} & \text{if} \; |t| \ge 1,\\
1 - \frac{c_2}{\log q} & \text{if} \; |t| \le 1,
\end{cases} \qquad\quad(\text{for absolute constants} \; c_1,c_2 >0),
\end{equation}
unless $\chi$ is the exceptional real character which has a simple real zero (Siegel zero) near $s = 1.$
Similarly, $\zeta(\sigma+it)$ does not vanish for
\begin{equation} \label{ZeroFreeRegionZ}
\sigma \ge 1 - \frac{c_3}{\log(|t| + 2)}, \qquad \qquad (\text{for an absolute constant} \;c_3 > 0).
\end{equation}
Assume $q > 1$ and that there is no exceptional real character (mod $q$). It follows from (\ref{ZeroFreeRegionL}) and (\ref{ZeroFreeRegionZ}) that $L(s, \psi_{h/q})$ is holomorphic in the region to the right of the contour $\mathcal C_q$ displayed in Figure 1.
\centerline{\hskip-101pt\includegraphics[width=65mm]{Diagram1.pdf}}
\vskip-50pt $$\hskip -124pt\mathcal C_q$$
\vskip 10pt
\centerline{\hskip -100pt Figure 1}
\vskip 20pt
To construct the contour $\mathcal C_q$ first take a slit along the real axis from $1 - \frac{c_2}{\log q}$ to $1$ and construct a line just above and just below the slit. Then take two asymptotes to the line $\Re(s) = 1$ with the property that if $\sigma + it$ is on the asymptote and $|t| \ge 1$, then $\sigma$ satisfies (\ref{ZeroFreeRegionL}). If $q =1$, we do a similar construction using
(\ref{ZeroFreeRegionZ}).
\vskip 20pt
\section{Proof of theorem \ref{MainTheorem} }
The proof of theorem \ref{MainTheorem} is based on the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{MainTheorem2} Let $h,q$ be fixed coprime integers with $q > 2$ and $\mu(q) \ne 0.$ Then for $x\to\infty$ there exist absolute constants $c,c' > 0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n\le x} e^{2\pi i \frac{h A(n)}{q}} & = \frac{ \sin\left(\frac{\mu(q) \,\pi }{\phi(q)} \right)}{\pi} \int\limits_{1-\frac{c }{\sqrt{\log x}}}^1 \left(\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(\sigma, \,\overline{\chi})^{\frac{\tau(\chi)\overline{\chi(h)}}{\phi(q)}}\right) \cdot |\zeta(\sigma)|^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}\cdot e^{H_{h,q}(\sigma)} \; \frac{x^\sigma}{\sigma} \; d\sigma\\
& \hskip 327pt+ \mathcal O\left( x e^{-c'\,\sqrt{\log x}} \right).
\end{align*}
On the other hand if $\mu(q) = 0$, then
$ \sum\limits_{n\le x} e^{2\pi i \frac{h A(n)}{q}} = \mathcal O\left( x e^{-c'\,\sqrt{\log x}} \right).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\vskip 10pt
The proof of theorem \ref{MainTheorem2} relies on the following
lemma taken from \cite{Dav}.
\vskip 10pt
\begin{lemma} \label{DavLemma} Let
$$\delta(x) := \begin{cases} 0, & \text{if} \; 0 < x < 1\\
\frac12, & \text{if} \; x = 1\\
1, & \text{if} \; x > 1, \end{cases}$$
then for $x, T > 0$, we have
$$ \left | \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int\limits_{c-iT}^{c+iT}\; \frac{x^s}{s}\; ds \; - \; \delta(x)\right | \; < \; \begin{cases}
x^c\cdot \min\left(1, \frac{1}{T |\log x| } \right), & \text{if}\; x \ne 1,\\
cT^{-1}, & \text{if} \; x = 1.
\end{cases}
$$
\end{lemma}
\vskip 10pt
It follows from lemma \ref{DavLemma}, for $x, T \gg 1$ and $c = 1 + \frac{1}{\log x}$, that
\begin{equation} \label{countingpsi}
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int\limits_{c-iT}^{c+iT} L\big(s, \psi_{h/q}\big) \;\frac{x^s}{s} \; ds = \sum_{n\le x} \psi_{h/q}(n) \; + \; \mathcal O\left( \frac{x \log x}{T} \right)
\end{equation}
Fix large constants $c_1, c_2 > 0.$ Next, shift the integral in (\ref{countingpsi}) to the left and deform the line of integration to a contour $$L^+ \; + \; \mathcal C_{T,x}\; + \; L^-$$ as in figure 2 below which contains
two short horizontal lines: $$L^{\pm} = \bigg\{\sigma \pm iT \;\, \bigg | \;\,
1 -\frac{c_1}{\log qT} \; \le \; \sigma \; \le \; 1+\frac{1}{\log x}\bigg\},$$ together
together with the contour $C_{T,x}$ which is similar to $C_q$ except that the two curves asymptotic to the line $\Re(s) = 1$ go from $1 -\frac{c_1}{\sqrt{\log qT}} + iT$ to $1 -\frac{c_2}{\sqrt{\log x}} +i\varepsilon$ and $1 -\frac{c_2}{\sqrt{\log x}} - i\varepsilon$ to $1 -\frac{c_1}{\sqrt{\log qT}} - iT$, respectively, for $0 <\varepsilon \to 0. $
\vskip 25pt
\centerline{\hskip-101pt\includegraphics[width=80mm]{Diagram23.pdf}}
\vskip -238.7pt $$\hskip -60pt L^+$$
\vskip 132pt $$\hskip -142pt\mathcal C_{T,x}$$
\vskip -2pt $$\hskip -60pt L^-$$
\vskip 12pt
\centerline{\hskip -100pt Figure 2}
\vskip 27pt
Now, by the zero-free regions
(\ref{ZeroFreeRegionL}), (\ref{ZeroFreeRegionZ}), the region to the right of the contour
$L^+ + \mathcal C_{T,x} + L^-$ does not contain any branch points or poles of the L-functions $L(s, \chi)$ for any $\chi\hskip-3pt\pmod{q}$.
It follows that
\begin{equation} \label{contourintegral}
\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int\limits_{c-iT}^{c+iT} L\big(s, \psi_{h/q}\big) \;\frac{x^s}{s} \; ds \; = \; \frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(\int_{L^+} + \int_{\mathcal C_\epsilon} + \int_{L^-}\right) L\big(s, \psi_{h/q}\big) \;\frac{x^s}{s} \; ds .
\end{equation}
The main contribution for the integral along $L^+ + \mathcal C_{T,x} + L^-$ in (\ref{contourintegral}) comes from the integrals along the straight lines above and below the slit on the real axis $\Big[1-\frac{c_2}{\sqrt{\log x}}, \;1\Big].$ These integrals cancel if the function $L\big(s, \psi_{h/q}\big)$ has no branch points or poles on the slit. It follows from theorem \ref{Identity} that this will be the case if $\mu(q) = 0$. The remaining integrals in \ref{contourintegral} can then be estimated as in the proof of the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions (see \cite{Dav}), yielding an error term of the form
$ \mathcal O\left( x e^{-c'\,\sqrt{\log x}} \right)$. This proves the second part of theorem \ref{MainTheorem2}.
\vskip 10pt
Next, assume $\mu(q) \ne 0.$ In this case $L(s,\psi_{h/q})$ has a branch point at $s=1$ coming from the Riemann zeta function, it is necessary to keep track of the change in argument. Let $0^+i$ denote the upper part of the slit and let $0^- i$ denote the lower part of the slit. Then we have $\log[\zeta(\sigma+0^+ i) = \log |\zeta(\sigma)| - i\pi$ and
$\log[\zeta(\sigma+0^- i) = \log |\zeta(\sigma)| + i\pi$.
By the standard proof of the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions
it follows that (with an error $\mathcal O\big(e^{-c'\sqrt{\log x}} \big)$) the right hand side of (\ref{contourintegral}) is asymptotic to
\begin{equation} \label{SlitIntegral}
\mathcal I_{\text{slit}} :=\frac{-1}{2\pi i} \int\limits_{1-\frac{c}{\sqrt{\log x}}}^1 \left[\exp\Big(\log\left(L\left(\sigma + 0^+i, \; \psi_{h/q} \right)\right)\Big) - \exp\Big(\log\left(L\left(\sigma -0^-i, \; \psi_{h/q} \right)\right)\Big)\right] \frac{x^\sigma}{\sigma} \; d\sigma.
\end{equation}
We may evaluate $I_{\text{slit}}$ using theorem \ref{Identity}. This gives
\begin{align*}
\mathcal I_{\text{slit}} & = \;\frac{-1}{2\pi i} \int\limits_{1-\frac{c}{\sqrt{\log x}}}^1 \left(\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(\sigma,\,\overline{\chi})^{\frac{\tau(\chi)\overline{\chi(h)}}{\phi(q)}}\right) \cdot e^{U_{h,q}(\sigma)}\\
&
\hskip 70pt \cdot \left[\exp\left(\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\Big( \log|\zeta(\sigma)| -i\pi \Big)\right) \; - \; \exp\left(\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\Big( \log|\zeta(\sigma)| +i\pi \Big)^{} \right)\right] \frac{x^\sigma}{\sigma} \; d\sigma
\\
& \\
& = \; \frac{\sin\left(\frac{\mu(q) \,\pi }{\phi(q)} \right)}{\pi} \int\limits_{1-\frac{c}{\sqrt{\log x}}}^1 \left(\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(\sigma, \,\overline{\chi})^{\frac{\tau(\chi)\overline{\chi(h)}}{\phi(q)}}\right) \cdot |\zeta(\sigma)|^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}\cdot e^{U_{h,q}(\sigma)} \; \frac{x^\sigma}{\sigma} \; d\sigma.
\end{align*}
\vskip 10pt
As in the previous case when $\mu(q) = 0,$ the remaining integrals in \ref{contourintegral} can then be estimated as in the proof of the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions, yielding an error term of the form
$ \mathcal O\left( x e^{-c'\,\sqrt{\log x}} \right)$. This completes the proof of theorem \ref{MainTheorem2}.
\end{proof}
\vskip 10pt
The proof of theorem \ref{MainTheorem} follows from theorem \ref{MainTheorem2} if we can obtain an asymptotic formula for the integral
\begin{equation} \label{SlitIntegral}
\mathcal I_{\text{slit}}\; = \; \frac{\sin\left(\frac{\mu(q) \,\pi }{\phi(q)} \right)}{\pi} \int\limits_{1-\frac{c}{\sqrt{\log x}}}^1 \left(\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(\sigma, \,\overline{\chi})^{\frac{\tau(\chi)\overline{\chi(h)}}{\phi(q)}}\right) \cdot |\zeta(\sigma)|^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}\cdot e^{U_{h,q}(\sigma)} \; \frac{x^\sigma}{\sigma} \; d\sigma.
\end{equation}
Since we have assumed $q$ is fixed, it immediately follows that for arbitrarily large $c \gg 1$ and $x \to \infty,$ we have
$$I_{\text{slit}}\; = \; \frac{\sin\left(\frac{\mu(q) \,\pi }{\phi(q)} \right)}{\pi}\hskip-10pt \int\limits_{1-\frac{c \log\log x}{\log x}}^1 \left(\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(\sigma, \,\overline{\chi})^{\frac{\tau(\chi)\overline{\chi(h)}}{\phi(q)}}\right) \cdot |\zeta(\sigma)|^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}} \,\cdot \,e^{U_{h,q}(\sigma)} \; \frac{x^\sigma}{\sigma} \; d\sigma \;\, + \;\, \mathcal O\left( \frac{x}{(\log x)^c} \right).$$
\vskip 10pt
Now, in the region $1-\frac{c \log\log x}{\log x} \le \sigma \le 1$,
$$\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(\sigma, \,\overline{\chi})^{\frac{\tau(\chi)\overline{\chi(h)}}{\phi(q)}}\cdot \frac{e^{H_{h,q}(\sigma)}}{\sigma} = \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(1, \,\chi)^{\frac{\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(h)}{\phi(q)}}\cdot e^{U_{h,q}(1)} \; + \; \mathcal O\left( \frac{\log\log x}{\log x} \right).$$
\vskip 8pt
Consequently,
\begin{align}
I_{\text{slit}}\; & = \; \frac{ \sin\left(\frac{\mu(q) \,\pi }{\phi(q)} \right)}{\pi} \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} \;L(1, \,\chi)^{\frac{\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(h)}{\phi(q)}}\cdot e^{U_{h,q}(1)} \hskip -8pt \int\limits_{1-\frac{c \log\log x}{\log x}}^1 \zeta(\sigma)^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}\; x^\sigma \; d\sigma\nonumber\\
& \hskip 140pt+ \mathcal O\left( \frac{\log\log x}{\log x} \left|\;\; \int\limits_{1-\frac{c \log\log x}{\log x}}^1
\zeta(\sigma)^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}\; x^\sigma \; d\sigma \;\;\right| \right).
\label{IslitIntegral}\end{align}
It remains to compute the integral of $|\zeta(\sigma)|^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}$ occurring in (\ref{IslitIntegral}). For $\sigma$ very close to 1, we have
$$|\zeta(\sigma)|^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}} = \left(\frac{1}{|\sigma-1|} \;+\; \mathcal O(1) \right)^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}} = \left( \frac{1}{|\sigma-1|} \right)^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}} \; + \; \mathcal O\left( \left( \frac{1}{|\sigma-1|} \right)^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}-1} \right).$$
It follows that
\begin{equation} \label{zetaintegral}
\int\limits_{1-\frac{c \log\log x}{\log x}}^1
|\zeta(\sigma)|^{\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}\; x^\sigma \; d\sigma \; = \; \Gamma\left(1 - \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)} \right) \; \frac{x}{(\log x)^{1-\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}} \; + \; \mathcal O\left( \frac{x}{(\log x)^{2-\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}} \right).
\end{equation}
Combining equations (\ref{IslitIntegral}) and (\ref{zetaintegral}) we obtain
\begin{align*}
I_{\text{slit}} & =\frac{\sin\left(\frac{\mu(q) \,\pi }{\phi(q)} \right)}{\pi}\, \Gamma\left(1 - \frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)} \right) \underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{q}}} L(1, \,\chi)^{\frac{\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(h)}{\phi(q)}}\, e^{U_{h,q}
(1)} \; \frac{x}{(\log x)^{1-\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}} \;+\; \mathcal O\left( \frac{x}{(\log x)^{2-\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}}} \right).
\end{align*}
\vskip 10pt\noindent
{\bf Remark:} As pointed out to me by G\' erald Tenenbaum, it is also possible to deduce theorem 1.2 directly from theorem 2.3 by using theorem II.5.2 of [8]. In this manner one can obtain an explicit asymptotic expansion which, furthermore, is valid for values of $q$ tending to infinity with $x$.
\vskip 20pt
\section{Examples of equidistribution (mod 3) and (mod 9)}
\vskip 5pt\noindent
{\bf Equidistribution (mod 3):}
Theorem (\ref{MainTheorem})
says that for $h = 1, \; q = 3:$
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n \, \le \, x} e^{\frac{2\pi i A(n)}{3}} \; & = \;{\frac{-V_{1,3}}{ \pi}\;\Gamma\left(\frac32\right)\underset{\chi\ne\chi_0}{\prod\limits_{\chi\hskip-5pt\pmod{3}}} \;L(1, \,\chi)^{ \frac{G(\overline{\chi})}{2}} } \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac32}}\;
{ \Big(1 + \mathcal O\left( \frac{1}{\log x}\right)\Big)}\\
& \approx \; (-0.503073 + 0.24042\, i) \, \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac32}}.\end{align*}
We computed the above sum for $x = 10^7$ and obtained
$$\sum_{n \, \le \, 10^7} e^{\frac{2\pi i A(n)}{3}} \approx -98,423.00 + 55,650.79\, i.$$
Our theorem predicts that
$$\sum_{n \, \le \, 10^7} e^{\frac{2\pi i A(n)}{3}} \; \approx \; -88,870.8 + 42,471.7 \;i.$$
Since $\log\left(10^7\right) \approx 16.1$ is small, this explains the discrepancy between the actual and predicted results.
\vskip 8pt
As $x \to \infty,$ we have
\begin{align*}
\underset{A(n)\; \equiv \; a \hskip-4pt\pmod{3}}{\sum_{n\, \le \, x} } \hskip-9pt 1 \;
& = \; \frac13\sum_{h = 0}^2 \sum_{n\, \le \, x} e^{ \frac{2\pi i A(n)h}{3} } e^{-\frac{2\pi i h\,a}{3}}
\\
& = \; \frac{x}{3} \; + c_a \; \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac32}} \; + \; \mathcal O\left( \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac52}} \right)
\end{align*}
where
$$c_0 = -0.335382, \qquad c_1 \; \approx \;0.306498, \qquad c_2 \; \approx \; 0.0288842.$$
\vskip 8pt
\noindent
{\bf Equidistribution (mod 9):}
\vskip 5pt
Our theorem says that for $h \ne 3,6$ ($1\le h<9)$ and $q = 9$:
$$\sum_{n \, \le \, x} e^{\frac{2\pi i h A(n)}{9}}\; = \; \mathcal O\left(x\, e^{-c_0\sqrt{\log x}} \right).$$
Surprisingly!! there is a huge amount of cancellation when $x = 10^7:$
$$ \sum_{n \, \le \, 10^7} e^{\frac{2\pi i h A(n)}{9}}\; \approx \;
\begin{cases}
-315.2 -140.4\, i & \text{if} \; h = 1,\\
\;282.2 - 543.4\, i & \text{if} \; h = 2,\\
\; 94.5 + 321.9 \, i & \text{if} \; h = 4,\\
\; 94.5 - 321.9 \, i & \text{if} \; h = 5,\\
\;282.2 + 543.4\, i & \text{if} \; h = 7,\\
-315.2 +140.4\, i & \text{if} \; h = 8.\\
\end{cases}$$
\vskip 20pt
\section*{Acknowledgement}
{\it The author would like to thank Ada Goldfeld for creating the figures in this paper and would also like to thank Wladyslaw Narkiewiz for pointing out the reference \cite{Del}.}
|
\subsubsection{...}, \paragraph{...}
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Overview}
\href{http://www.geogebra.org}{GeoGebra} \textnormal{\cite{1}} is an open source mathematics
education software tool being used by millions of users worldwide. It is mainly
used to visualize mathematical relations in a dynamic way by supporting
reading correlations off not only visually but also numerically.
This approach has been continuously extended since 2004 by using an
embedded computer algebra system (CAS) in GeoGebra in version 2.4. In those
days CAS {\em JSCL} \textnormal{\cite{21}} was used which has been changed to {\em
\href{http://webuser.hs-furtwangen.de/~dersch/jasymca2/indexEN.html}{Jasymca} \textnormal{\cite{2}}}
(2008, GeoGebra 3.0), {\em
\href{http://math.nist.gov/javanumerics/jama/}{Jama} \textnormal{\cite{3}}} (2009, GeoGebra 3.2),
{\em Yacas/\href{http://www.mathpiper.org/}{Mathpiper} \textnormal{\cite{4}}} (2011, GeoGebra
3.2-4.0), {\em \href{http://www.reduce-algebra.com/}{Reduce} \textnormal{\cite{5}}} (2011,
GeoGebra 4.2) and {\em
\href{http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giac.html}{Giac} \textnormal{\cite{6}}} (2013,
GeoGebra 4.4). (Fig.~\ref{fig:cas} illustrates the different CAS used by GeoGebra along the time.)
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=120mm]{1}
\caption{Embedded CAS systems in various GeoGebra versions. Red period means continuous development phase in GeoGebra.
Orange period shows stable phase with no longer development.}
\label{fig:cas}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Interest in using CAS support in GeoGebra started a more specialized
interest in computing the algebraic equation of more general geometric
objects than lines and circles, namely locus equations. A team of
mathematicians (including the first author) located in Spain offered
scientific partnership and collaboration for the GeoGebra team (including
the second author) located in Austria. Their joint work was funded by
the {\em Google Summer of Code} program in 2010 by supporting the Spanish
university student {\em \href{http://www.serabe.com/tag/gsoc/}{Sergio
Arbeo}} to implement the computation of algebraic locus equations for
GeoGebra 4.0. Arbeo programmed the computations by using an extra CAS {\em
\href{http://krum.rz.uni-mannheim.de/jas/}{JAS} \textnormal{\cite{7}}} in GeoGebra, but his code
was later modified by the second author to use Reduce (and even later Giac)
instead.
As a result, locus equation computations are already present in GeoGebra
since version 4.2 and because of the numerous user feedback the newer
versions (including GeoGebra 5) contain some additional enhancements and
bug fixes as well. Also many users found the introduced {\bf LocusEquation}
command useful and easy to use in education as well. In Section 2 we
consider some possible classroom uses for the {\bf LocusEquation} command.
However Arbeo covered a wide set of classroom problems, meanwhile new
mathematical methods appeared to handle some problematic situations. The
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2014.06.008}{joint work} \textnormal{\cite{8}} of {\em
Montes}, {\em Recio,} {\em Abánades}, {\em Botana} and the {\em Singular}
CAS team yielded a powerful method to compute locus equations by
using the Gröbner cover (grobcov) package in Singular. In this way
GeoGebra has been extended to outsource computations to {\em
\href{https://code.google.com/p/singularws/}{SingularWS} \textnormal{\cite{9,sws-eaca}}}, an external web
service computing locus equations for GeoGebra (among other computations).
This method has been found extensible to compute not only locus
equations but envelopes as well. In Section 3 we show some of these
envelopes, pointing out the possibility of introducing them also in
secondary schools.
\section{Loci}
\subsection{A simple locus example}
A locus can be formally defined as a {\em set of points whose location
satisfies or is determined by one or more specified conditions}. Being more
specific, in GeoGebra a locus is the set of output points P' constructed by
given steps while the input point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P} is running on
a certain linear path. In other words, let point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P} be an
element of a linear path, and let point P' be the output point for the chosen
input \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P} after some transformations of
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P} into P'.
In general the locus will be a curve, the set of output points P', since
the input points \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P} also build up a curve. For example,
let the input curve be circle c and \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P} a
perimeter point of c. Let the center of the circle be
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C}. Now let us construct point P' such that P' is
the midpoint of \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P}\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C}.
Clearly, the locus curve here is also a circle described by center
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C} and half of the radius of c (Fig.~\ref{fig:2}).
This example can be entered into GeoGebra either by using the graphical
user interface with the mouse (as it is traditionally done in dynamic geometry environments),
or by the keyboard in the Algebra Input
(here we put point \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C} to $(2,3)$ and use radius
4):
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C}=(2,3)}
\item {\bf c=Circle[\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C},4]}
\item {\bf P=Point[c]}
\item {\bf P'=Midpoint[\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P},\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C}]}
\item {\bf Locus[P',\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P}]}
\end{itemize}
It should be noted that saying that the locus curve is a circle, is, or at least could be, a risky
statement. There is no immediate reason, besides the visual one in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, to conclude that the locus
is a circle. Since it is well known that visualization is prone to errors, there is no doubt about the
interest on having a certified method to get the equation of the locus curve. As said above,
GeoGebra now incorporates a protocol for it. Replacing the command {\bf Locus[P',\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P}]}
by {\bf LocusEquation[P',\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{P}]} we can also check the result
algebraically: an implicit curve is displayed with the equation
$x^2-6x+y^2-4y=-9$.
Although the curve is not identified as a circle, knowing its equation is a capital step for classifying
it. Furthermore, it is also possible to see how the equation changes
dynamically when point \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C} is dragged.
How can this equation be computed mathematically? Let us define coordinates
$x_C$, $y_C$, $x_{P}$, $y_P$, $x_{P'}$ and $y_{P'}$ for the points defined
above. Now the following equations are valid:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x_C=2$
\item $y_C=3$\item $(x_P-x_C)^2+(y_P-y_C)^2=4^2$\item
$x_{P'}=\frac{x_P+x_C}{2}$\item $y_{P'}=\frac{y_P+y_C}{2}$
\end{enumerate}
What we need is to reduce this equation system to a single equation
containing only coordinates of point P'. In algebra this computation is
called {\em elimination}, i.e.~we should eliminate all variables except $x_{P'}$ and
$y_{P'}.$
In GeoGebra this computation is achieved by the Giac CAS in the background,
but it can also be computed directly by using a GeoGebra command (which
calls the appropriate Giac statement):
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=120mm,height=63.6mm]{2}}
\caption{A simple GeoGebra locus.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Here the user can add command {\bf
LocusEquation[\textcolor[HTML]{FF0000}{loc1}]} to make GeoGebra compute the
equation automatically. By clicking on the marble to the left of the input
line GeoGebra will also display the geometric form of the equation, i.e.~another
circle will be drawn (the same as \textcolor[HTML]{FF0000}{loc1}).
\subsection{Parabolas as loci}
Apart from straight lines and circles, the parabola is probably the most used object when illustrating
the concept of locus. In this section we recall parabolas following their traditional definition and
through the path described by a triangle center when a vertex is dragged. Furthermore, we show, in
the second example, how simple situations can lead to generalizations.
\subsubsection*{Definition of a parabola}
The common parabola definition, {\em the set of points
equidistant from a single point (the focus) and a line (the directrix)},
is, however, not easy to handle for some students. There is at
least one abstract step in-between, namely that to find the distance from a
line we may need a perpendicular being drawn.
Thus, when focus \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F} and directrix d are given,
constructing one point P of parabola {\color{red}p} is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Choose an arbitrary point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D} of
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{d}.\item Construct a perpendicular line to
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{d} on \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D}.\item Construct
the bisector b of \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D} and
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F}.\item Let the intersection point of the
perpendicular line and b be P.\item Now P is a point of parabola
\textcolor[HTML]{FF0000}{p} since
P\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D}=P\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F} (because bisector
b is actually the axis for the mirroring of point
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D} to \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F}).
\end{enumerate}
In fact drawing bisector b is also a hidden step since we implicitly used
some basic properties of the reflection.
This kind of definition of the parabola is usual in many secondary schools,
however the equivalence of this definition and the analytical one (that is,
the usual formula for a parabola is $y=ax^2+bx+c$ for some constants $a$, $b$
and $c$) is not obvious.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{3}
\caption{A parabola obtained as locus and its equation.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the Figure \ref{fig:3} we can see a dark red dashed parabola which is the real locus
drawn by GeoGebra numerically. The lighter red curve has been computed
symbolically by the {\bf LocusEquation} command. While in this case these
two curves are exactly the same, we will see some examples below where it
is not the case. The reason comes from the algorithm we use to compute the
equation. (In many cases the symbolical result can be improved by using
extended algorithms.)
\subsubsection*{Locus of the orthocenter}
A parabola can also be obtained by getting the orthocenter points of a
triangle if two vertices are fixed and the third one moves on a line which
is parallel to the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{fig:4}, where vertex
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A} moves along line \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{PQ},
parallel to triangle side {\color{blue}BC}).
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=107mm]{4}
\caption{Locus of the orthocenters of a triangle.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In this figure point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A} is constrained by line
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{PQ}. Students can drag point
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A} on line \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{PQ} and see
how the orthocenter {\color{red}D} is changing meanwhile. It is not obvious
to prove that the locus here is a parabola, but the students are able at
least to get experience by changing points {\color{blue}B} and
{\color{blue}C} by preserving parallelism of lines
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{PQ} and \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{BC}.
On the other hand, the locus equation will not be essentially different on
other positions of {\color{blue}P}, {\color{blue}Q}, {\color{blue}B} and
{\color{blue}C}: it will be quadratic in most sets of positions. Some of
these positions seem easy to investigate, for example when
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{PQ} is perpendicular to
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{BC} (here the result will be a linear equation).
Others, for example by putting {\color{blue}P} to $(1,1)$ and not changing
anything else in the set, the locus result is a hyperbola, namely
$x^2+xy+y=5$. First, this formula is hard to analyze in secondary school
since it is not in explicit form like a function $y=f(x)$. Second, this
formula is still a quadratic implicit equation and thus it can open
horizons of generalization to cover all kind of conics.
In case {\color{blue}P}=$(1,1)$, {\color{blue}Q}=$(2,0)$,
{\color{blue}B}=$(3,-1)$, {\color{blue}C}=$(3,1)$ the computed locus equation is
$-xy-x+y^2+3y=-2$, i.e. $-xy-x+y^2+3y+2=0$ whose left hand side is the
product of $(y+1)$ and $(y-x+2)$, two lines, namely $y=-1$ and $y=x-2$
written in the usual explicit form. In this constellation altitude of side
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}{\color{blue}B} always lies on line
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{CQ} since it is perpendicular to
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{PQ}. Thus point {\color{red}D} will also lie on
line \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{CQ}, so it seems sensible that the locus
equation is \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{CQ} in this case. Unfortunately,
GeoGebra's {\bf LocusEquation} shows an extra line here, not only
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{CQ} (which has the explicit equation $y=x-2$) but
also another one. This example shows that the real locus may be a subset of
the result of the {\bf LocusEquation} command.
One further step forward is to constrain point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}
on a circle, not a line. In this way we can obtain non-quadratic locus
equations like the strophoid formula which is a cubic one (see Fig.~\ref{fig:5}
where \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}
is bound to a circle centered at \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{P} and passing through
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{Q}, being both
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{P} and \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{Q}
user defined points).
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 10cm 0,clip,width=12cm]{5}
\caption{A strophoid obtained as a locus (with an extra linear factor).}
\label{fig:5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In this figure a quartic equation is shown, but the real locus is a cubic
curve. That is, an extra component is shown (here line $x=-1$) as in many
other cases when dragging points \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{P},
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{Q}, \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{B} or
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{C}. On the other hand, by moving point
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{P} down, for example to $(-1,1)$ or $(-1,0)$, the
locus is the same as {\bf LocusEquation} computes: in these cases the locus
is a real quartic curve.
A beautiful side case is when {\color{blue}B}={\color{blue}P}
and {\color{blue}C}={\color{blue}Q}. In this case the real locus is a
\href{http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RightStrophoid.html}{right strophoid} \textnormal{\cite{10}}
curve and an extra line component is drawn on points {\color{blue}C} and
{\color{blue}Q}.
Concerning the extra components when
finding loci, we refer to \cite{8} where a complete theoretical solution is given.
\subsection{Technical details}
\subsubsection*{Computational background}
We think that most readers of this papers are neither technicians, nor
mathematicians, but teachers. Nevertheless, it is good to know some
computational details how the {\bf LocusEquation} command works.
There should be a compromise between using educational software as a blackbox and being
an expert developer.
Computing a locus equation can be time consuming even for fast computers.
Basically, a set of equations has to be created in the background: the more
objects we have in our construction, the more variables and equations we
need. After setting up algebraic equations, they have to be solved
symbolically in an efficient way. For this task we use {\em Gröbner bases} \cite{18}.
GeoGebra uses the Giac computer algebra system to compute Gröbner bases as
efficiently as possible, but the general method is still double
exponentional in the number of variables. On the other hand, Giac runs in a
web browser in today's computers, and this slows down computations by
almost one magnitude. (This means that computing locus equation in the
desktop version of GeoGebra is still much faster than observing the
construction in a web browser. For the future, however, there are plans to
speed up JavaScript computations by substituting them with native
instructions.)
Giac is a powerful CAS, but it can slow down if extreme input must be
processed. That is why it is desired to solve equations only having integer
coefficients. To achieve this, it is suggested using so-called dynamic
coordinates in GeoGebra: to create free points \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{A'},
{\color{blue}B'}, {\color{blue}C'}, $\ldots$ first and then define point {\bf
A=DynamicCoordinates[{\color{blue}A'},round(x({\color{blue}A'})),round(y({\color{blue}A'}))]},
then use similar definitions for points B and C and so on.
A final remark on computational issues deals with the type of numbers involved in calculi.
Using "easy" coordinates will speed up computations. For example,
putting A to the origin, B on the $x$-axis and using small integers instead
of larger numbers may decrease computation time significantly.
\subsubsection*{Supported construction steps}
Since the Gröbner basis computation assumes algebraic (polynomial)
equations, there are restrictions for the available construction steps for
the {\bf LocusEquation} command. First of all, only Euclidean construction
steps are supported. Even if a step could be converted into a Euclidean
construction, some non-trivial way of wording are not supported, for
example, when the user defines a parabola by entering its explicit formula,
then it cannot be discovered by the {\bf LocusEquation} command at the
moment. Instead, the parabola must be constructed by using the appropriate
GeoGebra tool.
Most Euclidean two dimensional construction steps are already supported.
Javadoc at
\href{http://dev.geogebra.org/trac/wiki}{the GeoGebra Developer Wiki} \textnormal{\cite{11}}
provides a full list of them.
If a geometry problem is described fully or partially by formulas, it may
be difficult to translate it to a purely Euclidean construction. Below we
will see an example how this can be achieved.
\subsubsection*{Agnesi's witch}
Here we provide two examples to implement
\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_of_Agnesi}{Agnesi's witch} \textnormal{\cite{12}} in
GeoGebra. The first approach is a general way which will result in
slow computation and some extra components. The second approach is
much faster and results only in one extra component.
For the first approach we simply consider the formula $y=\frac{1}{x^2+1}$.
Here we need to define the unit ($1$) and compute the square of $x$ based on
this unit, then add these two lengths. Then we need to compute the
reciprocal of the result, and translate the final length $y$ to the correct
position of the coordinate system.
In Figure \ref{fig:6} we can see a numerical locus in red and a symbolical locus
in blue. In fact Agnesi's curve is just a part of these curves since the
conversion of its formula will introduce extra components. Let us follow
the steps we made in this figure:
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=120mm]{5b}
\caption{A locus where the witch of Agnesi is contained.}
\label{fig:6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Point \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{A} is created (origin).\item Point
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{B} is created, $(0,1)$.\item Line a is the
$y$-axis.\item Line b is the $x$-axis.\item Point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C}
lies on the $x$-axis, it will be the projection of a point of the curve to
the $x$-axis, i.e. its abscissa will be $x$.\item We will use the
\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercept_theorem}{intercept theorem} \textnormal{\cite{13}} to
construct $x^2$. So we create a triangle with sides having length $1$
(\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{AB}) and $x$
(\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{A}\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C}). This triangle
is right, but this property is not necessary. The third side of the
triangle is line c.\item For the intercept theorem we prepare length $x$
also on line {\color{blue}AB} by drawing circle d.\item Point D is
intersection of line a and circle d. (In fact there are two intersection
points here, but we use the "upper" one.) Now {\color{blue}A}D=$x$.\item
Line e is parallel to c and lies on D.\item Point E is intersection of lines
b and e. By using the intercept theorem obviously
{\color{blue}A}E=$x^2$.\item We are preparing addition, thus we draw
another circle f around the origin having unit radius.\item Point F is
intersection of line b and circle f. (In fact there are two intersection
points here, but we use the "left" one.) Now EF=$x^2+1$.\item We would like
to copy the unit length, so we create segment g as the unit (i.e.,
AB).\item Circle h is around point E with unit radius.\item Line i is
perpendicular to line b and lies on point E.\item Point G is intersection
of line i and circle h. (In fact there are two intersection points here,
but we use the "upper" one.) Now GE is a copy of the unit. This is a
preparation for applying another intercept theorem.\item We will use
triangle EFG for the intercept theorem, thus we draw line FG as line
j.\item Point H is again an intersection of circle h and line b. (The
"left" one.) Now we copied the unit as EH, too.\item Drawing line k as a
parallel one with line j through H.\item Intersection of lines i and k is
point I.\item Now applying the intercept theorem for length IE we obtain
IE=$\frac{1}{x^2+1}$. This will be $y$.\item Now we will copy this length to
point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C} orthogonally. Thus we draw a
perpendicular with line b through \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C}. This is
line m.\item We copy length IE to point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C}
upwards, thus we draw circle p around \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C} with
radius IE.\item "Upper" intersection point of m and p is point J.\item
Locus of point J while \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C} is moving on the $x$-axis
is what we search for. In fact, only those points J are proper which have
positive abscissa.\item Finally, {\bf LocusEquation} shows a $12$ degree
polynomial, $x^8y^4-2x^4y^4-2x^4y^2+y^4-2y^2+1$, which is a product of the
cubic Agnesi curve and its reflection to the $x$-axis, and two other cubics
(reflections of each other), namely $x^2y-y-1$, $x^2y-y+1$, $x^2y+y-1$ and
$x^2y+y+1$.
\end{enumerate}
After finishing this construction it is clear that we almost surely obtain
extra components since it is impossible to exclude the "right" intersection
point in steps 12 and 18, for example. The construction process described
above illustrates the weakness of the Euclidean (i.e.~in fact algebraic)
method.
Finally we refer to a simpler definition of Agnesi's curve, also used
by a Google "doodle" on the 296th anniversary of Maria Agnesi's birth on 16
May 2014 (Fig.~\ref{fig:7}).
Given the center {\color{blue}A} (here the origin) and circumpoint {\color{blue}B}
(here the point $(0,-2)$) of a circle, let {\color{blue}B}\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C} the diameter of the circle. Let
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{b}
the tangent line of the circle at \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C}, and let \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D} be an arbitrary point on the circle.
Now E is the
intersection point of {\color{blue}B}\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C} and
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{b}. At last {\color{red}F} will be the projection of E on a line parallel to the $x$-axis,
going through \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{6}
\caption{Agnesi's witch as a Google doodle.}
\label{fig:7}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This "easy" definition allows GeoGebra to show Agnesi's witch much faster
than above and make it computationally possible to drag the input points
even in a web browser (Fig.~\ref{fig:8}). Of course, in many cases such a simplification is an
intellectual challenge by searching for algebraic or geometric
simplifications to result in less variables in the Gröbner basis
computations.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{7}
\caption{The witch of Agnesi as a simpler locus.}
\label{fig:8}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As an exercise, we leave to the reader to prove that the trace of point
\textcolor[HTML]{FF0000}{F} is $y=\frac{1}{x^2+1}$ if
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{B} is in the origin,
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{A}=$(0,1/2)$ and \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{C}=$(0,1)$.
Also as an exercise in GeoGebra to improve this figure: use {\bf
DynamicCoordinates} instead of point capturing to grid points (which yields
non-continuous motion for point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D}). Another
improvement can be to put the equation text into a fix position, preferably
in the second Graphics View.
\section{Envelopes}
We have studied loci of points in the preceding section. Replacing points by lines, it arouses the
concept of envelope. Through this section we consider these objects, that is, the locus of a family of
plane lines depending on some other object. To this end, we describe how a parabola can be
obtained by studying a family of tangent lines, we recall a kind of optical art relating it with tangent
lines, and, finally, we illustrate how mathematics can be learned in a cup of coffee.
\subsection{Motivation}
A simple definition of a circle is {\em a plane
curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center}. Now by
constructing the tangent line in a point of the circle we find that the
tangent is perpendicular to the radius. When considering the trace of the
tangent lines as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:9}, we find that the union $U$ of the tangents of a circle is the
whole plane except the disc inside the circle.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=56.2mm]{8}
\caption{A circle suggested by tracing tangent lines to its points.}
\label{fig:9}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Now let us consider the same figure from another point of view. Having the
set $U$ we may be interested of a curve such that its tangents are the lines
of $U$. Such a curve can be the given circle, but that it is the only
possible curve (that is, the question has a unique answer) is not
straightforward.
On the other hand, each element of $U$ is equidistant from the center of the
circle because distance is defined by measuring orthogonal projection. This
idea leads us to define a parabola by considering the set $U'$ of lines being
equidistant from a given point \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F} and a given line
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{d}. To measure the distance from line
\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{d} we consider each point
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D} of line \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{d} and take
the perpendicular bisector of points \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F} and
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D} as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:10}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=51.6mm]{9}
\caption{Tracing lines to suggest a parabola.}
\label{fig:10}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We have already mentioned in the previous section that usual definition of
a parabola p' is that it is the locus of points P' which are equidistant
from focus \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F'} and directrix d'. Now let
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D' } be an arbitrary point of d', line b the
bisector of segment \textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F'}\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D'
} and P' the intersection of the perpendicular to d' in
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D' } and b. A well-known property of b is that it is
the tangent of parabola p' in point P'.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=91.8mm]{10}
\caption{Line b is not secant to parabola, but tangent.}
\label{fig:11}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let us assume that b is not a tangent of parabola p' in point P'. Then
there is another point P'' on b, also element of the parabola, that is, b is
a secant line of p'. Assumably this point P'' was created by foot point
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D''} (element of d'), for which
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D''}P''=P''{\color{blue}F'}. Since b is the
bisector of \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D'}\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F'}, also
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D'}P''=P''\textcolor[HTML]{0000FF}{F'} holds. But
this means that
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D'}P''=\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D''}P'', that is,
in triangle \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D'}\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D''}P''
(which is a right triangle) hypothenuse \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D'}P'' and
cathetus \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{D''}P'' have the same length, which is
impossible. This contradiction ensures that b is a tangent, not a secant,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:11}.
Thus we proved that these two different definitions of a parabola (i.e.~the
classical one by using locus, and this second one which uses the concept of
trace of the bisector) are equivalent, that is, they define the same
parabola.
\subsection{Envelopes and string art}
{\em String art}, or pin and thread art, according to
\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_art}{Wikipedia} \textnormal{\cite{14}}, is characterized
by an arrangement of colored thread strung between points to form abstract
geometric patterns or representational designs such as a ship's sails,
sometimes with other artist material comprising the remainder of the work.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{11}
\caption{An example of string art.}
\label{fig:12}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:12} strings play the same role as tangents in the previous
examples. As Markus Hohenwarter, inventor of GeoGebra refers in paper
\textnormal{\cite{20}} and in the 8th chapter of
\textnormal{\cite{15}}, the segments we can see are tangents to a quadratic Bézier curve.
In the following \href{http://geogebratube.org/student/m135151}{applet} \textnormal{\cite{16}} one
can do a similar experiment by using GeoGebra, and eventually use its {\bf
Envelope} command to check whether the resulted contour curve is quadratic (Fig.~\ref{fig:13}
shows a capture of the mentioned applet where the grade of the equation is 2).
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{12}
\caption{Checking the grade of a contour curve. YouTube video at \url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Cq2VMsiZw}.}
\label{fig:13}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
By no mean the activity to draw the segments \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}B
while \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A} is dragged on grid points between $(0,0)$
and (0,10)---and meanwhile B is moved between $(10,0)$ and $(0,0)$---is an easy
task for many types of school pupils. Also the result as getting the
contour of the segments can be expected to be a straightforward way of the
next step of understanding. However, obtaining the envelope equation is at
a different step of difficulty level.
First of all, the obtained equation is of 5th grade, containing not only
the curve itself, but its reflection to the $x$-axis, and also the $x$-axis
itself. This equation is
$x^4y-40x^3y-2x^2y^3+600x^2y-120xy^3-4000xy+y^5-200y^3+10000y=0$ which is
an implicit equation, but it can be factorized into three factors.
Unfortunately, factorization is not discussed at secondary level, so we
need to find another approach to go into the very details.
Fortunately, all these problems can be managed in secondary school by
changing the construction in some sense. On one hand, we rotate the
axes by 45 degrees to obtain an explicit equation: in this case one of the
parabolas can be written in form $y=ax^2+bx+c$. On the other hand, we
use magnification of 10, so that we obtain parabola
$y=\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}$ which can be described with directrix $y=0$
and focus $(0,1)$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=109mm]{13}
\caption{Another construction of a parabola.}
\label{fig:14}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Now we prove that segment \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}B is always a tangent
of the parabola described in Figure \ref{fig:14}. We use only such methods which can be
discussed in a secondary school as well. We would like to compute the
equation of line \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}B to find the intersection
point T of \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}B and the parabola.
So first we recognize that if point \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}=$(-d,d)$,
then point B=$(1-d,1-d)$. Since line \textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}B has an
equation in form $y=ax+b$, we can set up equations for points
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A} and B as follows: $d=a\cdot(-d)+b$ $(1)$ and
$1-d=a\cdot(1-d)+b$ $(2)$. Now $(1)-(2)$ results in $a=1-2d$ and thus, by using
$(1)$ again we get $b=2d-2d^2$.
Second, to obtain intersection point T we consider equation
$ax+b=\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}$ which can be reformulated to search the
roots of quadratic function $\frac{x^2}{2}-ax-b+\frac{1}{2}$. If and only
if the discriminant of this quadratic expression is zero, then
\textcolor[HTML]{7D7DFF}{A}B is a tangent. Indeed, the determinant is
$(-a)^2-4\cdot\frac{1}{2}\cdot(-b+\frac{1}{2})=a^2+2b-1$ which is, after
expanding $a$ and $b$, obviously zero.
Despite this is an analytical proof, by computing the $x$-coordinate of T
(which is $a=1-2d$) the reader may think of finding a synthetic proof as
well.
\subsection{Mathematics in the coffee cup}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{14}
\caption{The nephroid curve in the coffee cup.
A photo by Stuart Levy published at \url{http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~fjw/calc-init/nephroid/}.}
\label{fig:15}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The nephroid curve (see inside the coffee cup on
Fig.~\ref{fig:15}) is a 6th order algebraic curve defined by the envelope of a
set of mirrored light rays as a family of curves. Unfortunately,
computationally it is rather complex to solve the corresponding equation
system, thus it is inconvenient to use the {\bf Envelope} command with the recent
version of GeoGebra.
From the optical point of view, there are two approaches. One possibility
is to assume that the source of the light is a point. In this case the rays
are concurrent. The other possibility is to assume that the source is
infinitely distant, in this case the rays are parallel. Clearly, the
second case is the mathematical "limit" of the first one since if the point
converges to infinity, the models are closer and closer to each other.
The first approach is computationally easier. In Figure \ref{fig:16} we
can investigate the model of the concurrent rays by using the Java desktop
version of GeoGebra.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=120mm]{15}
\caption{A nephroid as computed by the desktop version of GeoGebra.}
\label{fig:16}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
GeoGebra applets in GeoGebraBooks use Giac, but newest versions of GeoGebra
can be configured to use faster methods than Giac has. In a
video (Fig.~\ref{fig:17}) we can learn how the Java desktop version can be started to use or
not use the external computation machine SingularWS with the embedded
Gröbner cover algorithm.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=120mm]{16}
\caption{A capture of the construction of a nephroid. YouTube video at \url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV_C4N7mWGs}.}
\label{fig:17}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, the approach of the parallel rays is computationally the most
difficult one. It is impossible for Giac to compute the envelope equation
in a reasonable time, thus we have to force using SingularWS and the
Gröbner cover method by using the command line option {\tt {-}{-}singularws=enable:true}
again (Fig.~\ref{fig:18} shows a capture of the mentioned video):
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{17}
\caption{The nephroid when rays are parallel. YouTube video at \url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGTaJR2zyw}.}
\label{fig:18}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As we can see in the above videos (Fig.~\ref{fig:17} and \ref{fig:18}), in the parallel case there are two extra
components which can be separated by factorization. But also in the
concurrent case when the source of the light is a perimeter point of the
circle there is an extra component.
\subsubsection*{Conclusion}
As \href{http://www.phikwadraat.nl/huygens_cusp_of_tea/}{Sander Wildeman} \textnormal{\cite{17}}
remarks, {\em once you have written an article about caustics you start to
see them everywhere}. We can only
agree: mathematics is everywhere, not only in geometric forms of basic
objects but various loci and envelopes. Mathematics is indeed everywhere---so
maths teachers can build motivation on emphasizing these not well known
facts in the modern era of education.
We are hoping that the newly developed GeoGebra commands {\bf LocusEquation} and {\bf Envelope}
will be a step forward in introducing and investigating real life objects in a
modern way for secondary school students. As future work, detailed study of these tools may be desirable in
concrete classroom situations.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{18}
\caption{Mathematics is everywhere.}
\label{fig:19}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Acknowledgments}
First author partially supported by the Spanish ‘‘Ministerio de
Economía y Competitividad’’ and by the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), under the Project MTM2011-25816-C02-02.
|
\section{Introduction}
Currently it is widely accepted that most of the massive galaxies harbour supermassive black holes (SMBHs) in their centres \citep{central_SMBH}. In hierarchical structure formation models \citep{strucform_CDM1, strucform_CDM2}, interactions and mergers between galaxies play an important role in their evolution and consequently in the growth of their central SMBHs \citep[e.g.,][]{SMBH_galaxy_evo}. It is expected that a particular phase in the merging process, systems with dual SMBHs must be observed in the Universe. Following the definition of \cite{dual_binary}, we refer to systems consisting of dual SMBHs (or dual AGN), where the separation of the two SMBHs are much larger than their influence radii. In contrast, binary SMBHs are those systems where the separation is smaller than the influence radius. In the literature, kpc-scale separation systems are referred to as dual AGN, and pc-scale separation systems as binary AGN \citep[e.g.,][]{colpi_review,volonteri_review,Muller-Sanchez}
The galaxy merging process can cause enhanced accretion onto the central SMBHs and thus initiate activity. One or both of the dual SMBHs may be active or re-activated. Simulations \citep[e.g.,][]{vanWassenhove} suggest that simultaneous activity is mostly expected at the late phases of mergers, at or below 10 kpc-scale separations. Additionally, recent work of \cite{radioselected_binaryAGN2} indicates that mergers trigger and tend to synchronize activity at separations of few kpc. Therefore dual active galactic nuclei (AGN) are expected to be observed, but they are not easily resolvable with the current observing facilities. The number of convincing dual AGN systems, mostly detected by X-ray and radio observations \citep[e.g.,][]{confirmed_dual1, beswick_dual, confirmed_dual2,confirmed_dual4,confirmed_dual5,confirmed_dual6,confirmed_dual7,confirmed_dual8,confirmed_dual9,confirmed_dual10, Comerford_Xray, Muller-Sanchez}, are relatively few compared to the theoretically predicted abundance \citep[see also,][]{Komossa_Zensus_review}. While very long baseline interferometric (VLBI) radio observations currently provide the highest spatial resolution, thus they would be a promising tool for the detection of dual AGN\footnote{In fact thanks to its superior resolution, the first binary AGN was discovered by VLBI technique \citep{confirmed_dual3}.}, only about $10$\,\% of AGN are radio-loud, therefore dual radio emitting active nuclei would be quite rare. Moreover, when trying to confirm the existence of dual AGN in candidate sources, the non-detection in radio does not immediately falsify the dual AGN hypothesis because radio-quiet nuclei may as well be present. \cite{B-S_VLBI} searched the archival VLBI observations of 3114 radio-emitting AGN for sources containing compact double sources. Only one source (B3 0402$+$379) was found with double nucleus with separation of about $7$\,pc, which was already known from the observations of \cite{confirmed_dual3}.
On the other hand, not just the confirmation of dual AGN, but the selection of candidate sources is not straightforward. During the last decade, it was proposed that double-peaked narrow emission lines might be used to select possible dual AGN sources, where the two sets of narrow lines originate in the two distinct narrow-line regions (NLR) of the two AGN \citep[e.g.][]{double_line1, wang2009, double_line2}. However, it was also shown that this spectral behaviour can be explained by other effects occurring in single AGN. According to \citet{Heckman1981, Heckman1984}, double-peaked narrow emission lines can arise due to peculiar kinematics and jet--cloud interaction in a single NLR. More recently \cite{double_line2} discussed several mechanisms for creating double-peaked emission lines in single AGN, including a rotating disk-like NLR, and, in particular, the possibility of a {\em single} AGN illuminating the interstellar media of {\em two} galaxies in a merger. Further, \cite{non_dual} pointed out that blobby NLRs and extinction effects can produce multi-peaked narrow emission lines \citep[see also][]{Crenshaw2}. To select the real dual AGN from candidate sources, \cite{Tingay_VLBI} conducted VLBI observations of a sample of AGN with double-peaked optical emission lines. Among the observed 11 sources, they have found no evidence for double radio cores. Our group also conducted VLBI search for double radio cores from optically-selected dual AGN candidates. In the first of a systematic study of dual AGN candidates, we performed VLBI observations of 3C 316, which is the most radio-loud source in the double-peaked narrow-line AGN sample \citep{Smith2010}, in order to confirm its duality. The VLBI image detected a series of discrete compact knots, however, none of which could be compact enough to be identified as an AGN core. The most possible explanation of the observed radio structure is that it is the radio jet of a single radio-loud AGN in 3C 316. These works thus do not support the idea that double-peaked narrow emission lines are good tracer for dual AGN (although investigations of larger samples are needed to obtain firm statistical result).
\cite{Comerford_sample} proposed additional selection critera to narrow down the list of dual AGN candidates
from a group of sources showing double-peaked narrow lines. Using long-slit spectroscopy of $81$ double-peaked narrow-line AGN ($0.03\lesssim z \lesssim 0.3$), they tried to separate the sources where the double-peaked lines are the result of AGN outflows or gas kinematics from those which can be compelling dual AGN candidates. \cite{Comerford_sample} selected their targets from the catalogs of \cite{wang2009}, \cite{Liu2010}, and \cite{Smith2010}. They identified double-peaked active galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) spectral database using the [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda5007$ emission lines. \cite{Comerford_sample} proposed that sources with spatially compact emission components may be preferentially produced by dual AGN. Moreover, they concluded that in more than one-third of their sample the double emission features are aligned with the major axis of the host galaxy, which is more than twice the expected amount assuming uniform distribution of the position angles. They proposed that this was also an indication of dual AGN in those objects. In summary, \cite{Comerford_sample} concluded that from the $81$ observed sources $17$ are promising dual AGN candidates with angular separation less than $1\arcsec$. In $14$ sources, the emission features are aligned with the major axis of the host galaxies, in $3$ sources the measured spatial offsets and position angles of the emission features are consistent with the separations and position angles of stellar components detected in adaptive optics images.
Among these $17$ dual AGN candidates, seven have been detected in the Very Large Array (VLA) Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-centimeters (FIRST) survey \citep{first} at $1.4$\,GHz with flux densities between $0.8$\,mJy and $9.1$\,mJy. We selected the four sources, SDSS J102325.57$+$324348.4 (hereafter J1023+3243), SDSS J115523.74$+$150756.9 (hereafter J1155+1507), SDSS J210449.13$-$000919.1 (hereafter J2104$-$0009), and SDSS J23044.82$-$093345.3 (hereafter J2304$-$0933) which have integrated flux densities $\gtrsim 2$\,mJy in the FIRST survey, and observed them with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) at $1.5$\,GHz. If two compact radio features can be detected at the separations and position angles derived by \cite{Comerford_sample} from the optical observations, that would be a clear indication of the existence of dual AGN in the sources. One compact AGN and extended jet-like feature aligned with the optical features may be indicative of jet-driven AGN outflow. However, the detection of only one or no compact radio emission does not exlcude the possibility of dual AGN in the galaxy, since the majority of AGN are not radio emitters.
Throughout the paper we assume a standard flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with Hubble constant $H_0=70\mathrm{\,km\, s}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and density parameters $\Omega_\mathrm{m}=0.3$, and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$. The linear scales and luminosities were obtained with the online calculator of \cite{cosmocalc}.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
The ten 25-m diameter radio telescopes of the U.S. National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) VLBA were used for observing the four target sources at the central frequency of 1.5~GHz in phase-reference mode \citep[e.g.,][]{phase-ref}. Two sources (J1023+3243 and J1155+1507) were observed for 6~h on 2013 March 2 (experiment BA103A). Another 6-h experiment targeting J2104$-$0009 and J2304$-$0933 was performed on 2013 June 15 (experiment BA103B). The data were taken with 2~Gbit~s$^{-1}$ recording rate, leading to the total bandwidth of 256~MHz in both left and right circular polarizations using 2-bit sampling, in 8 separate intermediate-frequency (IF) channels, each with 32 spectral points. Phase-referencing was performed by periodically nodding the radio telescopes between the targets and the respective nearby bright and compact calibrator source. Nearly 3.5~min in each of the $\sim$4.5-min calibrator--target cycles were spent on the targets. The delay, delay rate, and phase solutions derived for the phase-reference calibrators (J1021+3437, J1157+1638, J2105+0033, and J2303$-$1002) could later be interpolated and applied for the respective target-source data, to improve the sensitivity of the observations of these weaker objects. The target--reference angular separations were $2\fdg05$ (between J1023+3243 and J1021+3437), $1\fdg61$ (between J1155+1507 and J1157+1638), $0\fdg72$ (between J2104$-$0009 and J2105+0033), and $0\fdg51$ (between J2304$-$0933 and J2303$-$1002). The total on-source time spent on each target was 2~h, the expected image thermal noise was $\sim$20~$\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. In addition, the strong fringe-finder sources 4C\,39.25 and 3C\,454.3 were occasionally observed in experiments BA103A and B, respectively.
The NRAO Astronomical Image Processing System\footnote{\url{http://www.aips.nrao.edu}} ({\sc AIPS}) was used for the data calibration \citep[e.g.,][]{data_reduc}. We followed the standard procedures applicable to the calibration of continuum VLBA data. This involved corrections for the dispersive ionospheric delay using maps of the total electron content derived from global navigation satellite systems measurements, for the accurately measured Earth orientation parameters, and for digital sampling effects. The visibility amplitudes were calibrated using system temperatures and antenna gains measured at the telescopes. The amplitude calibration was performed following the procedure outlined in \cite{memo}. Phases were then corrected for parallactic angle effects. After an initial correction of instrumental phases and delays using a short scan on a strong calibrator source, fringe-fitting was first performed for all the phase-reference calibrator (J1021+3437, J1157+1638, J2105+0033, and J2303$-$1002) and fringe-finder sources (4C\,39.25, 3C\,454.3). The calibrated data were then exported to the {\sc Difmap} package \citep{difmap} for imaging. The conventional hybrid mapping procedure with subsequent iterations of CLEANing \citep{clean} and phase (then amplitude) self-calibration provided the images and brightness distribution models for the calibrators. Overall antenna gain correction factors were determined at the first step of the amplitude self-calibration. These indicated that the a-priori amplitude calibration was accurate within $5$\,\% for each antenna, therefore no further gain correction was necessary for the target sources. Fringe-fitting was repeated for the phase-reference calibrators in {\sc AIPS}. For this second case, the CLEAN component models of their brightness distributions derived in {\sc Difmap} were also taken into account, to compensate for any residual phases resulting from their non-pointlike structure. The solutions obtained were interpolated and applied to the respective target source data. Finally, the calibrated and phase-referenced visibility data of the four target sources (J1023$+$3243, J1155$+$1507, J2104$-$0009, and J2304$-$0933) were also exported to {\sc Difmap} for imaging. Natural weighting was applied to achieve the lowest image noise. No self-calibration was attempted. The images displayed in Figures~\ref{fig:J1155}--\ref{fig:J2304} were restored with CLEAN component models obtained in {\sc Difmap} for the three target sources detected.
To describe the brightness distribution quantitatively, we fitted the visibilities with circular Gaussian model components using the task {\sc modelfit} within {\sc Difmap}. The parameter errors were calculated following the equations given by \cite{error}; to account for an assumed VLBI amplitude calibration uncertainty, another $10$\,\% error was added quadratically to the flux density errors. The sum of the integrated flux densities of these model components ($S_\mathrm{VLBA}$) for each source is given in Col. 6 in Table \ref{tab:param}. The parameters and designations of the model components are listed in Table \ref{tab:comp}.
\section{Results} \label{res}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[bb=35 135 585 680, clip=, width=\columnwidth]{J1155_final_edt.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:J1155}The 1.5-GHz VLBA map of J1155$+$1507. The peak brightness is $140\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. There are three positive contours, the lowest one of those is at $70\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$ ($\sim3\sigma$), further contours increase with a factor of $\sqrt 2$. The negative contour (shown by dashed line) is at $-70\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. The restoring beam is $11.0$\,mas\,$\times 5.2$\,mas (FWHM) at a position angle of $4\fdg6$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[bb=35 235 585 580, clip=, width=\columnwidth]{J2104_final_edt.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:J2104}The 1.5-GHz VLBA map of J2104$-$0009. The peak brightness is $393\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. There are five positive contours, the lowest one of those is at $90\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$ ($\sim3\sigma$), further contours increase with a factor of $\sqrt 2$. The negative contour (shown by dashed line) is at $-90\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. The restoring beam is $11.5$\,mas\,$\times 5.0$\,mas (FWHM) at a position angle of $1\fdg5$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[bb=30 130 768 507, clip=, width=\columnwidth]{J2304_final_edt.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:J2304} The 1.5-GHz VLBA map of J2304$-$0933. The peak brightness is $280\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. There are four positive contours, the lowest one of those is at $94\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$ ($\sim3\sigma$), further contours increase with a factor of $\sqrt 2$. The negative contour (shown by dashed line) is at $-94\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. The restoring beam is $11.7$\,mas\,$\times 4.8$\,mas (FWHM) at a position angle of $0\fdg1$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
\rotate
\tablecaption{\label{tab:param}Parameters of the four candidate dual AGN observed with VLBA.}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Name} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{$S_\mathrm{FIRST}$} & \colhead{$P_\mathrm{FIRST}$} &
\colhead{$S_\mathrm{VLBA}$} & \colhead{$P_\mathrm{VLBA}$} & \colhead{$z$} &
\colhead{Scale} \\
& & & \colhead{mJy} & \colhead{mJy beam$^{-1}$} & \colhead{mJy} & \colhead{mJy beam$^{-1}$} & & \colhead{pc mas$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
J1023+3243 & $10^\mathrm{h} 23^\mathrm{m} 25\fs698$\tablenotemark{a} & $+32\arcdeg 43\arcmin 48\farcs47$\tablenotemark{a} & 2.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & \nodata & $< 0.125$ & 0.127 & 2.271\\
J1155+1507 & $11^\mathrm{h} 55^\mathrm{m} 23\fs7449$ & $+15\arcdeg 07\arcmin 56\farcs909$ & 2.0 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & $0.58 \pm 0.16$ & $0.140$ & 0.287 & 4.319 \\
J2104$-$0009 & $21^\mathrm{h} 04^\mathrm{m} 49\fs1306$ & $-00\arcdeg 09\arcmin 19\farcs099$& 3.5 $\pm$ 0.2 & 4.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & $1.37 \pm 0.22$ & $0.393$ & 0.135 & 2.393 \\
J2304$-$0933 & $23^\mathrm{h} 04^\mathrm{m} 42\fs8280$ & $-09\arcdeg 33\arcmin 45\farcs494$ & 8.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 9.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & $4.37 \pm 0.83$ & $0.280$ & 0.032 & 0.639\\
\enddata
Col. 1: source names; Col. 2: right ascensions; Col. 3: declinations; Col. 4 integrated flux densities from the FIRST catalog \citep{first_new}, the $1\sigma$ errors, since they are not given in the catalog, are derived from the FITS images downloaded from Vizier (http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source=VIII/92) ; Col. 5 peak brightness and $1\sigma$ errors from the FIRST catalog \citep{first_new}; Col. 6: sums of the flux density of the Gaussian model components fitted to the VLBA visibilities; Col. 7: peak brightness of the VLBA maps; Col. 8: redshifts; Col. 9: linear scales of the sources.
\tablenotetext{a}{J1023+3243 was undetected with VLBA, thus the coordinates given are from the FIRST survey \citep{first_new}.}
\end{deluxetable}
Three sources were detected out of our four targets. The $5\sigma$ brightness upper limit for the non-detected source, J1023+3243, is $125\mathrm{\, } \mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$. According to the FIRST survey, this source has the smallest peak brightness value ($1.2$\,mJy\,beam$^{-1}$) and it is the least compact among the four, indicated by the smallest ratio of the peak brightness to the integral flux density (Table \ref{tab:param}). Therefore it is not surprising that it was undetected in our high-resolution VLBA observation.
We used the {\sc AIPS} verb {\sc maxfit} to derive the astrometric positions of the brightness peaks in the detected three sources. These coordinates do not necessarily coincide with the position of the AGN core. The obtained positions are listed in Col. 2 of Table \ref{tab:param}. We estimate that each coordinate is accurate to within $2$\,milli-arcseconds (mas). The sources of positional error are the thermal noise of the interferometer phases, the error of the phase-reference calibrator positions and the systematic error of the phase-reference observations mainly originating from atmospheric turbulences. In the case of the calibrator source J2303$-$1002, the positional accuracy given in the second realization of the International Celestial Reference Frame \citep[ICRF2,][]{icrf2} is $20$\,mas. However, more accurate coordinates are given in the latest Radio Fundamenal Catalog of L. Petrov (rfc2015c)\footnote{\url{http://astrogeo.org/vlbi/solutions/rfc\_2015c/}}. When we calculated the astrometric position of the target source J2304$-$0933, we used the latter values, thus we were able to obtain the coordinates with the same accuracy as for the other two detected sources.
{\bf J1155$+$1507} is the most distant ($z=0.287$) and the faintest of the three detected sources. It has an elongated structure of $\sim 30$\,mas (Figure \ref{fig:J1155}). The brightness distribution can be best fitted with two circular Gaussian components (Table \ref{tab:comp}), a compact (B1), and a more extended one (B2). Among the three detected sources, this has the largest ratio of the `missing' flux density compared to the FIRST flux density, i.e. more than $70$\,\% of the radio flux density detected on arcsec scale originates from extended emission that is resolved out with the VLBA.
The radio image of {\bf J2104$-$0009} (Figure \ref{fig:J2104}) is dominated by a compact bright feature (C). It can be well fitted with a circular Gaussian brightness distribution of $(0.60 \pm 0.06)$\,mJy flux density and $(5.0 \pm 0.4)$\,mas diameter (full width at half-maximum, FWHM). Several low-brightness features can be detected at both sides of the compact central component. The elongated structure is rather asymmetrical. Considering the most prominent detected features, it can be traced to $\sim 70$\,mas to the east and $\sim 40$\,mas to the west of component C. These two distant features can be fitted with circular Gaussian components. The eastern one (E) is smaller and fainter, while the western one (W) is slightly more extended and brighter (Table \ref{tab:comp}).
{\bf J2304$-$0933} is the brightest and the closest source ($z=0.032$) in our sample. At the high resolution of the VLBA, it exhibits a complex linear radio structure oriented roughly east--west with a size of almost $70$\,mas (Figure \ref{fig:J2304}). The source seems to be decomposed into 5 or 6 different features along the direction of the minor axis of the restoring beam. However, they cannot be fitted individually, the best fitted model consists of two slightly extended circular Gaussian brightness distribution components, D1 and D2 (Table \ref{tab:comp}).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Results of the Gaussian model fitting of the three detected sources. \label{tab:comp}}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\tableline\tableline
Name & Comp. ID & Distance & PA & Flux density & FWHM size & $T_\mathrm{B} $\\
& & mas & $\arcdeg$ & mJy & mas & $10^6 \mathrm{K}$\\
\tableline
J1155$+$1507 & B1 & & & $0.15 \pm 0.04$ & $3.8 \pm 0.7$ & $7.1 \pm 4.5 $\\
& B2 & $16.2 \pm 3.2$ & $ -121 \pm 10$ & $0.43 \pm 0.12$ & $15.9 \pm 4.0$ & $1.2 \pm 0.9$ \\
\hline
J2104$-$0009 & C & & & $0.60 \pm 0.06$ & $5.0 \pm 0.4$ & $14.4 \pm3.7 $ \\
& E & $68.8 \pm 1.8$ & $94 \pm 1$ & $0.31\pm 0.07$ & $5.7 \pm 0.9$ & $5.7 \pm 3.1$ \\
& W & $37.3 \pm 0.9 $ & $-78 \pm 1 $ & $0.46 \pm 0.09$ & $7.6 \pm 1.1$ & $4.8 \pm 2.3$ \\
\hline
J2304$-$0933 & D1 & & & $1.70 \pm 0.27$ & $20.7 \pm 2.5$ & $2.2 \pm 0.9 $ \\
& D2 & $38.0 \pm 4.5 $ & $-105 \pm 6$ & $2.67 \pm 0.56$ & $30.0\pm 4.9$ & $1.6 \pm 0.9$ \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
Col. 1: source names; Col. 2: component designations; Col 3 and 4: separations and position angles with respect to the brightest component (position angles are measured from north through east); Col. 5: integrated flux densities; Col. 6: FWHM sizes; Col. 7: calculated brightness temperatures.
\end{center}
\end{table}
We calculated the brightness temperature of the Gaussian components in the detected three sources as:
\begin{equation}
T_\mathrm{B}=1.22 \times 10^{12} \frac{S}{\theta^2 \nu^2}(1+z) \mathrm{\,\,K,}
\end{equation}
where $S$ is the flux density measured in Jansky, $\theta$ is the FWHM size of the fitted circular Gaussian component in mas, $z$ is the redshift and $\nu$ is the observing frequency in GHz. The brightness temperatures of each component given in the last column of Table \ref{tab:comp} are typically a few million K, except for component C in J2104$-$0009 which has an order of magnitude higher brightness temperature value, $(14.4 \pm 3.7) \times 10^{6}$\,K. Thus the radio emission from these components are non-thermal, of synchrotron origin. The derived brightness temperature values all exceed the limit of $10^5$\,K, which is the maximum brightness temperature for starburst galaxies not containing an active nucleus \citep{normal_galaxy_tb}. On the other hand, the brightness temperatures are all well below the equipartition brightness temperature \citep[$\sim 5\times 10^{10}$\,K,][]{readhead}, thus there is no indication of relativistic beaming of the radio (jet) emission in any of the sources.
These values are typical for low luminosity radio AGN \citep[e.g.,][]{Alexandroff2012, LLAGN_VLBI1}.
We can estimate the monochromatic radio power of the detected VLBI components according to
\begin{equation}
P=4 \pi D_\mathrm{L}^2 S (1+z)^{-\alpha-1}, \label{power}
\end{equation}
where $D_\mathrm{L}$ is the luminosity distance, $S$ is the flux density at $1.5$\,GHz, $z$ is the redshift, and $\alpha$ is the spectral index (defined as $S\sim\nu^{\alpha}$). Compact radio sources usually have flat spectra (thus $\alpha \sim 0$), while more extended, jet-like features have steep spectra with a spectral index typically between $-0.8$ and $-1.1$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Hovatta_spectralindex}. As we do not have spectral information of our sources, for the VLBI-detected compact features we assume a spectral index of $-0.5$. Since the redshifts of the sources are small, the choice of spectral index does not influence significantly the value of the obtained radio powers.
The calculated radio powers are a few times $10^{22}\mathrm{\,W\,Hz}^{-1}$ in the case of the components of J1155$+$1507 and J2104$-$0009, and an order of magnitude lower, $(4-6) \times 10^{21}\mathrm{\,W\,Hz}^{-1}$ in the case of J2304$-$0933. According to \cite{Kewley2000} and \cite{Middelberg2011}, AGN have high-luminosity cores, with power exceeding $\sim 2 \times 10^{21} \mathrm{\,W\,Hz}^{-1}$. On the other hand, \cite{Alexandroff2012} use the luminosities of the supernova remnant (SNR) complexes of Arp 299-A and Arp 220 to determine an upper limit for non-thermal radio emission that can originate from starburst-related activity. These are $P_{1.7\mathrm{\,GHz}} \approx 4.5 \times 10^{21}\mathrm{\,W\,Hz}^{-1}$, and $P_{1.7\mathrm{\,GHz}} \approx 1.6 \times 10^{22}\mathrm{\,W\,Hz}^{-1}$ in the case of Arp 299-A and Arp 220, respectively. The derived radio powers of our faint radio sources are very close to these limiting values, however there are no other indications of starburst activity in any of the objects. All of the sources in \cite{Comerford_sample} were selected using optical emission line diagnostics to ensure the selection of AGN. Additionally, \cite{sfr_data} give star formation rate (SFR) for two of our sources, $0.5\mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for J2104$-$0009, and $2\mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for J2304$-$0933. They classify both sources as AGN as well. These SFR values are much lower than those of the two extreme starburst galaxies mentioned above \citep[$> 100\mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, e.g.,][]{arp_SFR}. Thus the non-thermal radio emission detected in our VLBA observations can most probably be explained as originating from the AGN in these sources.
We can also invoke the radio--far-infrared correlation \citep{radio-FIR} to estimate the maximum starburst-related contribution in our sources. None of the sources are listed in the publicly available archives of the $60\mu$m observations, therefore we used the {\it Infrared Astronomical Satellite} (IRAS) Scan Processing and Integration Tool\footnote{Provided by the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive: {\url http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Scanpi/}} (SCANPI) to derive upper limits for the $60\mu$m flux densities from the IRAS archive; this is $\sim 0.1$\,mJy for three sources (J1023$+$3243, J2104$-$0009, and J2304$-$0933). In the case of J1155$+$1507, there is a $4\sigma$ detection according to SCANPI with a $60\mu$m flux density of $S_{60}=0.17\pm0.04$\,mJy. The radio flux densities reported by FIRST in all sources are in excess of the radio emissions calculated from the radio--far-infrared correlation using the upper limit of $0.1$\,mJy and using the $0.17$\,mJy detection. This also indicates that AGN must contribute to the radio emission.
The radio structures of the detected three sources are compact with sizes well below $1$\,kpc. Following the description of Compact Symmetric Objects (CSOs) as given in \cite{Fanti_cso} (not necessarily symmetric but two-sided radio structure with respect to a weak or undetected core), J1155$+$1507 and J2304$-$0933 can be categorized as CSOs. Their low radio powers and small sizes would place them in the lower left part of the radio power--linear size diagram shown in Figure 1. of \cite{CSO_Tao}. On the other hand, the radio morphology of J2104$-$0009 (e.g., its prominent central component, C) is not typical of CSOs.
The flux densities obtained with the VLBI observations on angular scales of $\sim 10$\,mas are significantly below the flux densities reported in the FIRST survey at a similar observing frequency. The missing flux densities are $70$\,\%, $61$\,\%, $50$\,\%, and $>95$\,\% for the sources, J1155$+$1507, J2104$-$0009, J2304$-$0933, and J1023$+$3243 respectively. This can arise from the different angular resolution (our high-resolution VLBA observations resolve out the large-scale structure in the sources), or from flux density variability, or the combination of both effects. While flux density variability cannot be ruled out completely, we expect that compact features (on VLBI scales) are responsible for the variability. It is however unlikely that in all sources the most compact features decreased in flux density by a factor of $60$\,\% to $95$\,\% between their observations in the FIRST survey and our VLBA observations. On the other hand, in all detected sources we see complex, resolved VLBI structures. Thus, it is natural to expect that (at least most of) the missing flux densities belong to extended features larger than the largest recoverable size ($\theta_\mathrm{LAS}$) in our VLBA observations. The largest recoverable size of an interferometer is set by its shortest baseline ($B_\mathrm{min}$) and the observing wavelength ($\lambda$) as $\theta_\mathrm{LAS}\sim \lambda/(2\cdot B_\mathrm{min})$ \citep{Wrobel_LAS}. In our VLBA observation, the shortest baseline length is that of between Los Alamos and Pie Town ($236$\,km), thus the array at $1.5$\,GHz is insensitive for structures larger than $\sim 90$\,mas.
We can estimate the radio power connected to these missing flux densities; these are thus upper limits of the radio powers originating from the extended structures of the sources. The values are $\sim 10^{23}\mathrm{\,W\,Hz}^{-1}$ in J1155$+$1507, J2104$-$0009, and J1023$+$3243 and an order of magnitude lower for J2304$-$0933. Some of the radio emission might originate from starburst activity in the AGN host galaxy. Using the relation of \cite{sfr_radiopower}, one can estimate the star formation rate from the radio power as:
\begin{equation}
SFR = \frac{P_{1.4\mathrm{\,GHz}}}{1.8 \times 10^{21} \mathrm{W\,Hz}^{-1}} \mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}
\end{equation}
Knowing the upper limit for the radio power, we can derive an upper limit for the star formation rate. These are $18\mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, $55\mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, $6\mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and $61\mathrm{\,M}_\odot \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for J1155$+$1507, J2104$-$0009, J2304$-$0933, and J1023$+$3242 respectively. In the two sources for which SFR values are given in the literature \citep[J2104$-$0009, J2304$-$0933; ][]{sfr_data}, the upper limits are consistent with those, thus part of the missing flux density can originate from star formation, but AGN related radio emission (from e.g., extended lobes) plays an important role.
\section{Discussion}
J1155$+$1507 was one of the $3$ candidate dual AGN selected by \cite{Comerford_sample} based on the adaptive optics images of \cite{earlyFu} \citep[see also ][]{1155_Fu_NIRimage}, while J2104$-$0009, J2304$-$0933, and J1023$+$3243 were selected on the basis that their emission features aligned with the major axis of the host galaxy. \cite{Comerford_sample} determined the spatial extent and position angle of the two emission components in their sample. The angular projected spatial offsets of the narrow-line emission features are $0\farcs55$, $0\farcs28$, and $0\farcs84$ in the case of J1155$+$1507, J2104$-$0009, and J2304$-$0933, respectively. These separations are an order of magnitude (in the case of J1155$+$1507, and J2304$-$0933), or more than $2.5$ times (in the case of J2104$-$0009) larger than the size of the radio structures detected in our VLBA observations.
We checked the $4\arcsec \times 4\arcsec$ fields around the four sources' positions, but we did not find any additional radio emission above $\sim 5\sigma$ image brightness level, thus above $117\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$, $150\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$, and $157\,\mu$Jy\,beam$^{-1}$ in the case of J1155$+$1507, J2104$-$0009, and J2304$-$0933, respectively. Using equation \ref{power}, and assuming a spectral index, we can estimate the monochromatic the radio power upper limits associated with these image brightness levels. The largest (most conservative) upper limits are obtained assuming a steep spectral index of $-1$. The estimated upper limits for the monochromatic powers, $3 \times 10^{22}$\,W\,Hz$^{-1}$ in the case of J1155$+$1507, and $7 \times 10^{21}$\,W\,Hz$^{-1}$ in the case of J2104$-$0009, do not exclude the existence of a low-luminosity radio-emitting AGN. In the case of the third source, J2304$-$0933, the derived upper limit of the radio power is $4 \times 10^{20}$\,W\,Hz$^{-1}$, therefore considering the lower limit of radio power for AGN cores ($2 \times 10^{21}$\,W\,Hz$^{-1}$) given by \cite{Kewley2000} and \cite{Middelberg2011}, we can exclude the existence of another radio-emitting AGN around this source. However a radio-silent AGN can still give rise to the optical emission features detected by \cite{Comerford_sample} and remain undetected in our observation.
We can compare the position angles of the optical emission features and the radio structure as well. Our fitted Gaussian model components to the visibility data, W and E in J2104$-$0009 are at position angles $-78\arcdeg \pm 1\arcdeg$ and at $94\arcdeg \pm 1\arcdeg$, respectively. This roughly east--west oriented structure (Figure \ref{fig:J2104}) matches well with the position angle of $98\arcdeg \pm 5\arcdeg$ of the optical emission components given by \cite{Comerford_sample}. In J2304$-$0933 (Figure \ref{fig:J2304}) the position angle of D2 is $-105\arcdeg \pm 6\arcdeg$ which is broadly consistent (modulo $180\degr$) with the position angle of $66\arcdeg \pm 3\arcdeg$ given by \cite{Comerford_sample}. Thus in these two sources the VLBI-detected radio features, similarly to the optical emission features, are located along the plane of the host galaxy. Radio emission aligned with the plane of the host galaxy might indicate that it originates from star formation rather than AGN jet activity. However, in Sect. \ref{res}, we showed that the high radio powers in J2104$-$0009 and the star formation rate estimate for J2304$-$0933 render unlikely that these radio emission features originate from SNRs or SNR complexes.
J2104$-$0009 and J2304$-$0933 were imaged in the near-infrared with the NIRC2 camera (PI: Keith Matthews) enhanced by Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics system on the Keck II Telescope \citep[Keck II/LGSAO, ][]{Keck_LSGAO}. J2104$-$0009 was observed with a broadband {\it H}($1.337-1.929\mu$m) filter, J2304$-$0933 was observed with a broadband {\it Kp}($1.948-2.299\mu$m) filter. The images were published by \cite{McGurk}. Both sources show single spatial structures. \cite{McGurk} concluded that the double-peaked narrow-line emissions in these sources are likely not caused by kpc-separation dual AGN but are due to NLR kinematics, outflows, jets, rings of star formation, or a close pair of AGN which cannot be resolved in the near-infrared. The good coincidence between the double emission components and the radio structure in our VLBA images (Figs. \ref{fig:J2104}, \ref{fig:J2304}) suggest that the radio jets, although on much larger scales than mapped here, do play a role in producing the emission regions responsible for the double-peaked spectral lines. Thus our data support the jet-driven scenario for the double-peaked emission lines. Both of these sources were selected by \cite{Comerford_sample} as good candidates of being dual AGN, because of the orientation of the optical emission features in the plane of the host galaxy. Our observations together with the results of near-infrared imaging seems to suggest that this criterion may not be a good indicator of AGN duality.
For J1155$+$1507, the position angle of the two emission components given by \cite{Comerford_sample} is $137\arcdeg \pm 3\arcdeg$. The position angle of the radio structure (Figure \ref{fig:J1155}) is $-121\arcdeg \pm 10\arcdeg$, nearly perpendicular the position angle derived from optical spectroscopy, thus they are probably not related.
According to the high-resolution image of J1155$+$1507 obtained with the NIRC2 camera on Keck II/LGSAO with a broadband {\it Kp}($1.948-2.299\mu$m) filter by \cite{earlyFu} \citep[see also][]{1155_Fu_NIRimage}, this source is a merging system with a component separation of $2.5$\,kpc. The component separation and the position angle are also compatible with the values given in \cite{Comerford_sample}. Additionally, integral-field spectroscopy of the source with the Supernova Integral-Field Spectrograph \citep{SNIFS1, SNIFS2} on the University of Hawaii $2.2$\,m telescope on Mauna Kea was acquired by \cite{1155_Fu_NIRimage}.
The integral-field spectroscopy data spatially resolved the emission line in the source; \cite{1155_Fu_NIRimage} classified J1155$+$1507 as having extended NLR. The resolved stellar components were enveloped by the spatially extended [\ion{O}{3}] emission. \cite{1155_Fu_NIRimage} concluded that although the extended NLR is clearly responsible for the double-peaked line profiles, it is impossible to decide whether both or just one AGN powers the NLR. In our VLBA image, the detected two components are separated by $\sim 70$\,pc, and connected with continuous emission structure; their radio emission most probably originate in one of the two merging galaxies detected in the near-infrared image \citep{1155_Fu_NIRimage}. Because of the lack of astrometric registration of the adaptive-optics image \citep{1155_Fu_NIRimage}, we cannot determine which near-infrared component is associated with the VLBI-detected compact radio emission.
The fourth source in our sample, {\bf J1023$+$3243}, which was not detected with VLBA in our experiment, was however successfully observed and imaged by \cite{Muller-Sanchez} with the VLA\footnote{Unfortunately \cite{Muller-Sanchez} do not list the date of their observations. According to the NRAO archive, within their program, the observations of J1023$+$3243 took place on 2012 October 13 and 2013 January 5. Both of these dates precede by several months our VLBA observation (2013 March 2).}. \cite{Muller-Sanchez} observed several sources of the sample of \cite{Comerford_sample} with the VLA in A configuration in X band to clarify the nature of the of the double-peaked narrow line emission galaxies. The only overlapping source with our sample is J1023$+$3243.
\cite{Muller-Sanchez} used two subbands within the X band, the lower one centered at $8.5$\,GHz, the upper one at $11.5$\,GHz. They detected two radio components in J1023$+$3243 when combining the observations from the two subbands by averaging across all spectral channels. The position angle of the radio structure is in agreement within the errors with the results given by \cite{Comerford_sample} from the optical spectroscopy. The position angle agrees also well with the photometric major axis of the host galaxy. The separation of the two radio features are slightly smaller than that of the optical emission line features. The two radio features are also detected in the lower subband, while the detection of the fainter component is only marginal in the upper subband; the fainter feature is detected at $3.4\sigma$ noise level at $11.5$\,GHz.
The VLA-detected radio features are weak with flux densities of $(0.03-0.25)$\,mJy. The spectrum of the brighter feature is slightly inverted, $\alpha=0.25 \pm 0.16$, while the fainter feature is flat with $\alpha=-0.29 \pm 0.19$. (However, because of the marginal detection of the latter feature in the upper subband, the spectrum can be much steeper.) \cite{Muller-Sanchez} conclude that the VLA observation confirm the existence of dual AGN in J1023$+$3243, however based upon the difference between the distance derived from the optical emission and the distance between the VLA-detected radio features, they suggest that additional kinematic component related to outflows may be present in the source.
To interpret the VLA results of \cite{Muller-Sanchez} and our own VLBA observations of J1023$+$3243 in a common context, we assume that the radio spectra of the two features follow the same power-law down to $1.5$\,GHz. Then the two VLA components have a flux density of $0.16$\,mJy and $0.1$\,mJy, respectively, at 1.5\,GHz. Our VLBA observation would have had adequate sensitivity to detect the brighter one. Our non-detection may be explained by source variability, or resolved source structure (which is already hinted by the very low value, less than $0.5$ of the ratio of peak brightness to integrated flux density in the FIRST, see Table \ref{tab:param}), or an even more inverted spectrum ($\alpha>0.4$) than the one derived from the X-band VLA data.
At $1.4$\,GHz (in L band), the source was detected in the FIRST survey with a flux density of $2.7$\,mJy, but remained undetected in the NRAO VLA Sky Survey \citep[NVSS,][]{nvss}. The latter has a completeness level of $\sim 2.5$\,mJy, thus it may have just missed J1023$+$3243. (Since the NVSS was conducted at lower resolution than the FIRST, the non-detection cannot be explained by resolution effect.)
One can also compare the extrapolated (to $1.4$\,GHz) and summed flux density of the features detected by \cite{Muller-Sanchez}, $0.26$\,mJy, to the value given in FIRST. If the assumption about the power-law spectra with the X-band spectral indices holds, only one-tenth of the FIRST flux density is detected by \cite{Muller-Sanchez}. This, together with the very low value (less than 50\,\%) of the ratio of peak brightness to integrated flux density in the FIRST, already suggests a resolved radio structure.
Thus we cannot strengthen the conclusion of \cite{Muller-Sanchez} that J1023$+$3243 is a dual AGN, since we did not detect any compact (on VLBA scales), high radio power feature in this source. If there is a compact radio-emitting core in any of the two features detected in the VLA observations, they must have low radio luminosity, a few times $10^{21}\mathrm{\,W\,Hz}^{-1}$, similar to J2304$-$0933. Interestingly, dual AGN scenario for J1023$+$3243 was not supported by the near-infrared image of \cite{McGurk}, since only a single spatial structure was detected.
\section{Summary}
According to hierarchical structure formation models, we expect to see merging galaxies in different stages of their coalescence. Dual AGN with kpc-scale separation bridge the gap between the earliest (galaxy pairs at tens of kpc separations) and ultimate (SMBH binaries at pc or sub-pc separations) evolutionary stages of galaxy mergers, thus they provide vital information on the galaxy evolution and SMBH growth during this intermediate stage \citep{BBHEvo, Komossa_obssum}.
Because high spatial resolution is required, it is difficult to directly map dual AGN, especially in the distant Universe. Instead, the search for spatially unresolved dual AGN relies mostly on indirect evidence. However, currently there is no known observational signature which can be used to reliably select dual AGN candidates. Double-peaked narrow emission lines in which the radial velocity offset between two line features marks the orbital motion of dual AGNs were proposed as such \citep{wang2009}. But further observations of these candidate sources with high resolution found that only 1\,\% of them can be genuine dual AGN \citep{earlyFu}; in most of the sources this spectral behaviour can be be explained by other effects not requiring dual AGN \citep{Heckman1981, Heckman1984, double_line2, non_dual}. As shown by several works \citep[e.g.,][]{earlyFu, Crenshaw2, Shen_binaryAGN, Tingay_VLBI, Frey_nondual, Comerford_dualsearch2, 3C316_Tao, ngc5515, Kharb, McGurk}, double-peaked narrow lines alone are not good indicators to select compelling dual AGN candidates, other diagnostic methods have to be used.
\cite{Comerford_sample} used high-resolution long-slit spectroscopy to select the most compelling dual AGN
candidates from the double-peaked narrow emission line active galaxies. They concluded that $17$ out of the observed $84$ are good dual AGN candidates. We observed with the VLBA at $1.5$\,GHz four of the $17$ candidate sources, which have the highest radio flux densities according to the FIRST survey. These observations were intended as a pilot study aimed to those sources where results can be obtained with reasonable integration time. Thus our sample is not complete. To obtain a statistically useful result more observations of the fainter sources are essential.
From the observed sources, we were able to detect three. None of them has a secondary compact radio-emitting source at a separation indicated by the optical emission line features \citep{Comerford_sample} at a $5\sigma$ level. In the case of J2304$-$0933, the lower limit of the radio power calculated from the rms noise level is less than the lower limit implied for the cores of radio-emitting AGN by \cite{Kewley2000} and \cite{Middelberg2011}. Thus in the case of J2304$-$0933, we can exclude the existence of another radio-emitting AGN in the host galaxy. In the other two detected sources, low-luminosity ($P_\mathrm{1.5\,GHz}<3\times10^{22}$\,W\,Hz$^{-1}$ and $P_\mathrm{1.5\,GHz}<7\times10^{21}$\,W\,Hz$^{-1}$) radio-emitting AGN can in princple be still present in the sources.
In two sources (J2104$-$0009 and J2304$-$0933), the radio structures are oriented at similar position angles as the optical emission features. The radio components in these two sources may be associated with jet emission, thus the double-peaked emission lines can be caused by jet-driven outflows, instead of dual AGN. However, in the third source (J1155$+$1507), where \cite{1155_Fu_NIRimage} imaged and spatially resolved the two interacting galaxies in the near-infrared positionally coinciding with the double-peaked emission line features, the observed VLBA radio structure is less extended and is oriented in a nearly perpendicular position angle. Thus, the radio structure is seemingly unrelated to the structure seen in the narrow emission line emitting regions. Likely one of the merging galaxies has a radio-emitting AGN, but we cannot determine which galaxy is associated with the compact radio emission.
The fourth source (J1023$+$3243) which remained undetected in our VLBA mini-survey, was however detected by \cite{Muller-Sanchez} with the VLA at $8.5$\,GHz and $11.5$\,GHz a few months before our observations. They observed two radio components at a position angle corresponding to that of the optical emission features. Using the derived spectral index of the brighter feature, if the source is not variable, and/or if it is compact, we should have been able to detect it with the VLBA. FIRST survey data suggest that the source has extended, resolved structure at $1.4$\,GHz.
Thus we cannot strengthen the conclusion of \cite{Muller-Sanchez} that J1023$+$3243 is a dual AGN.
In summary, we did not find two compact radio emitting cores in any of the four VLBA-observed candidate dual-AGN sources. This does not exclude the presence of dual AGN in these sources, since $\sim 90$\,\% of AGN are known to be radio-quiet.
VLBI observations are an effective way to prove AGN-related radio emission and can provide the required resolution to confirm the existence of the two radio-emitting nuclei in dual AGN candidates \citep[e.g.,][]{triple_Deane}. However, the majority of the AGN are not radio-loud and currently it is not clear whether the triggering of radio emission is related anyhow to duality or merging phases. On the other hand, mapping the jet structure with radio observations and compare it to structures associated with those emitting the optical spectral features might indicate that the double-peaked emission lines originate from jet-driven outflows. For nearby sources, mapping the spectral index distribution at VLA resolution may help in this regard. For example, \cite{radioselected_binaryAGN2} discarded two of their six candidate dual AGN sources \citep{radioselected_binaryAGN} based upon the radio spectral index maps. But to reliably distinguish jets and outflows from the AGN core, the fine resolution provided by the VLBI technique is important.
Achieving the required imaging sensitivity to completely rule out the existence of two low-luminosity radio-emitting AGN in a candidate source requires ample amount of observing time (preferably at more than one frequency), thus with currently available instruments it can realistically be accomplished for individual sources or small samples, and not in survey mode. The Square Kilometre Array (SKA), when fully deployed would have the powerful survey efficiency and the sufficient sensitivity to detect dual AGN with separations less than $1$\,kpc in principle at all redshifts \citep{Deane_SKA}. The SKA as an element of a VLBI array \citep{SKA-VLBI} could be necessary to identify close pairs at pc-scale separations.
\acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments.
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This work made use of the Swinburne University of Technology software correlator, developed as part of the Australian Major National Research Facilities Programme and operated under licence \citep{VLBA_softcorr}. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This work was supported by the China Ministry of Science and Technology 973 programme under grant No. 2013CB837900, the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (OTKA K104539, NN110333), and the China--Hungary Collaboration and Exchange Programme by the International Cooperation Bureau of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
{\it Facilities:} \facility{NRAO VLBA}
|
\section{Introduction}
I had the honor of receiving the G\"odel Centenary Research Prize in 2008 based on work directed by my doctoral advisor, Grigori {`Grisha'} Mints. The topic of my dissertation was {\em dynamic topological logic,} and while this remains a research interest of mine, in recent years I have focused on studying polymodal provability logics. These logics have proof-theoretic applications and give rise to ordinal notation systems, although previously only for ordinals below the Feferman-Sh\"utte ordinal, $\Gamma_0$. I last saw Professor Mints in the {\em First International Wormshop} in 2012, where he asked if we could represent the Bachmann-Howard ordinal, $\uppsi(\varepsilon_{\Omega+1})$, using provability logics. It seems fitting for this volume to once again write about a problem posed to me by Professor Mints.
Notation systems for $\uppsi(\varepsilon_{\Omega+1})$ and other `impredicative' ordinals are a natural step in advancing Beklemishev's $\Pi^0_1$ ordinal analysis\footnote{The $\Pi^0_1$ ordinal of a theory $T$ is a way to measure its `consistency strength'. A different measure, more widely studied, is its $\Pi^1_1$ ordinal; we will not define either in this work, but the interested reader may find details in \cite{Beklemishev:2004:ProvabilityAlgebrasAndOrdinals} and \cite{Pohlers:2009:PTBook}, respectively.} to relatively strong theories of second-order arithmetic, as well as systems based on Kripke-Platek set theory. Indeed, Professor Mints was not the only participant of the Wormshop interested in representing impredicative ordinals within provability algebras. Fedor Pakhomov brought up the same question, and we had many discussions on the topic. At the time, we each came up with a different strategy for addressing it. These discussions inspired me to continue reflecting about the problem the next couple of years, eventually leading to the ideas presented in the latter part of this manuscript.
\subsection{Background}
The G\"odel-L\"ob logic $\sf GL$ is a modal logic in which ${\Box}\varphi$ is interpreted as {\em`$\varphi$ is derivable in $T$',} where $T$ is some fixed formal theory such as Peano arithmetic. This may be extended to a polymodal logic ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ with one modality $[n]$ for each natural number $n$, as proposed by Japaridze \cite{Japaridze:1988}. The modalities $[n]$ may be given a natural proof-theoretic interpretation by extending $T$ with new axioms or infinitary rules. However, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ is not an easy modal logic to work with, and to this end Dashkov \cite{Dashkov:2012:PositiveFragment} and Beklemishev \cite{Beklemishev:2013:PositiveProvabilityLogic, Beklemishev:2012:CalibratingProvabilityLogic} have identified a particularly well-behaved fragment called the {\em reflection calculus} (${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$), which contains the dual modalities $\langle n\rangle$, but does not allow one to define $[n]$.
Because of this, when working within ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$, we may simply write $n$ instead of $\langle n\rangle$. With this notational convention in mind, of particular interest are {\em worms,} which are expressions of the form
\[m_1 \hdots m_n \top,\]
which can be read as
\begin{quote}
{\em It is $m_1$-consistent with $T$ that it is $m_2$ consistent with $T$ that $\hdots$ that $T$ is $m_n$-consistent.}
\end{quote}
In \cite{Ignatiev:1993:StrongProvabilityPredicates}, Ignatiev proved that the set of worms of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ is well-ordered by consistency strength and computed their order-type. Beklemishev has since shown that trasfinite induction along this well-order may be used to give an otherwise finitary proof of the consistency of Peano arithmetic \cite{Beklemishev:2004:ProvabilityAlgebrasAndOrdinals}.
Indeed, the order-type of the set of worms in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ is $\varepsilon_0$, an ordinal which already appeared in Gentzen's earlier proof of the consistency of $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace$ \cite{Gentzen1936}. Moreover, as Beklemishev has observed \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP}, worms remain well-ordered if we instead work in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ (or ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$), where $\Lambda$ is an arbitrary ordinal. The worms of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ give a notation system up to the Feferman-Sch\"utte ordinal $\Gamma_0$, considered the upper bound of predicative mathematics.
This suggests that techniques based on reflection calculi may be used to give a proof-theoretic analysis of theories of strength $\Gamma_0$, the focus of an ongoing research project. However, if worms only provide notations for ordinals below $\Gamma_0$, then these techniques cannot be applied to `impredicative' theories, such as Kripke-Platek set theory with infinity, whose proof-theoretic ordinal is much larger and is obtained by `collapsing' an uncountable ordinal.
\subsection{Goals of the article}
The goal of this article is to give a step-by-step and mostly self-contained account of the ordinal notation systems that arise from reflection calculi. Sections \ref{SecPrelim}-\ref{SecTransW} are devoted to giving an overview of known, `predicative' notation systems, first for $\varepsilon_0$ and then for $\Gamma_0$. However, our presentation is quite a bit different from those available in the current literature. In particular, it is meant to be `minimalist', in the sense that we only prove results that are central to our goal of comparing the reflection-based ordinal notations to standard proof-theoretic ordinals. Among other things, we sometimes do not show that the notation systems considered are computable.
The second half presents new material, providing impredicative notation systems based on provability logics. We first introduce {\em impredicative worms,} which give a representation system for $\uppsi(e^{\Omega+1}1)$, an ordinal a bit larger than the Bachmann-Howard ordinal. Then we introduce {\em spiders,} which are used to represent ordinals up to $\uppsi_0\Upomega^\omega 1$ in Buchholz-style notation \cite{Buchholz}. Here, $\Upomega^\omega 1$ is the first fixed point of the aleph function; unlike the predicative systems discussed above, these notation systems also include notations for several uncountable ordinals. The latter are then `collapsed' in order to represent countable ordinals much larger than $\Gamma_0$.
Although our focus is on notations arising from the reflection calculi and not on proof-theoretic interpretations of the provability operators, we precede each notation system with an informal discussion on such interpretations. These discussions are only given as motivation; further details may be found in the references provided. We also go into detail discussing the `traditional' notation systems for each of the proof-theoretical ordinals involved before discussing the reflection-based version, and thus this text may also serve as an introduction of sorts to ordinal notation systems.
\subsection{Layout of the article}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\S\ref{SecPrelim}:] Review of the basic definitions and properties of the reflection calculus $\sf RC$ and the transfinite provability logic $\sf GLP$.
\item[\S\ref{SecWorms}:] Introduction to {\em worms} and their order-theoretic properties.
\item[\S\ref{SecFiniteW}:] Computation of the order-type of worms with finite entries, and a brief over\-view of their interpretation in the language of Peano arithmetic.
\item[\S\ref{SecTransW}:] Computation of the order-type of worms with ordinal entries, and an overview of their interpretation in the language of second-order arithmetic.
\item[\S\ref{SecImpWrm}:] Introduction and analysis of impredicative worms, obtained by introducing an uncountable modality and its collapsing function.
\item[\S\ref{SecSpiders}:] Introduction to {\em spiders,} variants of worms interpreted using the aleph function and its collapses.
\item[\S\ref{SecConc}:] Concluding remarks.
\end{itemize}
\section{The reflection calculus}\label{SecPrelim}
Provability logics are modal logics for reasoning about G\"odel's provability operator and its variants \cite{Boolos:1993:LogicOfProvability}. One uses ${\Box}\varphi$ to express {\em `$\varphi$ is provable in $T$';} here, $T$ may be Peano arithmetic, or more generally, any sound extension of elementary arithmetic (see Section \ref{SubsecFOA} below). The dual of ${\Box}$ is ${\Diamond} =\neg{\Box}\neg$, and we may read ${\Diamond}\varphi$ as {\em `$\varphi$ is consistent with $T$'.} This unimodal logic is called {\em G\"odel-L\"ob logic,} which Japaridze extended to a polymodal variant with one modality $[n]$ for each natural number in \cite{Japaridze:1986:PhdThesis}, further extended by Beklemishev to allow one modality for each ordinal in \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP}.
The resulting polymodal logics have some nice properties; for exmample, they are decidable, provided the modalities range over some computable linear order. However, there are also some technical difficulties when working with these logics; most notoriously, they are incomplete for their relational semantics, and their topological semantics are quite complex \cite{BeklemishevGabelaia:2011:TopologicalCompletenessGLP,FernandezJoosten:2012:ModelsOfGLP,Fernandez:2012:TopologicalCompleteness,Icard:2009:TopologyGLP}.
Fortunately, Dashkov \cite{Dashkov:2012:PositiveFragment} and Beklemishev \cite{ Beklemishev:2012:CalibratingProvabilityLogic,Beklemishev:2013:PositiveProvabilityLogic} have shown that for proof-theoretic applications, it is sufficient to restrict to a more manageable fragment of Japaridze's logic called the {\em Reflection Calculus} ({\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace). Due to its simplicity relative to Japaridze's logic, we will perform all of our modal reasoning directly within ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$.
\subsection{Ordinal numbers and well-orders}\label{SubsecOrdNum}
(Ordinal) reflection calculi are polymodal systems whose modalities range over a set or class of ordinal numbers, which are canonical representatives of well-orders. Recall that if $A$ is a set (or class), a {\em preorder} on $A$ is a trasitive, reflexive relation ${\preccurlyeq}\subseteq A\times A$. The preorder $\preccurlyeq$ is {\em total} if, given $a,b\in A$, we always have that $a\preccurlyeq b$ or $b\preccurlyeq a$, and {\em antisymmetric} if whenever $a\preccurlyeq b$ and $b\preccurlyeq a$, it follows that $a=b$. A total, antisymmetric preorder is a {\em linear order.} We say that $\langle A,\preccurlyeq\rangle$ is a {\em pre-well-order} if $\preccurlyeq$ is a total preorder and every non-empty $B\subseteq A$ has a minimal element (i.e., there is $m\in B$ such that $m\preccurlyeq b$ for all $b\in B$). A {\em well-order} is a pre-well-order that is also linear. Note that pre-well-orders are not the same as well-quasiorders (the latter need not be total).
Pre-well-orders will be convenient to us because, as we will see, worms are pre-well-ordered but not linearly ordered.
Define $a\prec b$ by $a\preccurlyeq b$ but $b\not\preccurlyeq a$, and $a\approx b$ by $a\preccurlyeq b$ and $b\preccurlyeq a$. The next proposition may readily be checked by the reader:
\begin{proposition}\label{PropWO}
Let $\langle A,\preccurlyeq\rangle$ be a total preorder. Then, the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\preccurlyeq$ is a pre-well-order;
\item if $a_0,a_1,\hdots\subseteq A$ is any infinite sequence, then there are $i<j$ such that $a_i\preccurlyeq a_j$;
\item there is no infinite descending sequence
\[a_0 \succ a_1\succ a_2 \succ \hdots\subseteq A;\]
\item\label{PropWOItTI} if $B\subseteq A$ is such that for every $a\in A$,
\[\big (\forall b\prec a \, (b\in B) \big ) \rightarrow a\in B,\]
then $B=A$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
We use the standard interval notation for preorders: $(a,b)=\{x:a\prec x\prec b\}$, $(a,\infty)=\{x:a\prec\ x\}$, etc. With this, we are ready to introduce ordinal numbers as a special case of a well-ordered set. Their formal definition is as follows:
\begin{definition}\label{DefOrd}
Say that a set $A$ is {\em transitive} if whenever $B\in A$, it follows that $B\subseteq A$. Then, a set $\xi$ is an {\em ordinal} if $\xi$ is transitive and $\langle \xi,\in\rangle$ is a strict well-order.
\end{definition}
When $\xi,\zeta$ are ordinals, we write $\xi<\zeta$ instead of $\xi\in \zeta$ and $\xi\leq\zeta$ if $\xi<\zeta$ or $\xi=\zeta$. The class of ordinal numbers will be denoted ${\sf Ord}$. We will rarely appeal to Definition \ref{DefOrd} directly; instead, we will use some basic structural properties of the class of ordinal numbers as a whole. First, observe that ${\sf Ord}$ is itself a (class-sized) well-order:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmOrdBasic}
The class ${\sf Ord}$ is well-ordered by $\leq$, and if $\Theta\subseteq{\sf Ord}$ is a set, then $\Theta$ is an ordinal if and only if $\Theta$ is transitive.
\end{lemma}
Thus if $\xi$ is any ordinal, then $\xi=\{\zeta \in {\sf Ord} : \zeta <\xi\}$, and $0 = \varnothing$ is the least ordinal. For $\xi\in {\sf Ord}$, define $\xi+1=\xi\cup \{\xi\}$; this is the least ordinal greater than $\xi$. It follows from these observations that any natural number is an ordinal, but there are infinite ordinals as well; the set of natural numbers is itself an ordinal and denoted $\omega$. More generally, new ordinals can be formed by taking successors and unions:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmOrdSucc}\
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\xi$ is any ordinal, then $\xi+1$ is also an ordinal. Moreover, if $\zeta<\xi+1$, it follows that $\zeta\leq\xi$.
\item If $\Theta$ is a set of ordinals, then $\lambda=\bigcup \Theta$ is an ordinal. Moreover, if $\xi<\lambda$, it follows that $\xi<\theta$ for some $\theta\in \Theta$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
These basic properties will suffice to introduce the reflection calculus, but later in the text we will study ordinals in greater depth. A more detailed introduction to the ordinal numbers may be found in a text such as \cite{Jech:2002:SetTheory}.
\subsection{The reflection calculus}
The modalities of reflection calculi are indexed by elements of some set of ordinals $\Lambda$. Alternately, one can take $\Lambda$ to be the class of all ordinals, obtaining a class-sized logic. Formulas of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ are built from the grammar
\[
\top \ | \ \phi\wedge\psi \ | \ \langle \lambda\rangle \phi,
\]
where $\lambda<\Lambda$ and $\phi,\psi$ are formulas of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$; we may write $\lambda\phi$ instead of $\langle\lambda\rangle\phi$, particularly since ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ does not contain expressions of the form $[\lambda]\phi$. The set of formulas of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ will be denoted $\lan\Lambda$, and we will simply write $\lan {{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$ instead of $\lan {\sf Ord}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_{\sf Ord}$. Propositional variables may also be included, but we will omit them since they are not needed for our purposes. Note that this strays from convention, since the variable-free fragment is typically denoted ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace^0$. Reflection calculi derive {\em sequents} of the form $\phi\Rightarrow\psi$, using the following rules and axioms:
\[\begin{array}{lcr}
\phi\Rightarrow\phi&\phi\Rightarrow\top& \ \ \ \ \ \dfrac{\phi\Rightarrow\psi \ \ \ \ \psi\Rightarrow \theta}{\phi\Rightarrow\theta}\\\\
\phi\wedge\psi\Rightarrow\phi&\phi\wedge\psi\Rightarrow\psi
&\dfrac{\phi\Rightarrow\psi \ \ \ \ \phi\Rightarrow \theta}{\phi\Rightarrow\psi\wedge\theta}\\\\
\lambda\lambda\phi\Rightarrow\lambda\phi&\dfrac{\phi\Rightarrow \psi}{\lambda\phi\Rightarrow\lambda\psi}&\\\\
\lambda\phi\Rightarrow\mu\phi \ \ & \text{for $\mu\leq \lambda$;}\\\\
\lambda\phi\wedge\mu\psi\Rightarrow \lambda(\phi\wedge\mu\psi)&\text{for $\mu<\lambda$.}
\end{array}
\]
Let us write $\phi\equiv\psi$ if ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda\vdash \phi \Rightarrow \psi$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda\vdash \psi \Rightarrow \phi$. Then, the following equivalence will be useful to us:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmRC}
Given formulas $\phi$ and $\psi$ and ordinals $\mu < \lambda$,
\[(\lambda \phi \wedge \mu \psi) \equiv \lambda (\phi \wedge \mu \psi).\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
The left-to-right direction is an axiom of {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace. For the other direction we observe that $ \lambda\mu \psi \Rightarrow \mu \psi$ is derivable using the axioms $\lambda\mu \psi \Rightarrow \mu\mu \psi$ and $\mu\mu\psi\Rightarrow\mu\psi$, from which the desired derivation can easily be obtained.
\endproof
Reflection calculi enjoy relatively simple relational semantics, where formulas have truth values on some set of points $X$, and each expression $\lambda\varphi$ is evaluated using an accessibility relation $\succ_\lambda$ on $X$.
\begin{definition}\label{DefRCF}
An {\em ${\sf RC}_\Lambda$-frame} is a structure $\mathfrak F=\<X,\<\succ_\lambda\>_{\lambda<\Lambda}\>$ such that for all $x,y,z\in X$ and all $\mu <\lambda<\Lambda$,
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item\label{RCFone} if $x\succ_\mu y\succ_\mu z$ then $x\succ_\mu z$,
\item\label{RCFtwo} if $z \succ_\mu x$ and $z \succ_\lambda y$ then $y\succ_\mu x$, and
\item\label{RCFthree} if $x\succ_\lambda y$ then $x\succ_\mu y$.
\end{enumerate}
The {\em valuation} on $\mathfrak F$ is the unique function $\left\llbracket\cdot\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F:\lan\Lambda\to 2^X$ such that
\[
\begin{array}{lcl}
\left\llbracket\bot\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F&=&\varnothing\\\\
\left\llbracket\neg\phi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F&=&X\setminus\left\llbracket\phi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F\\\\
\left\llbracket\phi\wedge\psi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F&=&\left\llbracket\phi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F\cap\left\llbracket\psi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F\\\\
\left\llbracket \lambda \phi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F&=&\big \{x\in X : \exists y {\prec_\lambda} x \, (y\in \left\llbracket\phi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F)\big \}.
\end{array}
\]
We may write $ ( \mathfrak F,x ) \models\psi$ instead of $x\in\left\llbracket \psi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F$. As usual, $\phi$ is {\em satisfied} on $\mathfrak F$ if $\left\llbracket\phi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F \not=\varnothing$, and {\em true} on $\mathfrak F$ if $\left\llbracket\phi\right\rrbracket_\mathfrak F=X$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{theoSound}
For any class or set of ordinals $\Lambda$, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ is sound for the class of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$-frames.
\end{theorem}
\proof
The proof proceeds by a standard induction on the length of a derivation and we omit it.
\endproof
In fact, Dashkov proved that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ is also complete for the class of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$-frames \cite{Dashkov:2012:PositiveFragment};\footnote{Beware that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ in our notation is not the same as ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\omega$ in \cite{Beklemishev:2013:PositiveProvabilityLogic}.} it is very likely that his result can be generalized to full ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$ over the ordinals, either by adapting his proof or by applying reduction techniques as in \cite{BeklemishevFernandezJoosten:2012:LinearlyOrderedGLP}. However, we remark that only soundness will be needed for our purposes.
\subsection{Transfinite provability logic}
The reflection calculus was introduced as a restriction of Japaridze's logic ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ \cite{Japaridze:1988}, which itself was extended by Beklemishev to full ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP}, containing one modality for each ordinal number. Although we will work mostly within the reflection calculus, for historical reasons it is convenient to review the logic ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$.
The (variable-free) language of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ is defined by the following grammar:
\[
\top \ | \ \bot \ | \ \phi\wedge\psi \ | \ \phi\to\psi \ | \ \langle \lambda\rangle \phi.
\]
Note that in this language we can define negation (as well as other Boolean connectives), along with $[\lambda]\phi=\neg\langle\lambda\rangle \neg \phi$.
The logic $\mathsf{GLP}_\Lambda$ is then given by the following rules and axioms:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item all propositional tautologies{,}
\item $[\lambda](\phi\to\psi)\to([\lambda]\phi\to[\lambda]\psi)$ for all $\lambda <\Lambda${,}
\item {$[\lambda]([\lambda]\phi \to \phi)\to[\lambda]\phi$ for all $\lambda <\Lambda$}{,}\label{AxLob}
\item $[\mu]\phi\to[\lambda]\phi$ for $\mu<\lambda<\Lambda${,}\label{glpfour}
\item $\<\mu\>\phi\to [\lambda]\<\mu\>\phi$ for $\mu<\lambda<\Lambda$,\label{AxGLPNI}
\item modus ponens and
\item necessitation for each $[\xi]$.
\end{enumerate}
The reader may recognize axiom \ref{AxLob} as L\"ob's axiom \cite{Lob:1955:SolutionProblemHenkin}, ostensibly absent from ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$; it is simply not expressible there. However, it was proven by Dashkov that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ is conservative over ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$, in the following sense:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoGLPCons}
If $\phi,\psi\in\lan{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$, then ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash\phi\Rightarrow\psi$, if and only if ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace\vdash\phi\to\psi$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
That ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash\phi\Rightarrow\psi$ implies ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace\vdash\phi\to\psi$ is readily proven by induction on the length of a derivation; one need only verify that, for $\mu<\lambda$,
\[{\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace\vdash \langle \lambda\rangle \phi\wedge\langle\mu\rangle\psi\to \langle\lambda\rangle(\phi\wedge \langle\mu\rangle \psi),\]
using the ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ axiom \ref{AxGLPNI}.
The other direction was proven for ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ by Dashkov in \cite{Dashkov:2012:PositiveFragment}. To extend to modalities over the ordinals, assume that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace\vdash\phi\to\psi$. Then, there are finitely many modalities appearing in the derivation of $\vdash\phi\to\psi$, hence ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Theta\vdash\phi\to\psi$ for some finite set $\Theta$. But ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Theta$ readily embeds into ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ (see \cite{BeklemishevFernandezJoosten:2012:LinearlyOrderedGLP}), and thus we can use the conservativity of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ to conclude that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash \phi\Rightarrow\psi$.
\endproof
As we have mentioned, full ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ (with propositional variables), or even ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_2$, is incomplete for its relational semantics. Without propositional variables, Ignatiev has built a relational model in which every consistent formula of variable-free ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ is satisfied \cite{Ignatiev:1993:StrongProvabilityPredicates}, and Joosten and I extended this to variable-free ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ over the ordinals. However, these models are infinite, and even $1\top$ cannot be satisfied on any finite relational model validating variable-free ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$. On the other hand, every worm has a relatively small ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$-model, as we will see below.
\section{Worms and consistency orderings}\label{SecWorms}
Worms are expressions of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$ (or ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$) representing iterated consistency assertions. Ignatiev first observed that the worms in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ are well-founded \cite{Ignatiev:1993:StrongProvabilityPredicates}. The order-types of worms in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_2$ were then studied by Boolos \cite{Boolos:1993:LogicOfProvability}, and in full ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ by Beklemishev \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP} and further by Joosten and I in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2012:WellOrders}, this time working in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$. Moreover, this particular well-order has surprising proof-theoretical applications: Beklemishev has used transfinite induction along the ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ worms to prove the consistency of Peano arithmetic and compute its $\Pi^0_1$ ordinal \cite{Beklemishev:2004:ProvabilityAlgebrasAndOrdinals}.
In this section we will review the ordering between worms and show that it is well-founded. Let us begin with some preliminaries.
\subsection{Basic definitions}
\begin{definition}\label{defWorm}
A {\em worm} is any {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace formula of the form
\[{\mathfrak w}=\lambda_1\hdots\lambda_n\top,\]
with each $\lambda_i$ an ordinal and $n<\omega$ (including the `empty worm', $\top$). The class of worms is denoted ${\mathbb W}$.
If $\Lambda$ is a set or class of ordinals and each $\lambda_i\in \Lambda$, we write ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Lambda$. The set of worms ${\mathfrak v}$ such that ${\mathfrak v}\sqsubset\Lambda$ is denoted ${\mathbb W}_\Lambda$.
\end{definition}
`Measuring' worms is the central theme of this work. Let us begin by giving notation for some simple measurements, such as the length and the maximum element of a worm.
\begin{definition}
If ${\mathfrak w}=\lambda_1\hdots\lambda_n\top$, then we set $\lgt{\mathfrak w}=n$ (i.e., $\lgt{\mathfrak w}$ is the {\em length} of ${\mathfrak w}$). Define $\min {\mathfrak w}=\min_{i\in[1,n]}\lambda_i$, and similarly $\max {\mathfrak w}=\max_{i\in[1,n]}\lambda_i$. The class of worms ${\mathfrak w}$ such that ${\mathfrak w}=\top$ or $\mu \leq \min{\mathfrak w}$ will be denoted ${\mathbb W}_{\geq \mu}$. We define ${\mathbb W}_{> \mu}$ analogously.
\end{definition}
These give us some idea of `how big' a worm is, but what we are truly interested in is in ordering worms by their {\em consistency strength:}
\begin{definition}
Given an ordinal $\lambda$, we define a relation $\wle{\lambda}$ on ${\mathbb W}$ by $\mathfrak v \wle {\lambda} \mathfrak w$ if and only if ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash \mathfrak w \Rightarrow \lambda \mathfrak v.$ We also define ${\mathfrak v}\wleq\mu{\mathfrak w}$ if ${\mathfrak v}\wle\mu{\mathfrak w}$ or ${\mathfrak v}\equiv{\mathfrak w}$.
\end{definition}
Instead of $\wle 0,\wleq 0$ we may simply write $\wle {}, \wleq{}$. As we will see, these orderings have some rather interesting properties. Let us begin by proving some basic facts about them:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmTopMin}
Let $\mu\leq\lambda$ be ordinals and ${\mathfrak u},{\mathfrak v},{\mathfrak w}$ be worms. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $\mathfrak w\not=\top$ and $\mu< \min \mathfrak w$, then $\top \wle \mu \mathfrak w$,
\item if ${\mathfrak v}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak w}$, then ${\mathfrak v} \wle\mu {\mathfrak w}$, and
\item if ${\mathfrak u}\wle\mu{\mathfrak v}$ and ${\mathfrak v}\wle\mu{\mathfrak w}$, then ${\mathfrak u}\wle\mu {\mathfrak w}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For the first item, write ${\mathfrak w}=\lambda{\mathfrak v}$, so that $\lambda\geq\mu$. Then, ${\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow\top$ is an axiom of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$, from which we can derive $\lambda{\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow\lambda\top$ and from there use the axiom $\lambda\top\Rightarrow\mu\top$.
For the second item, if ${\mathfrak v}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak w}$, then by definition, ${\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow \lambda{\mathfrak v}$ is derivable. Using the axiom $\lambda{\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow\mu{\mathfrak v}$, we see that ${\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow\mu{\mathfrak v}$ is derivable as well, that is, ${\mathfrak v}\wle\mu{\mathfrak w}$.
Transitivity simply follows from the fact that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace \vdash \mu\mu{\mathfrak u}\Rightarrow\mu{\mathfrak u}$, so that if ${\mathfrak u}\wle\mu{\mathfrak v}$ and ${\mathfrak v}\wle\mu{\mathfrak w}$, we have that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace \vdash {\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow\mu{\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow \mu\mu{\mathfrak u}\Rightarrow \mu{\mathfrak u}$, so ${\mathfrak u}\wle\mu{\mathfrak w}$.
\endproof
\subsection{Computing the consistency orders}
The definition of ${\mathfrak v}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak w}$ does not suggest an obvious algorithm for deciding whether it holds or not. Fortunately, it can be reduced to computing the ordering between smaller worms; in this section, we will show how this is done. Let us begin by proving that $\wle\mu$ is always irreflexive. To do this, we will use the following frames.
\begin{definition}
Let ${\mathfrak w} = \lambda_n \hdots \lambda_ 0 \top$ be any worm (note that we are using a different enumeration from that in Definition \ref{defWorm}). Define a frame $\mathfrak F({\mathfrak w})= \big \langle X,\langle \succ_\lambda\rangle_{\lambda<\Lambda}\big\rangle$ as follows.
First, set $X = [0,n+1] \subseteq \mathbb N$. To simplify notation below, let $\lambda_{n+1} = 0$. Then, define $x \succ_\eta y$ if and only if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x > y$ and for all $i \in [y,x) $, $\lambda_i \geq \eta$, or
\item $x \leq y$ and for all $i\in [x,y]$, $\lambda _{i} > \eta$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Although this might not be obvious from the definition, these frames are indeed ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$-frames.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemFisFrame}
Given any worm ${\mathfrak w}$, $\mathfrak F({\mathfrak w})$ is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$-frame.
\end{lemma}
\proof
We must check that $\mathfrak F ({\mathfrak w})$ satisfies each item of Definition \ref{DefRCF}.\\
\noindent \ref{RCFone} Suppose that $x \succ_\eta y \succ_\eta z $. If $x>y$, consider three sub-cases.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.]
\item
If $y>z$, from $x \succ_\eta y \succ_\eta z $ we see that for all $i \in [z,y) \cup [y,x) = [z,x) $, $\lambda_i \geq \eta$, so that $x \succ_\eta z $.
\item
If $z\in [y,x)$, from $[z,x) \subseteq [y,x)$ and $x \succ_\eta y$ we obtain $\lambda _{i} \geq \eta$ for all $i \in [z,x)$, so $x \succ_\eta z$.
\item
If $z \geq x $, from $[x,z] \subseteq [y,z]$ and $y \succ_\eta z$ we obtain $\lambda _{i } > \eta$ for all $i \in [x,z]$, hence $x \succ_\eta z$.
\end{enumerate}
The cases where $x\leq y$ are analogous.
\\
\noindent \ref{RCFtwo}. As in the previous item, we must consider several cases. Suppose that $\mu<\eta$, $z \succ_\mu x$ and $z \succ_\eta y$.
If $z > x$, we consider three subcases.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.]
\item
If $y \leq x$, then from $z \succ_ \eta y$ and $[y,x] \subseteq [y,z)$ we obtain $\lambda_{i} \geq \eta > \mu$ for all $i \in [y,x]$, hence $y \succ_\mu x$.
\item
If $y\in (x,z]$, then from $[x,y) \subseteq [x,z)$ and $z\succ_\mu x$ we obtain $\lambda_{i} \geq \mu$ for all $i\in [x,y)$, hence $y \succ_\mu x$.
\item
If $y>z$, then from $z\succ_\mu x$ we we have that $\lambda_i \geq \mu$ for all $i\in [x,z)$, while from $z\succ_\eta y$ it follows that for all $i\in [z,y)$, $\lambda_i > \eta >\mu$, giving us $y \succ_\mu x$.
\end{enumerate}
Cases where $z \leq x$ are similar.\\
\noindent \ref{RCFthree}. That $\succ_\mu$ is monotone on $\mu$ is obvious from its definition.
\endproof
Thus to prove that $ \wle \mu$ is irreflexive, it suffices to show that there is $x\in [0,n+1]$ such that $ \big ( \mathfrak F({\mathfrak w}) ,x \big ) \models \lambda_{n-1} \hdots \lambda_ 0 \top$ but $ \big ( \mathfrak F({\mathfrak w}) ,x \big ) \not \models \lambda_n \hdots \lambda_ 0 \top$, as then by setting $\mu = \lambda_n$ and ${\mathfrak v} = \lambda_{n-1} \hdots \lambda_0 \top$ we see that ${\mathfrak v}\not\wle \mu {\mathfrak v}$. The following lemma will help us find such an $x$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemFrameSat}
Let ${\mathfrak w} = \lambda_{n} \hdots \lambda_0 \top$ be a worm, and for any $i \in [0,n+1]$, define ${\mathfrak w}[i]$ recursively by ${\mathfrak w}[0]=\top$ and ${\mathfrak w}[i+1] = \lambda_i {\mathfrak w} [i]$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ \big ( \mathfrak F({\mathfrak w}) , i \big ) \models {\mathfrak w}[i]$, and
\item if $x \in [0,i)$, then $ \big ( \mathfrak F({\mathfrak w}),x \big ) \not\models {\mathfrak w}[i]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
The first claim is easy to check from the definition of $\mathfrak F({\mathfrak w})$, so we focus on proving the second by induction on $i$.
The base case is vacuously true as $[0,0) = \varnothing$. Otherwise, assume the claim for $i$, and consider $x \in [0,i+1)$; we must show that $ \big ( \mathfrak F({\mathfrak w}),x \big ) \not \models {\mathfrak w}[i+1] = \lambda_{i}{\mathfrak w}[i]$, which means that for all $y \prec_{\lambda_{i} } x$, $ \big ( \mathfrak F({\mathfrak w}),y \big ) \not \models {\mathfrak w}[i]$. Note that we cannot have that $y \in [i,n+1]$, as in this case $y \geq i \geq x$; but obviously $\lambda_i \not>\lambda_i$, so that $y \not \prec_{\lambda_i} x$. It follows that $ y \in [0,i)$, and we can apply the induction hypothesis to ${\mathfrak w}[i]$.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmIrr}
Given any ordinal $\mu$ and any worm ${\mathfrak v}$, we have that ${\mathfrak v}\not\wle{\mu}{\mathfrak v}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let $\mu$ be any ordinal, ${\mathfrak v}$ be any worm, and consider the $\sf RC$-frame $\mathfrak F(\mu{\mathfrak v})$. If $n=\# {\mathfrak v}$, observe that $(\mu{\mathfrak v})[n] = {\mathfrak v}$, hence by Lemma \ref{lemFrameSat}, $ \big ( \mathfrak F(\mu{\mathfrak v}),n \big ) \models {\mathfrak v}$ but $ \big ( \mathfrak F(\mu{\mathfrak v}),n \big ) \not \models \mu {\mathfrak v}$; it follows from Theorem \ref{theoSound} that ${\mathfrak v} \not \wle \mu {\mathfrak v}$.
\endproof
Thus the worm orderings are irreflexive.
Next we turn our attention to a useful operation between worms.
Specifically, worms can be regarded as strings of symbols, and as such we can think of concatenating them.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathfrak v= \xi_1 \hdots \xi_n \top$ and $\mathfrak w= \zeta_1 \hdots \zeta_m \top$ be worms. Then, define
\[\mathfrak v \mathfrak w= \xi_1 \hdots \xi_n \zeta_1 \hdots \zeta_m \top\]
\end{definition}
Often we will want to put an extra ordinal between the worms, and we write $\mathfrak v \mathrel \lambda \mathfrak w$ for ${\mathfrak v}(\lambda{\mathfrak w})$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmWormConj}
If $\mathfrak w,\mathfrak v$ are worms and $\mu<\min\mathfrak w$, then $\mathfrak w\mathrel \mu\mathfrak v\equiv \mathfrak w\wedge\mu\mathfrak v$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on $\lgt{\mathfrak w}$. If ${\mathfrak w}=\top$, the claim becomes $\mu{\mathfrak v} \equiv\top\wedge\mu{\mathfrak v}$, which is obviously true. Otherwise, we write ${\mathfrak w} = \lambda{\mathfrak u}$ with $\lambda>\mu$, and observe that by Lemma \ref{LemmRC},
\[\lambda{\mathfrak u}\wedge \mu{\mathfrak v}\equiv\lambda({\mathfrak u}\wedge \mu {\mathfrak v})\stackrel{\text{\sc IH}}\equiv \lambda({\mathfrak u}\mathrel \mu{\mathfrak v})={\mathfrak w} \mathrel \mu{\mathfrak v}.\qedhere\]
\end{proof}
Thus we may ``pull out'' the initial segment of a worm, provided the following element is a lower bound for this initial segment. In general, for any ordinal $\lambda$, we can pull out the maximal initial segment of ${\mathfrak w}$ which is bounded below by $\lambda$; this segment is the {\em $\lambda$-head} of ${\mathfrak w}$, and what is left over (if anything) is its {\em $\lambda$-body.}
\begin{definition}
Let $\lambda$ be an ordinal and $\mathfrak w \in {\mathbb W}_{\geq \lambda}$. We define $h_\lambda (\mathfrak w)$ to be the maximal initial segment of $\mathfrak w$ such that $\lambda < \min h_\lambda (\mathfrak w)$, and define $b_\lambda (\mathfrak w)$ as follows: if $\lambda$ appears in $\mathfrak w$, then we set $b_\lambda(\mathfrak w)$ to be the unique worm such that $\mathfrak w=h_\lambda(\mathfrak w)\mathrel \lambda b_\lambda(\mathfrak v)$. Otherwise, set $b_\lambda(\mathfrak w)=\top$.
\end{definition}
We may write $h,b$ instead of $h_0,b_0$.
We remark that our notation is a variant from that used in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2012:WellOrders}, where our $h_\lambda$ would be denoted $h_{\lambda+1}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmDecomp}
Given a worm $\mathfrak w\not=\top$ and an ordinal $\mu\leq \min\mathfrak w$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ h_\mu(\mathfrak w) \in {\mathbb W}_{>\mu}$,
\item\label{LemmDecompItTwo} $\lgt{h_\mu(\mathfrak w)}\leq \lgt{\mathfrak w }$, with equality holding only if $\mu< \min \mathfrak w$, in which case $h_\mu(\mathfrak w) = \mathfrak w $;
\item $\lgt{b_\mu(\mathfrak w)}< \lgt{\mathfrak w}$, and
\item\label{LemmDecompItFour} $\mathfrak w\equiv h_\mu (\mathfrak w) \wedge\mu b_\mu(\mathfrak w).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
The first two claims are immediate from the definition of $h_\mu$. For the third, this is again obvious in the case that $\mu$ occurs in ${\mathfrak w}$, otherwise we have that $b_\mu({\mathfrak w})=\top$ and by the assumption that ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ we obtain $\lgt{b_\mu({\mathfrak w})}<\lgt{\mathfrak w}$.
The fourth claim is an instance of Lemma \ref{LemmWormConj} if $\mu$ appears in ${\mathfrak w}$, otherwise ${\mathfrak w}=h_\mu({\mathfrak w})$ and we use Lemma \ref{LemmTopMin} to see that ${\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow\mu\top=\mu b_\mu(\top)$ is derivable.
\endproof
With this we can reduce relations between worms to those between their heads and bodies.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmWOrdRecurs}
If $\mathfrak w,\mathfrak v \not = \top$ are worms and $\mu\leq \min \mathfrak w \mathfrak v$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{ItWOROne}
$\mathfrak w\wle \mu \mathfrak v$ whenever
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak w\wleq {\mu} b_\mu (\mathfrak v)$, or
\item $b_\mu (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu} \mathfrak v$ and $h_\mu (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu+1} h_\mu (\mathfrak v)$, and
\end{enumerate}
\item \label{ItWORTwo}
${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace \vdash \mathfrak v \Rightarrow \mathfrak w$ whenever
$b_\mu (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu} \mathfrak v$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace \vdash h_\mu ({\mathfrak v}) \Rightarrow h_\mu ({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For the first claim, if $\mathfrak w\wleq {\mu} b_\mu (\mathfrak v)$, then by Lemma \ref{LemmDecomp}.\ref{LemmDecompItFour} we have that ${\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow \mu b_\mu (\mathfrak v)$, that is, $b_\mu (\mathfrak v)\wle\mu{\mathfrak v}$. By transitivity we obtain ${\mathfrak w}\wle\mu{\mathfrak v}$. If $b_\mu (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu} \mathfrak v$ and $h_\mu (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu+1} h_\mu (\mathfrak v)$, reasoning in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace $ we have that
\[{\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow h_\mu({\mathfrak v})\wedge {\mathfrak v} \Rightarrow \langle\mu+1\rangle h_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge \mu b_\mu (\mathfrak w) \equiv \langle\mu+1\rangle h_\mu({\mathfrak w}) \mu b_\mu (\mathfrak w) \Rightarrow \mu {\mathfrak w},\]
and ${\mathfrak w}\wle\mu{\mathfrak v}$, as needed.
For the second, if $b_\mu (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu} \mathfrak v$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace \vdash h_\mu ({\mathfrak v}) \Rightarrow h_\mu ({\mathfrak w})$, we have that
\[{\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow h_\mu({\mathfrak v})\wedge {\mathfrak v} \Rightarrow h_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge \mu b_\mu (\mathfrak w) \equiv {\mathfrak w}. \qedhere \]
\endproof
As we will see, Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs} gives us a recursive way to compute $\wleq{\mu}$. This recursion will allow us to establish many of the fundamental properties of $\wleq\mu$, beginning with the fact that it defines a total preorder.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmWormLinear}
Given worms ${\mathfrak v},{\mathfrak w}$ and $\mu\leq\min ({\mathfrak w}{\mathfrak v})$, exactly one of $\mathfrak w\wleq{\mu}\mathfrak v$ or $\mathfrak v\wle{\mu}\mathfrak w$ occurs.
\end{lemma}
\proof
That they cannot simultaneously occur follows immediately from Lemma \ref{LemmIrr}, since $\wle\mu$ is irreflexive.
To show that at least one occurs, proceed by induction on $\lgt{\mathfrak w}+\lgt{\mathfrak v}$. To be precise, assume inductively that whenever $\lgt{{\mathfrak w}'}+\lgt{{\mathfrak v}'}<\lgt{\mathfrak w}+\lgt{\mathfrak v}$ and $\mu\leq \min ({\mathfrak w}'{\mathfrak v}') $ is arbitrary, then either ${\mathfrak w}'\wleq\mu {\mathfrak v}'$ or ${\mathfrak v}'\wleq\mu {\mathfrak w}'$. If either ${\mathfrak v}=\top$ or ${\mathfrak w}=\top$, then the claim is immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmTopMin}.
Otherwise, let $\lambda=\min ({\mathfrak w}{\mathfrak v}) $, so that $\lambda\geq \mu$. If ${\mathfrak w}\wleq\lambda b_\lambda({\mathfrak v})$, then by Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak v}$, and similarly if ${\mathfrak v}\wleq\lambda b_\lambda({\mathfrak w})$, then ${\mathfrak v}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak w}$. On the other hand, if neither occurs then by the induction hypothesis we have that $b_\lambda({\mathfrak v})\wle \lambda {\mathfrak w}$ and $b_\lambda({\mathfrak w})\wle \lambda {\mathfrak v}$.
Since $\lambda$ appears in either ${\mathfrak w}$ or ${\mathfrak v}$, by Lemma \ref{LemmDecomp}.\ref{LemmDecompItTwo} we have that
\[\lgt{h_\lambda({\mathfrak w})}+\lgt{h_\lambda({\mathfrak v})}<\lgt{\mathfrak w}+\lgt{\mathfrak v},\]
so that by the induction hypothesis, either $h_\lambda({\mathfrak w})\wle \mu h_\lambda({\mathfrak v})$, $h_\lambda({\mathfrak w})\equiv h_\lambda({\mathfrak v})$, or $h_\lambda({\mathfrak v})\wle \lambda h_\lambda({\mathfrak w})$. If $h_\lambda({\mathfrak w})\wle \lambda h_\lambda({\mathfrak v})$, we may use Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs}.\ref{ItWOROne} to see that ${\mathfrak w}\wle \lambda{\mathfrak v}$, so that by Lemma \ref{LemmTopMin}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle \mu {\mathfrak v}$. Similarly, if $h_\lambda({\mathfrak v})\wle \lambda h_\lambda({\mathfrak w})$, we obtain ${\mathfrak v} \wle \mu {\mathfrak w}$. If $h_\lambda({\mathfrak w})\equiv h_\lambda({\mathfrak v})$, then Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs}.\ref{ItWORTwo} yields both $ {\mathfrak w} \Rightarrow {\mathfrak v}$ and $ {\mathfrak w} \Rightarrow {\mathfrak v}$, i.e., ${\mathfrak w}\equiv {\mathfrak v}$.
\endproof
\begin{corollary}\label{CorImpLeq}
If ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash{\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow{\mathfrak v}$, then ${\mathfrak v}\wleq{}{\mathfrak w}$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
Towards a contradiction, suppose that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash{\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow{\mathfrak v}$ but ${\mathfrak v}\not\wleq{}{\mathfrak w}$. By Lemma \ref{LemmWormLinear}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$. Hence ${\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow{\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow 0{\mathfrak v}$, and ${\mathfrak v}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$, contradicting the irreflexivity of $\wle{}$.
\endproof
Moreover, the orderings $\wle\lambda$, $\wle\mu$ coincide on ${\mathbb W}_{\geq\max\{\lambda,\mu\}}$:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSameOrders}
Let ${\mathfrak w},{\mathfrak v}$ be worms and $\mu,\lambda\leq\min ( \mathfrak w\mathfrak v) $. Then, $\mathfrak w\wle {\mu}\mathfrak v$ if and only if $\mathfrak w\wle {\lambda}\mathfrak v$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Assume without loss of generality that $\mu\leq\lambda$. One direction is already in Lemma \ref{LemmTopMin}. For the other, assume towards a contradiction that $\mathfrak w\wle {\mu}\mathfrak v$ but $\mathfrak w\not\wle {\lambda}\mathfrak v$. Then, by Lemma \ref{LemmWormLinear}, ${\mathfrak v}\wleq\lambda{\mathfrak w}$ and thus ${\mathfrak v}\wleq\mu{\mathfrak w}$, so that ${\mathfrak v}\wleq\mu {\mathfrak w}\wle {\mu}{\mathfrak v},$ contradicting the irreflexivity of $\wle\mu$ (Lemma \ref{LemmIrr}).
\endproof
With this we can give an improved version of Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs}, that will be more useful to us later.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoWormOrder}
The relation $\wleq {\lambda}$ is a total preorder on ${\mathbb W}_{\geq\lambda}$, and for all $\mu\leq\lambda$ and $\mathfrak w,\mathfrak v\in{\mathbb W}_{\geq\lambda}$ with ${\mathfrak w},{\mathfrak v} \not = \top$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{TheoWormOrderItA} $\mathfrak w\wle {\mu} \mathfrak v$ if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{TheoWormOrderItOne} $\mathfrak w\wleq {\mu} b_\lambda (\mathfrak v)$, or
\item\label{TheoWormOrderItTwo} $b_\lambda (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu} \mathfrak v$ and $h_\lambda (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu} h_\lambda (\mathfrak v)$, and
\end{enumerate}
\item\label{TheoWormOrderItB} $\mathfrak w\wleq {\mu} \mathfrak v$ if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{TheoWormOrderItBOne} $\mathfrak w\wleq {\mu} b_\lambda (\mathfrak v)$, or
\item\label{TheoWormOrderItBTwo} $b_\lambda (\mathfrak w)\wle {\mu} \mathfrak v$ and $h_\lambda (\mathfrak w)\wleq {\mu} h_\lambda (\mathfrak v)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\proof
Totality is Lemma \ref{LemmWormLinear}.
Let us prove item \ref{TheoWormOrderItB}; the proof of item \ref{TheoWormOrderItA} is similar. If \eqref{TheoWormOrderItBOne} holds, then by Lemma \ref{LemmSameOrders}, $\mathfrak w\wleq {\lambda} b_\lambda (\mathfrak v)$, so that by Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs}.\ref{ItWOROne}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak v}$, and once again by Lemma \ref{LemmSameOrders}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle \mu{\mathfrak v}$. If \eqref{TheoWormOrderItBTwo} holds, then by Lemma \ref{LemmSameOrders} we obtain $b_\lambda (\mathfrak w)\wle {\lambda} \mathfrak v$ and $h_\lambda (\mathfrak w)\wleq {\lambda+1} h_\lambda (\mathfrak v)$. If $h_\lambda (\mathfrak w)\wle {\lambda+1} h_\lambda (\mathfrak v)$, we may use Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs}.\ref{ItWOROne} to obtain ${\mathfrak w}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak v}$. Otherwise, by Lemma \ref{LemmWOrdRecurs}.\ref{ItWORTwo}, we see that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash {\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow{\mathfrak w}$, which by Corollary \ref{CorImpLeq} gives us ${\mathfrak w}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak v}$. In either case, ${\mathfrak w}\wle\mu{\mathfrak v}$.
For the other direction, assume that \eqref{TheoWormOrderItBOne} and \eqref{TheoWormOrderItBTwo} both fail. Then by Lemma \ref{LemmWormLinear} together with Lemma \ref{LemmSameOrders}, we have that $ b_\lambda (\mathfrak v)\wle\lambda\mathfrak w$ and either ${\mathfrak v}\wleq\lambda b_\lambda({\mathfrak w})$ or $h_\lambda ({\mathfrak v})\wle {\lambda+1} h_\lambda ({\mathfrak w})$. In either case ${\mathfrak v}\wle\lambda{\mathfrak w}$, and thus ${\mathfrak w}\not\wleq\mu{\mathfrak v}$.
\endproof
Before continuing, it will be useful to derive a few straightforward consequences of Theorem \ref{TheoWormOrder}.
\begin{corollary}
Every $\phi\in\lan{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$ is equivalent to some $\mathfrak w\in {\mathbb W}$. Moreover, we can take ${\mathfrak w}$ so that every ordinal appearing in ${\mathfrak w}$ already appears in $\phi$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
By induction on the complexity of $\phi$. We have that $\top$ is a worm and for $\phi=\lambda\psi$, by induction hypothesis we have that $\psi\equiv{\mathfrak v}$ for some worm ${\mathfrak v}$ with all modalities appearing in $\psi$ and hence $\phi\equiv\lambda{\mathfrak v}$.
It remains to consider an expression of the form $\psi\wedge\phi$. Using the induction hypothesis, there are worms ${\mathfrak w},{\mathfrak v}$ equivalent to $\phi,\psi$, respectively, so that $\psi\wedge\phi\equiv{\mathfrak w}\wedge{\mathfrak v}$. We proceed by a secondary induction on $\lgt{\mathfrak w}+\lgt{\mathfrak v}$. Note that the claim is trivial if either ${\mathfrak w} = \top$ or ${\mathfrak v} = \top$, so we assume otherwise.
Let $\mu$ be the least ordinal appearing either in ${\mathfrak w}$ or in ${\mathfrak v}$, so that
\[\psi\wedge\phi\equiv (h_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge h_\mu({\mathfrak v})) \wedge (\mu b_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})).\]
By induction hypothesis, $h_\mu ({\mathfrak w})\wedge h_\mu ({\mathfrak v})\equiv{\mathfrak u}_1$ for some ${\mathfrak u} _1 \in {\mathbb W}_{\mu +1}$ with all modalities occurring in $\phi\wedge\psi$. Meanwhile, either $b_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wle \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})$, $b_\mu({\mathfrak w})\equiv b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})$ or $b_\mu({\mathfrak v})\wle \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak w})$. In the first case,
\[\mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})\Rightarrow \mu \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak w})\Rightarrow \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak w}),\] and in the second $\mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})\Rightarrow \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak w})$; in either case, $\mu b_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})\equiv \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})$. Similarly, if $b_\mu({\mathfrak v})\wle \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak w})$, then $\mu b_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})\equiv \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak w})$. In either case,
\[\mu b_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})\equiv \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak u}_0)\]
for some worm ${\mathfrak u}_0 \in \{{\mathfrak w}, {\mathfrak v}\}$, and thus
\[\phi\wedge\psi\equiv (h_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge h_\mu({\mathfrak v})) \wedge (\mu b_\mu({\mathfrak w})\wedge \mu b_\mu ({\mathfrak v})) \equiv {\mathfrak u}_1\wedge\mu {\mathfrak u}_0\equiv {\mathfrak u}_1\mathrel \mu{\mathfrak u}_0.\qedhere\]
\endproof
Below, we remark that ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\mu$ is equivalent to $\max{\mathfrak w}<\mu$.
\begin{corollary}\label{CorBound}
Let $\mu$ be an ordinal and $\top\not={\mathfrak w}\in {\mathbb W}$. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item if ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ and $\mu<\max {\mathfrak w}$ then $\mu\top\wle{}{\mathfrak w}$,\label{CorBoundA}
\item if ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ and $\mu\leq \max {\mathfrak w}$ then $\mu\top\wleq{}{\mathfrak w}$, and\label{CorBoundB}
\item if ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset \mu$ then ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}\mu\top$.\label{CorBoundC}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\proof
For the first claim, proceed by induction on $\lgt{\mathfrak w}$. Write ${\mathfrak w}=\lambda{\mathfrak v}$ and consider two cases. If $\lambda\leq \mu$, by induction on length, $\mu\top\wle{ }{\mathfrak v}$, so $\mu\top\wle{ }{\mathfrak v}\wle{ }{\mathfrak w}$. Otherwise, $\lambda>\mu,$ so from ${\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow\top$, $\lambda \top \Rightarrow \mu \top$, and Lemma \ref{LemmWormConj} we obtain
\[{\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow\lambda\top \wedge \mu \top \Rightarrow \lambda \mu\top \Rightarrow 0\mu\top.\]
The second claim is similar. Again, write ${\mathfrak w}=\lambda{\mathfrak v}$. If $\mu> \lambda$, we have inductively that $\mu \top \wleq{} {\mathfrak v} \wle{} {\mathfrak w}$. Otherwise, $\mu\leq \lambda$, in which case
\[{\mathfrak w}\Rightarrow\lambda\top \Rightarrow \mu\top,\]
and we may use Corollary \ref{CorImpLeq}.
For the third, we proceed once again by induction on $\lgt{\mathfrak w}$. The case for ${\mathfrak w} = \top$ is obvious. Otherwise, let $\eta=\min{\mathfrak w}$. Then, by the induction hypothesis, $h_\eta({\mathfrak w})\wle{}\mu\top=h_\eta(\mu\top)$, while also by the induction hypothesis $b_\eta({\mathfrak w}) \wle{}\mu\top$, hence ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}\mu\top$ by Theorem \ref{TheoWormOrder}.
\endproof
\subsection{Well-orderedness of worms}
We have seen that $\wleq{\mu}$ is a total preorder, but in fact we have more; it is a pre-well-order. We will prove this using a Kruskal-style argument \cite{Kruskal1960}. It is very similar to Beklemishev's proof in \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP}, although he uses normal forms for worms. Here we will use our `head-body' decomposition instead.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoWormsWO}
For any ordinal $\lambda$ and any $\eta \leq\lambda$, $\wle\eta$ is a pre-well-order on $\mathbb W_{\geq\lambda}$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
We have already seen that $\mathbb W_\lambda$ is total in Theorem \ref{TheoWormOrder}, so it remains to show that there are no infinite $\wle\eta$-descending chains. We will prove this by contradiction, assuming that there is such a chain.
Let $\mathfrak w_0$ be any worm such that $\mathfrak w_0$ is the first element of some infinite descending chain $\mathfrak w_0\wge\eta\mathfrak v_1\wge\eta\mathfrak v_2\wge\eta\hdots$ and $\lgt{\mathfrak w_0}$ is minimal among all worms that can be the first element of such a chain. Then, for $i>0$, choose $\mathfrak w_i$ recursively by letting it be a worm such that there is an infinite descending chain
\[\mathfrak w_0\wge\eta\mathfrak w_1\wge\eta\hdots \wge\eta \mathfrak w_i\wge\eta\mathfrak v_{i+1}\wge\eta\hdots,\]
and such that $\lgt{\mathfrak w_i}$ is minimal among all worms with this property (where ${\mathfrak w}_j$ is already fixed for $j<i$). Let $\vec {\mathfrak w}$ be the resulting chain.
Now, let $\mu \geq \eta$ be the least ordinal appearing in $\vec{\mathfrak w}$, and define $h(\vec{\mathfrak w})$ to be the sequence
\[h_\mu(\mathfrak w_0),h_\mu(\mathfrak w_1),\hdots,h_\mu(\mathfrak w_i),\hdots\]
Let $j$ be the first natural number such that $\mu$ appears in ${\mathfrak w}_j$. By Lemma \ref{LemmDecomp}.\ref{LemmDecompItTwo}, $h_\mu({\mathfrak w}_i)={\mathfrak w}_i$ for all $i<j$, while $\lgt{h_\mu({\mathfrak w}_j)}<\lgt{{\mathfrak w}_j}$, so by the minimality of $\lgt{{\mathfrak w}_j}$, $h(\vec{\mathfrak w})$ is not an infinite decreasing chain. Hence for some $k$, $h_\mu(\mathfrak w_k)\wgeq \eta h_\mu(\mathfrak w_{k+1})$.
Next, define $b(\vec{\mathfrak w})$ to be the sequence
\[\mathfrak w_0,\hdots,\mathfrak w_{k-1},b_\mu(\mathfrak w_k),\mathfrak w_{k+2},\mathfrak w_{k+3},\hdots\]
In other words, we replace $\mathfrak w_k$ by $b_\mu(\mathfrak w_k)$ and skip $\mathfrak w_{k+1}$. By the minimality of $\lgt{\mathfrak w_k}$, this cannot be a decreasing sequence, and hence $b_\mu(\mathfrak w_k)\wleq\eta \mathfrak w_{k+2}\wle\eta \mathfrak w_{k+1}$.
It follows from Theorem \ref{TheoWormOrder} that $\mathfrak w_k\wleq\eta \mathfrak w_{k+1}$, a contradiction. We conclude that there can be no decreasing sequence, and $\wle\eta$ is well-founded, as claimed.
\endproof
One consequence of worms being pre-well-ordered is that we can assign them an ordinal number measuring their order-type. In the next section we will make this precise.
\subsection{Order-types on a pre-well-order}
As we have mentioned, any well-order may be canonically represented using an ordinal number. To do this, if $\mathfrak A=\langle A,\preccurlyeq\rangle$ is any pre-well-order, for $a\in A$ define \[o(a)=\bigcup_{b\prec a}(o(b)+1).\]
Observe that $o$ is strictly increasing, in the following sense:
\begin{definition}
Let $\langle A,\preccurlyeq_A\rangle,\langle B,\preccurlyeq_B\rangle$ be preorders, and $f\colon A\to B$. We say that $f$ is {\em stricty increasing} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item for all $x,y\in A$, $x\preccurlyeq_A y$ implies $f(x)\preccurlyeq_B f(y)$, and
\item for all $x,y\in A$, $x\prec _A y$ implies $f(x)\prec _B f(y)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We note that if $\prec_A$ is total, then there are other equivalent ways of defining strictly increasing maps:
\begin{lemma}
If $\langle A,\preccurlyeq_A\rangle,\langle B,\preccurlyeq_B\rangle$ are total preorders and $f\colon A\to B$, then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f$ is strictly increasing;
\item for all $x,y\in A$, $x\preccurlyeq_A y$ if and only if $f(x)\preccurlyeq_B f(y)$;
\item for all $x,y\in A$, $x\prec _A y$ if and only if $f(x)\prec _B f(y)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
Straightforward, using the fact that $a\prec_A b$ if and only if $b\not\preccurlyeq_A a$, and similarly for $\prec_B$.
\endproof
Then, the map $o$ can be characterized as the only strictly increasing, initial map $f\colon A\to{\sf Ord}$, where $f\colon A\to B$ is {\em initial} if whenever $b\prec_B f(a)$, it follows that $b=f(a')$ for some $a'\prec_A a$:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmOIff}
Let $\langle A,\preccurlyeq \rangle$ be a pre-well-order. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{LemmOIffItOne} for all $x,y\in A$, $x\prec y$ if and only if $o(x)<o(y)$, and
\item\label{LemmOIffItTwo} $o\colon A\to {\sf Ord}$ is an initial map.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The proof proceeds by transfinite induction along $\prec$ and we omit it, as is the case of the proof of the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmOUnique}
Let $\langle A,\preccurlyeq \rangle$ be a pre-well-order. Suppose that $f\colon A\to{\sf Ord}$ satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x\prec y$ implies that $f(x)<f(y)$,
\item $x\preccurlyeq y$ implies that $f(x)\leq f(y)$, and
\item if $\xi\in f[A]$ then $\xi\subseteq f[A]$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $f=o$.
\end{lemma}
Observe that $o(a)=o(b)$ implies that $a\preccurlyeq b$ and $b\preccurlyeq a$, i.e. $a\approx b$. Let us state this explicitly for the case of worms.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmEquiv}
If ${\mathfrak w},{\mathfrak v}$ are worms such that $o({\mathfrak w})=o({\mathfrak v})$, then $ {\mathfrak w} \equiv {\mathfrak v} $.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Reasoning by contrapositive, assume that ${\mathfrak w}\not\equiv {\mathfrak v}$. Then by Lemma \ref{LemmWormLinear}, either ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$, which implies that $o({\mathfrak w})< o({\mathfrak v})$, or ${\mathfrak v}\wle{}{\mathfrak w}$, and hence $o({\mathfrak v})< o({\mathfrak w})$. In either case, $o({\mathfrak w})\not= o({\mathfrak v})$.
\endproof
Computing $o({\mathfrak w})$ will take some work, but it is not too difficult to establish some basic relationships between $o({\mathfrak w})$ and the ordinals appearing in ${\mathfrak w}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmLowerBound}
Let ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ be a worm and $\mu$ an ordinal. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $\mu\leq\max{\mathfrak w}$, then $\mu \leq o(\mu\top)\leq o({\mathfrak w})$, and\label{LemmLowerBoundItOne}
\item if $\max{\mathfrak w}<\mu$, then $o({\mathfrak w})<o(\mu\top)$.\label{LemmLowerBoundItTwo}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
First we proceed by induction on $\mu$ to show that $\mu\leq o(\mu\top)$. Suppose that $\eta<\mu $. Then by Corollary \ref{CorBound}, $\eta\top\wle{}\mu\top $, while by the induction hypothesis $\eta\leq o(\eta\top)$, and hence $\eta \leq o(\eta\top) < o(\mu\top)$. Since $\eta<\mu$ was arbitrary, $\mu \leq o(\mu\top)$. That $o(\mu\top)\leq o({\mathfrak w})$ if $\mu\leq\max{\mathfrak w}$ follows from Corollary \ref{CorBound}, since $\mu\top\wleq{}{\mathfrak w}$.
The second claim is immediate from Corollary \ref{CorBound}.\ref{CorBoundC}.
\endproof
Let us conclude this section by stating a useful consequence of the fact that $o\colon{\mathbb W}\to{\sf Ord}$ is initial.
\begin{corollary}\label{CorSurj}
For every ordinal $\xi$ there is a worm ${\mathfrak w}\wleq{}\xi\top$ such that $\xi=o({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
By Lemma \ref{LemmLowerBound}, $\xi\leq o(\xi\top)$, so this is a special case of Lemma \ref{LemmOIff}.\ref{LemmOIffItTwo}.
\endproof
\section{Finite worms}\label{SecFiniteW}
In the previous section we explored some basic properties of $o$, but they are not sufficient to compute $o({\mathfrak w})$ for a worm ${\mathfrak w}$. In this section we will provide an explicit calculus for $o\upharpoonright {\mathbb W}_\omega$ (where $\upharpoonright$ denotes domain restriction). ${\mathbb W}_\omega$ is a particularly interesting case-study in that it has been used by Beklemishev for a $\Pi^0_1$ ordinal analysis of Peano arithmetic. Before we continue, it will be illustrative to sketch the relationship between ${\mathbb W}_\omega$ and $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace$.
\subsection{First-order arithmetic}\label{SubsecFOA}
Expressions of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ have a natural proof-theoretical interpretation in first-order arithmetic. We will use the language $\Pi_\omega$ of first-order arithmetic containing the signature
\[\{{\tt 0, 1, +, \cdot, 2^{\cdot},= }\}\]
so that we have symbols for addition, multiplication, and exponentiation, as well as Boolean connectives and quantifiers ranging over the natural numbers. Elements of $\Pi_\omega$ are {\em formulas.} The set of all formulas where all quantifiers are {\em bounded,} that is, of the form $\forall \, x{<}t \ \phi$ or $\exists\, x{<}t \ \phi$ (where $t$ is any term), is denoted ${\Delta}_0$. A formula of the form $\exists x_n\forall x_{n-1}\hdots \delta(x_1,\hdots,x_n)$, with $\delta\in \Delta_0$, is $\Sigma_n$, and a formula of the form $\forall x_n\exists x_{n-1}\hdots \delta(x_1,\hdots,x_n)$ is $\Pi_n$. These classes are extended modulo provable equivalence, so that every formula falls into one of them. Note that the negation of a $\Sigma_n$ formula is $\Pi_n$ and vice-versa.
To simplify notation we may assume that some additional function symbols are available, although these are always definable from the basic arithmetical operations. In particular, we assume that we have for each $n$ a function $\langle x_1,\hdots,x_n\rangle$ coding a sequence as a single natural number.
In order to formalize provability within arithmetic, we fix some G\"odel numbering mapping a formula $\psi\in\Pi_\omega$ to its corresponding G\"odel number $\ulcorner \psi \urcorner$, and similarly for terms and sequences of formulas, which can be used to represent derivations. We also define the {\em numeral} of $n\in\mathbb N$ to be the term
\[\bar n={\tt 0}+\underbrace{\tt 1 + \hdots+1}_{n\text{ times}}.\]
In order to simplify notation, we will often identify $\psi$ with $\ulcorner \psi \urcorner$.
We will assume that every theory $T$ contains classical predicate logic, is closed under modus ponens, and that there is a ${ \Delta}_0$ formula ${{\tt Proof}}_T(x,y)$ which holds if and only if $x$ codes a derivation in $T$ of a formula coded by $y$. Using Craig's trick, any theory with a computably enumerable set of axioms is deductively equivalent to one in this form, so we do not lose generality by these assumptions.
If $\phi$ is a natural number (supposedly coding a formula), we use $\Box_T\phi$ as shorthand for $\exists y\ {{\tt Proof}}_T(y, {\bar\phi})$. We also write $\Box_T \phi(\dot x_0, \ldots, \dot x_n)$ as short for $\exists \psi\ (\psi = \phi(\bar x_0, \ldots, \bar x_n) \wedge \Box_T \psi)$. To get started on proving theorems about arithmetic, we need a minimal `background theory'. This will use Robinson's arithmetic $\rm Q$ enriched with axioms for the exponential; call the resulting theory $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace$. To be precise, $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace$ is axiomatized by classical first-order logic with equality, together with the following:
\begin{multicols}2
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall x \ (x+{\tt 0}=x)$
\item $\forall x \ (x \not = {\tt 0}\leftrightarrow \exists y \ x=y+{\tt 1})$
\item $\forall x \forall y \ (x+{\tt 1} =y+{\tt 1} \rightarrow x=y)$
\item $\forall x \forall y \ \big ( x+(y+{\tt 1})=(x+y)+{\tt 1} \big )$
\item $\forall x \ (x\times {\tt 0}={\tt 0})$
\item $\forall x \forall y \ \big ( x\times (y+{\tt 1})=(x\times y)+y \big )$
\item ${\tt 2}^{\tt 0}={\tt 1}$
\item $\forall x \ \big ( {\tt 2}^{x+{\tt 1}}={\tt 2}^{x}+{\tt 2}^{x} \big )$
\end{itemize}
\end{multicols}
Aside from these basic axioms, the following schemes will be useful in axiomatizing many theories of interest to us. Let $\Gamma$ to denote a set of formulas. Then, the induction schema for $\Gamma$ is defined by
\begin{center}
${\tt I} \Gamma$:\ \ $\phi({\tt 0})\wedge\forall x\big(\phi(x)\to\phi(x+{\tt 1})\big)\to\forall x\phi(x)$,\hskip 20pt where $\phi\in\Gamma$.
\end{center}
\emph{Elementary arithmetic} is the first-order theory
\[{\rm EA}=\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace+\mathrm{I}{\Delta}_0,\]
and \emph{Peano arithmetic} is the first-order theory
\[{\rm PA}=\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace+\mathrm{I}{\Pi}_\omega.\]
As usual, ${\Diamond}_T\phi$ is defined as $\neg{\Box}_T\neg\varphi$, and this will be used to interpret the ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$-modality $0$. Other modalities can be interpreted as stronger notions
of consistency. For this purpose it is very useful to consider the
provability predicates $[n]_T$, where $[n]_T$ is a natural first-order formalization of
``provable from the axioms of $T$ together with some true $\Pi_n$
sentence''. More precisely, let ${\tt True}_{\Pi_n}$ be the standard
partial truth-predicate for $\Pi_n$ formulas, which is itself of
complexity $\Pi_n$ (see \cite{HajekPudlak:1993:Metamathematics} for
information about partial truth definitions within $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace$). Then, we
define
$$[n]_T\varphi\leftrightarrow \exists \pi \ \big ( {\tt
True}_{\Pi_n}(\pi)\wedge{\Box}_T (\pi\rightarrow \varphi) \big ).$$
\begin{definition}\label{DefArithInt}
Given a theory $T$, we then define $\cdot_T\colon \lan{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\to\Pi_\omega$ given recursively by
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\top_T=\top$,
\item $(\phi\wedge\psi)_T=\phi_T\wedge\psi_T$, and
\item $(n\phi)_T=\langle n\rangle_{T}\phi_T$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The next theorem follows from the arithmetical completeness of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ proven by Ignatiev \cite{Ignatiev:1993:StrongProvabilityPredicates} together with the conservativity of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ (Theorem \ref{TheoGLPCons}).
\begin{theorem}
Let $T$ be any sound, representable extension of $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace$. Given a formula $\phi$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega\vdash\phi$ if and only if $T\vdash \phi_T$.
\end{theorem}
We remark that Japaridze first proved a variant of this result, where $[n]_T$ is defined using iterated $\omega$-rules \cite{Japaridze:1988}. A similar interpretation will be discussed in Section \ref{SubsecOmegaRule} in the context of second-order arithmetic. However, the interpretation we have sketched using proof predicates has been used by Beklemishev to provide a consitency proof of Peano arithmetic as well as a $\Pi^0_1$ ordinal analysis. Here we will briefly sketch the consistency proof; for details, see \cite{Beklemishev:2004:ProvabilityAlgebrasAndOrdinals}.
The first step is to represent Peano arithmetic in terms of $n$-consistency:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoPaDiamond}
It is provable in $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace$ that
\[\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace\equiv \ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace+\{\langle n\rangle_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace\top : n <\omega \}.\]
\end{theorem}
This is a reformulation of a result of Kreisel and L\'evy \cite{KreiselLevy:1968:ReflectionPrinciplesAndTheirUse}, although they used {\em primitive recursive arithmetic} in place of $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace$. The variant with $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace$ is due to Beklemishev.
The consistency proof will be realized mostly within a `finitary base theory', $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace^+$, which is only a bit stronger than $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace$. To describe it, first define the {\em superexponential}, denoted $2^n_m$, to be the function given recursively by
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $2^n_0=2^n$ and
\item $2^n_{m+1}=2^{2^n_m}$.
\end{enumerate*}
Thus, $2^1_m$ denotes an exponential tower of $m$ $2$'s. Then, we let $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace^+$ be the extension of $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace$ with an axiom stating that the superexponential function is total. With this, we may enunciate Beklemishev's {\em reduction rule:}
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoReduct}
If ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\omega$ is any worm, then $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace^+$ proves that
\[\big (\forall {\mathfrak v}\wle{}{\mathfrak w} \, ( \, {\Diamond}_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace{\mathfrak v}_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace \, ) \big ) \rightarrow {\Diamond}_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace{\mathfrak w}_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace.\]
\end{theorem}
This extends a previous result by Schmerl \cite{Schmerl:1978:FineStructure}. Meanwhile, the reader may recognize this as the premise of the {\em transfinite induction scheme} for worms. To be precise, if $\phi(x),x\prec y$ are arithmetical formulas, then the transfinite induction scheme for $\phi$ along $\prec$ is given by:
\[{\tt TI}_\prec(\phi)=\Big (\forall x \, \big ((\forall y\prec x \, \phi(y))\rightarrow \phi(x)\big ) \Big)\rightarrow \forall x\, \phi(x).\]
If $\Gamma$ is a set of formulas, then ${\tt TI}_\prec(\Gamma)$ is the scheme $\{{\tt TI}_\prec(\phi) : \phi\in\Gamma\}.$
Observe that ${\Diamond}_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace\phi\in \Pi_1$ independently of $\phi$; with this in mind, we obtain the following as an immediate consequence of Theorem \ref{TheoReduct}:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoPACons} $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace^+ + {\tt TI}_{\wle{}\upharpoonright{\mathbb W}_\omega}(\Pi _1) \vdash {\Diamond}_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace\top.$
\end{theorem}
In words, we can prove the consistency of Peano arithmetic using $\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace^+$ and transfinite induction along $\langle {\mathbb W}_\omega,\wle{}\rangle $. In fact, we use only one instance of transfinite induction for a predicate $\phi(x)$ expressing ``$x\sqsubset\omega$ and ${\Diamond}_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace x_\ensuremath{{\rm{EA}}}\xspace$''.
Compare this to Gentzen's work \cite{Gentzen1936}, where he proves the consistency of Peano arithmetic with transfinite induction up to the ordinal $\varepsilon_0$. In the remainder of this section, we will see how finite worms and $\varepsilon_0$ are closely related.
\subsection{The ordinal $\varepsilon_0$}
The ordinal $\varepsilon_0$ is naturally defined by extending the arithmetical operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation to the transfinite. In view of Lemma \ref{LemmOrdSucc}, we may have to consider not only successor ordinals, but also unions of ordinals. Fortunately, these operations are exhaustive.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmOrdClass}
Let $\xi$ be an ordinal. Then, exactly one of the following occurs:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\xi=0$;
\item there exists $\zeta$ such that $\xi=\zeta+1$, in which case we say that $\xi$ is a {\em successor;} or
\item $\xi=\bigcup_{\zeta<\xi}\zeta$, in which case we say that $\xi$ is a {\em limit.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Thus we may recursively define operations on the ordinals if we consider these three cases. For example, ordinal addition is defined as follows:
\begin{definition}
Given ordinals $\xi,\zeta$, we define $\xi+\zeta$ by recursion on $\zeta$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\xi+0=\xi$
\item $\xi+(\zeta+1)=(\xi+\zeta)+1$
\item $\xi+\zeta=\displaystyle\bigcup_{\vartheta<\zeta}(\xi+\vartheta)$, for $\zeta$ a limit ordinal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Ordinal addition retains some, but not all, of the properties of addition on the natural numbers; it is associative, but not commutative. For example, $1+\omega=\omega<\omega+1$, and more generally $1+\xi=\xi<\xi+1$ whenever $\xi$ is infinite. We also have a form of subtraction, but only on the left:
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:BasicPropertiesOrdinalArithmetic}
If $\zeta {<} \xi$ are ordinals, there exists a unique $\eta$ such that $\zeta + \eta = \xi.$
\end{lemma}
The proof follows by a standard transfinite induction on $\xi$. We will denote this unique $\eta$ by $-\zeta + \xi$. It will be convenient to spell out some of the basic properties of left-subtraction:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmLeftSubt}
Let $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ be ordinals. Then:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $-0+\alpha=\alpha$ and $-\alpha+\alpha=0;$
\item if $\alpha\leq \beta$ and $-\alpha+\beta \leq \gamma$ then $-\alpha+(\beta+\gamma)=(-\alpha+\beta)+\gamma;$
\item\label{LemmLeftSubtItLast} if $\alpha+\beta\leq\gamma$ then $-\beta +(-\alpha+\gamma)=-(\alpha+\beta)+\gamma;$
\item if $\alpha\leq\beta\leq\alpha+\gamma$ then $-\beta+(\alpha+\gamma)=-(-\alpha+\beta)+\gamma.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
These properties are proven using the associativity of addition and the fact that $-\mu+\lambda$ is unique. We prove only \ref{LemmLeftSubtItLast} as an example. Observe that
\begin{align*}
(\alpha+\beta)+(-\beta +(-\alpha+\gamma))=\alpha+(\beta+(-\beta+(-\alpha+\gamma)))\\
= \alpha+(-\alpha+\gamma)=\gamma;
\end{align*}
but $-(\alpha+\beta)+\gamma$ is the unique $\eta$ such that $(\alpha+\beta)+\eta=\gamma$, so we conclude that \ref{LemmLeftSubtItLast} holds. The other properties are proven similarly.
\endproof
The definition of addition we have given can be used as a template to generalize other arithmetical operations. Henceforth, if $\langle \mu_\xi\rangle_{\xi<\lambda}$ is an increasing sequence of ordinals, we will write $\lim_{\xi<\lambda}\mu_\xi$ instead of $\bigcup_{\xi<\lambda}\mu_\xi$.
\begin{definition}
Given ordinals $\xi,\zeta$, we define $\xi\cdot \zeta$ by recursion on $\zeta$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\xi\cdot 0=0$,
\item $\xi\cdot(\zeta+1)=\xi\cdot\zeta+\xi$, and
\item $\xi\cdot\zeta=\displaystyle\lim_{\vartheta<\zeta}\xi\cdot\vartheta$, for $\zeta$ a limit ordinal.
\end{enumerate}
Similarly, we define $\xi^ \zeta$ by:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\xi^0=1$,
\item $\xi^{\zeta+1}=\xi^\zeta\cdot\xi$, and
\item $\xi^\zeta=\displaystyle\lim_{\vartheta<\zeta}\xi^\vartheta$, for $\zeta$ a limit ordinal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Addition, multiplication and exponentiation give us our first examples of {\em normal functions.} These are functions that are increasing and continuous, in the following sense:
\begin{definition}
A function $f\colon {\sf Ord}\to{\sf Ord}$ is {\em normal} if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item whenever $\xi<\zeta$, it follows that $f(\xi)<f(\zeta)$, and
\item whenever $\lambda$ is a limit ordinal, $f(\lambda)=\displaystyle\lim_{\xi<\lambda}f(\xi)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Normal functions are particularly nice to work with. Among other things, they have the following property, proven by an easy transfinite induction:
\begin{lemma}
If $f\colon{\sf Ord}\to{\sf Ord}$ is normal, then for every ordinal $\xi$, $\xi\leq f(\xi)$.
\end{lemma}
Of course this does not rule out the possibility that $\xi=f(\xi)$, and in fact the identity function is an example of a normal function. As we have mentioned, the elementary arithmetical functions give us further examples:
\begin{lemma}
Let $\alpha$ be any ordinal. Then, the functions $f,g,h\colon {\sf Ord}\to{\sf Ord}$ given by
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f(\xi)=\alpha+\xi$,
\item $g(\xi)=(1+\alpha)\cdot \xi$,
\item $h(\xi)=(2+\alpha)^\xi$
\end{enumerate}
are all normal.
\end{lemma}
Note, however, that the function $\xi\mapsto\xi+\alpha$ is not normal in general, and neither are $\xi\mapsto 0\cdot\xi$, $\xi\mapsto 1^\xi$. But $\xi\mapsto\omega^\xi$ is normal, and this function is of particular interest, since it is the basis of the Cantor normal form representation of ordinals (similar to a base-$n$ representation of natural numbers), where we write
\[\xi=\omega^{\alpha_n}+\hdots +\omega^{\alpha_0}\]
with the $\alpha_i$'s non-decreasing. Moreover, the ordinals of the form $\omega^\beta$ are exactly the {\em additively indecomposable} ordinals; that is, non-zero ordinals that cannot be written as the sum of two smaller ordinals. Let us summarize some important properties of this function:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCantorNormal}
Let $\xi\not=0$ be any ordinal. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There are ordinals $\alpha,\beta$ such that $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$. The value of $\beta$ is unique.
\item We can take $\alpha=0$ if and only if, for all $\gamma,\delta<\xi$, we have that $\gamma+\delta<\xi$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
We call this the {\em Cantor decomposition} of $\xi$. Cantor decompositions can often be used to determine whether $\xi<\zeta$:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCantorOrder}
Given ordinals $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$ and $\zeta=\gamma+\omega^\delta$,
\begin{multicols}2
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\xi < \zeta$ if and only if \label{LemmCantorOrderItLe}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\xi\leq \gamma$, or\label{LemmCantorOrderItLeBody}
\item $\alpha<\zeta$ and $\beta < \delta$, and\label{LemmCantorOrderItLeHead}
\end{enumerate}
\item $\xi\leq \zeta$ if and only if\label{LemmCantorOrderItLeq}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\xi\leq \gamma$, or\label{LemmCantorOrderItLeqBody}
\item $\alpha<\zeta$ and $\beta \leq \delta$.\label{LemmCantorOrderItLeqHead}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{multicols}
\end{lemma}
Note, however, that this decomposition is only useful when $\beta<\xi$ or $\gamma<\zeta$, which as we will see is not always the case. In particular, the ordinal $\varepsilon_0$ is the first ordinal such that $\varepsilon_0=\omega^{\varepsilon_0}$. Roughly, it is defined by beginning with $0$ and closing under the operation $\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle\mapsto \alpha+\omega^\beta$. Since many proof-theoretical ordinals are defined by taking the closure under a family of functions, it will be convenient to formalize such a closure with some generality.
The general scheme is to consider a family of ordinal functions $f_1,\hdots,f_n$, then considering the least ordinal $\xi$ such that $f_i(\alpha_1,\hdots,\alpha_m)<\xi$ whenever each $\alpha_i<\xi$. To simplify our presentation, let us make a few preliminary observations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The functions $f_i$ may be partial or total. Since a total function is a special case of a partial function, we may in general consider $f_i\colon {\sf Ord}^m\dashrightarrow {\sf Ord}$ (where $f\colon A\dashrightarrow B$ indicates that $f$ is a partial function).
\item We may have functions with fixed or variable arity. Given a class $A$, let $A^{<\omega}$ denote the class of finite sequences $\langle a_1,\hdots,a_m\rangle$ with $m<\omega$ and each $a_i\in A$. An ordinal function with fixed arity $m$ may be regarded as a partial function on ${\sf Ord}^{<\omega}$, whose domain is ${\sf Ord}^m\subseteq {\sf Ord}^{<\omega}$. Thus without loss of generality, we may assume that all partial functions have variable arity.
\item We may represent the family $f_1,\hdots,f_n$ as a single function by setting
\[f(i,\alpha_1,\hdots,\alpha_m)=f_i(\alpha_1,\hdots,\alpha_m).\]
Note that this idea can also be used to represent infinite families of functions as a single function.
\end{enumerate}
Thus we may restrict our discussion to ordinals closed under a single partial function of variable arity, and will do so in the next definition.
\begin{definition}\label{DefFClose}
Let $f\colon {\sf Ord}^{<\omega}\dashrightarrow {\sf Ord}$ be a partial function. Given a set of ordinals $\Theta$, define $\iter f\Theta$ to be the set of all ordinals $\lambda$ such that there exist $\mu_1,\hdots,\mu_n\in\Theta$ (possibly with $n=0$) such that $\lambda=f(\mu_1,\hdots,\mu_n)$.
For $n<\omega$, define inductively $\Theta^f_0=\Theta$ and $\Theta^f_{n+1}=\Theta^f_n\cup\iter f{(\Theta^f_n)}$. Then, define
\[\close f\Theta=\bigcup_{n<\omega}\Theta^f_n.\]
\end{definition}
The set $\close f\Theta$ is the {\em closure of $\Theta$ under $f$,} and indeed behaves like a standard closure operation:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmPropFClose}
Let $f\colon {\sf Ord}^{<\omega}\dashrightarrow {\sf Ord}$ and let $\Theta$ be any set of ordinals. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Theta\cup\iter f{(\close f\Theta)}\subseteq \close f\Theta$,
\item if $\Theta\cup \close f\Xi\subseteq \Xi$ then $\close f\Theta\subseteq \Xi$, and
\item for any ordinal $\lambda$, $\lambda \in (\close f\Theta)\setminus\Theta$ if and only if there are $\mu_1,\hdots,\mu_n\in \close f\Theta\setminus \{\lambda\}$ with $\lambda=f(\mu_1,\hdots,\mu_n)$.\label{LemmPropFCloseItFour}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For the first item, note that if $\lambda_1,\hdots,\lambda_n\in \close f\Theta$ then $\lambda_1,\hdots,\lambda_n\in \Theta^f_m$ for $m$ large enough and hence $f( \lambda_1,\hdots,\lambda_n) \in \Theta^f_{m+1}\subseteq \close f\Theta$.
The second follows by showing indutively that $\Theta^f_n\subseteq \Xi$ for all $n$, hence $\close f\Theta\subseteq \Xi$.
For the third, assume otherwise, and consider $\Xi=\close f\Theta\setminus \{\lambda\}$. One can readily verify that $\Theta\cup \iter f\Xi\subseteq\Xi$, contradicting the previous item.
\endproof
With this, we are ready to define the ordinal $\varepsilon_0$. Below, recall that we are following the standard set-theoretic convention that $1=\{0\}$.
\begin{definition}
Define ${\rm Cantor}\colon {\sf Ord}^2\to {\sf Ord}$ by ${\rm Cantor}(\alpha,\beta)=\alpha+\omega^\beta$. Then, we define
\[\varepsilon_0=\close {{\rm Cantor}} 1.\]
\end{definition}
As promised, $ \varepsilon_0$ is the first fixed-point of the function $\xi\mapsto\omega^\xi$:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoEpxilon}
The set $\varepsilon_0$ is an ordinal and satisfies the identity $\varepsilon_0=\omega^{\varepsilon_0}$. Moreover, if $0<\xi<\varepsilon_0$, there are $\alpha,\beta<\xi$ such that $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
First we will show that if $0<\xi\in\varepsilon_0$, then there are $\alpha,\beta<\xi$ such that $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$. By Lemma \ref{LemmPropFClose}.\ref{LemmPropFCloseItFour}, there are $\alpha,\beta\in\varepsilon_0$ with $\alpha,\beta\not=\xi$ and such that $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$. Since $\omega^\beta>0$ it follows that $\alpha<\xi$, and since $\beta\leq \omega^\beta\leq \xi$ it follows that $\beta\leq \xi$; but $\beta\not=\xi$, so $\beta<\xi$.
Now, since every element of $\varepsilon_0$ is an ordinal, in view of Lemma \ref{LemmOrdBasic}, in order to show that $\varepsilon_0$ is also an ordinal it suffices to show that if $\xi<\zeta\in\varepsilon_0$, then $\xi\in\varepsilon_0$. We proceed by induction on $\zeta$ with a secondary induction on $\xi$. Write $\zeta=\alpha+\omega^\beta$ and $\xi=\gamma+\omega^\delta$ with $\alpha,\beta\in\varepsilon_0\cap \zeta$. Since $\xi<\zeta$, by Lemma \ref{LemmCantorOrder}, we have that either $\xi\leq\alpha$ or $\gamma<\zeta$ and $\delta<\beta$. In the first case, our induction hypothesis applied to $\alpha<\zeta$ gives us $\xi\in \varepsilon_0$, in the second the secondary induction hypothesis on $\gamma<\xi$ gives us $\gamma\in\varepsilon_0$ and the induction hypothesis on $\beta<\zeta$ gives us $\delta\in \varepsilon_0$, hence $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta\in\varepsilon_0$.
\endproof
\subsection{Order-types of finite worms}\label{SubsecFino}
Our work on elementary ordinal operations and the ordinal $\varepsilon_0$ will suffice to compute the order-types of `finite' worms, i.e., worms where every entry is finite. In order to give a calculus for these order-types, we will need to consider, in addition to concatenation, `promotion' ($\uparrow$) and `demotion' ($\downarrow$) operations on worms. Below, let us write $\lan{\geq\lambda}$ for the sublanguage of $\lan{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace}$ which only contains modalities $\xi\geq\lambda$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\phi\in\lan{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$ and $\lambda$ be an ordinal. We define $\lambda\uparrow\phi$ to be the result of replacing every ordinal $\xi$ appearing in $\phi$ by $\lambda+\xi$. Formally, $\lambda\uparrow\top=\top$, $\lambda\uparrow(\phi\wedge\psi)=(\lambda\uparrow\psi)\wedge(\lambda\uparrow\psi)$, and $\lambda\uparrow\mu\phi=\langle\lambda+\mu\rangle(\lambda\uparrow\phi)$.
If $\phi\in\lan{\geq\lambda}$, we similarly define $\lambda\downarrow\phi$ by replacing every occurrence of $\xi$ by $-\lambda+\xi$.
\end{definition}
The relationship between $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ is analogous to that between ordinal addition and subtraction. The following are all straightforward consequences of Lemma \ref{LemmLeftSubt} and we omit the proofs.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmUparroAlg}
Let $\alpha,\beta$ be ordinals and $\phi\in \lan{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace}$. Then,
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $0\uparrow\phi=\phi$;
\item $\alpha \uparrow (\beta \uparrow \phi) = (\alpha + \beta)\uparrow \phi$;\label{LemmUparroAlgItPlus}
\item if $\phi\in\lan{\geq \beta+\alpha}$ then $\alpha \downarrow (\beta \downarrow \phi) = (\beta + \alpha)\downarrow \phi$;
\item if $\alpha\leq \beta$ then
$\alpha\downarrow (\beta\uparrow\phi)=(-\alpha+\beta)\uparrow\phi,$ and
\item if $\alpha\leq \beta$ and $\phi\in\lan{\geq -\alpha+\beta}$ then $\alpha\uparrow\phi \in \lan{\geq \beta}$ and
\[\beta\downarrow (\alpha\uparrow\phi)=(-\alpha+\beta)\downarrow \phi.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The operation $\phi\mapsto\lambda\uparrow\phi$ is particularly interesting in that it provides a sort of self-embedding of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmRCUparrow}
Let $\alpha,\beta$ be ordinals and $\phi,\psi\in\lan{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace}$. If $\phi\Rightarrow\psi$ is derivable in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$, then so is $(\lambda\uparrow\phi)\Rightarrow(\lambda\uparrow\psi)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By induction on the length of a derivation of $\phi\Rightarrow\psi$; intuitively, one replaces every formula $\theta$ appearing in the derivation by $\lambda\uparrow\theta$. The details are straightforward and left to the reader.
\endproof
The promotion operator gives us an order-preserving transformation on the class of worms:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmUparrow}
Given a worm $\mathfrak w\in{\mathbb W}_{\geq\mu}$ and an ordinal $\lambda$, the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\mathfrak w\wle\mu\mathfrak v$;\label{LemmUparrowItOne}
\item $\lambda\uparrow \mathfrak w\wle\mu \lambda\uparrow \mathfrak v$, and\label{LemmUparrowItTwo}
\item $\lambda\uparrow \mathfrak w\wle\lambda \lambda\uparrow \mathfrak v$.\label{LemmUparrowItThree}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
The equivalence between \ref{LemmUparrowItTwo} and \ref{LemmUparrowItThree} is immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmSameOrders}, so we focus on the equivalence between \ref{LemmUparrowItOne} and \ref{LemmUparrowItThree}.
If $\mathfrak w\wle\mu\mathfrak v$, then ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$, so ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$ derives ${\mathfrak v}\Rightarrow 0{\mathfrak w}$. By Lemma \ref{LemmRCUparrow}, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace$ also derives $(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak v})\Rightarrow\lambda(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})$, that is, $(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})\wle\lambda (\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak v})$.
Conversely, if $\lambda\uparrow \mathfrak w\wle\lambda \lambda\uparrow \mathfrak v$, assume towards a contradiction that ${\mathfrak w}\not\wle{\mu}{\mathfrak v}$, so that by Lemma \ref{LemmWormLinear}, ${\mathfrak v}\wleq{\mu}{\mathfrak w}$. Again by Lemma \ref{LemmRCUparrow}, $(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak v})\wleq\lambda(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})$, so $(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak v})\wleq\lambda(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})\wle\lambda(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak v})$, contradicting irreflexivity.
\endproof
Lemma \ref{LemmUparrow} is useful for comparing worms; if we wish to settle whether $\lambda \uparrow{\mathfrak w}\wle{} \lambda \uparrow{\mathfrak v}$, then it suffices to check whether ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$. More generally, we obtain the following variant of Theorem \ref{TheoWormOrder}. Below, recall that we write $h,b$ instead of $h_0,b_0$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmWormOrder}
Given worms $\mathfrak w,\mathfrak v \neq \top$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak w\wle { } \mathfrak v$ if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak w\wleq { } b (\mathfrak v)$, \ or
\item $b (\mathfrak w)\wle { } \mathfrak v$ \ and \ $ 1 \downarrow h (\mathfrak w)\wle { } 1 \downarrow h (\mathfrak v);$
\end{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak w\wleq { } \mathfrak v$ if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak w\wleq { } b (\mathfrak v)$, \ or
\item $b (\mathfrak w)\wle { } \mathfrak v$ \ and \ $ 1 \downarrow h (\mathfrak w)\wleq { } 1 \downarrow h (\mathfrak v).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
If all entries of ${\mathfrak v}\not=\top$ are natural numbers, $1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})$ will be `smaller' than ${\mathfrak w}$. To be precise, it will have a smaller {\em $1$-norm,} defined as follows:
\begin{definition}
We define $\nrmone\cdot\colon{\mathbb W}_\omega\to \omega$ recursively by
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\nrmone\top=0$;
\item if $\mathfrak w\not=\top$ and $\min{\mathfrak w}=0$,
\[\nrmone{\mathfrak w}=\nrmone{h({\mathfrak w})}+\nrmone{b({\mathfrak w})}+ 1;\]
\item if $\mathfrak w\not=\top$ and $\min{\mathfrak w}>0$,
\[\nrmone{\mathfrak w} =\nrmone{1\downarrow{\mathfrak w}}+ 1.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Recall that we use $h$ and $b$ as shorthands for $h_0$, $b_0$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmHBLess}
For every worm $\mathfrak w\sqsubset\omega$ with ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\nrmone{b({\mathfrak w})}<\nrmone{{\mathfrak w}}$, and
\item $\nrmone{1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})} < \nrmone{{\mathfrak w}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For the first claim, note that if $0$ appears in ${\mathfrak w}$ then $\nrmone{b({\mathfrak w})}+1\leq \nrmone{{\mathfrak w}}$. If $0$ does not appear, $\nrmone{b({\mathfrak w})}=0<\nrmone{\mathfrak w}$.
For the second, if $h({\mathfrak w})=\top$ then once again $\nrmone{1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})}=0<\nrmone{\mathfrak w}$, and if $h({\mathfrak w})\not =\top$ then
\[\nrmone{1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})}+1=\nrmone{h({\mathfrak w})}\leq \nrmone{\mathfrak w},\]
so $\nrmone{1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})} < \nrmone{h({\mathfrak w})}\leq \nrmone{\mathfrak w}$.
\endproof
We remark that there are other possible ways to define $\nrmone\cdot$ that would also satisfy Lemma \ref{LemmHBLess}; for example, we can define $\|{\mathfrak w}\|'_1=\lgt{\mathfrak w}+\max{\mathfrak w},$ or
\[\|m_1\hdots m_n\top\|''_1=\sum_{i=1}^n (m_i+1).\]
However, these definitions do not generalize well to worms with transfinite entries, which will be the focus of Section \ref{SecTransW}. On the other hand, our norm $\nrmone\cdot$ can be applied to transfinite worms with only a minor modification.
Our goal now is to give an explicit calculus for computing $o({\mathfrak w})$ if ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\omega$. In view of Lemma \ref{LemmOUnique}, it is sufficient to propose a candidate function for $o$ and show that it has the required properties. Now, if we compare Lemma \ref{LemmWormOrder} with Lemma \ref{LemmCantorOrder}, we observe that the clauses for checking whether ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$ in terms of
\[b({\mathfrak w}), 1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w}), b({\mathfrak v}), 1\downarrow h({\mathfrak v})\]
are analogous to the clauses for checking whether $\alpha+\omega^\beta<\gamma+\omega^\delta$ in terms of $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$, respectively. This suggests that
\begin{equation}\label{EqFinoCantor}
o({\mathfrak w})=ob({\mathfrak w})+\omega^{o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w}))},
\end{equation}
and we will use this idea to define our `candidate function'.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathfrak v,\mathfrak w $ be worms and $\alpha $ an ordinal.
Then, define a map $\acute o\colon{\mathbb W}_\omega\to{\sf Ord}$ by
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\acute o(\top)=0,$ and
\item if ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ then \ \ $\acute o({\mathfrak w})={\acute o(b({\mathfrak w}))}+\omega^{\acute o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w}))}.$
\label{second}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
First, let us check that $\acute o$ is indeed a function:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmFinoWellD}
The map $\acute o$ is well-defined.
\end{lemma}
\proof
This follows from an easy induction on $\nrmone{\mathfrak w}$ using Lemma \ref{LemmHBLess}.
\endproof
It remains to check that $\acute o$ is strictly increasing and initial. Let us begin with the former:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmFinoMon}
The map $\acute o\colon {\mathbb W}_\omega\to {\sf Ord}$ is strictly increasing.
\end{lemma}
\proof
We will prove by induction on $\nrmone{\mathfrak w}+\nrmone{\mathfrak v}$ that ${\mathfrak w}\wle {}{\mathfrak v}$ if and only if $\acute o({\mathfrak w}) < \acute o({\mathfrak v})$.
Note that ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}\top$ is never true, nor is $\xi< \acute o(\top)=0$, so we may assume that ${\mathfrak v}\not=\top$. Then, if ${\mathfrak w}=\top$ it follows that $\acute o(\top)=0$, so both sides are true. Hence we may also assume that ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$.
By Lemma \ref{LemmWormOrder}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$ if and only if either ${\mathfrak w}\wleq {}b({\mathfrak v})$ or $b({\mathfrak w})\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$ and ${1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})}\wle{} {1\downarrow h({\mathfrak v})}$. Observe that, by the induction hypothesis,
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\mathfrak w}\wleq{}b({\mathfrak v})$ if and only if $\acute o({\mathfrak w})\leq \acute o b({\mathfrak v}) $, since
\[\nrmone{\mathfrak w}+\nrmone{b({\mathfrak v})}<\nrmone{\mathfrak w}+\nrmone{{\mathfrak v}};\]
\item $b({\mathfrak w})\wle{} {\mathfrak v}$ if and only if $\acute o b({\mathfrak w}) < \acute o({\mathfrak v})$, since
\[\nrmone {b({\mathfrak w})}+\nrmone{ {\mathfrak v} }<\nrmone{\mathfrak w}+\nrmone{{\mathfrak v}},\]
and
\item ${1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})}\wle{} {1 \downarrow h({\mathfrak v})}$ if and only if $\acute o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w} )) < \acute o (1\downarrow h({\mathfrak v}))$, since
\[\nrmone {1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})}+\nrmone{1 \downarrow h({\mathfrak v}) }<\nrmone{\mathfrak w}+\nrmone{{\mathfrak v}}.\]
\end{enumerate}
This implies that ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$ if and only if either $\acute o ({\mathfrak w}) \leq \acute o b({\mathfrak v})$, or $\acute o b({\mathfrak w})< \acute o ({\mathfrak v})$ and $\acute o (1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})) < \acute o (1\downarrow h({\mathfrak v}))$. But by Lemma \ref{LemmCantorOrder}.\ref{LemmCantorOrderItLe}, the latter is equivalent to
\[{\acute o b({\mathfrak w})}+\omega^{\acute o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w}))} < {\acute o b({\mathfrak v})}+\omega^{\acute o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak v}))},\]
i.e., $\acute o ({\mathfrak w}) <\acute o ({\mathfrak v})$.
\endproof
It remains to check that the range of $\acute o$ is $\varepsilon_0$. We will use the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmMBound}
For all $m<\omega$, $\acute o(m\top)<\varepsilon_0$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By induction on $n$; if $n=0$ then $\acute o(0\top)=0+\omega^0=1<\varepsilon_0$. Otherwise, by induction hypothesis $\acute o(n\top)<\varepsilon_0$, so
\[\acute o(\langle n+1\rangle \top)=\omega^{\acute o(n\top)}<\varepsilon_0,\]
as claimed.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmFinoEpsilon}
An ordinal $\xi$ lies in the range of $\acute o$ if and only if $\xi<\varepsilon_0$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
First, assume that $\xi<\varepsilon_0$; we must find ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\omega$ such that $\xi=\acute o({\mathfrak w})$. Proceed by induction on $\xi$. If $\xi=0$, then $\xi=\acute o(\top)$. Otherwise, by Theorem \ref{TheoEpxilon}, $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$ for some $\alpha,\beta<\xi$. By the induction hypothesis, there are worms ${\mathfrak u},{\mathfrak v}$ such that $\alpha=\acute o({\mathfrak u})$ and $\beta=\acute o({\mathfrak v})$, thus
\[\acute o((1\uparrow {\mathfrak v})\mathrel 0 {\mathfrak u})=\acute o({\mathfrak u})+\omega^{\acute o({\mathfrak v})}=\alpha+\omega^\beta=\xi.\]
Next we check that if ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset \omega$, then $\acute o({\mathfrak w})<\varepsilon_0$. Fix $M>\max{\mathfrak w}$; then, by Corollary \ref{CorBound}.\ref{CorBoundC}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}M\top$, so that $\acute o({\mathfrak w})\wle{}\acute o(M\top)$. But by Lemma \ref{LemmMBound}, $\acute o(M\top)<\varepsilon_0$, as claimed.
\endproof
We now have all the necessary ingredients to show that $\acute o=o$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmFinoIsO}
For all ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\omega$, $o({\mathfrak w})=\acute o({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By Lemma \ref{LemmFinoWellD}, $\acute o$ is well-defined on ${\mathbb W}_\omega$, and by Lemmas \ref{LemmFinoMon} and \ref{LemmFinoEpsilon}, it is strictly increasing and initial. By Lemma \ref{LemmOUnique}, $o =\acute o$ on ${\mathbb W}_\omega$.
\endproof
Let us conclude this section by summarizing our main results:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoFiniteO}
The map $o\colon {\mathbb W}_\omega\to\varepsilon_0$ is surjective and satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item $o(\top)=0$, and\label{TheoFiniteOItOne}
\item $o((1\uparrow {\mathfrak v}) \mathrel 0\mathfrak w)={o(\mathfrak w)}+\omega^{o({\mathfrak v})}$.\label{TheoFiniteOItTwo}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\proof
Immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmFinoIsO} and the definition of $\acute o$.
\endproof
\section{Transfinite worms}\label{SecTransW}
We have now seen that finite worms give a notation for $\varepsilon_0$, the proof-theoretic ordinal of Peano arithmetic. However, stronger theories, including many important theories of reverse mathematics, have much larger proof-theoretic strength, suggesting that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\omega$ is not suitable for their $\Pi^0_1$ ordinal analysis. Fortunately, Theorem \ref{TheoWormsWO} is valid even when worms have arbitrary ordinal entries. In this section, we will extend Theorem \ref{TheoFiniteO} to all of ${\mathbb W}$.
\subsection{Subsystems of second-order arithmetic}
Let us begin by discussing proof-theoretic interpretations of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ with $\Lambda>\omega$. It will be convenient to pass to the language $\Pi^1_\omega$ of second-order arithmetic. This language extends that of first-order arithmetic with new variables $X,Y,Z,\hdots$ denoting sets of natural numbers, along with new atomic formulas $t\in X$ and second-order quantifiers $\forall X,\exists X$. As is standard, we may define $X\subseteq Y$ by $\forall x (x\in X\rightarrow x\in Y)$, and $X = Y$ by $X\subseteq Y\wedge Y\subseteq X$.
When working in a second-order context, we write $\Pi^0_n$ instead of $\Pi_n$ (note that these formulas could contain second-order parameters, but no quantifiers over sets). The classes ${\Sigma}^1_n,{\Pi}^1_n$ are defined analogously to their first-order counterparts, but using alternating second-order quantifiers and setting ${\Sigma}_0^1 = {\Pi}^1_0 = {\Delta}^1_0 = {\Pi}^0_\omega$. It is well-known that every second-order formula is equivalent to another in one of the above forms.
When axiomatizing second-order arithmetic, the focus passes from induction to {\em comprehension;} that is, axioms stating the existence of sets whole elements satisfy a prescribed property. Some important axioms and schemes are:
\begin{description}
\item[$\Gamma\mbox{-}{\tt CA}$:] $\exists X\forall x\ \big (x\in X\leftrightarrow \phi(x)\big )$, where $\phi\in\Gamma$ and $X$ is not free in $\phi$;
\item[${ \Delta}^0_1\mbox{-}{\tt CA}$:] $\forall x \big (\pi(w)\leftrightarrow\sigma(x) \big )\rightarrow\exists X\forall x\ \big (x\in X\leftrightarrow \sigma(x)\big )$, where $\sigma\in{ \Sigma}^0_1$, $\pi\in{ \Pi}^0_1$, and $X$ is not free in $\sigma$ or $\pi$;
\item[${\tt Ind}$:] ${\tt 0}\in X\wedge \forall x\ \big (x\in X\rightarrow x+{\tt 1}\in X \big )\ \to\ \forall x\, (x\in X).$
\end{description}
We mention one further axiom that requires a more elaborate setup. We may represent well-orders in second-order arithmetic as pairs of sets $\Lambda=\langle |\Lambda|,\leq_\Lambda\rangle$, and define
\[{\tt WO}(\Lambda)={\tt linear}(\Lambda)\wedge\forall X \subseteq |\Lambda| \ (\exists x\in X \rightarrow \exists y \in X\forall z\in X y\leq_\Lambda z),\]
where ${\tt linear}(\Lambda)$ is a formula expressing that $\Lambda$ is a linear order.
Given a set $X$ whose elements we will regard as ordered pairs $\langle\lambda,n\rangle$, let $X_{<_\Lambda \lambda}$ be the set of all $\langle \mu ,n\rangle$ with $\mu <_\Lambda \lambda$. With this, we define the {\em transfinite recursion} scheme by
\[{\tt TR}_\phi(X,\Lambda)= \forall \lambda\in |\Lambda| \ \forall n \ \big (n\in X\leftrightarrow \phi(n,X_{<_\Lambda\lambda}) \big ).\]
Intuitively, ${\tt TR}_\phi(X,\Lambda)$ states that $X$ is made up of ``layers'' indexed by elements of $\Lambda$, and the elements of the $\lambda^{\rm th}$ layer are those natural numbers $n$ satisfying $\phi(n,X_{<_\Lambda\lambda})$, where $X_{<_\Lambda\lambda}$ is the union of all previous layers. If $\Gamma$ is a set of formulas, we denote the {\em $\Gamma$-transfinite recursion} scheme by
\[\Gamma\text{-}{\tt TR}=\Big \{ \forall \Lambda \big ( {\tt WO}(\Lambda)\rightarrow \exists X \ {\tt TR}_\phi(X,\Lambda) \big ) : \phi\in \Gamma \Big\}.\]
Now we are ready to define some important theories:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace:$&\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace + ${\tt Ind}$+${ \Delta}^0_0$-${\tt CA}$;\\
${\rm RCA}_0^\ast:$&\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace + ${\tt Ind}$+${ \Delta}^0_1$-${\tt CA}$;\\
${{\rm RCA}_0}:$&$\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace + {\tt I}{ \Sigma}^0_1$+${ \Delta}^0_1$-${\tt CA}$;\\
${{\rm ACA}_0} :$&$\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace + {\tt Ind}$+${ \Sigma}^0_1$-${\tt CA}$;\\
${{\rm ATR}_0} :$&$\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace + {\tt Ind}+ \Pi^0_\omega\text{-}{\tt TR}$;\\
$\pica:$&$\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Q}^+}}\xspace + {\tt Ind}$+${ \Pi}^1_1$-${\tt CA}$.\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
These are listed from weakest to strongest. The theories ${{\rm RCA}_0}$, ${{\rm ACA}_0}$ ${{\rm ATR}_0}$ and $\pica$, together with the theory of {\em weak K\"onig's lemma,} ${\rm WKL}_0$, are the `Big Five' theories of reverse mathematics, where ${{\rm RCA}_0}$ functions as a `constructive base theory', and the stronger four theories are all equivalent to many well-known theorems in mathematical analysis. For a detailed treatment of these and other subsystems of second-order arithmetic, see \cite{Simpson:2009:SubsystemsOfSecondOrderArithmetic}.
$\ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace$ (the theory of {\em elementary comprehension}) is the second-order analogue of elementary arithmetic, and is a bit weaker than the more standard ${\rm RCA}_0^\ast$. Meanwhile, {\em arithmetical comprehension} (${{\rm ACA}_0}$) is essentially the second-order version of $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace$, and has the same proof-theoretic ordinal, $\varepsilon_0$. Thus the next milestone in the $\Pi^0_1$ ordinal analysis program is naturally ${{\rm ATR}_0}$, the theory of {\em arithmetical transfinite recursion.} Appropriately, the constructions we will use to interpret the modalities $\langle \lambda \rangle$ for countable $\lambda>\omega$ may be carried out within ${{\rm ATR}_0}$.
\subsection{Iterated $\omega$-rules}\label{SubsecOmegaRule}
If we wish to interpret $\provx {\lambda} T \, \phi$ for transfinite $\lambda$, we need to consider a notion of provability that naturally extends beyond $\omega$. One such notion, which is well-studied in proof theory (see, e.g., \cite{Pohlers:2009:PTBook}), considers infinitary derivations with the {\em $\omega$-rule.} Intuitively, this rule has the form
\[\dfrac{\phi(\bar 0) \ \ \ \ \phi(\bar 1) \ \ \ \ \phi(\bar 2) \ \ \ \ \phi(\bar 3) \ \ \ \ \phi(\bar 4) \ \ \ \ \hdots}{\forall x \, \phi(x)}\]
The parameter $\lambda$ in $\provx {\lambda} T \, \phi$ denotes the nesting depth of $\omega$-rules that may be used for proving $\phi$. The notion of $\lambda$-provability is defined as follows:
\begin{definition}\label{DefLambdaProv}
Let $T$ be a theory of second-order arithmetic and $\phi\in\Pi^1_\omega$. For an ordinal $\lambda$, we define $[\lambda]_T\phi$ recursively if either
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item ${\Box}_T\phi$, or
\item there are an ordinal $\mu<\lambda$ and a formula $\psi(x)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for all $n<\omega$, $[\mu]_T \psi(\bar n)$, and
\item ${\Box}_T(\forall x\psi(x)\to\phi)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
This notion can be formalized by representing $\omega$-proofs as infinite trees, as presented by Arai \cite{Arai1998} and Girard \cite{GirardProofTheory}. Here we will instead use the formalization of Joosten and I \cite{FernandezJoosten:2013:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP}. We use a set $P$ as an {\em iterated provability class,} whose elements are codes of
pairs $\langle\lambda,\varphi\rangle$, with $\lambda$ a code for an
ordinal and $\varphi$ a code for a formula. The idea is that we want $P$ to be a set of pairs
$\langle\lambda,\varphi\rangle$ satisfying Definition \ref{DefLambdaProv} if we set $\provx{\lambda} T \, \varphi \leftrightarrow
\langle\lambda,\varphi\rangle \in P$. Thus we may write $[\lambda]_P
\varphi$ instead of $\langle \lambda,{ \varphi}\rangle\in P$.
\begin{definition}
Fix a well-order $\Lambda$ on $\mathbb N$. Say that a set $P$ of natural numbers is an {\em iterated provability class for $\Lambda$} if it satisfies the expression
\begin{equation*}
\provx\lambda P\, \varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \Big( \Box_T \varphi \vee
\exists \, \psi\, \exists\, \xi{{<_\Lambda}} \lambda \ \big(\forall
n \ \provx\xi P\, \psi({\dot{n}}) \ \wedge \ \Box_T
(\forall x \psi (x) \to \varphi) \big) \Big).
\end{equation*}
Let ${\tt IPC}^\Lambda_{T}(P)$ be a $\Pi^0_\omega$ formula stating that $P$ is an iterated provabiltiy class for $\Lambda$. Then, define
\[[\lambda]^\Lambda_ T \, \phi \ := \ \forall P \, \big ({\tt IPC}^\Lambda_{T}(P)\rightarrow [\lambda]_P\phi \big ).\]
\end{definition}
Note that $[\lambda]^\Lambda_ T$ is a $\Pi^1_1$ formula. Alternately, one could define $[\lambda]^\Lambda_ T$ as a $\Sigma^1_1$ formula, but the two definitions are equivalent due to the following.
\begin{lemma}\
\begin{enumerate}
\item It is provable in ${{\rm ACA}_0}$ that if $\Lambda$ is a countable well-order and $P,Q$ are both iterated provability classes for $\Lambda$, then $P=Q$.
\item It is provable in ${{\rm ATR}_0}$ that if $\Lambda$ is a countable well-order, then there exists an iterated provability class for $\Lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The first claim is proven by considering two IPC's $P,Q$ and showing by transfinite induction on $\lambda$ that $[\lambda]_P \, \phi \leftrightarrow [\lambda]_Q \, \phi$; this induction is readily available in ${{\rm ACA}_0}$ since the expression $[\lambda]_P\phi$ is arithmetical. For the second, we simply observe that the construction of an IPC is a special case of arithmetical transfinite recursion. See \cite{FernandezJoosten:2013:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} for more details.
If we fix a computable well-order $\Lambda$ and a theory $T$ in the language of second-order arithmetic, we can readily define $\cdot^\Lambda_T\colon \lan{\Lambda}\to\Pi^1_\omega$ as in Definition \ref{DefArithInt}, but setting $(\lambda \phi)^\Lambda_T=\langle\bar \lambda\rangle^\Lambda_{T}\phi_T$ We then obtain the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoSOAcomplete}
Let $\Lambda$ be a computable well-order and $T$ be a theory extending ${{\rm ACA}_0}$ such that it is provable in $T$ that $\Lambda$ is well-ordered, and that there is a set $P$ satisfying ${\tt IPC}^\Lambda_{T}(P)$.
Then, for any sequent $\phi\Rightarrow\psi$ of $\lan\Lambda$, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace\vdash \phi\Rightarrow\psi$ if and only if $T\vdash \phi^\Lambda_T \to\psi^\Lambda_T$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
This is proven in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2013:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} with ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ in place of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$, and this version is obtained by observing that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ is conservative over ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{RC}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ by Theorem \ref{TheoGLPCons}.
\endproof
The computability condition in $\Lambda$ is included due to the fact that in the proof of Theorem \ref{TheoSOAcomplete}, we need to be able to prove properties about $\Lambda$ within $T$; for example, we need for
\[\forall x \, \forall y \, \big (x\leq_\Lambda y\to {\Box}_T (\dot x\leq_\Lambda \dot y) \big )\]
to hold. However, we can drop this condition if we allow an {\em oracle} for $\Lambda$; or, more generally, for any set of natural numbers. To do this, we add a set-constant $O$ to the language of second-order arithmetic in order to `feed' information about any set of numbers into $T$.
To be precise, given a theory $T$ and $A\subseteq \mathbb N$, define $T|A$ to be the theory whose rules and axioms are those of $T$ together with all instances of $\bar n\in O$ for $n\in X$, and all instances of $\bar n\not\in O$ for $n\not\in X$. Then, for any formula $\phi$, we define
\[[\lambda|X]^\Lambda_T\phi=[\lambda]^\Lambda_{T|X}\phi.\]
Its dual, $\langle \lambda|X\rangle^\Lambda_T\phi$, is defined in the usual way. With this, we obtain an analogue of Theorem \ref{TheoPaDiamond} for ${{\rm ATR}_0}$, proven by Cord\'on-Franco, Joosten, Lara-Mart\'in and myself in \cite{CordonFernandezJoostenLara:2014:PredicativityThroughTransfiniteReflection}:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoATRDiamond}
${{\rm ATR}_0}\equiv \ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace + \forall \Lambda \, \forall X \, \langle \lambda|X\rangle^\Lambda_T\top.$
\end{theorem}
This result may well be the first step in a consistency proof of ${{\rm ATR}_0}$ in the style of Theorem \ref{TheoPACons}. Moreover, the proof-theoretic strength of ${{\rm ATR}_0}$ is measured by the Feferman-Sch\"utte ordinal, $\Gamma_0$. In the rest of this section, we will see how the worm ordering relates to this ordinal.
\subsection{Ordering transfinite worms}
Let us extend our calculus for computing $o$ to worms that may contain transfinite entries. In Section \ref{SecFiniteW}, we used the operations $b,h$ and $1\downarrow $ to simplify worms and compute their order-types. However, this will not suffice for transfintie worms. For example, if ${\mathfrak w}=\omega 0\omega\top$, we have that $h({\mathfrak w})=\omega\top$ while $b({\mathfrak w})=\omega\top$, both of which are shorter than $\omega$. However,
\[1\downarrow (\omega\top) =\langle -1+\omega\rangle\top=\omega\top;\]
thus, demoting by $1$ will not get us anywhere. Instead, we could demote by $\omega$, and obtain $\omega\downarrow(\omega\top)=0\top$, which is indeed `simpler'. As we will see, this is the appropriate way to decompose infinite worms:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmUparrowDecomp}
Given a worm $\mathfrak w\not=\top$, there exist unique $\mu<\Lambda$ and worms $\mathfrak w_1,\mathfrak w_0$ such that either ${\mathfrak w}_1 = \top$ or $0<\min\mathfrak w_1$ and
\[\mathfrak w=\mu\uparrow (\mathfrak w_1 \mathrel 0 \mathfrak w_0).\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
Take $\mu=\min{\mathfrak w}$, ${\mathfrak w}_1=h(\mu\downarrow {\mathfrak w})$ and ${\mathfrak w}_0=b(\mu\downarrow {\mathfrak w})$; evidently these are the only possible values that satisfy the desired equation.
\endproof
With this we may define the norm of a worm ${\mathfrak w}$, which roughly corresponds to the number of operations of $0$-concatenation and $\mu$-promotion needed to construct ${\mathfrak w}$.
\begin{definition}\label{DefCnorm}
For ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset{\sf Ord}$ we define $\cnorm{\mathfrak w}$ inductively by
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\cnorm\top=0$;
\item if $\mathfrak w\not=\top$ and $\min{\mathfrak w}=0$, set
\[\cnorm {\mathfrak w}=\cnorm{h({\mathfrak w})}+\cnorm{b({\mathfrak w})}+ 1;\]
\item otherwise, let $\mu=\min{\mathfrak w}>0$, and set
\[\cnorm {\mathfrak w}=\cnorm{\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}}+ 1.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The following is obvious from Definition \ref{DefCnorm} and Lemma \ref{LemmUparrowDecomp}:
\begin{lemma}
For every worm $\mathfrak w$, $\cnorm{\mathfrak w}\in\mathbb N$ is well-defined. Moreover, if $\mathfrak w=\alpha\uparrow (\mathfrak w_1 \mathrel 0 \mathfrak w_0)$ with $0<\min\mathfrak w_1$, then $\cnorm{\mathfrak w_1},\cnorm{\mathfrak w_0}<\cnorm{\mathfrak w}$.
\end{lemma}
Thus we may try to compute $o({\mathfrak w})$ by recursion on $\cnorm{\mathfrak w}$. Assuming that the identity $o({\mathfrak w})=ob({\mathfrak w})+\omega ^{o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w}))}$ remains valid for transfinite worms, we only have to find a way to compute $o(\mu\uparrow{\mathfrak w})$ in terms of $o({\mathfrak w})$. Fortunately, the map $o({\mathfrak w})\mapsto o(\mu\uparrow{\mathfrak w})$ is well-defined; let us denote it by $\upsigma^\mu$.
\begin{lemma}
There exists a unique family of functions $\vec\upsigma=\langle\upsigma^\xi\rangle_{\xi\in{\sf Ord}}$ such that $\upsigma^\xi\colon{\sf Ord}\to {\sf Ord}$ and, for every ordinal $\xi$ and every worm $\mathfrak w$, $\upsigma^\xi o(\mathfrak w)= o(\xi\uparrow \mathfrak w)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Given ordinals $\xi,\zeta$, we need to see that there exists a unique ordinal $\vartheta$ such that $\vartheta= o(\xi\uparrow{\mathfrak w})$ whenever $\zeta=o({\mathfrak w})$.
First observe that, by Corollary \ref{CorSurj}, there is some worm ${\mathfrak w}_\ast$ such that $\zeta = o({\mathfrak w}_\ast)$. Since by Theorem \ref{TheoWormsWO}, the class of worms is well-ordered, $o(\xi\uparrow {\mathfrak w}_\ast)$ is well-defined. It remains to check that if ${\mathfrak w}$ is an arbitrary worm such that $o({\mathfrak w})=\xi$, then also $o(\xi\uparrow {\mathfrak w})=o(\xi\uparrow {\mathfrak w}_\ast)$. But if $o({\mathfrak w})=o({\mathfrak w}_\ast)$, by Lemma \ref{LemmEquiv} we have that ${\mathfrak w}\equiv{\mathfrak w}_\ast$, and thus by Lemma \ref{LemmRCUparrow}, $\xi\uparrow{\mathfrak w}\equiv\xi\uparrow{\mathfrak w}_\ast$. The latter implies that $o(\xi\uparrow {\mathfrak w})=o(\xi\uparrow {\mathfrak w}_\ast)$, as needed.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSigma}
The family of functions $\vec\upsigma$ has the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\upsigma^\alpha$ is strictly increasing for all $\alpha$;\label{LemmSigmaItOne}
\item $\upsigma^0 \xi=\xi$, and\label{LemmSigmaItTwo}
\item $\upsigma^{\alpha+\beta}=\upsigma^\alpha \upsigma ^\beta$.\label{LemmSigmaItThree}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For item \ref{LemmSigmaItOne}, suppose that $\xi<\zeta$. If $\xi=o({\mathfrak w})$ and $\zeta=o({\mathfrak v})$, then by Lemma \ref{LemmOIff}, ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}{\mathfrak v}$, so that by Lemma \ref{LemmUparrow}, $\alpha\uparrow{\mathfrak w}\wle{}\alpha\uparrow {\mathfrak v}$ and thus $o(\alpha\uparrow{\mathfrak w})<o(\alpha\uparrow {\mathfrak v})$; a similar argument shows that if $o({\mathfrak w})\wleq{}o({\mathfrak v})$, then $o(\alpha\uparrow {\mathfrak w})\wleq{}o(\alpha\uparrow{\mathfrak v})$. Item \ref{LemmSigmaItTwo} follows from the fact that $0\uparrow{\mathfrak w}={\mathfrak w}$ for all ${\mathfrak w}$, so if $\zeta=o({\mathfrak w})$ we have that $\upsigma^0 \zeta=o(0\uparrow {\mathfrak w})=\zeta$.
Item \ref{LemmSigmaItThree} is immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmUparroAlg}.\ref{LemmUparroAlgItPlus}, since if $o({\mathfrak w})=\zeta$ then $o(\beta\uparrow{\mathfrak w})=\upsigma^\beta(\zeta)$, which means that
\[o(\alpha\uparrow(\beta\uparrow{\mathfrak w}))=\upsigma^\alpha \upsigma^\beta(\zeta).\]
But, on the other hand, $\alpha\uparrow(\beta\uparrow{\mathfrak w})=(\alpha+\beta)\uparrow{\mathfrak w},$ and
\[o((\alpha+\beta)\uparrow{\mathfrak w})=\upsigma^{\alpha+\beta}\zeta,\]
and we conclude that $\upsigma^{\alpha+\beta}\zeta=\upsigma^\alpha \upsigma^\beta\zeta$.
\endproof
Observe also that if $\zeta<\varepsilon_0$, then by Theorem \ref{TheoFiniteO}, there is ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\omega$ such that $\zeta=o({\mathfrak w})$, and hence by Theorem \ref{TheoFiniteO}, $\upsigma^1\zeta = o(1\uparrow {\mathfrak w})=-1+\omega^{o({\mathfrak w})}$ (where we subtract $1$ to account for the case ${\mathfrak w} = \top$). Thus for $\zeta<\varepsilon_0$, $\upsigma^1\zeta =-1+\omega^\zeta$. It is thus natural to conjecture that $\upsigma^1\zeta =-1+\omega^\zeta$ for all $\zeta$. In the next section we will discuss how a family of ordinal functions satisfying these properties can be constructed, and show that they are closely related to the Feferman-Sch\"utte ordinal $\Gamma_0$.
\subsection{Hyperations and the Feferman-Sch\"utte ordinal}\label{ordinalintro}
Beklemishev has shown how provability algebras give rise to a notation system for $\Gamma_0$. Such ordinals are usually presented using Veblen progressions \cite{Veblen:1908}, but alternatively they may be defined through {\em hyperations,} which are more convenient in our present context.
\begin{definition}\label{hyperdef}
Let $f$ be a normal function. Then, we define the {\em hyperation} of $f$ to be the unique family of normal functions $\langle f^\zeta\rangle_{\zeta\in\sf On}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item\label{DefHyperOne} $f^1=f$
\item\label{DefHyperTwo} $f^{\alpha+\beta}=f^\alpha f^\beta$ for all ordinals $\alpha,\beta$
\item $\langle f^\zeta\rangle_{\zeta\in\sf On}$ is pointwise minimal amongst all families of normal functions satisfying the above clauses\footnote{That is, if $\langle g^\zeta\rangle_{\zeta\in\sf On}$ is a family of functions satisfying conditions \ref{DefHyperOne} and \ref{DefHyperTwo}, then for all ordinals $\xi,\zeta$, $f^\zeta\xi\leq g^\zeta\xi$.}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
It is not obvious that such a family of functions exists, but a detailed construction is given by Joosten and myself in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2012:Hyperations}. It is also shown there that they may be computed by the following recursion:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmExpRec} Let $f$ be a normal function such that $f(0)=0$. Then, given ordinals $ \lambda,\mu$,
\label{recexp}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $f^0\mu=\mu$;
\item $f^{\lambda+1}\mu=f^\lambda f \mu$;
\item \label{RecHypIII}if $\mu$ is a limit, $f^\lambda \mu = \displaystyle\lim_{\xi < \mu} f^\lambda\xi$;
\item \label{RecHypIV}if $\lambda$ is a limit, $f^\lambda(\mu+1) = \displaystyle \lim_{\xi < \lambda}f^\xi(f^\lambda(\mu) + 1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Although each function $f^\xi$ is normal, the function $\xi\mapsto f^\xi\mu$ typically is not, even when $\mu=0$, since if $f(0)=0$ then it follows that $f^\xi 0=0$ for all $\xi$. However, when $f(0)>0$ then $\xi\mapsto f^\xi 0$ {\em is} normal, and more generally, we have the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmMuNormal}
Assume that $f\colon{\sf Ord}\to {\sf Ord}$ is normal and suppose that $\mu$ is the least ordinal such that $f(\mu)>\mu$ (if it exists).
Then, the function $\xi\mapsto f^\xi\mu$ is normal, and for all $\xi$, $f^\xi \upharpoonright \mu $ is the identity (where $\upharpoonright$ denotes domain restriction).
\end{lemma}
We omit the proof which proceeds by transfinite induction using Lemma \ref{LemmExpRec}. We are particularly interested in hyperating $e(\xi)=-1+\omega^\xi$; the family of functions $\langle e^\xi\rangle_{\xi\in {\sf Ord}}$ are the {\em hyperexponentials.} Observe that, in view of Lemma \ref{LemmMuNormal}, $e^\xi 0=0$ for all $\xi$ and the function $\xi\mapsto e^\xi 1$ is normal. Aside from the clauses mentioned above, we remark that to entirely determine the value of $e^\lambda\mu$ we need the additional clause
\[e^1(\mu+1)= \lim_{n<\omega} \big ( (1+e^1\mu) \cdot n \big ) ;\]
this follows directly from the definitions of ordinal exponentiation and the function $e$.
Aguilera and I proved the following in \cite{Aguilera:StrongCompleteness}:
\begin{proposition}\label{PropEHNF}
For every ordinal $\xi>0$, there exist unique ordinals $\alpha$, $\beta$ such that $\beta$ is $1$ or additively decomposable and $\xi=e^\alpha \beta$.
\end{proposition}
We call $\alpha$ above the {\em degree of indecomposability} of $\xi$; in particular, if $\xi$ is already additively decomposable, then $\alpha=0$. More generally, $e^\alpha\beta$ is always additively indecomposable if $\alpha,\beta>0$, since
\[e^\alpha\beta=e{e^{-1+\alpha}\beta} =-1+\omega^{e^{-1+\alpha}\beta}=\omega^{e^{-1+\alpha}\beta}.\]
Note that by writing $\beta$ as a sum of indecomposables we may iterate this lemma and thus write any ordinal in terms of $e,+,0$ and $1$. This form is unique if we do not allow sums of the form $\xi+\eta$ where $\xi+\eta=\eta$.
We will not review Veblen progressions here; however, as these are more standard than hyperexponentials, we remark that notations using hyperexponentials or Veblen functions can be easily translated from one to the other using the following proposition. Below, $\upvarphi_\alpha$ denotes the Veblen functions as defined in \cite{Pohlers:2009:PTBook}.
\begin{proposition}\label{PropExptoveb}
Given ordinals $\alpha,\beta$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $e^\alpha(0)=0$,
\item $e^1(1+\beta)=\upvarphi_0(1+\beta)$,
\item $e^{\omega^{1+\alpha}} (1+\beta)=\upvarphi_{1+\alpha}(\beta)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The proof can be found in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2012:Hyperations}. We have seen that every ordinal $\xi<\varepsilon_0$ can be written as a sum of the form $\alpha+\omega^\beta$ with $\alpha,\beta<\xi$. In general, it is desirable in any ordinal notation system that, if we have a notation for an additively indecomposable $\xi$, then we also have notations for ordinals $\alpha,\beta<\xi$ such that $\alpha+\beta=\xi$. If instead $\xi$ is additively indecomposable, it is also convenient to have notations for $\alpha,\beta$ such that $\xi=e^\alpha\beta$ (although we cannot always guarantee that $\alpha<\xi$). The following definition captures these properties.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Theta$ be a set of ordinals.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We say that $\Theta$ is {\em additively reductive} if whenever $\xi$ is additively decomposable, we have that $\xi\in\Theta$ if and only if there are $\alpha,\beta\in\xi\cap\Theta$ such that $
\xi=\alpha+\beta$.
\item We say that $\Theta$ is {\em hyperexponentailly reductive} if whenever $\xi>1$ is additively indecomposable, we have that $\xi\in\Theta$ if and only if there are $\alpha,\beta\in\Theta$ such that $\beta<\xi$ and $
\xi=e^\alpha \beta$.
\item We say that $\Theta$ is {\em reductive} if it is additively and hyperexponentially reductive.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Additively reductive sets of ordinals always contain Cantor decompositions of their elements and are closed under left subtraction by {\em arbitrary} ordinals:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSumCantor}
Let $\Theta$ be an additively reductive set of ordinals such that $0\in\Theta$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $0\not=\xi\in\Theta$ is arbitrary, there are ordinals $\alpha,\beta$ such that $\alpha,\omega^\beta\in \Theta$ and $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$.
\item If $\beta\in\Theta$ and $\alpha<\beta$ (not necessarily a member of $\Theta$), then $-\alpha+\beta\in \Theta$.\label{LemmSumCantorMinus}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For the first claim, if $\xi$ is additively indecomposable there is nothing to do, since we already have that $\xi=\omega^\beta$ for some $\beta$. Otherwise, using the assumption that $\Theta$ is additively reductive, write $\xi=\gamma+\delta$ with $\gamma,\delta\in \xi\cap\Theta$.
By the induction hypothesis applied to $\delta$, there are $\eta,\beta$ such that $\eta,\omega^\beta\in \Theta$ and $\delta=\eta+\omega^\beta$. Again using the assumption that $\Theta$ is additively reductive, we may set $\alpha=\gamma+\eta\in\Theta$, and see that $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$.
Now we prove the second item by induction on $\xi$. We may assume that $\beta$ is additively indecomposable, since otherwise $-\alpha+\beta\in\{0,\beta\}\subseteq\Theta$. Thus we may write $\beta=\gamma+\delta$ with $\gamma,\delta\in\beta\cap\Theta$. If $\alpha\leq\gamma$, by the induction hypothesis $-\alpha+\gamma\in \Theta$, and thus $-\alpha+\beta=(-\alpha+\gamma)+\delta\in \Theta$. Otherwise, also by the induction hypothesis applied to $\delta<\xi$,
\[-\alpha+\beta=-(-\gamma+\alpha)+\delta\in\Theta.\qedhere\]
\endproof
Meanwhile, hyperexponentially reductive sets of ordinals always contain hyperexponential normal forms for their elements:
\begin{lemma}
If $\Theta$ contains $0$ and is hyperexponentially reductive, then for every $\xi\in\Theta$, there are $\alpha,\beta\in\Theta$ such that $\beta=1$ or is additively decomposable, and $\xi=e^\alpha\beta$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By induction on $\xi;$ if $\xi$ is additively decomposable or $1$ then $\xi=e^0\xi$, otherwise there are $\alpha',\beta'\in \Theta$ with $\beta<\xi$ such that $\xi=e^{\alpha'}\beta'$. By induction hypothesis there are $\gamma,\beta\in\Theta$ such that $\beta=1$ or is additively decomposable and $\beta'=e^\gamma\beta$. Setting $\alpha=\alpha'+\gamma$, we see that $\xi=e^\alpha\beta$, as desired.
\endproof
The ordinal $\Gamma_0$ can be constructed by closing $\{0,1\}$ under addition and hyperexponentiation, or more succinctly by the function $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\mapsto e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)$. In fact, $\Gamma_0$ is the least {\em hyperexponentially perfect} set, in the sense of the following definition:
\begin{definition}
Define a function ${\rm HE}\colon {\sf Ord}^3\to {\sf Ord}$ by
\[{\rm HE}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma).\]
Given a set of ordinals $\Theta$, say that $\Theta$ is {\em hyperexponentially closed} if $2\cup\iter{{\rm HE}}\Theta\subseteq\Theta$. We say that $\Theta$ is {\em hyperexponentially perfect} if it is reductive and hyperexponentially closed.
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that $\Theta$ is hyperexponentially perfect if and only if it is reductive and $0,1\in \Theta$.
Note also that hyperexponentially closed sets are closed under both addition and hyperexponentiation:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmEclSumExp}
If $0\in \Theta$ and $\alpha,\beta\in\Theta$, then $\alpha+\beta,e^\alpha\beta\in\iter{{\rm HE}}\Theta$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
If $\Theta$ is hyperexponentially closed then by definition we have that $0\in\Theta$, hence if $\alpha,\beta\in\Theta$, $\alpha+\beta=e^0(\alpha+\beta)\in\ecl\Theta$ and $e^\alpha\beta=e^\alpha(\beta+0)\in \ecl\Theta$.
\endproof
With this, we are ready to define the ordinal $\Gamma_0$:
\begin{theorem}
Let $\Gamma_0=\close {{\rm HE}}{2}$. Then, $\Gamma_0$ is an ordinal and for every $\xi<\Gamma_0$ with $\xi>1$, there are ordinals $\alpha,\beta,\gamma<\xi$ such that $\xi=e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
The proof closely mimics that of Theorem \ref{TheoEpxilon}. First we will show that if $1<\xi\in\Gamma_0$, then there are $\alpha,\beta,\gamma<\xi$ such that $\xi=e^\alpha(\beta + \gamma)$. By Lemma \ref{LemmPropFClose}.\ref{LemmPropFCloseItFour}, there are $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in\Gamma_0$ with $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\not=\xi$ and such that $\xi=e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)$. Since $\xi\not=0$ it follows that $\beta+\gamma\geq 1$, and since the function $e^\alpha$ is normal, $\beta+\gamma\leq \xi$, from which we obtain $\beta,\gamma<\xi$. Similarly, $\alpha\leq \xi$ since $e^\alpha (\beta+\gamma) \geq e^\alpha 1$ and the function $\alpha\mapsto e^\alpha 1$ is normal. Thus we also have $\alpha<\xi$.
Next we show that $\Gamma_0$ is transitive. We proceed by induction on $\zeta$ with a secondary induction on $\xi$ to show that $\xi<\zeta\in\Gamma_0$ implies that $\xi\in\Gamma_0$. We may without loss of generality assume that $\xi,\zeta>1$. Write $\zeta=e^\alpha(\beta + \gamma)$ with $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in\Gamma_0\cap \zeta$. Then, using Proposition \ref{PropEHNF}, write $\xi=e^\lambda\mu$ with $\mu=1$ or additively decomposable.
Now consider two cases. If $\lambda=0$, we have that $\mu = \xi>1$, hence $\xi$ is additively decomposable and we can write $\xi =\nu+\eta$, with $\nu,\eta<\xi$. By the secondary induction hypothesis, $\nu,\eta\in\Gamma_0$, hence $\xi=e^0(\nu+\eta)\in \Gamma_0$.
Otherwise, $\lambda>0$, and we consider two subcases. If $\alpha\geq \lambda$, by the induction hypothesis applied to $\alpha<\zeta$, $\lambda\in \Gamma_0$. But $\xi>1$ and is additively indecomposable, while $\mu\leq \xi$ is $1$ or additively decomposable, so $\mu<\xi$. By the secondary induction hypothesis, $\mu\in \Gamma_0$, hence $\xi =e^\lambda\mu \in \Gamma_0$.
If instead $\alpha<\lambda$, we observe that $e^\lambda\mu=e^\alpha e^{-\alpha+\lambda}\mu$, and by normality of $e^\alpha$, $e^{-\alpha+\lambda}\mu < \beta + \gamma$. Since $e^{-\alpha+\lambda}\mu$ is additively indecomposable, it follows that $e^{-\alpha+\lambda}\mu \leq \max \{ \beta, \gamma \}$, so that by the induction hypothesis applied to $ \max \{ \beta, \gamma \} < \zeta$, we have that $e^{-\alpha+\lambda}\mu\in \Gamma_0$. Since $\alpha\in\Gamma_0$, $\xi=e^\alpha e^{-\alpha+\lambda}\mu \in \Gamma_0$.
\endproof
Thus $\Gamma_0$ can be characterized as the least hyperexponentially closed ordinal, or alternatively the least hyperexponentially perfect ordinal. Later we will see that it can also be obtained using worms, by closing under $o$.
\subsection{Order-types of transfinite worms}
As in Section \ref{SubsecFino}, our strategy for giving a calculus for computing $o$ will be to guess a candidate function and prove that it has the required properties. Let us assume that Theorem \ref{TheoFiniteO} remains true for transfinite worms. Moreover, note that the functions $e^\xi$ satisfy all desired properties of our functions $\upsigma^\xi$. Thus we will conjecture that $e^\xi=\upsigma^\xi$ for every ordnal $\xi$, and propose the following candidate:
\begin{definition}\label{DefTrano}
Let $\Lambda$ be an ordinal, $\mathfrak v,\mathfrak w\in \mathbb W^\Lambda$ be worms and $\alpha<\Lambda$ an ordinal.
Then, define
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\hat o(\top)=0$,
\item $\hat o({\mathfrak w})={\hat o b(\mathfrak w)}+\omega^{\hat o(1\downarrow h(
{\mathfrak w}))}$ if ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ and $\min{\mathfrak w}=0$,
\item $\hat o({\mathfrak w})=e^{\mu} \hat o(\mu\downarrow \mathfrak w)$ if ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ and $\mu=\min{\mathfrak w}>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The next few lemmas establish that $\hat o$ behaves as it should.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmTranoNonZero}
If ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ is any worm, then $\hat o({\mathfrak w})\not=0$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
If $\min{\mathfrak w}=0$, this is obvious since $\omega^\xi>0$ independently of $\xi$. Otherwise, $\hat o({\mathfrak w})=e^{\mu} \hat o(\mu\downarrow \mathfrak w)$ with $\mu=\min{\mathfrak w}>0$. But $\min{\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}}=0$, so by the previous case $\hat o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})\not=0$ and hence $\hat o({\mathfrak w})=e^{\mu} \hat o(\mu\downarrow \mathfrak w)\not=0$.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmTransCantor}
For any worm $\mathfrak w\not=\top$, $\hat o (\mathfrak w)=\hat o b ({\mathfrak w}) +\omega^{\hat o(1\downarrow h ({\mathfrak w}) )}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
If $\min{\mathfrak w}=0$, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, $\min{\mathfrak w}>0$, so we can write $\min{\mathfrak w} = 1+\eta$ for some $\eta$. Moreover, $h({\mathfrak w})={\mathfrak w}$ and $b({\mathfrak w})=\top$, so $\hat o{h({\mathfrak w})}=\hat o({\mathfrak w})\not=0$ and $\hat o b({\mathfrak w})=0$. Meanwhile, $(1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}\not=\top$, so $\hat o \big ( (1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w} \big ) \not=0$ and thus ${e^\eta \hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}) } > 0 $, from which it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{EqTranoOmega}
-1+\omega^{e^\eta (\hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}))}=\omega^{e^\eta (\hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}))}.
\end{equation}
Finally, observe that
\begin{equation}\label{EqTrano}
\hat o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})) = e^\eta \hat o(\eta\downarrow(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w})))=e^\eta \hat o((1+\eta) \downarrow h({\mathfrak w}))).\end{equation}
Putting all of this together,
\begin{align*}
\hat o({\mathfrak w})&=e^{1+\eta}\hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow {\mathfrak w})&\text{by definition}\\
&=0+e{e^\eta (\hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}))}&\text{since $e^{1+\eta}=ee^{\eta}$}\\
&=\hat o(b({\mathfrak w}))+e{e^\eta (\hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}))}&\text{since $\hat o(b({\mathfrak w}))=0$}\\
&=\hat o(b({\mathfrak w}))+(-1+\omega^{e^\eta (\hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}))})&\text{by definition of $e$}\\
&=\hat o(b({\mathfrak w}))+\omega^{e^\eta (\hat o((1+\eta)\downarrow{\mathfrak w}))}&\text{by \eqref{EqTranoOmega}}\\
&=\hat o(b({\mathfrak w}))+\omega^{\hat o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak w}))} &\text{by \eqref{EqTrano}},
\end{align*}
as claimed.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmTranEUparrow}
For any worm $\mathfrak w$ and ordinal $\lambda$, $\hat o(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})=e^\lambda\hat o ({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
If ${\mathfrak w}=\top$, then
\[\hat o(\lambda \uparrow\top)=\hat o(\top)=0=e^\lambda 0= e^\lambda\hat o(\top).\]
Otherwise, ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$. If $\lambda=0$ the lemma follows from the fact that $0\uparrow{\mathfrak w}={\mathfrak w}$ and $e^0$ is the identity, and if $\min{\mathfrak w}=0$ then $\min(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})=\lambda$ and
\[\hat o(\lambda\uparrow\mu)=e^\lambda\hat o(\lambda\downarrow(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w}))=e^\lambda\hat o({\mathfrak w}).\]
If not, let $\mu=\min {\mathfrak w}>0$, so that $\hat o({\mathfrak w})=e^\mu(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})$. Observe that $\min(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})=\lambda+\mu$. Hence,
\begin{align*}
\hat o(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})&=e^{\lambda+\mu}((\lambda+\mu)\downarrow(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w}))\\
&=e^{\lambda+\mu}(\mu\downarrow(\lambda\downarrow(\lambda\uparrow{\mathfrak w})))\\
&=e^\lambda e^\mu(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})\\
&=e^\lambda \hat o({\mathfrak w}),
\end{align*}
as claimed.
\endproof
With this we can prove that $\hat o$ is strictly increasing and initial.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmTranoInc}
The map $\hat o\colon {\mathbb W}\to {\sf Ord}$ is strictly increasing.
\end{lemma}
\proof
We proceed by induction on $\cnorm{\mathfrak w}+\cnorm{\mathfrak v}$ to show that $\mathfrak w\wle{}\mathfrak v$ if and only if $\hat o(\mathfrak w) < \hat o(\mathfrak v)$. If ${\mathfrak w}=\top$ the claim is immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmTranoNonZero}, so we assume otherwise. Note that in this case ${\mathfrak w}\wge{}\top$ and $\hat o({\mathfrak w})>\hat o(\top)$, so we may also assume that ${\mathfrak v}\not=\top$.
Thus we consider $\mathfrak w,\mathfrak v\not=\top$, and define $\mu=\min ( {\mathfrak w}{\mathfrak v} ) $. If $\mu=0$, we observe that either $\cnorm{h({\mathfrak w})}<\cnorm{ {\mathfrak w} }$ or $\cnorm{h({\mathfrak v})}<\cnorm{ {\mathfrak v} }$, and we can proceed exactly as in the proof of Lemma \ref{LemmFinoMon}. Thus we consider only the case for $\mu>0$.
Note that in this case we have that
\[\cnorm{\mu\downarrow\mathfrak w}+\cnorm{\mu\downarrow \mathfrak v}<\cnorm{ \mathfrak w}+\cnorm{ \mathfrak v},\]
so we may apply the induction hypothesis to $\mu\downarrow\mathfrak w$ and $\mu\downarrow \mathfrak v$. Hence we obtain:
\begin{align*}
{\mathfrak w}\wle {}{\mathfrak v} &\Leftrightarrow (\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})\wle{}(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak v})&\text{by Lemma \ref{LemmUparrow}}\\
&\Leftrightarrow \hat o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})<\hat o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak v}) & \text{by induction hypothesis}\\
&\Leftrightarrow e^\mu\hat o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}) < e^\mu\hat o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak v})&\text{by normality of $e^\mu$}\\
&\Leftrightarrow \hat o {\mathfrak w} < \hat o {\mathfrak v} & \text{by Lemma \ref{LemmTranEUparrow},}
\end{align*}
as needed.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmTranoSur}
The map $\hat o\colon{\mathbb W}\to{\sf Ord}$ is surjective.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Proceed by induction on $\xi\in {\sf Ord}$ to show that there is ${\mathfrak w}$ with $\hat o({\mathfrak w})=\xi$. For the base case, $\xi=0=\hat o(\top)$. Otherwise, by Proposition \ref{PropEHNF}, $\xi$ can be written in the form $e^{\alpha}\beta$ with $\beta$ additively decomposable or $1$. Write $\beta=\gamma+\omega^\delta$, so that $\gamma,\delta<\beta\leq \xi$. By the induction hypothesis, there are worms ${\mathfrak u},{\mathfrak v}$ such that $\hat o ({\mathfrak u}) =\gamma$ and $\hat o ({\mathfrak v})=\delta$. Then, $\xi=\hat o(\alpha\uparrow((1\uparrow{\mathfrak v})\mathrel 0 {\mathfrak u}))$, as needed.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmTranoIsO}
For every worm ${\mathfrak w}$, $\hat o({\mathfrak w})=o({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Immediate from Lemmas \ref{LemmTranoInc} and \ref{LemmTranoSur} using Lemma \ref{LemmOUnique}.
\endproof
Before giving the definitive version of our calculus, let us show that the clasue for ${\mathfrak w}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak v}$ can be simplified somewhat.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSumOne}
Given arbitrary worms ${\mathfrak w}$, ${\mathfrak v}$, $o({\mathfrak w} \mathrel 0 {\mathfrak v})=o({\mathfrak v})+1+o({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Observe that by Lemma \ref{LemmTranEUparrow} together with Lemma \ref{LemmTranoIsO}, we have that for any worm ${\mathfrak u}$, $o(1\uparrow {\mathfrak u})=e o({\mathfrak u})=-1+\omega^{o({\mathfrak u})}$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{EqPlusOne}
\omega^{o({\mathfrak u})}=1+o(1\uparrow{\mathfrak u}).
\end{equation}
With this in mind, proceed by induction on $\lgt {\mathfrak v} + \lgt{\mathfrak w}$ to prove the lemma. First consider the case where $0< \min {\mathfrak v}$. In this case, $h({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak w})={\mathfrak v}$, so that
\[o({\mathfrak v} \mathrel 0\mathfrak w)= o({\mathfrak w})+\omega^{ o(1\downarrow {\mathfrak v})}=o({\mathfrak w})+1+o({\mathfrak v}),\]
where the first equality is by Defintion \ref{DefTrano} and the second follows from \eqref{EqPlusOne}.
If ${\mathfrak v}$ does contain a zero, we have that ${\mathfrak v}=h({\mathfrak v})\mathrel 0 b({\mathfrak v})$, so that
\[{\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak w}= h({\mathfrak v})\mathrel 0 b({\mathfrak v}) \mathrel 0{\mathfrak w}.\]
This means that $h({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak w})=h({\mathfrak v})$ and $b({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak w})=b({\mathfrak v}) \mathrel 0{\mathfrak w}$. Applying the induction hypothesis to $b({\mathfrak v}) \mathrel 0{\mathfrak w}$, we obtain
\[ob({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak w}) = o({\mathfrak w})+1+ob({\mathfrak v}),\]
and thus
\begin{align*}
o({\mathfrak v} \mathrel 0\mathfrak w)&=o b({\mathfrak w}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak v} )+\omega^{o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak v}))}\\
&\stackrel{\text{\sc ih}}=o({\mathfrak w})+1+o b({\mathfrak v}) +\omega^{o(1\downarrow h({\mathfrak v}))}=o({\mathfrak w})+1+o({\mathfrak v}),
\end{align*}
as needed.
\endproof
Let us put our results together to give our definitive calculus for $o$.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoTranOrder}
Let $\mathfrak v,\mathfrak w $ be worms and $\alpha $ be an ordinal. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $o(\top)=0$,
\item $o(\mathfrak v\mathrel 0\mathfrak w) ={o(\mathfrak w)}+1+o(\mathfrak v),$ and
\item $o(\alpha\uparrow\mathfrak w) =e^\alpha {o(\mathfrak w)}.$\label{TheoTranOrderItThree}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\proof
The first item is immediate from Definition \ref{DefTrano}, the second from Lemma \ref{LemmSumOne}, and the third from Lemma \ref{LemmTranEUparrow}, respectively, using the fact that $o=\hat o$ by Lemma \ref{LemmTranoIsO}.
\endproof
Note that Theorem \ref{TheoTranOrder} can be applied to any worm ${\mathfrak w}$, and hence it gives a complete calculus for computing $o$. Next, let us see how this gives rise to a notation system for $\Gamma_0$.
\subsection{Beklemishev's predicative worms}
Now we review results from \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP} showing that $\Gamma_0$ is the least set definable by iteratively taking order-types of worms. Let us begin by discussing the properties of sets of worms obtained from additively reductive sets of ordinals. Recall that ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset \Theta$ means that every ordinal appearing in ${\mathfrak w}$ belongs to $\Theta$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSplitsArrow}
Let $\Theta$ be an additively reductive set of ordinals such that $0\in\Theta$, and let ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mu\in\Theta$, $\mu\uparrow{\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$, and
\item if $\mu\leq{\mathfrak w}$ is arbitrary, then $\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
Suppose that ${\mathfrak w}=\lambda_1\hdots\lambda_n\top\sqsubset\Theta$. If $\mu\in\Theta$, using the fact that $\Theta$ is closed under addition, for each $i\in[1,n]$ we have that $\mu+\lambda_i\in\Theta$. Thus $\mu\uparrow{\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$.
Similarly, by Lemma \ref{LemmSumCantor}.\ref{LemmSumCantorMinus}, if $\mu$ is arbitrary then $-\mu+\lambda_i\in \Theta$ for each $i\in[1,n]$, so $\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$.
\endproof
Now, let us make the notion of ``closing under $o$'' precise.
\begin{definition}
Observe that $o$ may be regarded as a function $o\colon {\sf Ord}^{<\omega}\to{\sf Ord}$ by setting
\[o(\mu_1,\hdots,\mu_n)=o(\mu_1 \hdots \mu_n\top).\]
Then, given a set of ordinals $\Theta$, if $\iter o\Theta\subseteq\Theta$ we say that $\Theta$ is {\em worm-closed,} and if $\Theta=\iter o\Theta$ we say that $\Theta$ is {\em worm-perfect.}
\end{definition}
Even when $\Theta$ is not worm-perfect, sets of the form $\iter o\Theta$ are rather well-behaved:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSum}
If $\Theta$ is any set of ordinals, then $ 0\in \iter o\Theta$. If moreover $0\in \Theta$, then also $1\in \iter o\Theta$, and $\iter o\Theta$ is additively reductive.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Observe that $0=o(\top)$, and $\top\sqsubset\Theta$ since $\top$ contains no ordinals, so $0\in \ocl\Theta$. Similarly, $1=o(0\top)$, and $0\top\sqsubset\Theta$ if $0\in\Theta$.
Let us see that $\ocl\Theta$ is additively reductive when $0\in \Theta$. First assume that $\alpha,\beta\in \ocl\Theta$. Then, there are worms ${\mathfrak u},{\mathfrak v}\sqsubset\Theta$ such that $\alpha=o({\mathfrak u})$ and $\beta=o({\mathfrak v})$. If $\beta\geq\omega$, then
\[o({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak u})=o({\mathfrak u})+1+o({\mathfrak v})=\alpha+1+\beta=\alpha+\beta,\]
otherwise
\[o( \langle 0\rangle ^\beta {\mathfrak u})=o({\mathfrak u})+\beta=\alpha+\beta,\]
where we define $\langle\lambda\rangle^n=\underbrace{\langle \lambda\rangle\hdots\langle\lambda \rangle}_{n\text{ times}}.$ Both ${\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak u}, \langle 0\rangle ^\beta{\mathfrak u}\sqsubset\Theta$, so $\alpha+\beta\in \ocl\Theta$.
Conversely, if $\xi\in \ocl\Theta$ is additively decomposable, write $\xi=o({\mathfrak w})$. Then, $\xi=ob({\mathfrak w})+1+oh({\mathfrak w})$, and since $1+oh({\mathfrak w})$ is additively indecomposable, we have that $\xi\not=1+oh({\mathfrak w})$ and hence $ob({\mathfrak w}),1+oh({\mathfrak w}) <\xi$. Clearly $ob({\mathfrak w})\in \ocl\Theta$, while $1+oh({\mathfrak w})$ is either $1$ or $oh({\mathfrak w})$, both of which belong to $\ocl\Theta$.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmClosedSum}
Let $\Theta$ be any set of ordinals. Then, $\Theta$ is worm-perfect if and only if it is hyperexponentially perfect.
\end{lemma}
\proof Assume first that $\Theta$ is worm-perfect. By Lemma \ref{LemmSum}, $0\in\Theta$, thus also $1\in \Theta$ and $\Theta$ is additively reductive. It remains to prove that $\ecl\Theta \subseteq \Theta$ and that $\Theta$ is hyperexponentially reductive.
To show that $\ecl\Theta\subseteq\Theta$, it suffices to check that $e^\alpha\beta\in\Theta$ whenever $\alpha,\beta\in\Theta$, given that we already know that $\Theta$ is closed under addition. If $\alpha,\beta\in \Theta$, since $\Theta$ is worm-perfect, there is ${\mathfrak w} \sqsubset\Theta$ such that $o({\mathfrak w})=\beta$. By Lemma \ref{LemmSplitsArrow}, $\alpha\uparrow{\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$, and by Theorem \ref{TheoTranOrder}, $e^\alpha\beta=o(\alpha\uparrow{\mathfrak w})\in \Theta$.
Next we show that if $1<\xi\in\Theta$, there are $\alpha,\beta\in \Theta$ such that $\xi=e^\alpha\beta$ and $\beta<\xi$. Since $\Theta$ is worm-perfect, $\xi =o({\mathfrak w})$ for some ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset \Theta$. We proceed by induction on $\cnorm{{\mathfrak w}}$ to find suitable $\alpha,\beta\in\Theta$. We may assume that ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ since $\xi>0$, and we set $\mu=\min{\mathfrak w}$. If $\mu=0$, then $h({\mathfrak w}),b({\mathfrak w})\sqsubset\Theta$, and since $\Theta$ is worm-perfect, $ob({\mathfrak w}),oh({\mathfrak w})\in\Theta$. Now, if $oh({\mathfrak w})=\xi$, by induction on $\cnorm{h({\mathfrak w})}$ we see that there exist suitable $\alpha,\beta\in\Theta$. If instead $oh({\mathfrak w})< \xi$, this means that $\xi = ob({\mathfrak w}) + 1 + oh({\mathfrak w})$ is additively decomposable, contrary to our assumption.
Now consider $\mu>0$. By Lemma \ref{LemmSplitsArrow}, $\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$. Hence by induction on $\cnorm{\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}}<\cnorm{\mathfrak w}$, we have that $o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})=e^\eta\beta$ for some $\eta,\beta\in\Theta$ with $\beta< o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})$. It follows that
\[o({\mathfrak w})=e^\mu o(\mu\downarrow {\mathfrak w})=e^\mu e^\eta \beta =e^{\mu+\eta}\beta,\]
and since $\Theta$ is closed under addition, we may set $\alpha=\mu+\eta\in\Theta$.
For the other direction, assume that $\Theta$ is hyperexponentially perfect. To show that $\ocl\Theta\subseteq\Theta$, we will prove by induction on $\cnorm{\mathfrak w}$ that if ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset \Theta$, then $o({\mathfrak w})\in \Theta$. For the base case, if ${\mathfrak w}=\top,$ then $o({\mathfrak w})=0 \in \Theta.$ Otherwise, let $\mu=\min{\mathfrak w}$.
If $\mu=0$, then by induction hypothesis $oh({\mathfrak w}),ob({\mathfrak w})\in \Theta$. Since also $1\in\Theta$, then $o({\mathfrak w})=ob({\mathfrak w})+1+oh({\mathfrak w})\in\Theta$. Otherwise, $\cnorm{\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}}<\cnorm{{\mathfrak w}}$, and as before, $\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$. It follows by the induction hypothesis that $o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})\in\Theta$. Moreover, since $\mu$ appears in ${\mathfrak w}$ we must have that $\mu\in\Theta$, thus $o({\mathfrak w})=e^\mu o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})\in \Theta$, using the fact that $\Theta$ is hyperexponentially closed.
Finally, we show that $\Theta\subseteq\ocl\Theta$. We prove by induction on $\xi$ that if $\xi\in\Theta$, then $\xi=o({\mathfrak w})$ for some ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Theta$. If $\xi=0$ we may take ${\mathfrak w}=\top$. If not, using the fact that $\Theta$ is hyperexponentially perfect, write $\xi=e^\alpha\beta$ with $\alpha,\beta\in \Theta$ and $\beta=1$ or additively decomposable. If $\beta=1$, then $\xi=e^\alpha 1=o(\alpha \top)$. Otherwise, since $\Theta$ is additively reductive, we may write $\beta=\gamma+\delta'$ with $\gamma,\delta'\in\beta\cap\Theta$. Using Lemma \ref{LemmSumCantor} we see that $\delta=-1+\delta'\in\Theta$. By the induction hypothesis, there are worms ${\mathfrak u},{\mathfrak v}\sqsubset \Theta$ such that $\gamma=o({\mathfrak u})$, $\delta=o({\mathfrak v})$, and thus
\[\beta=\gamma+\delta'=\gamma+1+\delta = o({\mathfrak u})+1+o({\mathfrak v})=o({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak u}).\]
But ${\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak u}\sqsubset\Theta$, and thus by Lemma \ref{LemmSplitsArrow}, $\alpha\uparrow ({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak u})\sqsubset\Theta$, and $o(\alpha\uparrow ({\mathfrak v}\mathrel 0{\mathfrak u}))=e^\alpha\beta$, as needed.
\endproof
With this, we obtain our worm-based characterization of $\Gamma_0$:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoPred}
$\Gamma_0$ is the least worm-perfect set of ordinals.
\end{theorem}
\proof
$\Gamma_0$ is the least hyperexponentially perfect set, and since it is transitive and closed under addition, it is additively reductive. Hence $\Gamma_0$ is also worm-perfect, and since any worm-perfect set is hyperexponentially perfect, there can be no smaller worm-perfect set.
\endproof
\subsection{Autonomous worms and predicative ordinal notations}\label{SubsecAutWorms}
The map $o\colon{\mathbb W}\to{\sf Ord}$ suggests that worms could themselves be used as modalities. This gives rise to Beklemishev's {\em autonomous worms} \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP}:
\begin{definition}
We define the set of {\em autonomous worms} $ {\sf W}$ to be the least set such that $\top\in {\sf W}$ and, if ${{\tt w}},{{\tt v}}\in {\sf W}$, then $\text{\tt (}{{\tt w}}\text{\tt )}{{\tt v}}\in {\sf W}$.
\end{definition}
The idea is to interpret autonomous worms as regular worms using $o$:
\begin{definition}
We define a map $\Bmap\cdot\colon {\sf W} \to {{\mathbb W}}$ given recursively by
\begin{multicols}2
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Bmap\top=\top$
\item $\Bmap{\big (\text{\tt (}{{\tt w}}\text{\tt )}{{\tt v}}\big )}=\langle o(\Bmap{{\tt w}})\rangle\Bmap{{{\tt v}}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{multicols}
\noindent We then define ${\sf o}\colon {\sf W} \to {\sf Ord}$ by setting ${\sf o}({{\tt w}})=o(\Bmap{{{\tt w}}})$.
\end{definition}
As Beklemishev has noted, autonomous worms give notations for any ordinal below $\Gamma_0$.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoAutWorm}
If $\gamma$ is any ordinal, then $\gamma<\Gamma_0$ if and only if there is ${{\tt w}}\in {\sf W}$ such that $\gamma={\sf o}({{\tt w}})$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
To see that $\Gamma_0\subseteq {\sf o}[ {\sf W}]$, it suffices in view of Theorem \ref{TheoPred} to observe that ${\sf o}[ {\sf W}]$ is worm-perfect by construction.
To see that ${\sf o}[ {\sf W}]\subseteq\Gamma_0$, one proves by induction on the number of parentheses in ${\tt w}$ that if $\Theta$ contains $0$ and is worm-closed, then ${\sf o}({{\tt w}})\in\Theta$. In particular, ${\sf o}({{\tt w}})\in\Gamma_0$.
\endproof
\begin{figure}
\[\begin{array}{rlrlrl}
1&
\text{\tt ()}&
\omega&
\text{\tt (())}&
\varepsilon_0&
\text{\tt ((()))}\\
\varepsilon_1&
\text{\tt ((()))((()))}&
\varepsilon_\omega+\varepsilon_0
&\text{\tt ((()))()(()(()))}
&e^{e^{e^{e^1 1}1}1}1
&\text{\tt ((((()))))}
\\
\end{array}\]
\caption{Some ordinals represented as autonomous worms. We use the identity $\varepsilon_\xi = e^\omega(1+\xi)$, which is a special case of Proposition \ref{PropExptoveb}.}
\end{figure}
\section{Impredicative worms}\label{SecImpWrm}
Now we turn to a possible solution to Mints' and Pakhomov's problem of representing the Bachmann-Howard ordinal using worms. This ordinal is related to {\em inductive definitions,} that is, least fixed points of monotone operators $F\colon 2^\mathbb N\to 2^\mathbb N$. Let us begin by reviewing these operators and their fixed points.
\subsection{Inductive definitions}\label{SecIndDef}
Let $F\colon 2^\mathbb N\to 2^\mathbb N$. We say that $F$ is {\em monotone} if $F(X)\subseteq F(Y)$ whenever $X\subseteq Y$. For example, if $f\colon \mathbb N^{<\omega}\to \mathbb N$, we obtain a monotone operator by setting $F(X)=f[X]$; as we have seen in Lemma \ref{LemmPropFClose}, we can reach a fixed point for such an $F$ by iterating it $\omega$-many times and taking the union of these iterations. More generally, any monotone operator has a least fixed point:
\begin{definition}
Let $F\colon 2^\mathbb N\to 2^\mathbb N$ be monotone. We define $\upmu F$ to be the unique set such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\upmu F = F(\upmu F)$, and
\item If $X\subseteq \mathbb N$ is such that $F(X)\subseteq X$, then $\upmu F\subseteq X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The Knaster-Tarski theorem states that the set $\upmu F$ is always well-defined \cite{GranasFixedPoint}; it can always be reached ``from below'' by iterating $F$, beginning from the empty set. However, in general, we may need to iterate $F$ far beyond $\omega$.
\begin{definition}
Let $F\colon 2^\mathbb N\to 2^\mathbb N$. For an ordinal $\xi,$ we define an operator $F^\xi\colon 2^\mathbb N\to 2^\mathbb N$ inductively by
\begin{enumerate}
\item $F^0(X)=X$,
\item $F^{\xi+1}(X)=F(F^{\xi}(X))$,
\item $F^{\lambda}(X)=\bigcup_{\xi<\lambda}F^{\xi}(X)$ for $\lambda$ a limit ordinal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
These iterations eventually become constant, but the ordinal at which they stabilize can be rather large; in principle, our only guarantee is that it is countable, since at each stage before reaching a fixed point we must add at least one natural number. Below, recall that $\omega_1$ denotes the first uncountable cardinal.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmFromBelow}
If $F\colon 2^\mathbb N\to 2^\mathbb N$ is monotone, then there is $\lambda<\omega_1$ such that $F^{\lambda}(\varnothing)=\upmu F$.
\end{lemma}
We omit the proof, which follows from cardinality considerations. Alternately, it is possible to construct least fixed points `from above', by taking the intersection of all $F$-closed sets.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmExistsFix}
If $F\colon 2^\mathbb N\to 2^\mathbb N$ is monotone, then
\[\upmu F =\bigcap \{Y \subseteq \mathbb N:F(Y)\subseteq Y\}.\]
\end{lemma}
Monotone operators and their fixed points can be formalized in second-order arithmetic, provided they are definable. Any formula $\phi(n,X)\in \Pi^1_\omega$ (with no other free variables) can be regarded as an operator on $2^\mathbb N$ given by $X\mapsto \{n \in \mathbb N:\phi(n,X)\}$. Say that a formula $\phi$ is in {\em negation normal form} if it contains no instances of $\to$, and $\neg$ occurs only on atomic formulas. It is well-known that every formula is equivalent to one in negation normal form, obtained by applying De Morgan's rules iteratively.
\begin{definition}
Let $\phi$ be a formula in negation normal form and $X$ a set-variable. We say {\em $\phi$ is positive on $X$} if $\phi$ contains no occurrences of $t\not \in X$.
\end{definition}
Positive formulas give rise to monotone operators, due to the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmMonotone}
Given a formula $\phi(n,X)$ that is positive on $X$, it is provable in $\ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace$ that
\[\forall X \ \forall Y \ \Big( X\subseteq Y\rightarrow \forall n \ \big ( \phi( n, X)\rightarrow \phi( n, Y) \big ) \Big).\]
\end{lemma}
Thus if we define $F_\phi\colon 2^\mathbb N \to 2^\mathbb N$ by $F_\phi(X)=\{n \in \mathbb N : \phi(n,X)\}$, $F_\phi$ will be monotone on $X$ whenever $\phi$ is positive on $X$. Moreover, if $\phi$ is arithmetical, Lemma \ref{LemmExistsFix} may readily be formalized in $\pica$, by defining
\[M= \Big \{n\in\mathbb N : \forall X \Big ( \forall m \big (\phi(m,X)\rightarrow m\in X \big )\rightarrow n\in X\Big ) \Big \}.\]
Thus we arrive at the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmFixPica}
Let $\phi(n,X)$ be arithmetical and positive on $X$. Then, it is provable in $\pica$ that there is a least set $M$ such that, for all $n$,
\[n\in M \leftrightarrow \phi(n,M).\]
We will denote this set $M$ by $\upmu X.\phi$.
\end{lemma}
With these tools in mind, we are now ready to formalize $\omega$-logic in second-order arithmetic.
\subsection{Formalizing full $\omega$-logic}
We have discussed before how the $\omega$-rule can be iterated along a well-order. However, we may also consider full $\omega$-logic based on a theory $T$; that is, the set of formulas that can be derived using the $\omega$-rule and reasoning in $T$, regardless of the nesting depth of these $\omega$-rules. Let us write $\InfPro T\phi$ if $\phi$ is derivable in this fashion. To be precise, we want $\InfPro T \phi$ to hold whenever:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item ${\Box}_T\phi$,
\item $\phi=\forall x \psi(x)$ and for all $n$, $\InfPro T\psi(\bar n)$, or
\item there is $\psi$ such that $\InfPro T\psi$ and $\InfPro T ( \psi \to \phi)$.
\end{enumerate}
In words, $\InfPro T$ is closed under $T$ and the $\omega$-rule. This notion may be formalized using $ \omega$-trees to represent infinite derivations, as in \cite{Arai1998,GirardProofTheory}. We follow a different approach, using a fixed-point construction as in \cite{FernandezImpredicative}.
\begin{definition}
Fix a theory $T$, possibly with oracles. Let $\spc T{Q}$ be a $\Pi^1_1$ formula naturally expressing that $Q$ is the least set such that $\phi\in Q$ whenever
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item ${\Box}_T \phi$ holds,
\item $\phi=\forall v\, \psi(v)$ and for all $n$, $\psi(\bar n)\in Q$, or
\item there exists $\psi\in Q$ such that $\psi\to \phi\in Q$.
\end{enumerate*}
Then, define
\[
\InfPro T\phi \ \equiv \ \forall Q \big ( \spc T{Q} \rightarrow \phi\in Q \big ).
\]
\end{definition}
In view of Lemma \ref{LemmFromBelow}, this fixed point is reached after some countable ordinal, which gives us the following:
\begin{proposition}\label{PropCountableInfty}
Given a theory $T$ and $\phi\in \Pi^1_\omega$, $[\infty]_T\phi$ holds if and only if $[\xi]_T\phi$ holds for some $\xi<\omega_1$.
\end{proposition}
As before, we may also consider saturated provabiltiy operators with oracles, and we write $[\infty|A]_T\phi$ instead of $[\infty]_{T|A}\phi$. Since these provability operators are defined via a least fixed point, in view of Lemma \ref{LemmFixPica}, their existence can be readily proven in $\pica$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmPICAExists}
Let $T$ be any theory, possibly with oracles. Then, it is provable in $\pica$ that there exists a set $Q$ such that $\spc {T}Q$ holds.
\end{lemma}
This notion of provability allows us to represent $\pica$ in terms of a strong consistency assertion, in the spirit of Theorems \ref{TheoPaDiamond} and \ref{TheoATRDiamond}. The following is proven in \cite{FernandezImpredicative}:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoPicaDiamond}
$\pica\equiv \ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace + \forall X \, \langle \infty|X\rangle_T\top.$
\end{theorem}
This suggests that studying worms which contain the modality $\langle\infty\rangle$ may be instrumental in studying theories capable of reasoning about least fixed points. In view of Proposition \ref{PropCountableInfty}, we may identify $\langle \infty\rangle$ with $\langle\Omega\rangle$ for some ordinal $\Omega$ large enough so that $[\infty]_T\phi$ is equivalent to $[\Omega]_T\phi$; we can take $\Omega=\omega_1$, for example, but a large enough countable ordinal will do. In the next section, we will see how adding uncountable ordinals to our notation system allows us to provide notations for much larger countable ordinals as well.
\subsection{Beyond the Bachmann-Howard ordinal}
It is not hard to see that $\varepsilon_0$ and $\Gamma_0$ are countable; for example, it is an easy consequence of Theorem \ref{TheoAutWorm}. With a bit of extra work, one can see that they are computable as well, for example representing elements of $\Gamma_0$ as in Theorem \ref{TheoAutWorm}. However, this does not mean that uncountable ordinals cannot appear as a ``detour'' in defining proof-theoretic ordinals. Indeed, the Bachmann-Howard ordinal precisely arises by adding a symbol for an uncountable ordinal. Before continuing, let us recall a few basic properties of cardinals and cardinalities.
\begin{definition}
Given a set $A$, we define $\card A$ to be the least ordinal $\kappa$ such that there is a bijection $f\colon A\to\kappa$.
If $\kappa=\card\kappa$, we say that $\kappa$ is a {\em cardinal.}
\end{definition}
The following properties are well-known and discussed in detail, for example, in \cite{Jech:2002:SetTheory}.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCardinal}
Let $A,B$ be sets. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\card{A\cup B}\leq\max\{\omega,\card A,\card B\}$;
\item if at least one of $A,B$ is infinite, then $\card{A\cup B}=\max\{\card A,\card B\}$;
\item $\card{A\times B}\leq\max\{\omega,\card A,\card B\}$,
\item if one of $A,B$ is infinite and both are non-empty, $\card{A\times B}=\max\{\card A,\card B\}$, and
\item if $\{A_i : i\in I\}$ is a family of sets, then
\[\card{\bigcup_{i\in I} A_i}\leq\max \Big \{\omega,\sup_{i\in I}\card {A_i},\card I \Big \}.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
These results readily allow us to compute the cardinalities of ordinals obtained using addition and multiplication.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCardOrd}
Let $\alpha,\beta$ be ordinals. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\card{\alpha+\beta}\leq\max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}$;
\item $\card{\alpha+\beta}=\max\{\card\alpha,\card\beta\}$ if one of the two is infinite;
\item $\card{\alpha\beta}\leq\max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}$, and
\item $\card{\alpha\beta}=\max\{\card\alpha,\card\beta\}$ if one of the two is infinite and both are non-zero.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
These claims are immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmCardinal} if we observe that $\alpha+\beta$ is the disjoint union of $\alpha$ with $[\alpha,\alpha+\beta)$, and $\card{[\alpha,\alpha+\beta)}=\card\beta$, while $\alpha\beta$ is in bijection with $\alpha\times\beta$ (via the map $\alpha\xi+\zeta\mapsto (\zeta,\xi)\in \alpha\times\beta$).
\endproof
Similar claims hold for the hyperexponential function:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmExpCard}
Let $\alpha,\beta$ be arbitrary ordinals. Then, $\card{e^\alpha\beta }\leq \max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}.$ If moreover $\beta>0$ and $\max\{\alpha,\beta\}\geq\omega$, then $\card{e^\alpha\beta }= \max\{\card\alpha,\card\beta\}.$
\end{lemma}
\proof
To bound $\card{e^\alpha\beta}$, we proceed by induction on $\alpha$ with a secondary induction on $\beta$ to show that $\card{e^\alpha\beta}\leq\max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}$. We consider several cases, using Lemma \ref{LemmExpRec}. If $\alpha=0$, then $e^0\beta=\beta$, so the claim is obviously true. If $\beta=0$, we see that $e^\alpha 0=0$, so the claim holds as well. For $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=\gamma+1$,
\begin{align*}
e(\gamma+1)&= \lim_{n<\omega} (1+e\gamma) \cdot n\stackrel{\text{\sc ih}} \leq \max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}.
\end{align*}
If $\alpha$ is a limit and $\beta=1$,
\begin{align*}
e^{\alpha}1&=\lim_{\gamma<\alpha} e^\gamma 1 \stackrel{\text{\sc ih}} \leq\max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}.
\end{align*}
For $\alpha=\gamma+1$ with $\gamma>0$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
e^{\gamma+1}\beta&=e^\gamma e \beta \stackrel{\text{\sc ih}} \leq \max\{\card\alpha,\card{e\beta}\}\}
\\
&\stackrel{\text{\sc ih}} \leq \max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card{\beta}\}\}=\max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}.
\end{align*}
If $\beta$ is a limit, then we obtain
\[e^\alpha \beta =\lim_{\gamma<\beta} e^\alpha \gamma \stackrel{\text{\sc ih}} \leq\max\{ \omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta\}.\]
Finally, for limit $\alpha$ and $\beta=\delta+1$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
e^{\alpha}(\delta+1)&=\lim_{\gamma<\alpha} e^ \gamma (e^\alpha(\delta)+1)\stackrel{\text{\sc ih}} \leq \max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card{\beta}\}.
\end{align*}
Since this covers all cases, the result follows.
For the second claim, if $\beta>0$, then ${e^\alpha \beta}\geq\max\{\alpha,\beta\}$, so $\card{e^\alpha \beta}\geq \max\{\card\alpha,\card\beta\}$ and we obtain the desired equality if one of the two is infinite.
\endproof
\begin{corollary}\label{CorKappaExp}
If $\kappa$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $\kappa$ is additively indecomposable and $e^\kappa 1=\kappa$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
We know that $e^\kappa 1 \geq \kappa$. However, from Lemma \ref{LemmExpCard}, $|e^\xi 1| < \kappa$ whenever $\xi < \kappa$, so that $e^\xi 1 < \kappa$. But $e^\kappa 1 = \lim_{\xi<\kappa} e^\xi 1$, so $e^\kappa 1 = \kappa$, from which it also follows that $\kappa = \omega^\kappa$ and thus is additively indecomposable.
\endproof
We have a simiar situation with worms; it is very easy to infer the cardinality of $o({\mathfrak w})$ by looking at the entries in ${\mathfrak w}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmWormCard}
If ${\mathfrak w} \in{\mathbb W}$ then $\card{o({\mathfrak w})}\leq\card{\max\omega{\mathfrak w}}$. If moreover ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ and $\max{\mathfrak w}\geq \omega$, then $\card{o(\mathfrak w)}= \card{\max {\mathfrak w}}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
We prove by induction on $\cnorm{\mathfrak w}$ that $\card{o({\mathfrak w})}\leq\card{\max\omega{\mathfrak w}}$. For ${\mathfrak w}=\top$ this is obvious. Otherwise, let $\mu=\min{\mathfrak w}$. If $\mu=0$, then $o({\mathfrak w})=ob({\mathfrak w})+1+oh({\mathfrak w})$, so that by Lemma \ref{LemmExpCard},
\[\card{o({\mathfrak w})}=\card{ob({\mathfrak w})+1+oh({\mathfrak w})}\leq\max\{\omega,\card{ob({\mathfrak w})}, 1, \card{oh({\mathfrak w})}\}.\]
By the induction hypothesis $\card{oh({\mathfrak w})}\leq\card{\max\omega h({\mathfrak w})}\leq\card{\max\omega{\mathfrak w}}$ and similarly for $\card{ob({\mathfrak w})}$, so we obtain $\card{o({\mathfrak w})}\leq \card{\max\omega{\mathfrak w}}$.
If $\mu>0$, then $o({\mathfrak w})=e^\mu(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})$. Since $\mu,\max(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})\leq\max{\mathfrak w}$ and $ \cnorm{\mu \downarrow {\mathfrak w}} < \cnorm{\mathfrak w}$, we use the induction hypothesis and Lemma \ref{LemmExpCard} once again to see that
\[\card{o({\mathfrak w})}=\card{e^\mu o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})}\leq\max\{\omega, \card\mu,\card{\max(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak w})}\}\leq\card{\max\omega{\mathfrak w}}.\]
The claim follows.
For the second claim, if ${\mathfrak w}\not=\top$ and $\max{\mathfrak w}\geq\omega$, then by Lemma \ref{LemmLowerBound}.\ref{LemmLowerBoundItOne},
$o({\mathfrak w})\geq\max{\mathfrak w}$, so
\[\card{o({\mathfrak w})}\geq \card{\max{\mathfrak w}}=\card{\max\omega{\mathfrak w}},\]
and thus we obtain equality.
\endproof
Similarly, closure under a function $f$ does not produce many more ordinals than we had to begin with:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCardFClose}
If $f\colon{\sf Ord}^{<\omega}\dashrightarrow{\sf Ord}$ and $\Theta$ is a set of ordinals, then
\[\card\Theta\leq \card{\close f\Theta} \leq \max\{\omega,\card\Theta\}.\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
We inductively check that
\begin{equation}\label{EqCardTheta}
\card\Theta\leq \card{\Theta^f_n} \leq \max\{\omega,\card\Theta\},
\end{equation}
from which the lemma follows using the fact that $\close f\Theta=\bigcup_{n<\omega}\Theta^f_n$.
We have that $\Theta^f_0=\Theta$, so \eqref{EqCardTheta} holds. Now, assume inductively that \eqref{EqCardTheta} holds for $n$. Then, $\Theta^f_{n+1}=\Theta^f_n\cup \iter f{\Theta^f_n}$; by the induction hypothesis,
\[\card\Theta\leq \card{\Theta^f_n}\leq \card{\Theta^f_{n+1}}.\]
Now, elements of $\iter f\Theta$ are of the form $f(\xi_1,\hdots,\xi_m)$ with $\xi_1,\hdots,\xi_m\in \Theta^f_n$; but there are at most $\max\{\omega,\card {\Theta^f_n}\}$ of these, so
\[\card{\iter f{\Theta^f_n}}\leq \max \Big \{\omega, \card {\Theta^f_n} \Big \}\stackrel{\text{\sc ih}}\leq \max\{\omega, \card {\Theta}\},\]
from which it follows that
\[\card {\Theta^f_{n+1}}=\card{\Theta^f_n\cup \iter f{\Theta^f_n}}\leq \max \Big \{\omega, \card{\Theta^f_n}, \card{\iter f{\Theta^f_n}} \Big \}\stackrel{\text{\sc ih}}\leq \max\{\omega, \card {\Theta}\}.\qedhere\]
\endproof
This tells us that none of the ordinal operations we have discussed so far will give rise to any uncountable ordinals. So, we may add one directly; we can then use it to produce more countable ordinals using {\em collapsing functions.} We shall present them using hyperexponentials rather than Veblen functions, although this change is merely cosmetic as the two define the same ordinals. It is standard to use $\Omega$ to denote a `big' ordinal, which for convenience may be assumed to be $\omega_1$. However, we mention that, with some additional technical work, one can take $\Omega=\omega^{CK}_1$, the first non-computable ordinal \cite{Rathjen1993}.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Omega,\xi$ be ordinals. We simultaneously define the sets $C (\xi)$ and the ordinals $\uppsi (\xi)$ by induction on $\xi$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C (\xi)$ is the least set such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Omega\in C (\xi)$,
\item $C(\xi)$ is hyperexponentially closed, and
\item if $\alpha \in C (\xi)$ and $\alpha<\xi$ then $\uppsi (\alpha)\in C (\xi)$.
\end{enumerate}
\item $\uppsi (\xi)$ is the least $\lambda$ such that $\lambda\not\in C (\xi)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In the notation of Definition \ref{DefFClose}, let ${\rm BH}_\xi$ be the pair of functions $\{{\rm HE},\uppsi\upharpoonright\xi\}$. Then,
\[C(\xi)=\close{{\rm BH}_\xi}{\{0,1,\Omega\}}.\]
Thus our previous work on closures under ordinal functions readily applies to the sets $C(\xi)$. The function $\uppsi$ appears in the ordinal analysis of systems such as ${\rm ID}_1$ and Kripke-Platek set-theory with infinity \cite{Pohlers:2009:PTBook}.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmExpPsi}
If $\xi$ is any ordinal, then $\uppsi(\xi)$ is additively indecomposable and $\uppsi(\xi)=e^{\uppsi(\xi)}1$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
To see that $\uppsi(\xi)$ is additively indecomposable, we will assume otherwise and reach a contradiction. Hence, suppose that $\uppsi(\xi)=\alpha+\beta$ with $\alpha,\beta<\uppsi(\xi)$. By definition of $\uppsi(\xi)$ we have that $\alpha,\beta\in C(\xi)$, hence $\uppsi(\xi)=\alpha+\beta\in C(\xi)$, contradicting its definition.
Next we show that $\uppsi(\xi)=e^{\uppsi(\xi)}1$. By Proposition \ref{PropEHNF}, there are $\alpha,\beta$ with $\beta$ either $1$ or additively decomposable such that $\uppsi(\xi)=e^\alpha\beta$. Since $\uppsi(\xi)$ is additively indecomposable we have that $\beta\not=\uppsi(\xi)$, and since $e^\alpha$ is normal, we have that $\beta<\uppsi(\xi)$. Now, towards a contradiction, assume that $\alpha<\uppsi(\xi)$; then $\alpha,\beta\in C(\xi)$ so $\uppsi(\xi)\in C(\xi)$, contrary to its definition. We conclude that $\alpha=\uppsi(\xi)$, and again since $e^{\uppsi(\xi)}$ is normal and $e^{\uppsi(\xi)}1\geq\uppsi(\xi)$, that $\beta=1$.
\endproof
We remark that the above lemma already tells us that the {\em countable} ordinals we can construct using $\uppsi$ are much bigger than $\Gamma_0$; indeed, we already have that $\Gamma_0=\uppsi(0)$, and this is only scratching the surface of our notation system: ordinals such as $\uppsi(\Omega)$ or $\uppsi(e^{\omega}(\Omega+1))$ are much larger. The latter is the Howard-Bachmann ordinal $\uppsi(\varepsilon_{\Omega+1})$, as one can readily check that $e^\omega\xi=\varepsilon_\xi$ for all $\xi$ using Proposition \ref{PropExptoveb}.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCClosedO}
Assume that $\Omega$ is such that $\Omega=e^\Omega 1$. If $\xi$ is any ordinal, then $C(\xi)$ is hyperexponentially perfect.
\end{lemma}
\proof We already know that $C(\xi)$ is hyperexponentially closed, so it remains to show that it is reductive. Let $\zeta\in C(\xi)$. By Lemma \ref{LemmPropFClose}.\ref{LemmPropFCloseItFour}, either $\zeta\in\{0,1,\Omega\}$, there are $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\not=\zeta$ with $\zeta=e^{\alpha}(\beta+\gamma)$, or $\zeta=\uppsi(\alpha)$ for some $\alpha\in C(\xi)\cap\xi$. If $\zeta<2$, there is nothing to prove, so we assume otherwise.
First assume that $\zeta=e^{\alpha}(\beta+\gamma)$. If $\zeta$ is additively decomposable, by Lemma \ref{LemmExpPsi}, we cannot have that $\alpha>0$, so we conclude that $\zeta=e^0(\beta+\gamma)=\beta+\gamma$, as needed. If it is additively indecomposable, since $\beta+\gamma\in C(\xi)$, then we already have that $\zeta=e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)$ with $\alpha,\beta+\gamma\in C(\xi)$. In all other cases, $\zeta$ must be additively indecomposable. If $\zeta=\Omega$, then $\zeta=e^\Omega 1$ and $\Omega,1\in C(\xi)$, and if $\zeta=\uppsi(\alpha)$, by Lemma \ref{LemmExpPsi}, $\zeta=e^\zeta 1$, with $\zeta,1\in C(\xi)$.
\endproof
The intention of the function $ \uppsi$ is to produce new countable ordinals from possibly uncountable ones. Let us see that this is the case:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmPsiCountable}
Let $\xi$ be any ordinal and $\Omega=\omega_1$. Then, $C(\xi)$ is countable and $\uppsi(\xi)<\Omega$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
The first claim is an instance of Lemma \ref{LemmCardFClose}, while the second is immediate from the first.
\endproof
Observe that $\sup C(\xi)=\Gamma_{\Omega+1}$, the first hyperexponentially closed ordinal which is greater than $\Omega$, and thus the smallest ordinal not contained in any $C(\xi)$ is $\uppsi(\Gamma_{\Omega+1})$. However, our worm notation will give slightly smaller ordinals. Thus it will be convenient to consider a ``cut-off'' version of the sets $C(\xi)$. Let us see that these cut-off versions maintain a restricted version of the minimality property of $C(\xi)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmBoundMinC}
If $\mu\leq \lambda$ are ordinals such that $\Omega<\lambda$, then $C(\mu)\cap \lambda$ is the least set $D$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $0,1,\Omega\in D$;\label{LemmBoundMinCOne}
\item if $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in D$ and $e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)<\lambda$ then $e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)\in D$, and \label{LemmBoundMinCTwo}
\item if $\alpha\in D\cap\mu$ then $\uppsi (\alpha) \in D$.\label{LemmBoundMinCThree}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
First we observe that $C(\mu)\cap \lambda$ indeed satisfies \ref{LemmBoundMinCOne}-\ref{LemmBoundMinCThree}, where for the first item we use the assumption that $\Omega<\lambda$ and for the third we use Lemma \ref{LemmPsiCountable} to see that $\uppsi(\alpha)<\Omega<\lambda$. Now, let $D$ be the least set satisfying \ref{LemmBoundMinCOne}-\ref{LemmBoundMinCThree}, and consider
\[D'=D\cup \big ( C(\mu)\setminus\lambda \big ) .\]
One readily verifies that $0,1, \Omega\in D'$, and that if $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in D'$ then $e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)\in D'$ (using the fact that $D\subseteq C(\mu)\cap \lambda\subseteq C(\mu)$ by minimality of $D$). Finally, if $\alpha<\mu$ and $\alpha\in D'$, then since $\mu\leq\lambda$ we have that $\alpha\in D$, and since $D$ satisfies \ref{LemmBoundMinCThree} we have that $\uppsi(\alpha)\in D\subseteq D' $. But by definition $C(\mu)$ is the least set with these properties, so we obtain $C(\mu)\subseteq D'$, and hence
\[C(\mu)\cap\lambda\subseteq D' \cap \lambda = D,\]
as was to be shown.
\endproof
We remark that the ordinal $\uppsi(\Gamma_{\Omega + 1})$ is computable, meaning that it is isomorphic to an ordering $\langle A,{\preccurlyeq}\rangle$, where $A\subseteq \mathbb N$ and both $A$ and $\preccurlyeq$ are $\Delta^0_1$-definable; however, we will not go into details here, and instead refer the reader to a text such as \cite{Pohlers:2009:PTBook}.
\subsection{Collapsing uncountable worms}
Now let us turn our attention to uncountable worms. The general idea is as follows. We have seen in Theorem \ref{TheoAutWorm} that worms give us a notation system for $\Gamma_0$ if we interpret $\langle {\mathfrak w}\rangle$ as $\langle o({\mathfrak w})\rangle$. Meanwhile, now we have a new modality $\langle\infty\rangle$, which we can regard as $\langle \omega_1 \rangle$. Note that, by Corollary \ref{CorKappaExp},
\[o(\langle\omega_1\rangle\top)=e^{\omega_1} o(\langle 0\rangle\top)= \omega_1 .\]
Thus if we add the new symbol $\Omega$ representing $\langle \omega_1\rangle$ to Beklemishev's autonomous worms, we see inductively that
\[\langle\omega_1 \rangle\top=\Bmap{\Omega }=\Bmap{\text{\tt (}\Omega\text{\tt )} }=\Bmap{\text{\tt ((}\Omega\text{\tt ))}}\hdots\]
Moreover, if such operations are to be interpreted proof-theoretically using iterated $\omega$-rules, then in view of Proposition \ref{PropCountableInfty} we have that $\langle \omega_1 \rangle\top\equiv \langle \omega_1 +\xi \rangle\top$ for any ordinal $\xi$. Thus we also would have, for example,
\[\langle\omega_1\rangle\top=\Bmap{\text{\tt (}\Omega\text{\tt )}}=\Bmap{\text{\tt (()}\Omega\text{\tt )}}=\Bmap{\text{\tt (}\Omega \Omega\text{\tt )}}\hdots\]
This would lead to quite a wasteful notation system! Thus we will adopt the following rule: when writing an autonomous worm $({{\tt w}})\top$, if ${\sf o}({{\tt w}})$ is countable, then we will take it at face-value and interpret $({{\tt w}})\top$ as $\langle {\sf o}({{\tt w}})\rangle \top$. However, if ${\sf o}({{\tt w}})$ is uncountable, we will first ``project'' it to a countable ordinal, in order to represent large countable worms.
Of course, projections will be very similar to collapsing functions; however, given that countable ordinals are taken at face value, these projections will have the property that $\uppi=\uppi\circ\uppi$ (thus their name). Other than that, their construction is very similar to that of $\uppsi$:
\begin{definition}\label{DefU}
Given a worm ${\mathfrak w} \in \mathbb W$ and an ordinal $\Omega$, we define $U ({\mathfrak w})\subseteq {\sf Ord}$ and a map $\cond \colon {\mathbb W} \to {\sf Ord}$ by induction on ${\mathfrak w}$ along $\wle{}$ as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $U ({{\mathfrak w}})$ be the least set of ordinals such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Omega\in U ({\mathfrak w})$,
\item if ${\mathfrak u} \sqsubset U ({\mathfrak w})$ and ${\mathfrak u} \wle{}{\mathfrak w}$ then $\cond ({\mathfrak u})\in U ({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Then, set
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\cond ({\mathfrak w})=o({\mathfrak w})$ if ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset \Omega $,
\item otherwise, set $\cond ({\mathfrak w})$ to be the least ordinal $\mu$ such that $\mu\not\in U({\mathfrak w})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We will write $\cond({\mathfrak w})$ or $\cond{\mathfrak w}$ indistinctly. Once again, we can write Definition \ref{DefU} in the terminology of Definition \ref{DefFClose} by setting
\[U({\mathfrak w})=\close{\cond\upharpoonright\{{\mathfrak v} : {\mathfrak v}\wle{}{\mathfrak w}\}}{\{\Omega\}}.\]
Thus Lemma \ref{LemmCardFClose} gives us the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmUCountable}
For every worm ${\mathfrak w}$, $U({\mathfrak w})$ and $\cond{\mathfrak w}$ are countable.
\end{lemma}
Throughout this section we will assume that $\Omega=\omega_1$, so that from Lemma \ref{LemmUCountable} we obtain $\cond{\mathfrak w}<\Omega$ for all worms ${\mathfrak w}$. As was the case for defining $\uppsi$, with some extra technical work we can take $\Omega=\omega^{CK}_1$ instead.
Note that $U({\mathfrak w})$ itself is not worm-closed, as it does not contain, for example, the ordinal $\Omega+1 = o (0\Omega \top)$. However, its countable part is indeed worm-perfect. The next lemmas will establish this fact. First, we show that it is worm-closed.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmOIsWorm}
For any worm ${\mathfrak v}$ with $o({\mathfrak v})\geq\Omega$, $U({\mathfrak v})\cap \Omega$ is worm-closed.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By Corollary \ref{CorBound}.\ref{CorBoundC}, if ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset U({\mathfrak v})\cap \Omega$, then ${\mathfrak w}\wle{}\Omega\top \wle{}{\mathfrak v}$, so that $o({\mathfrak w})=\cond ({\mathfrak w})\in U({\mathfrak v})$. But by Lemma \ref{LemmWormCard}, $o({\mathfrak w})<\Omega$, so $o({\mathfrak w}) \in U({\mathfrak v})\cap \Omega$ as needed.
\endproof
Recall that Lemma \ref{LemmExpPsi} states that $\uppsi (\xi)= e^{\uppsi(\xi)}1$. Next, we show that $\cond$ enjoys a similar property.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCondFix}
If $o({\mathfrak w})\geq \Omega$, then $o(\langle \cond {\mathfrak w} \rangle\top)= \cond {\mathfrak w}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Suppose not. Then, by Lemma \ref{LemmLowerBound}.\ref{LemmLowerBoundItOne}, $\cond {\mathfrak w}<o ( \langle \cond{\mathfrak w}\rangle \top ) $, so that by Corollary \ref{CorSurj}, there is a worm ${\mathfrak v}$ such that $o({\mathfrak v})= \cond{\mathfrak w}$. Since $o({\mathfrak v})<o(\langle\cond{\mathfrak w}\rangle\top)$, by Lemma \ref{LemmLowerBound}.\ref{LemmLowerBoundItOne} once again, we must have that ${\mathfrak v}\sqsubset \cond{\mathfrak w} \subseteq U({\mathfrak w})$. But by Lemma \ref{LemmOIsWorm}, $\cond {\mathfrak w}=o({\mathfrak v})\in U({\mathfrak w})$, contradicting the definition of $\cond{\mathfrak w}$.
\endproof
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmMinusO}
For any worm ${\mathfrak w}$, $U({\mathfrak w})\cap\Omega $ is worm-perfect and
\[U({\mathfrak w})\cap \Omega = U({\mathfrak w})\setminus\{\Omega\}.\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
For the first claim, in view of Lemma \ref{LemmOIsWorm}, it remains to show that if $\xi\in U({\mathfrak w})\cap\Omega $, then $\xi=o({\mathfrak v})$ for some ${\mathfrak v}\sqsubset U({\mathfrak w})\cap\Omega$. By definition of $U({\mathfrak w})$, if $\xi\in U({\mathfrak w})\cap\Omega $, then $\xi=\cond{\mathfrak u}$ for some ${\mathfrak u}\sqsubset U({\mathfrak w})$. If ${\mathfrak u}\sqsubset \Omega$, then $\xi=\cond{\mathfrak u}=o{\mathfrak u}$. Otherwise, by Lemma \ref{LemmCondFix}, $\xi=\cond{\mathfrak u}=o(\langle\cond{\mathfrak u}\rangle\top)$.
The second claim is immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmUCountable} and the assumption that $\Omega=\omega_1$, since $\cond{\mathfrak w}<\Omega$ for every worm ${\mathfrak w}$.
\endproof
However, as we have mentioned, $U({\mathfrak w})$ itself is not worm-closed, and neither is $\iter o{U({\mathfrak w})}$. Nevertheless, the latter does satisfy a bounded form of hyperexponential closure:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmUClosed}
Given any worm ${\mathfrak w}$ and ordinals $\alpha,\beta$, if $\alpha,\beta\in \ocl{U({\mathfrak w})}$ and $e^\alpha\beta< e^{\Omega+1}1$ then $e^ \alpha\beta\in \ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\alpha,\beta\in \ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})}$ and $e^\alpha\beta< e^{\Omega+1}1$, we may assume without loss of generality that $\beta>0$ (since otherwise $e^\alpha\beta=0$), so by the assumption that $o({\mathfrak w})<e^{\Omega+1}1=e^\Omega\omega$, we see by monotonicity that either $\alpha<\Omega$, or $\alpha=\Omega$ and $\beta<\omega$.
First assume that $\alpha<\Omega$, and let
\[{\mathfrak v}=\lambda_1\hdots\lambda_n\top \sqsubset U ({\mathfrak w})\]
be such that $\beta= o({\mathfrak v})$. In view of Lemma \ref{LemmMinusO}, for each $\lambda\in [1,n]$, either $\lambda_i = \Omega$, in which case $\alpha+\lambda_i=\lambda_i$, or $\lambda_i\in U({\mathfrak w})\cap\Omega$, which since $U({\mathfrak w})\cap\Omega$ is worm-perfect (Lemma \ref{LemmMinusO}) gives us $\alpha+\lambda_i\in U({\mathfrak w})\cap \Omega\subseteq U({\mathfrak w})$ (Lemma \ref{LemmSum}). Thus $\alpha+\lambda_i\in U({\mathfrak w})$ for each $i$, hence $\alpha\uparrow {\mathfrak v}\sqsubset U ({\mathfrak w})$, and
\[o(\alpha\uparrow {\mathfrak v}) = e^\alpha o({\mathfrak v})=e^\alpha \beta.\]
Otherwise, $\alpha=\Omega$, so $\beta<\omega$ and we see that $o(\langle\Omega\rangle^\beta\top)=e^\alpha\beta$. In either case, it follows that $e^\alpha\beta\in \ocl{(U({\mathfrak w}))}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmEOmBound}
Suppose that $\Omega=\omega_1$. Then, given any worm ${\mathfrak w}$,
\[e^{\Omega+1}1=\sup \Big \{o({\mathfrak v}):\exists{\mathfrak w} \ \big ( {\mathfrak v}\sqsubset U ({\mathfrak w}) \big) \Big \}.\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let
\[\Lambda=\sup \Big \{o({\mathfrak v}):\exists{\mathfrak w} \ \big ( {\mathfrak v}\sqsubset U ({\mathfrak w}) \big) \Big \}.\]
We have that
\[e^{\Omega+1}1=e^\Omega\omega=\lim_{n<\omega}e^\Omega n.\]
But, $e^\Omega n=o( \langle \Omega \rangle ^n\top)$, so $e^{\Omega+1}1\leq \Lambda$.
To see that $\Lambda\leq e^{\Omega+1}1$, proceed by induction on $\cnorm{\mathfrak v}$ to show that if ${\mathfrak v}\sqsubset U ({\mathfrak w})$ for some ${\mathfrak w}$, then $o({\mathfrak v})<e^{\Omega+1}1$.
If ${\mathfrak v}=\top$ there is nothing to prove, and if $\min{\mathfrak v}=0$ then by the induction hypothesis, $oh({\mathfrak v}),ob({\mathfrak v})<e^{\Omega+1}1$. Since the latter is additively indecomposable,
\[o({\mathfrak v})=ob({\mathfrak v})+1+oh({\mathfrak v})<e^{\Omega+1}1.\]
Finally, if $\mu=\min{\mathfrak v}>0$, then $o({\mathfrak v})=e^\mu o(\mu\downarrow {\mathfrak v})$. Consider two cases. If $\mu<\Omega$, then since by the induction hypothesis $o(\mu\downarrow {\mathfrak v})<e^{\Omega+1}1$, we obtain
\[e^\mu o(\mu\downarrow{\mathfrak v})<e^\mu e^{\Omega+1}1=e^{\mu+\Omega+1}1=e^{\Omega+1}1.\]
Otherwise, $\mu=\Omega$, but this means that $\mu\downarrow {\mathfrak v}=0^n\top$ for some $n$, hence $o({\mathfrak v})=e^{\Omega}n<e^{\Omega+1}1$.
\endproof
The above results tell us that $\cond$ behaves a lot like a version of $\uppsi$ that is restricted to $e^{\Omega+1}1$. Let us see that this is, in fact, the case.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmPsiCond}
For every worm ${\mathfrak w}$ with $o({\mathfrak w})\in [\Omega, e^{\Omega+1}1]$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C \big (-\Omega+ o({\mathfrak w}) \, \big ) \cap e^{\Omega+1}1 = \ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})}$, and
\item $\cond ({\mathfrak w})=\uppsi \big (-\Omega+o({\mathfrak w}) \big )$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
We prove both claims by induction on $o({\mathfrak w})$. Set $C=C(-\Omega+ o({\mathfrak w}))$. First let us show that
\[C\cap e^{\Omega+1}1\subseteq \ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})}.\]
Note that by Lemma \ref{LemmBoundMinC}, $C \cap e^{\Omega+1}1$ is the least set containing $0,1,\Omega$, closed under $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\mapsto e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)$ below $e^{\Omega+1}1$, and closed under $\uppsi\upharpoonright (-\Omega+ o({\mathfrak w}))$. But by Lemma \ref{LemmSum}, $\ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})}$ is closed under addition and by Lemma \ref{LemmUClosed}, by hyperexponentiation below $e^{\Omega+1}1$, so we only need to check that it is closed under $\uppsi\upharpoonright \big ( -\Omega + o({\mathfrak w}) \big ) $.
If $\alpha\in \ocl{U({\mathfrak w})}$ and $\alpha<o(-\Omega+o({\mathfrak w}))$, then by Lemma \ref{LemmSum} we have that $\Omega+\alpha=o({\mathfrak u})$ for some ${\mathfrak u}\sqsubset U({\mathfrak w})$. Then, by the induction hypothesis,
\[ \uppsi(\alpha) = \uppsi(-\Omega+o({\mathfrak u})) = \cond({\mathfrak u}) \in U({\mathfrak w}),\]
so that $\cond({\mathfrak u})\top\sqsubset U({\mathfrak w})$ and by Lemma \ref{LemmCondFix}, $\cond({\mathfrak u})=o(\cond({\mathfrak u})\top)$, as needed. Thus by the minimality of $C\cap e^{\Omega+1}1$, we conclude that $C \cap e^{\Omega+1} 1 \subset \ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})}.$
Next we check that
\[\ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})} \subseteq C\cap e^{\Omega+1}1.\]
By Lemma \ref{LemmEOmBound}, $\ocl{U({\mathfrak w})}\subseteq e^{\Omega+1}1$, so we only need to prove that $\ocl{ U({\mathfrak w})} \subseteq C$. But, in view of Lemmas \ref{LemmCClosedO} and Lemma \ref{LemmClosedSum}, $C$ is worm-perfect. Thus to show that $\ocl{U({\mathfrak w})} \subseteq C $, it suffices to prove that $U({\mathfrak w})\subseteq C$. As before, we show that $C$ satisfies the inductive definition of $U({\mathfrak w})$.
Let ${\mathfrak v}\sqsubset C$ be such that ${\mathfrak v}\wle{}{\mathfrak w}$. Once again by Lemma \ref{LemmCClosedO}, we have that $o({\mathfrak v}) \in C$. Now, if $o({\mathfrak v})<\Omega$, then this gives us $\cond{\mathfrak v}=o({\mathfrak v})\in C$. Otherwise, $-\Omega+o({\mathfrak v}) < -\Omega + o({\mathfrak w})$, and thus $\uppsi \big (-\Omega+o({\mathfrak v}) \, \big ) \in C$. But, by the induction hypothesis, $\uppsi \big ({-}\Omega+o({\mathfrak v}) \, \big )=\cond {\mathfrak v}$, so that $\cond{\mathfrak v}\in C$, as needed. By minimality of $U({\mathfrak w})$, we conclude that $ U({\mathfrak w}) \subseteq C$ and thus $\ocl{U({\mathfrak w})} \subseteq C$.
Since we have shown both inclusions, we conclude that
\[\ocl{U({\mathfrak w})} = C \cap e^{\Omega+1}1.\]
Moreover, $\uppsi \big (-\Omega+ o({\mathfrak w}) \big )$ is defined as the least ordinal not in $C=C \big (-\Omega+ o({\mathfrak w}) \big )$, and since $C$ is countable it is also the least ordinal not in $C\cap \Omega$. Similarly, $\cond{\mathfrak w}$ is the least ordinal not in ${ U({\mathfrak w}) } \cap \Omega=\ocl{ U({\mathfrak w}) } \cap \Omega$. Since these two sets are equal, it follows also that $\uppsi \big (-\Omega+ o({\mathfrak w}) \big )=\cond{\mathfrak w}$.
\endproof
\begin{corollary}\label{CorPsiCond}
$\cond(\langle \Omega+1\rangle\top)=\uppsi(e^{\Omega+1}1)$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
Immediate from Lemma \ref{LemmPsiCond} using the fact that
\[e^{\Omega+1}1= e^{\Omega + 1} o(\langle 0\rangle \top) = o(\langle e^{\Omega +1 }\rangle \top ).\qedhere\]
\endproof
\subsection{Impredicative worm notations}
Now let us extend Beklemishev's autonomous worms with the new modality $\Omega$ and projections of uncountable worms. Aside from the addition of $\Omega$, the presentation is very similar to that of Section \ref{SubsecAutWorms}.
\begin{definition}
Define the set of impredicative autonomous worms to be the least set $ {\sf W}_\Omega$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\top \in {\sf W}_\Omega$, and
\item if ${{\tt w}}, {{\tt v}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$, then
\begin{multicols}2
\begin{enumerate}
\item $({{\tt w}}){{\tt v}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$, and
\item $ \Omega{{\tt v}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{multicols}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
As before, the intention is for impredicative autonomous worms to be interpreted as standard worms. We do this via the following translation:
\begin{definition}
We define a map $\cdot^\cond\colon {\sf W}_\Omega\to{\mathbb W}$ given by
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\top^\cond=\top$,
\item $\big ( \text{\tt (}{{\tt w}}\text{\tt )}{{\tt v}} \big )^\cond=\langle \cond({{\tt w}}^\cond)\rangle {{\tt v}}^\cond$, and
\item $(\Omega{{\tt v}})^\cond=\langle \Omega \rangle {{\tt v}}^\cond$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Every ordinal in $U(\langle \Omega+1\rangle\top)\cap \Omega$ can be represented as an autonomous worm. Below, define ${\sf p}{{\tt w}}=\cond({{\tt w}}^\cond)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmImpAut}
If $\Omega=\omega_1$, then for every ordinal $\xi \in U(\langle \Omega+1\rangle\top)\cap \Omega$ there is ${{\tt w}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$ such that $\xi={\sf p}{{\tt w}}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Using the notation of Definition \ref{DefFClose}, we prove by induction on $n$ that if $\xi\in{\{\Omega\}}^\cond_n\cap \Omega$, then there is ${{\tt w}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$ such that $\xi={\sf p} {{\tt w}}$. If $n=0$ there is nothing to prove, so we may assume that $n=k+1$. Write $\xi=\cond({{\mathfrak v}})$ with ${\mathfrak v} \sqsubset \{ \Omega\}^\cond_k$. If ${\mathfrak v}=\top$, then $\xi=0={\sf p} \top $. Otherwise, we can write ${\mathfrak v} = \lambda{\mathfrak u} $ for some worm ${\mathfrak u}$. By a secondary induction on the length of ${\mathfrak v}$, we have that ${\mathfrak u}={{\tt u}}^\cond$ for some ${{\tt u}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$; meanwhile, either $\lambda=\Omega$, and ${{\tt v}}=\Omega{{\tt u}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$ satisfies
\[{\sf p} {{\tt v}} =\cond({{\tt v}}^\cond)=\cond(\langle\Omega\rangle {{\tt u}}^\cond)=\cond(\langle\Omega\rangle {\mathfrak u} )=\cond({\mathfrak v})=\xi,\]
or $\lambda<\Omega$, which means that $\lambda\in \{ \Omega\}^\cond_k$, so by the induction hypothesis, $\lambda={\sf p}{{\tt w}}$ for some ${{\tt w}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$. It follows that $\xi={\sf p} \text{\tt (}{{\tt w}}\text{\tt )}{{\tt v}}$, as desired.
\endproof
Just as autonomous worms gave us a notation system for $\Gamma_0$, impredicative autonomous worms give us a notation system for $\uppsi \big (e^{\Omega+1}1 \big )$.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoImpAut}
If $\Omega=\omega_1$, then for every $\xi<\uppsi \big (e^{\Omega+1}1 \big )$ there is ${{\tt w}}\in {\sf W}_\Omega$ such that $\xi={\sf p} {{\tt w}} $.
\end{theorem}
\proof
By Corollary \ref{CorPsiCond},
\[\uppsi \big (e^{\Omega+1}1 \big )=\cond (\langle \Omega+1\rangle\top),\]
and the latter is, by definition, the least ordinal not belonging to $U(\langle\Omega+1\rangle\top)$. Moreover, $\uppsi \big (e^{\Omega+1}1 \big )$ is countable by Lemma \ref{LemmPsiCountable}, so we have that $\xi<\Omega$. It follows that
\[\uppsi \big (e^{\Omega+1}1 \big ) \subseteq U(\langle\Omega+1\rangle\top) \cap \Omega;\]
thus we obtain the claim by Lemma \ref{LemmImpAut}.
\endproof
Impredicative autonomous worms may be suitable for a consistency proof in the spirit of Theorem \ref{TheoPACons} for theories with proof-theoretic strength the Bachmann-Howard ordinal (or even slightly more powerful theories). Examples of such theories are the theory ${\rm ID}_1$ of non-iterated inductive definitions, Kripke-Platek with infinity, and {\em parameter-free} $\pica$, where the $\Pi^1_1$ comprehension axiom is restricted to formulas without free set variables. However, the proof-theoretical ordinal of unrestricted $\pica$ is quite a bit larger, and obtained by collapsing all of the ordinals $\{\aleph_n: n<\omega\}$.
We remark that our notation system does not take the oracle in $[\infty|X]_T$ into account, and it is possible that autonomous worms with oracles would indeed give us a notation system for the proof-theoretical ordinal of $\pica$. However, we will not follow this route; instead, we will pass from worms to {\em spiders,} which will allow us to obtain notations for this, and much larger, ordinals.
\section{Spiders}\label{SecSpiders}
The problem with using iterated $\omega$-rules to interpret $[\lambda]_T\phi$ is that ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ no longer applies when $\lambda\geq\omega_1$; since we have that $[\omega_1+1]_T\phi$ is equivalent to $[\omega_1]_T\phi$, we cannot expect the ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace$ axiom $\langle\omega_1\rangle\phi\to [\omega_1+1]\langle\omega_1\rangle\phi$ to hold. So the question naturally arises: what kind of (sound) provability operator could derive all true instances of $\langle\omega_1\rangle\phi$?
Well, we know that $\langle\omega_1\rangle\phi$ is equivalent to $\forall \xi{<}\omega_1 \, \langle\xi\rangle\phi$, which gives us a strategy for proving that $\langle\infty\rangle_T\phi$ holds: prove that
\[\langle 0\rangle_T\phi,\langle 1 \rangle_T\phi,\langle 2\rangle_T\phi,\hdots,\langle \omega \rangle_T\phi,\hdots,\langle\Gamma_0\rangle_T\phi,\hdots \langle \uppsi(\varepsilon_{\Omega+1})\rangle_T\phi,\hdots\]
all hold, and more generally, that $\langle \xi\rangle_T\phi$ holds for all $\xi<\omega_1$. Let us sketch some ideas for formalizing this in the language of set-theory. We remark that this material is exploratory, and will be studied in detail in upcoming work.
\subsection{$\aleph_\xi$-rules}
We use ${\mathcal L}_\in$ to denote the language of first-order set theory whose only relation symbols are $\in$ and $=$. As we did in second-order arithmetic, we use $x\subseteq y$ as a shorthand for $\forall z (z\in x\rightarrow z\in y).$ We also use $\exists! x \phi(x)$ as the standard shorthand for ``there is a unique''. Then, recall that Zermenlo-Fraenkel set theory with choice, denoted $\rm ZFC$, is the extension of first-order logic axiomatized by the universal closures of the following:
\begin{description}
\item[Extensionality:] $(x\subseteq y\wedge y\subseteq x) \rightarrow y=x $;
\item[Foundation:] $\exists x \,\phi(x)\rightarrow \exists x \, \big (\phi(x) \wedge \forall y\in x \, \neg\phi(y)\big )$, where $\phi(x)$ is an arbitrary formula in which $y$ does not occur free;
\item[Pair:] $\exists z \, (x\in z\wedge y\in z)$;
\item[Union:] $ \exists y \, \forall z {\in} x \, (z\subseteq y)$;
\item[Powerset:] $ \exists y \, \forall z\, (z\subseteq x \rightarrow z\in y)$;
\item[Separation:] $ \exists y\, \forall z\, \big (z\in y\leftrightarrow z\in x\wedge \phi(z) \big )$, where $y$ does not occur free in $\phi(z)$,
\item[Collection:] $ \forall x{\in} w \, \exists y \, \phi(x,y)\rightarrow \exists z \, \forall x{\in} w \, \exists y{\in} z \, \phi(x,y) $, where $z$ does not occur free in $\phi(x)$,
\item[Infinity:] $\exists w \, \Big (\exists x \, \big (x\in w\wedge \forall y\, (y\not\in x) \big ) \wedge \, \forall x { \in } w\, \exists y {\in} w \, \forall z (z\in y \leftrightarrow z\in x\vee z=x ) \Big ),$ and
\item[Choice:] $
\forall x {\in} w \, \Big ( \exists y \, (y \in x) \wedge \forall y{\in} w \, \big (\exists z (z\in x \wedge z\in y) \rightarrow x = y \big ) \Big )$
\hfill$\rightarrow \exists z \, \forall x{\in} w \, \exists ! y \, (y\in x \wedge y\in z).
$
\end{description}
As we have stated the union and powerset axioms we may obtain sets that are too big, but we can then obtain the desired sets using separation. Observe also that the Foundation scheme states that $\in$ is well-founded; this allows us to simply define an ordinal as a transitive set all of whose elements are transitive as well, obtaining well-foundedness for free.
This set-theoretic context will allow us to define an analogue of the $\omega$-rule which quantifies over all elements of $\omega_1$; more generally, for any cardinal $\kappa$ we can define the {\em $\kappa$-rule} by
\[\dfrac{\langle \phi(\xi)\rangle_{\xi<\kappa}}{\forall x< \kappa \, \phi(x)}.\]
Of course, in order to do this we need to have names for all elements of $\kappa$, as well as $\kappa$ itself. To this effect, let ${\mathcal L}_\in^\kappa$ be a (possibly uncountable) extension of ${\mathcal L}_\in$ which contains one constant $c_\xi$ for each $\xi<\kappa$; to simplify notation, we may assume that $c_\xi=\xi$ and simply write the latter. Then, the $\kappa$-rule is readily applicable in any language extending $\lan\in^{\kappa+1}$. Similarly, for a theory $T$ over ${\mathcal L}_\in$, let $T^\kappa$ be the extension of $T$ over $\lan\in^{\kappa}$ with the axioms $\xi\in \zeta$ whenever $\xi<\zeta\leq\kappa$, and $\xi\not \in \zeta$ whenever $\zeta\leq\xi\leq\kappa$.
If $T$ is an extension of ${\rm ZFC}^\kappa$, we may enrich $T$ by operators of the form $\iprovx\lambda\kappa T\phi$, meaning that $\phi$ is provable using $\kappa$-rules of depth at most $\alpha$. Recall that if $\xi$ is an ordinal, then $\aleph_\xi$ denotes the $\xi^{\rm th}$ infinite ordinal. Then, any infinite cardinal $\kappa$ may be represented in the form $\aleph_\beta$ for some $\beta$, and we write $\iprovx{\xi}{\beta}T\phi$ to state that $\phi$ may be proven by iterating $\aleph_\beta$-rules along $\xi$.
If we want the $\aleph$ function to be well-defined, we must work within a cardinal that is closed under $\xi\mapsto\aleph_\xi$. Fortunately, $\xi\mapsto\aleph_\xi$ is a normal function, so we may hyperate it, and readily observe that $\aleph^\omega (0)$ is the first ordinal $\xi$ such that $\aleph_\xi=\xi$. Thus we may assume that $T$ is an extension of ${\rm ZFC}^{\aleph^\omega (0) }$.
\begin{definition}
Let $T$ be a theory over $\lan\in^{\aleph^\omega (0) }$, $\alpha,\beta$ be ordinals, and $\phi\in \lan\in^{\aleph^\omega (0) }$. Then, by recursion on $\beta$ with a secondary recursion on $\alpha$, we define $\iprovx \alpha\beta T\phi$ to hold if either
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\Box}_T \phi$, or
\item there are a formula $\psi(x)$ and ordinals $\gamma,\eta$ such that $\eta\leq \beta$ and either $\eta<\beta$ or $\gamma<\alpha$, and such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for each $\delta < \aleph_ {\eta}$, $\iprovx\gamma{\eta}T{\psi(\delta)}$, and
\item ${\Box}_T \big ((\forall x < \aleph_\eta \, \psi(x))\to\phi \big )$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
As was the case with $\omega$-rules, we have that for any $\beta$, the $\aleph_\beta$-rule saturates by $\aleph_{\beta+1}$:
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoSatAleph}
If $\iprovx \lambda\eta T\phi$ for arbitrary $\lambda$, then there is $\lambda'<\aleph_{\eta+1}$ such that $\iprovx {\lambda'} \eta T\phi$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
By induction on $\eta$ with a secondary induction on $\lambda$. If ${\Box}_T \phi$ holds then clearly $\iprovx 0\eta T\phi$. Otherwise, there are a formula $\psi(x)$ and ordinals $\gamma$ and $\delta\leq \eta$ such that either $\delta<\eta$ or $\gamma<\lambda$, and for each $\xi < \aleph_ {\delta}$, $\iprovx\gamma{\delta}T{\psi(\xi)}$ and ${\Box}_T \big ((\forall x < \aleph_\delta \, \psi(x))\to\phi \big )$.
By the induction hypothesis, for each $\xi<\aleph_\delta$ there is
\[\lambda_\xi<\aleph_{\delta+1}\leq \aleph_{\eta+1}\]
such that $\iprovx{\lambda_\xi}{\delta}T{\psi(\xi)}$. By Lemma \ref{LemmCardinal}, we have that
\[\lambda=\sup_{\xi<\aleph_\delta}\lambda_\xi<\aleph_{\eta+1},\]
and therefore also $\lambda+1 <\aleph_{\eta+1}$. But then observe that $\iprovx{\lambda+1}\eta T\phi$, as desired.
\endproof
Thus we have a similar situation as we had when considering $\langle \omega_1+\xi\rangle_T\phi$; any expressions of the form $\iconsx{\aleph_{\beta+1}+\alpha}\beta T\phi$ is equivalent to $\iconsx{\aleph_{\beta+1}}\beta T\phi$. Moreover, observe that $\iconsx{\aleph_{\beta+1}}\beta T\phi$ is in turn equivalent to $\iconsx{0}{\beta+1} T\phi$; thus we should only be interested in expressions of the form $\iconsx{\alpha}\beta T\phi$ in cases when $\alpha<\aleph_{\beta+1}$. Otherwise, as we did for impredicative worms, we may collapse $\alpha$ to an ordinal $\uppsi_\beta(\alpha)<\aleph_{\beta+1}$.
In Section \ref{SubsecCollAleph} we will review a version of Buchholz's ordinal notation system which achieves exactly that, and in Section \ref{SubsecCollSpiders} we will see how these ideas may be applied to {\em spiders,} which are similar to worms but based on modalities ${\alpha \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\beta}$. However, before we continue, we remark that working with uncountable languages has some obvious drawbacks. Fortunately, this can be avoided by working with admissible ordinals rather than cardinals.
\subsection{Iterated admissibles}
If we work with an uncountable language then the usual proof of the validity of
\[\iconsx 00 T\phi\rightarrow \iprovx 10 T\iconsx 00 T\phi\]
will not go through, given that we cannot code all possible derivations as natural numbers. There is more than one way to get around this problem; one can allow only ordinals appearing in $\phi$ to be used in a derivation of $\phi$, for example. Alternately, we can work with admissible ordinals, (many of) which are countable, instead of cardinals.
In the set-theoretical context, a {\em $\Delta_0$ formula} is any formula $\phi$ of $\lan\in$ such that all quantifiers appearing in $\phi$ are either of the form $\forall x\in y$ or $\exists x\in y$. Then, {\em Kripke-Platek set theory} is the subtheory $\rm KP$ of $\rm ZFC$ in which the axioms of choice, powerset and infinity are removed, and separation and collection are restricted to $\phi\in\Delta_0$.
With this in mind, we say that an ordinal $\alpha$ is {\em admissible} if ${\mathbb L}_\alpha$ (in G\"odel's constructible hierarchy) is a model of ${\rm KP}$. Admissible sets are studied in great detail in \cite{Barwise}. Moreover, an analogue of Theorem \ref{TheoSatAleph} also holds if we define:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\omega^{CK}_ 0=\omega$,
\item $\omega^{CK}_ {\xi+1}$ to be the least admissible $\alpha$ such that $ \omega^{CK}_\xi < \alpha$, and
\item $\omega^{CK}_\lambda=\displaystyle\lim_{\xi<\lambda}\omega^{CK}_\xi$ for $\lambda$ a limit ordinal.
\end{enumerate}
This allows us to interpret $\iprovx\alpha\beta T$ using a countable language by replacing the $\aleph_\beta$-rule by the {\em $\omega^{CK}_\beta$-rule,}
\[\dfrac{\langle \phi(\xi)\rangle_{\xi<\omega^{CK}_\beta}}{\forall x< \omega^{CK}_\beta \, \phi(x)}.\]
Working with admissibles rather than cardinals makes the properties of collapsing functions more difficult to prove, but this has been done by Rathjen in \cite{Rathjen1993}. For simplicity, in this text we will continue to work with the $\aleph$-function.
\subsection{Collapsing the Aleph function}\label{SubsecCollAleph}
In this section we will review a variant of Buchholz's notation system of ordinal notations based on collapsing the aleph function \cite{Buchholz}. The ordinals obtained appear, for example, in the proof-theoretical analysis of the theories ${\rm ID}_\nu$ of iterated inductive definitions \cite{BookInductiveDefinitions}. Below, define $\Om\xi=-\omega+\aleph_\xi$; we will continue with this convention throughout the rest of the text.
\begin{definition}\label{DefPsiEta}
Given ordinals $\eta,\xi$, we simultaneously define the sets $C _\eta(\xi)$ and the ordinals $\uppsi _\eta(\xi)$ by induction on $\xi$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C _\eta (\xi)$ is the least set such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $2+\Om\eta\subseteq C _\eta(\xi)$;\label{DefPsiEtaItOne}
\item if $\alpha,\beta,\gamma \in C _\eta(\xi)$ then $e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)\in C (\xi)$, and
\item if $\alpha,\beta\in C _\eta(\xi)$ and $\beta<\xi$, then $\uppsi_{\alpha}(\beta)\in C _\eta(\xi)$;
\end{enumerate}
\item $\uppsi _\eta(\xi)=\min \{\xi : \xi\not\in C _\eta(\xi)\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Observe that \eqref{DefPsiEtaItOne} could be simplified somewhat if we had defined $\Om 0=2$, but our presentation will in turn simplify some expressions later. As before, it is possible to define $C _\eta(\xi)$ using the notation of Definition \ref{DefFClose} and thus we can apply our previous work to these sets. Aside from the first item, which is easy to check, the following lemma summarizes the analogues of Lemmas \ref{LemmExpPsi}, \ref{LemmCClosedO}, and \ref{LemmPsiCountable}. The proofs are essentially the same and we omit them.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCProp}
Given ordinals $\eta,\mu$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\uppsi_{1+\eta}(0)=\Om{1+\eta}$;
\label{LemmCPropZero}
\item $\uppsi_\eta(\mu)$ is additively indecomposable and satisfies $e^{\uppsi_\eta(\mu)}1=\uppsi_\eta(\mu)$;
\item $C_\eta(\mu)$ is hyperexponentially perfect,
\item $\card{C_\eta(\mu)}=\Om\eta$, and
\item $\uppsi_\eta (\mu)\in[\Om\eta,\Om{\eta+1})$.\label{LemmCPropFour}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The first ordinal that we cannot write using indexed collapsing functions is $\uppsi_0(\Upomega^\omega 1)$:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmUpomegaBound}
Given ordinals $\eta<\Upomega^\omega 1$ and an arbitrary ordinal $\mu$,
\[\sup C_\eta(\mu)=\Upomega^\omega 1.\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
To see that $\sup C_\eta(\mu)\leq\Upomega^\omega 1,$ we observe that $\Upomega^\omega 1$ is closed under all of the operations defining $C_\eta ( \mu ) $:
Since $\eta<\Upomega^\omega 1$, we have that $\Om\eta\subseteq \Upomega^\omega 1$. By Lemmas \ref{LemmCardOrd} and \ref{LemmExpCard}, we see that if $\alpha,\beta,\gamma <\Upomega^\omega 1$, then
\[\kappa := \card{e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma)}\leq \max\{\omega,\card\alpha,\card\beta,\card\gamma\}.\]
We then have that $\kappa<\Upomega^\omega 1$, so writing $\kappa=\Om\xi$ for some $\xi<\Upomega^\omega 1$, we observe that \[e^\alpha(\beta+\gamma) < \Om{\xi+1} < \Upomega^\omega 1.\]
Finally we note that if $\nu,\xi<\Upomega^\omega 1$, then by Lemma \ref{LemmCProp}.\ref{LemmCPropFour}, $\uppsi_\nu(\xi)<\Om{\nu+1}<\Upomega^\omega 1$.
Now, to see that
\[\sup C_\eta(\mu)\geq \Upomega^\omega 1,\]
simply consider the sequence $(\pi_n)_{n<\omega}$ given by $\pi_0=0$ and $\pi_{n+1}=\uppsi_{\pi_n}(0)\in C_\eta(\mu)$. By Lemma \ref{LemmCProp}.\ref{LemmCPropZero} we have that $\pi_{n+1}=\Om{\pi_n}$ which by Lemma \ref{LemmExpRec} converges to $\Upomega^\omega 1$.
\endproof
The ordinal $\uppsi_0(\Upomega^\omega 1)$ is also computable, but we will not prove this here; see e.g.~\cite{Buchholz} for details.
In the next section, we will present a variant of the functions $\uppsi_\nu$ using worm-like notations obtained from iterated $\aleph_\xi$-rules.
\subsection{Iterated Alephs and spiders}\label{SubsecCollSpiders}
We have seen in Theorem \ref{TheoAutWorm} that Beklemishev's autonomous worms give a notation system for all ordinals below the Feferman-Sch\"utte ordinal $\Gamma_0$, and in Theorem \ref{TheoImpAut} that impredicative worms extend this to all ordinals below $\uppsi(e^{\Omega+1}1)$ (which becomes $\uppsi_0 (e^{\uppsi_0(0)+1}1)$ in our version of Buccholz's notation). Now let us introduce spiders, which may be used to give notations for much larger ordinals than we could with worms.
\begin{definition}\label{DefSpider}
Let $\Lambda$ be either an ordinal or the class of all ordinals, and $f\colon\Lambda\to\Lambda$ be a normal function. We define $\Lambda \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle f$ to be the class of all pairs of ordinals ${\lambda \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\mu}$ such that $f(\mu)+\lambda<f(\mu+1)$, and write ${\mathbb S}^\Lambda_f$ for the set of all expressions of the form
\[{\bm \lambda}_1\hdots {\bm \lambda}_n\top,\]
with each ${\bm \lambda}_i\in {\Lambda \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle f}$. We simply write ${\mathbb S}$ instead of ${\mathbb S}^{\sf Ord}_\Upomega$. Elements of ${\mathbb S}$ are called {\em spiders.}
\end{definition}
We will restrict our attention to the case where $f(\xi) = \Om \xi= -\omega+\aleph_\xi$, although we state Definition \ref{DefSpider} with some generality to stress that there are other possible choices for $f$. In a way, spiders are simply a different way to represent worms; to pass from one representation to the other, we introduce two auxiliary functions.
\begin{definition}
Let $\alpha$ be any ordinal. Then, define
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\cindex\alpha$ to be the greatest ordinal such that $\Om{\cindex\alpha} \leq \alpha,$ and
\item $\dot\alpha=- \Om{\cindex\alpha} +\alpha$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
This definition is sound because for any normal function $f$ with $f(0)=0$ and any ordinal $\mu$, there is always a greatest ordinal $\xi$ such that $f(\xi)\leq \mu$. The `translation' between worms and spiders is the following:
\begin{definition}
Define:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\flat\colon{{\sf Ord} \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\Upomega} \to {\sf Ord}$ by $\flatten {\lambda \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\mu}=\Om\mu+\lambda,$ and set ${\lambda \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\mu}\leq {\eta \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\nu}$ if and only if $\flatten{\lambda \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\mu}\leq \flatten{\eta \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\nu}.$ If ${\mathfrak X}={\bm \lambda}_1\hdots {\bm \lambda}_n\top\in {\mathbb S}$, set $\flatten {\mathfrak X}=\flatten {\bm \lambda}_1\hdots\flatten {\bm \lambda}_n\top$.
\item $\sharp\colon {\sf Ord}\to {\Lambda \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle\Upomega}$ by $\sharp \lambda={{\dot\lambda} \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle{\cindex{\lambda}}}.$ If ${\mathfrak w}={ \mu}_1\hdots { \mu}_n\top\in {\mathbb W}$, set $\sharpen {\mathfrak w}=\sharpen{\mu}_1\hdots\sharpen {\mu}_n\top$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The following is then immediately verified:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmInvFS}
The class functions $\flatten{}$ and $\sharpen{}$ are bijective and inverses of each other.
\end{lemma}
With this, we can extend our worm notation to spiders.
\begin{definition}
If ${\mathfrak X}\in{\mathbb S} $, define
\begin{enumerate}
\item $O({\mathfrak X})=o(\flatten{\mathfrak X})$,
\item $H({\mathfrak X})=h(\flatten {\mathfrak X})$ and $B({\mathfrak X})=b(\flatten {\mathfrak X})$,
\item ${\mathfrak X}\wle{}{\mathfrak Y}$ if and only if $\flatten {\mathfrak X}\wle{}\flatten {\mathfrak Y}$, and
\item if $\mu$ is any ordinal, $\mu\uparrow{\mathfrak X} = \sharpen{(\mu\uparrow{\flatten {\mathfrak X}})}.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Alternately, we can define the head and body of a spider without first turning them into worms:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSpiderHead}
Given a spider ${\mathfrak X}$, $H({\mathfrak X})$ is the maximum initial segment \[H({\mathfrak X})={\lambda_1 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_1 }\hdots {\lambda_m \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_m }\top\in{\mathbb S}\]
of ${\mathfrak X}$ such that for all $i\in [1,m]$, either $\lambda_i\not=0$ or $\eta_i\not=0$.
If $H({\mathfrak X})={\mathfrak X}$ then $B({\mathfrak X})=\top$, otherwise $B({\mathfrak X})$ is the unique spider such that
\[{\mathfrak X}=H({\mathfrak X})\textstyle{0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle 0} B({\mathfrak X}).\]
\end{lemma}
As was the case with worms, the cardinality of $O({\mathfrak X})$ is easy to extract from ${\mathfrak X}$:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmBoundSpid}
If
\[{\mathfrak X}={\lambda_1 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_1 }\hdots {\lambda_n \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_n }\top\in{\mathbb S},\]
then
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every $i\in[1,n]$, $\lambda_i,\eta_i \leq O({\mathfrak X})$, and\label{ItemBoundSpidOne}
\item if $\card{ O({\mathfrak X})}>\omega$, then $\card{O({\mathfrak X})}=\Om{\max_{i\in [1,n]}\eta_i}$.\label{ItemBoundSpidTwo}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
Immediate by applying Lemma \ref{LemmWormCard} to $\flatten{\mathfrak X}$ and observing that if $\mu>0$, $\card{\Om\mu+\lambda}=\Om\mu$ given that $\lambda<\Om{\mu+1}$.
\endproof
We can also give an analogue of $\sqsubset$ for spiders:
\begin{definition}
If
\[{\mathfrak W}={\lambda_1 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_1 }\hdots {\lambda_n \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_n }\top\in{\mathbb S} \]
and $\Theta$ is a set of ordinals, we define ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega\Theta$ if each $\lambda_i,\eta_i\in\Theta$.
\end{definition}
With this, we are ready to `project' spiders.
\begin{definition}
Given ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}\in{\mathbb S} $, we define $U_{\mathfrak Y} ({\mathfrak X})\subseteq {\sf Ord}$ and an ordinal $\cond_{\mathfrak Y}{\mathfrak X}$ by induction on ${\mathfrak X}$ along $\wle{}$ as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $U_{\mathfrak Y}({{\mathfrak X}})$ be the least set of ordinals such that if
\[{\mathfrak U},{\mathfrak V}\sqsubset_\Upomega \Om{ O({\mathfrak Y}) }\cup U_{\mathfrak Y}({{\mathfrak X}})\]
and ${\mathfrak V}\wle{}{\mathfrak X}$, then $\cond_{\mathfrak U}{\mathfrak V} \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({{\mathfrak X}})$.
\item For any ${\mathfrak Y}\in{\mathbb S} $,
\begin{enumerate}
\item If ${\mathfrak X}\wle{} {0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle { O({\mathfrak Y}) +1}}\top$, set $\cond_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})= O({\mathfrak X})$;
\item otherwise,
\[\cond_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})=\min \{\xi : \xi\not\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \}.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In the remainder of this section, we will see that the functions $\cond_{\mathfrak X}$ behave very similarly to the functions $\uppsi_\nu$. We begin with a simple lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSpiderZeroOne}
If ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$ are spiders with $O({\mathfrak X})>1$, then $0,1\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Immediate from observing that $0= O( \top) =\cond_\top \top$ and $1=O({0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle 0}\top)=\cond_\top \left ( {0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle 0}\top \right ) $.
\endproof
With the next few lemmas, we show that the elements of $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ can be characterized as the order-types of suitable spiders.
In the process, we obtain some useful properties of $\cond_{\mathfrak Y} {\mathfrak X}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmOIsSpider}
If ${\mathfrak X}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak V}({\mathfrak W})$ and ${\mathfrak X}\wle{}{\mathfrak W}$, then $ O({\mathfrak X}) \in U_{\mathfrak V}({\mathfrak W})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let ${\mathfrak X}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak V}({\mathfrak W})$ be such that ${\mathfrak X} \wle{} {\mathfrak W}$. Since $\Upomega$ is normal, for every $\xi$ we have that $\xi\leq \Om\xi$. In particular,
\[ O( {\mathfrak X})< O({\mathfrak X})+1\leq \Om{ O( {\mathfrak X}) +1}.\]
It follows that $ O( {\mathfrak X}) =\cond_{{\mathfrak X}}{\mathfrak X} \in U_{\mathfrak V}({\mathfrak W})$.
\endproof
With this, we can show that $\cond_{\mathfrak Y} {\mathfrak X}$ has cardinality $\Om{O ( {\mathfrak Y} ) }$, provided $O({\mathfrak X}) $ is large enough.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCondBound}
If ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$ are spiders with $O({\mathfrak X}) \geq \Om{O({\mathfrak Y}) + 1}$, then
\[\cond_{\mathfrak Y} {\mathfrak X} \in \big [\Om{ O({\mathfrak Y}) } , \Om{ O({\mathfrak Y}) + 1} \big ).\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
If $\xi<\Om{O({\mathfrak Y})}$, then by Corollary \ref{CorSurj} we obtain ${\mathfrak w}\sqsubset\Om{ O( {\mathfrak Y}) }$ such that $o({\mathfrak w})=\xi$ and observe that $\sharpen {\mathfrak w} \wle{} {\mathfrak X}$, so that by Lemma \ref{LemmOIsSpider}, $\xi = O( \sharpen{\mathfrak w}) \in U_{\mathfrak Y} ({\mathfrak X})$. It follows that $\cond_{\mathfrak Y} {\mathfrak X} \geq \Om{ O( {\mathfrak Y}) }$. Meanwhile, by Lemma \ref{LemmCardFClose}, $\card{U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})} \leq \omega + \Om{ O( {\mathfrak Y} ) }$, so $\cond_{\mathfrak Y} {\mathfrak X} < \Om{ O({\mathfrak Y}) + 1} $.
\endproof
Moreover, $\cond_{\mathfrak Y}{\mathfrak X}$ satisfies an analogue of Lemma \ref{LemmCondFix}:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCondsFixedAleph}
If $O({\mathfrak X}) \geq \Om{ O({\mathfrak Y}) +1}$, then $O \left ( {{\cond_{\mathfrak Y}{\mathfrak X}} \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {O({\mathfrak Y})}}\top \right ) =\cond_{\mathfrak Y}{\mathfrak X}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Analogous to the proof of Lemma \ref{LemmCondFix}, except that to reach a contradiction we use Lemma \ref{LemmBoundSpid}.\ref{ItemBoundSpidOne} to obtain a spider ${\mathfrak V}$ such that $O({\mathfrak V})= \cond_{\mathfrak Y}{\mathfrak X}$ and all of whose entries are strictly bounded by $\cond_{\mathfrak Y}{\mathfrak X}$.
\endproof
With this we can show that the elements of $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ are the order-types of suitable spiders, as claimed.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSpiderIsO}
Let ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$ be spiders and $\xi$ an ordinal. Then, $\xi\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ if and only if there is ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ such that $\xi = O({\mathfrak W})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
One direction is Lemma \ref{LemmOIsSpider}. For the other, if $\xi\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})\cap O({\mathfrak X})$, then there are ${\mathfrak U},{\mathfrak V} \sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y} ({\mathfrak X})$ such that ${\mathfrak U} \wle{} {\mathfrak X}$ and $\xi=\cond_{\mathfrak V}{\mathfrak U}$. If ${\mathfrak U}\wle{}{0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {O({\mathfrak V})+1}}\top$, then we already have $\xi=O({\mathfrak U})$. If not, by Lemma \ref{LemmCondBound}, \[O({\mathfrak V}) \leq \Om{O({\mathfrak V})} \leq \xi < O({\mathfrak X}),\]
so that by Lemma \ref{LemmOIsSpider}, $O({\mathfrak V}) \in U_{\mathfrak Y} ({\mathfrak X})$, and hence ${{\xi} \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle{O({\mathfrak V})}} \top \sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y} ({\mathfrak X})\cap O({\mathfrak X})$.
Meanwhile, by
Lemma \ref{LemmCondsFixedAleph},
\[O \left ( {{\cond_{\mathfrak V}{\mathfrak U}} \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle{O({\mathfrak V})}}\top \right ) =\cond_{\mathfrak V}{\mathfrak U}=\xi , \]
as needed.
\endproof
Lemma \ref{LemmSpiderIsO} is useful in showing that $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$ is well-behaved. For example, it satisfies a bounded version of additive reducibility.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCantorSpider}
Given spiders ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$ and an additively decomposable ordinal $\xi<O({\mathfrak X})$, we have that $\xi \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$
if and only if there are $\alpha,\beta \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap \xi$ such that $\xi = \alpha + \beta$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Analogous to the proof of Lemma \ref{LemmSum}. To illustrate, let us check that if $\xi\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ is additively decomposable, then there are $\alpha,\beta\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})\cap O({\mathfrak X})$ such that $\xi=\alpha+\beta$.
Using Lemma \ref{LemmSpiderIsO}, write $\xi=O({\mathfrak W})$ with ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$. Then, by Theorem \ref{TheoTranOrder},
\[\xi=O({\mathfrak W})=o(\flatten{\mathfrak W})=ob(\flatten{\mathfrak W})+1+o h(\flatten {\mathfrak W}).\]
Set $\alpha= ob(\flatten{\mathfrak W})$ and $\beta=1+o h(\flatten {\mathfrak W})$. Observe that $\alpha<\xi$, while $\beta$ is additively indecomposable so $\beta\not=\xi$. Hence, $\alpha,\beta<\xi$.
Finally, observe that $H({\mathfrak W}),B({\mathfrak W})\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$,
\[\beta=1+oh(\flatten{\mathfrak W})=o((\flatten H({\mathfrak W}))0)=O \left (H({\mathfrak W})\textstyle{0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle 0} \right ),\]
and $H({\mathfrak W})\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$; similarly, $\alpha=O B({\mathfrak W}),$ so $\alpha,\beta\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
\endproof
Note that $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$ is not necessarily additively reductive; howerer, this truncated form of additive reducibility is sufficient to obtain the conclusion of Lemma \ref{LemmSumCantor}:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSumCantorTrunc}
Let $\Theta$ be a set of ordinals such that $0\in\Theta$, and $\lambda$ be an ordinal such that, whenever $\xi < \lambda$ is additively reducible, then $\xi \in \Theta$ if and only if there are $\alpha,\beta < \xi$ such that $\alpha + \beta = \xi$. Then, for any ordinal $\xi$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $0\not=\xi\in\Theta \cap \lambda $, there are ordinals $\alpha,\beta$ such that $\alpha,\omega^\beta\in \Theta$ and $\xi=\alpha+\omega^\beta$;
\item if $\beta\in\Theta \cap \lambda$ and $\alpha<\beta$ (not necessarily a member of $\Theta$), then $-\alpha+\beta\in \Theta$.\label{LemmSumCantorMinusTrunc}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The proof is identical to that of Lemma \ref{LemmSumCantor} and we omit it.
Next we see that the sets $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$ are also closed under some operations related to cardinality.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmClosedCard}
If ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$ are worms and $\xi\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap \Om{{\mathfrak X}}$, then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\cindex\xi \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$;
\item
if moreover $\Om\xi < O({\mathfrak X})$, then $\Om\xi \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For the first claim, if $\xi$ is at most countable, $\cindex\xi=0\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$. If not, by Lemma \ref{LemmSpiderIsO}, $\xi=O({\mathfrak W})$ for some ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$, and by \ref{LemmBoundSpid}.\ref{ItemBoundSpidTwo}, $\eta=\cindex\xi$ occurs in ${\mathfrak W}$, hence $\eta\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
For the second, we observe that ${0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {O({\mathfrak W}) } } \top \wle{} {0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {O({\mathfrak W}) + 1} } \top$, so that
\[\Om\xi = O\left ({0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {O({\mathfrak W}) } } \top \right ) = \cond_{\mathfrak W} \left ( {0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {O({\mathfrak W}) } } \top \right ).\]
If we moreover have $\Om\xi < O({\mathfrak X})$, this gives us $\Om\xi\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
\endproof
The following lemmas show that our work on worms can be used to study the sets $ U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSpiderIffFlat}
Given spiders ${\mathfrak W},{\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$,
\[{\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})\]
if and only if
\[\flatten{\mathfrak W}\sqsubset U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X}).\]
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let
\[{\mathfrak W}={\lambda_1 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_1 }\hdots {\lambda_n \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle \eta_n }\top\in{\mathbb S}.\]
If ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$, then each $\lambda_i,\eta_i\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) $. By Lemma \ref{LemmClosedCard}, $\Om{\eta_i}\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) $, and by Lemma \ref{LemmCantorSpider}, $\Om{\eta_i}+\lambda_i\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$. Since
\[\Om{\eta_i}, \Om{\eta_i} + \lambda_i \leq O({\mathfrak W}) < O({\mathfrak X}),\]
it follows that $\flatten{\mathfrak W}\sqsubset U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X}) $.
Conversely, if $\flatten{\mathfrak W}\sqsubset U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X}) $, write $ \flatten{\mathfrak W}=\mu_1\hdots\mu_n\top$. By Lemma \ref{LemmClosedCard}, $\cindex{\mu_i}\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$, and by Lemma \ref{LemmCantorSpider} together with Lemma \ref{LemmSumCantorTrunc}.\ref{LemmSumCantorMinusTrunc}, $\dot \mu_i\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$. It follows from Lemma \ref{LemmInvFS} that
\[{\mathfrak W}=\sharpen{\flatten{\mathfrak W}}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X}) \]
by observing that $\cindex{\mu_i},\dot \mu_i \leq \mu_i < O({\mathfrak X})$.
\endproof
With this we see that the sets $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ are almost worm-perfect.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoSpiderPerfect}
Given spiders ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$ and an ordinal $\xi<O({\mathfrak X})$, $\xi \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ if and only if there is $\mathfrak z\sqsubset U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ with $\xi = o(\mathfrak z)$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Given an ordinal $\xi$, by Lemma \ref{LemmSpiderIsO}, $\xi\in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X}) $ if and only if there is ${\mathfrak Z}\sqsubset_\Upomega U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$ with $\xi=O({\mathfrak Z})$. But by Lemma \ref{LemmSpiderIffFlat}, by setting ${\mathfrak z}=\flatten{\mathfrak Z}$ we see that this is equivalent to there existing ${\mathfrak z}\sqsubset U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X}) $ with $\xi=o({\mathfrak z})$.
\endproof
As a consequence, we obtain that $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak Z})$ is closed under bounded hyperexponentiation.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmSpidersClosedHE}
If ${\mathfrak X},{\mathfrak Y}$ are worms and $\alpha,\beta \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$ are such that $e^\alpha \beta < O({\mathfrak X})$, then $e^\alpha \beta \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
We may assume that $0<\alpha,\beta < e^\alpha \beta$, so that if $e^\alpha \beta < O({\mathfrak X})$, then $\alpha,\beta<O({\mathfrak X})$. By Theorem \ref{TheoSpiderPerfect}, $\beta = o({\mathfrak v})$ for some ${\mathfrak v} = \lambda_1 \hdots \lambda_n \top \sqsubset U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X}) \cap O({\mathfrak X})$. Since $e^\alpha \beta$ is additively indecomposable, for each $i \in [1,n]$, $\alpha + \lambda_i \leq \alpha + \beta < e^\alpha \beta$, hence by Lemma \ref{LemmCantorSpider}, $\alpha + \lambda_i \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$. Thus ${\mathfrak w} = \alpha\uparrow {\mathfrak v} \sqsubset U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$, and $o({\mathfrak w}) = e^\alpha \beta$, which by Theorem \ref{TheoSpiderPerfect} implies that $e^\alpha \beta \in U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$.
\endproof
This tells us that, below $O({\mathfrak X})$, the sets $U_{\mathfrak Y}({\mathfrak X})$ behave very similar to the sets $C_\eta(\lambda)$. Conversely, we can prove that the sets $C_\eta(\lambda)$ are `spider-perfect'.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmCSpiderPerfect}
If $\eta,\lambda$ are ordinals and ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega C_\eta(\lambda)$, then $O({\mathfrak W})\in C_\eta(\lambda)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Suppose that ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega C_\eta(\lambda)$ and ${\mathfrak W}\wle{}{\mathfrak X}$. The set $C_\eta(\lambda)$ is closed under $\Om\cdot$ and addition, so from ${\mathfrak W}\sqsubset_\Upomega C$ we obtain $\flatten{\mathfrak W}\sqsubset C$. But $C_\eta(\lambda)$ is hyperexponentially perfect, thus by Lemma \ref{LemmClosedSum} it is worm-perfect. We conclude that $O({\mathfrak W})=o(\flatten{\mathfrak W})\in C.$
\endproof
Thus the functions $\cond_{\mathfrak Y}$ should closely mimic the functions $\uppsi_\eta$. However, a full translation between the two systems would go beyond the scope of the current work. Instead, we conclude with a conjecture.
\begin{conj}\label{ConjSpiders}
$\uppsi_0{\Upomega^\omega 1} = \cond_ \top \left ({0 \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle{\Upomega^\omega 1}}\top \right )$.
\end{conj}
\subsection{Autonomous spiders and ordinal notations}
We can use autonomous spiders to produce an ordinal notation system, similar to Beklemishev's autonomous worms. We define them as follows:
\begin{figure}
\[\term{\term{}{\term{}{}}}{\term{\term{}{}}{}}\]
\caption{An autonomous spider.}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
We define the set of {\em autonomous spiders,} ${\sf S}$, to be the least set such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\top\in {\sf S}$;
\item if ${{\tt X}},{{\tt Y}},{{\tt Z}}\in {\sf S}$, then $\term {{\tt X}} {{\tt Y}}{{\tt Z}}\in {\sf S}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
As with autonomous worms, each autonomous spider can be interpreted as a `real' spider.
\begin{definition}
We define a function $\spiderfun{\cdot}\colon {\sf S} \to {\mathbb S}$ by \begin{enumerate}
\item $\spiderfun{\top}=\top$,
\item $ \spiderfun{\left (\term{{\tt X}}{{\tt Y}}{{\tt Z}} \right ) }={{\cond_{\spiderfun{{\tt Y}}}\spiderfun{{\tt X}}} \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {{O(\spiderfun{{\tt Y}})}}}{\spiderfun{{\tt Z}}}$.
\end{enumerate}
For ${{\tt X}},{{\tt Y}}\in {\sf S}$ we set ${\sf O}({{\tt X}}) = O (\spiderfun{{{\tt X}}})$ and ${\sf p}_{{\tt Y}}{{\tt X}}=\cond_{\spiderfun{{\tt Y}}}\spiderfun{{\tt X}}$.
\end{definition}
We will often omit writing $\top$, so that for example $\term{}{}$ denotes $\term \top\top\top$.
The proofs of the following two results are analogous to those of Lemma \ref{LemmImpAut} and Theorem \ref{TheoImpAut}, respectively, and we omit them.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoLast}
For any $\xi\in U_\top \left ( {{0} \atopwithdelims \langle \rangle {\Upomega^\omega(0)}}\top \right )$, there exists ${{\tt X}}\in{\sf S}$ such that $\xi={\sf O}({{\tt X}})$.
\end{theorem}
Thus assuming Conjecture \ref{ConjSpiders}, the autonomous spiders indeed provide a notation system for all ordinals below $\uppsi_{0}{\Upomega}^\omega 1$, along with some uncountable ordinals.
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{SecConc}
We have developed notation systems for impredicative ordinals based on reflection calculi, thus providing a positive answer to Mints' and Pakhomov's question. These notation systems are obtained by considering strong provability operators extending a theory $T$. In the process, we have also given a general overview of existing notation systems based on worms.
This work is still exploratory and further developments are required to fully flesh out our proposal. First, no decision procedure is given to determine whether ${\sf O}({\tt w}) < {\sf O}({\tt v})$ when ${\tt w}$, ${\tt v}$ are impredicative autonomous worms or spiders. While such a decision procedure might be extractable from Theorem \ref{TheoWormOrder} together with procedures for more standard systems based on $\uppsi$, it would be preferable to provide deductive calculi in the style of $\sf RC$. Second, the set-theoretic interpretations sketched in Section \ref{SecSpiders} are only tentative and require a rigorous treatment. I'll leave both of these points for future work.
The ultimate goal of the efforts presented here are for the computation of $\Pi^0_1$ ordinals of strong theories of second-order arithmetic. There are many more hurdles to overcome before attaining such a goal, but hopefully the ideas presented here will help to lead the way forward.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Professor Mints not only for suggesting the topic of this paper, but also for his inspiration and support as a doctoral advisor. His passing was a great personal loss and a great loss to logic. I would also like to thank Fedor Pakhomov for bringing up the same issue and for many enlightening discussions; Lev Beklemishev and Joost Joosten for introducing me to the world of worms, and for many useful comments regarding this manuscrupt; and Andr\'es Cord\'on-Franco, F\'elix Lara-Mart\'in, as well as my student Juan Pablo Aguilera, for their contributions to the results reviewed here, and Ana Borges for her sharp eye spotting errors in an earlier draft.
Finally, I would like to thank the John Templeton Foundation and the Kurt G\"odel Society for the support they have given myself and other logicians through their fellowship program. Their effort is a great boost to logic worldwide; let us hope that it continues to encourage many more generations of logicians.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.9}{$
\begin{array}{rlrlrl}
\omega&
\term{\term{}{}}{}&
\varepsilon_0&
\term{\term{\term{}{}}{}}{}&
\Gamma_0&
\term{\term{}{\term{}{}}}{}
\end{array}
$
}
\end{center}
\caption{Some familiar ordinals represented as autonomous spiders.}
\end{figure}
|
\section{introduction}
In the last two decades, advances in laser sciences and technologies have led to intense coherent light with different characteristics becoming available.
Ultra-short laser pulses can be as short as a few tens of an attosecond, forming the new field of attosecond science
\cite{atto01}.
Intense laser pulses of mid-infrared (MIR) or THz frequencies
have also become available recently \cite{HDBT11, Chin01}.
By employing these extreme sources of coherent light,
it is possible to investigate the optical response of materials in real time with a resolution much lower than an optical cycle
\cite{atto01,Hirori11,Krausz13,Schultze13,Schultze14,Novelli13}.
The dielectric function $\varepsilon(\omega)$ is the most fundamental
quantity characterizing the optical properties of matter.
The dielectric function observed in an ultra-fast pump-probe experiment
should be further considered as a probe time ($T$) dependent function, $\varepsilon(T,\omega)$.
The modulation of the dielectric function $\varepsilon(\omega)$ in the presence of
electromagnetic fields has been a subject of investigation
for many years. The change under a static electric field is known
as the Franz-Keldysh effect (FKE)
\cite{Franz58,Keldysh58,Tharmalingam63,Seraphin65,Nahory68,
Shen95,Sipe10,Sipe15},
and that under an alternating electric field is known as
the dynamical FKE (DFKE)
\cite{Yacoby68, Jauho96, Nordstorm98, Ajit04,Mizumoto06, Shambhu11}.
Recently, we determined the sub-cycle change of the optical properties, i.e., time-resolved DFKE (Tr-DFKE),
which corresponds to the response and quantum path interference of a different phase locked dressed state \cite{otobe16}.
In particular, this ultra-fast change exhibits an interesting phase shift that depends on the field intensity and probe frequency.
By utilizing this phenomenon, we can produce an ultra-fast modulator of light or an ultra-fast optical switch.
In previous work, we showed that the field intensity of the pump light and the band width of the probe pulse are crucial parameters \cite{otobe16}.
Another possible control parameter is the polarization of the light.
In this work, we present the analytical formula for the DFKE under a circularly polarized pump light.
We found that the time-dependent change in the optical properties completely disappears under a circularly polarized pump light.
Our formula and numerical results indicate that the response of the each dressed states is still important.
The present organized as follows.
In Sec. II, we will develop an analytical formulation for the Tr- DFKE under a circularly polarized light
by employing a parabolic two-band model.
In Sec. III, we will present the numerical results and compare with them with the DFKE under a linearly polarized light and static FKE.
In Sec. IV, a summary will be given.
\section{Formulation}
To derive the time-dependent conductivity, we will revisit a simple model that we reported in a previous work \cite{otobe16}.
The probe electric field is assumed to be weak enough to be treated
using the linear response theory. We denote the electric current caused by
the probe field as $J_p(t)$, which is assumed to be parallel to the
direction of the probe electric field. Thees are related by the time-domain
conductivity $\sigma(t,t')$ as
\begin{equation}
J_p(t) = \int_{-\infty}^t dt' \sigma(t,t') E_p(t'),
\label{def_sigma}
\end{equation}
where $E_p(t')$ is the electric field of the probe pulse.
We note that the conductivity $\sigma(t,t')$ depends on both
times $t$ and $t'$ rather than the just time difference
$t-t'$ due to the presence of the pump pulse.
In the following developments, we will consider a simplified description:
electron dynamics in the presence of the pump and probe fields is
assumed to be described by a time-dependent Schr\"odinger
equation for a single electron,
\begin{equation}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi_n(\vec r,t)
= \left[\frac{1}{2m_e}\left(\vec p+\frac{e}{c}\vec A(t)\right)^2+V(\vec r) \right] \psi_n(\vec r,t)
\label{TDSE}
\end{equation}
where $\psi_n(\vec r,t) $ is the time-dependent wave function of $n$-th band,
$\vec A(t)$ is the vector potential of the pump light field, and
$V(\vec r)$ is a time-independent, lattice periodic potential.
In this paper, we employ the atomic units for all equations.
We express the solution of this equation using the time-dependent
Bloch function $v_{n\vec k}(\vec r,t)$ as
$\psi_n(\vec r,t)=\sum_{\vec{k}}e^{i\vec k \vec r} v_{n \vec k}(\vec r,t)$,
where $\vec{k}$ is the Bloch wavevector.
We further assume that in the presence of the pump field
described by a vector potential $\vec A_P(t)$, the solution of
Eq. (\ref{TDSE}) is well approximated by the Houston
function \cite{Yacoby68,Houston}.
Using static Bloch orbitals $u_{n\vec k}(\vec r)$, and orbital energies
$\epsilon_{n\vec k}$ which satisfy
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{1}{2m_e}\left(\vec p+\vec k \right)^2+V(\vec r) \right] u_{n\vec k}(\vec r)
= \epsilon_{n\vec k} u_{n\vec k}(\vec r),
\end{equation}
the Houston function can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
w_{n\vec{k}}(\vec{r},t)=u_{n \, \vec k_P(t)}(\vec{r})
\exp \left[-i \int^t \epsilon_{n \,\vec k_P(t')} dt' \right],
\end{equation}
where $\vec k_P(t)$ is defined by $\vec k_P(t) = \vec k + e\vec A_P(t)/c$.
We will consider a circularly polarized electric field with the vector potential,
\begin{equation}
\vec{A}_P(t)=A_0(\cos \Omega t,\sin\Omega t,0).
\end{equation}
Since the pump electric field which is periodic in time, we have
$\vec A_P(t+T_{\Omega}) = \vec A_P(t)$, where $T_{\Omega}$ is the period of
the pump field and is related to the frequency $\Omega$ by $T_{\Omega}=2\pi/\Omega$.
The conductivity $\sigma(t,t')$ also has the periodicity,
\begin{equation}
\sigma(t,t')=\sigma(t-T_{\Omega}, t'-T_{\Omega}).
\end{equation}
We will produce a Fourier expansion of $\sigma(t,t-s)$ which is
periodic in $t$ with the period $T_{\Omega}$,
\begin{equation}
\sigma(t,t-s) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{in\Omega t} \sigma^{(n)}(s),
\label{sigma_Fex}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^{(n)}(s)$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{(n)}(s) = \frac{1}{T_{\Omega}} \int_0^{T_{\Omega}} dt
e^{-in\Omega t} \sigma(t,t-s).
\label{def_sigma_n}
\end{equation}
The time-resolved frequency-dependent conductivity $\tilde\sigma^I(T_p,\omega)$
for an impulsive probe field can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\sigma}^I(T_p,\omega) =
\sum_n e^{in\Omega T_p} \tilde{\sigma}^{(n)}(\omega+n\Omega),
\label{td_sigma}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde\sigma^{(n)}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transform of
$\sigma^{(n)}(s)$.
For a general probe field of
\begin{equation}
E^p(t)=f_p(t-T_p)e^{-i\omega (t-T_p)}
\end{equation}
with the envelope function $f_p(t)$,
the conductivity defined by
Eq. (\ref{td_sigma}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \sigma(T,\omega)
&=& \frac{\int ds f(s) \tilde\sigma^I(T_p+s,\omega) e^{i(\omega-\omega_0)s}}
{\int ds f(s) e^{i(\omega-\omega_0)s}}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\sum_n \frac{\tilde f_p(\omega+n\Omega-\omega_0)}{\tilde f_p(\omega-\omega_0)}
e^{in\Omega T_p} \sigma^{(n)}(\omega+n\Omega),~~~~~
\label{td_sigma_general}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde f_p(\omega)$ is the Fourier transform of $f_p(t)$.
In the case of linearly polarized light, $\tilde f_p(\omega)$ is the important parameter \cite{otobe16}.
\subsection{Parabolic two-band model}
We will introduce a two-band model, considering
only two orbitals in the sum the occupied valence ($v$) and unoccupied conduction
($c$) bands. The excitation energy from the valence band
to the conduction band is assumed to have a parabolic form,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{c \vec k} - \epsilon_{v \vec k}
\simeq \frac{k^2}{2\mu} + \epsilon_g,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_g$ is the band gap energy and $\mu$ is the reduced mass
of electron-hole pairs.
The time-dependent conductivity for parabolic two-band system can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:sigma_c}
\sigma(T,\omega)&=&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}ds e^{i\omega s}\sigma(T,T-s) \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{ie^2}{m_e\omega}n_e+\frac{e^2|p_{cv}|^2}{m_e^2\omega V}\int _0^{\infty} ds e^{i\omega s}\nonumber\\
&\times&\sum_{\vec{k}}\Big[ e^{-i\int_0^s dy \left\{\frac{1}{2\mu} \left( \vec{k}+\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}(T-y)\right)^2+\varepsilon_g\right\}}\nonumber\\
&-& e^{i\int_0^s dy \left\{\frac{1}{2\mu} \left( \vec{k}+\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}(T-y)\right)^2+\varepsilon_g\right\}}\Big].
\end{eqnarray}
The integral in the exponential is calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Phase}
&&\int_0^s dy \left\{\frac{1}{2\mu} \left( \vec{k}+\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}(T-y)\right)^2+\varepsilon_g\right\}\nonumber\\
&\equiv&\left(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c\right)s \nonumber\\
&-& \theta_1\left\{ \sin(\Omega(T-s)-\phi)-\sin(\Omega T-\phi)\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta$ ($\phi$) is the angle between the propagation direction ($x$-axis) and $\vec{k}$ .
Here we introduce
\begin{equation}
U_c=\frac{e^2A_0^2}{2\mu c^2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\theta_1=\frac{ekA_0\sin\theta}{\mu c\Omega},
\end{equation}
where $U_c$ is the kinetic energy of the electron-hole pair which corresponds to the ponderomotive energy
$U_p=\frac{e^2A_0^2}{4\mu c^2}$ under a linearly polarized light.
The Fourier transformation of Eq. (\ref{eq:Phase}) is written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&\int _0^{\infty}& ds e^{i\omega s}\exp\left[-i \left(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c\right)s \right.
\nonumber\\
&-&\left.
\theta_1\left\{ \sin(\Omega(T-s)-\phi)-\sin(\Omega T-\phi)\right\}\right] \nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{l,l'}J_{l}(\theta_1)J_{l'}(\theta_1)\int_0^{\infty} ds e^{i\omega s}\exp\left[ -i\left(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c\right)s\right]
\nonumber\\
&\times&
\exp[-il(\Omega(T-s)-\phi)+il'(\Omega T-\phi)]\nonumber\\
&=&i\sum_{l,m}J_{l}(\theta_1)J_{l+m}(\theta_1)\frac{\exp[im(\Omega T-\phi)]}{\omega-(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)},
\label{Phase}
\end{eqnarray}
where $J_l$ is the $l$'th order Bessel function. In the last step in Eq.~(\ref{Phase}), we change $l'$ to $l+m$ to simplify the equation.
By substituting Eq. (\ref{Phase}) into Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma_c}), the $\sigma(T,\omega)$ can be expressed by the simple form,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma(T,\omega)=\frac{ie^2}{m_e\omega}n_e\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{ie^2|p_{cv}|^2}{m_e^2\omega V}\sum_{\vec{k},l,m}J_{l}(\theta_1)J_{l+m}(\theta_1)\nonumber\\
&\times&\left[ \frac{e^{im(\Omega T-\phi)} }{\omega-(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)}\right. \nonumber\\
&-&\left. \frac{e^{-im(\Omega T-\phi)}}{\omega+(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)}\right].
\end{eqnarray}
From the Fourier transformation of $\sigma(T,\omega)$, the component in Eq. (\ref{td_sigma}) is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\tilde{\sigma}^{(n)}(\omega)=\frac{1}{T_{\Omega}}\int_0^{T_{\Omega}} dt e^{-in\Omega t} \sigma(t,\omega)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{ie^2}{m_e\omega}n_e\delta_{n,0}+\frac{ie^2|p_{cv}|^2}{m_e^2\omega V}\sum_{\vec{k},l}\nonumber\\
&\times&\left[ \frac{J_{l}(\theta_1)J_{l+n}(\theta_1)e^{-in\phi} }{\omega-(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)} \right. \nonumber\\
&-&\left. \frac{J_{l}(\theta_1)J_{l-n}(\theta_1)e^{in\phi}}{\omega+(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)}\right].
\end{eqnarray}
Now, we have the time-dependent conductivity,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{SUMK}
&&\sigma(T,\omega)=\sum_n e^{in\omega T}\tilde{\sigma}^{(n)}(\omega+n\Omega)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{ie^2}{m_e\omega}n_e+\sum_{\vec{k},l,n}\frac{ie^2|p_{cv}|^2}{m_e^2(\omega+n\Omega) V}e^{in\omega T}\nonumber\\
&\times&\left[ \frac{J_{l}(\theta_1)J_{l+n}(\theta_1)e^{-in\phi} }{\omega+n\Omega-(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)} \right.\nonumber\\
&-&\left.
\frac{J_{l}(\theta_1)J_{l-n}(\theta_1)e^{in\phi}}{\omega+n\Omega+(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)}\right].
\end{eqnarray}
We can change the sum over $\vec{k}$ into integral by
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{V}\rightarrow\frac{\mu^{3/2}}{2\sqrt{2}\pi^3} \int_0^{\infty} \sqrt{\varepsilon_k}d\varepsilon_k\int _{-1}^{1} d\cos\theta \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi
\end{equation}
Then the Eq. (\ref{SUMK}) has the form,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Cir_DFKE}
&&\sigma(T,\omega)=\frac{ie^2}{m_e\omega}n_e+\sum_{l,n}\frac{ie^2|p_{cv}|^2\mu^{3/2}}{\sqrt{2}\pi^2 m_e^2\omega}\nonumber\\
&\times&e^{in\omega T}\int_0^{\infty} \sqrt{\varepsilon_k}d\varepsilon_k\int _{-1}^{1} d\cos\theta J^2_{l}(\theta_1) \nonumber\\
&\times&\left[ \frac{\delta_{n,0}}{\omega-(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)} \right. \nonumber\\
&-&\left.
\frac{\delta_{n,0}}{\omega+(\varepsilon_g+\varepsilon_k+U_c+ l\Omega)}\right].
\end{eqnarray}
The delta function, $\delta_{n,0}$, which is derived from the integration about the angle $\phi$, omit the time-dependent oscillation.
Thus, the time-dependent conductivity becomes time-independent function.
As the final result, we obtain the following expression for the real-part of the conductivity,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Cir_DFKE_Re}
{\rm Re} \sigma(\omega)&=&\sum_{l}\frac{e^2|p_{cv}|^2\mu^{3/2}}{\sqrt{2}\pi^2 m_e^2\omega}\nonumber\\
&\times&(\xi_l(k^+)\sqrt{\epsilon^+_{k,l}}-\xi_l(k^-)\sqrt{\epsilon^-_{k,l}}),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\xi_l(k)=\int _{-1}^{1} d\cos\theta J^2_{l}(\theta_1)
\end{equation}
and $k$( $k^{\pm}$) is related to $\epsilon_k$
($\epsilon_k^{\pm}$) by $k=\sqrt{2\mu \epsilon_k}$.
$\epsilon_k^{\pm}$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^{\pm}_{k,l}=\pm\omega-(\epsilon_g+U_c+l\Omega).
\end{equation}
Under a linearly polarized field, the Fourier component of the probe field in Eq.~(\ref{td_sigma_general})
also controls the response.
However, under a circularly polarized light, this probe field dependence disappears.
The conductivity is connected to the dielectric function by the relationship
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon(\omega)=1+i\frac{4\pi}{\omega} \sigma(\omega).
\end{equation}
The important feature of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Cir_DFKE}) is the absence of the time-dependence,
in contrast to the linear polarized case \cite{otobe16}.
The time-dependent change of the optical properties under linear polarized light is due to the response of the different dressed state.
In the case of circularly polarized light, this effect disappears due to the integration about $\phi$ that corresponds to the average of the time dependence.
In real system, since the reduced mass depends on the $\theta$ and $\phi$,
the time-dependence by the angle dependence of $\mu$ should appears.
\subsection{Comparison between circularly and linearly polarization}
We will now revisit the Tr-DFKE with linearly polarized light for the purpose of comparison.
The real-part of the time-dependent conductivity ${\rm Re} \tilde{\sigma}^l(T_p,\omega)$ is expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sigma_CS}
&&{\rm Re} \sigma^L(T_p,\omega)
=
\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{e^2 \mu^{3/2}\vert (p_{\alpha})_{vc} \vert^2}{\sqrt{2} \pi^2 m_e^2 (\omega+2m\Omega)}
\nonumber\\
&&\times\frac{\tilde f_p(\omega + 2m\Omega-\omega_0)}{\tilde f_p(\omega-\omega_0)}\big[
C_m(\omega) \cos 2m\Omega T_p \nonumber\\
&&+ S_m(\omega) \sin 2m\Omega T_p\big].
\end{eqnarray}
Coefficients $C_m(\omega)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
C_m(\omega)=
\sum_l \pi \left[
\sqrt{\epsilon_k^{L,+}} \xi_{l,2m}^L(k^+)
-
\sqrt{\epsilon_k^{L,-}} \xi_{l,-2m}^L(k^-) \right],~~
\label{Cm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_k^{L,\pm}$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_k^{L,\pm} =
\pm (\omega + 2m\Omega) - (\epsilon_g + U_p +l \Omega),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\xi_{l,2m}^L(k)=\int_{-1}^1 d(\cos\theta^L) J_l(\alpha,\beta)J_{l-2m}(\alpha,\beta).
\end{equation}
Here, $J_l(\alpha,\beta)$ is the generalized Bessel function \cite{otobe16,Reiss03}, $\theta^L$ is the angle between polarization direction and $\vec{k}$,
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\frac{e k A_0\cos\theta^L}{\mu c \Omega},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\beta=\frac{e^2 A_0^2}{8\mu c^2 \Omega}.
\end{equation}
The coefficients $S_m(\omega)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&S_m(\omega)
=
-\int_0^{\infty} \sqrt{\epsilon_k} d\epsilon_k \nonumber\\
&\times&\sum_l \Bigg[
\frac{\xi_{l,2m}^L(k)}{\omega+2m\Omega-(\epsilon_k+\epsilon_g+U_p+l\Omega)} \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\xi_{l,-2m}^L(k)}{\omega-2m\Omega+(\epsilon_k+\epsilon_g+U_p+l\Omega)} \Bigg].
\label{Sm}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that although the Tr-DFKE under the circularly polarized light depends on the two parameters, $\theta_1$ and $U_c$,
the Tr-DFKE under the linearly polarized light depends on three, $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $U_p$.
In particular, $\beta$ is the ratio between the ponderomotive energy and the photon energy of the pump laser which
corresponds to the adiabatic parameter, $\gamma=U_p/\Omega$ \cite{Nordstorm98}.
In the case of the circularly polarization, $\gamma$ is not included in Eq. (\ref{eq:Cir_DFKE_Re}).
On the other hand, the $eA_0/\mu c\Omega$ appears in Eq. (\ref{eq:Cir_DFKE_Re}) and Eq.(\ref{sigma_CS}) .
\section{Numerical results}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{Circ_Lin_FKE.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Fig1} Change in ${\rm Im}[\varepsilon(\omega)]$ under the coherent light field with frequency of 0.4 eV and a field intensity 10 MV/cm.
(Red solid line) The $\Delta {\rm Im}[\varepsilon(\omega)]$ under circularly polarized light. (Blue dotted line) Time averaged $\Delta {\rm Im}[\varepsilon(T, \omega)]$
under linearly polarized light. (Green dash-dotted line) Time averaged $\Delta {\rm Im}[\varepsilon(T, \omega)]$
under linearly polarized light with a peak field intensity of 14 MV/cm. (Black dashed line) The static FKE \cite{Tharmalingam63}.}
\end{figure}
In this section we aim to demonstrate the quantitative difference between circular and linear polarization
by comparing the numerical results.
$\alpha$-quartz is a typical dielectrics used in non-linear laser-matter interaction studies, and we
selected it as an example with which to illustrate the application of the foregoing formalism.
We assumed that the band gap, $\varepsilon_g$, was 9 eV, the effective mass $\mu$ was 0.5$m_e$, and the transition moment $P_{cv}$ was one.
Figure (\ref{fig:Fig1}) show the change of the imaginary part of the dielectric function, $\Delta {\rm Im}[\varepsilon(\omega)]$.
The maximum field intensity was 10 MV/cm and the $\Omega$ was 0.4 eV.
The red solid line presents the circularly polarized light.
The exponentially tail below the band gap, which is one of the feature of the Franz-Keldysh effect, can be seen.
The oscillation above the band gap is owing to the absorption by the different $l-$th dressed states and the blue shift of the band gap by $U_c$.
In this case, the $U_c$ is approximately 0.5 eV which corresponds to the energy at which $\Delta {\rm Im}[\varepsilon(\omega)]$ becomes zero.
The time-averaged DFKE under linearly polarized light is presented by the blue dotted line.
The overall features are quite different to the circularly polarized case.
The most obvious difference is the amount of the blue shift, since the ponderomotive energy ($U_p$)
under the linearly polarized light is half of the $U_c$.
At the same field intensity, the photon density for circularly polarized light is twice that for linearly polarized light.
The time-averaged DFKE under linearly polarized light, whose photon density was equal to that of circularly polarized light,
is presented by the green dash-dotted line.
In this case, not only the amount of blue shift, but also the behavior below the band gap is similar to the result with the circularly polarized light.
However, the oscillation above 9.5 eV is in contrast, with the difference possibly occurring due to the feature of each dressed state.
The intensities of dressed states are expressed by the generalized Bessel function for linearly polarized light.
On the other hand, for circularly polarized light, the dressed state is expressed by the Bessel function.
As a reference, the numerical result for the static FKE \cite{Tharmalingam63} is represented by the blak dashed line.
Since the applied field intensity is stable with circular polarization, the tunneling effect is expected to be similar to the static FKE.
As expected, the behavior under the band gap agrees with the case of the circularly polarized light.
However, the oscillation above the band gap is different.
This result indicates that the FKE under the circularly polarized light is not equivalent to the static FKE,
even though the intensity of the electric field is static.
Thus, the interpretation by the dressed states is indispensable.
\section{Summary}
We present the analytical DFKE formulation for circularly polarized light.
We found that the time-dependent change of the optical properties observed under the linearly polarized light disappears.
Therefore, the linearly polarized light is suitable for the ultrafast control of the material response.
On the other hand, the response of the dressed state is still important for understanding the change in the optical properties caused by a circularly polarized light field.
We also find that the $\gamma=U_p/\Omega$ is not important parameter for the circularly polarization case,
but the value $eA_0/\mu c\Omega$ is important for both of the circular and linear pump light.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported by a JSPS KAKENHI (Grants No. 15H03674).
Numerical calculations were performed on the supercomputer SGI ICE X at
the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Intro}
Binary bismuthide $\beta$-PdBi$_2$ has attracted much interest recently as a promising candidate of topological superconductor
(TS)\cite{Imai,chu15,Herrera,Sakano15,Kacmarcik,LuXin16}. Topological superconductivity is a new state of matter possessing symmetry-protected
surface states while the bulk states are fully gapped by superconducting pairing\cite{Hasan10,Cava10,FuPRB,FuPRL}. The Majorana fermions are believed
to exist on the surface or vortex core in such TSs, which may not only be of scientific importance, but also can lead to a wide-ranging applications
in microelectronic devices and quantum computing. The centrosymmetric stoichiometric $\beta$-PdBi$_2$ ($T_c$$\sim$ 5 K) was claimed to be
topologically nontrivial in view of the observation of the topologically-protected surface modes by spin- and angle-resolved ARPES\cite{Sakano15}.
However, no Andreev bound states associated with Majorana fermions are detectable through point-contact spectroscopy\cite{LuXin16}, in sharp contrast
to the cases in Cu-intercalated Bi$_2$Se$_3$\cite{Ando11,Ando11PCS} and In-doped SnTe\cite{Ando13}. On the other hand, it becomes the common wisdom
that spin-orbit interaction (SOI) in heavy elements is crucial for the topological states. It is therefore heuristic to ask what if we replace Pd by
heavier Pt element with enhanced SOI.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm,keepaspectratio=true]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Crystal lattice of PtBi$_2$. (a) The primitive unit cell for hexagonal PtBi$_2$. The coordinates of Pt(1) and Pt(2) are
($\frac{a}{3},\frac{2a}{3}, 0.92c)$ and ($\frac{2a}{3},\frac{a}{3}, 0.08c)$, respectively. (b) The structure as seen from a perspective along the
$c$-axis. } \label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
In this study, we substituted Pt for Pd in PdBi$_2$ and found that this new material actually crystallizes in a distinct structure. Unlike
$\beta$-PdBi$_2$ which has the tetragonal structure in an $I$4/$mmm$ space group, PtBi$_2$ crystallizes in space group P-3 with a hexagonal unit
cell of $a$=$b$=6.553$\AA$, $c$=6.165$\AA$\cite{book-PtBi2}. It is also different from its homologue PtBi superconductor ($T_c$=1 K) with a
monoclinic unit cell\cite{Matthias}. The in-plane resistivity of PtBi$_2$ shows metallic behaviors down to 2 K, the lowest temperature studied in
this work. The intra-plane and inter-plane magnetization displays pronounced anisotropy, being diamagnetic with field aligned along the plane and
paramagnetic when field is perpendicular to the plane. The magnetoresistance (MR) and Hall resistivity measured on the same sample both show two
types of carriers and the former one scales well to the semi-classical Kohler's rule\cite{Kohler1938,NieLuo02}.
\section{Experimental}
\label{Exp}
PtBi$_2$ single crystals were fabricated via a melt-growth method. The starting materials of high purity, Bi powder(4N) and Pt powder (4N), were
mixed thoroughly in the prescribed molar ratio of Bi:Pt = 2:1 (2 g in total weight). All these preparations were performed in a glove box filled with
protective argon gas (both H$_2$O and O$_2$ contents were limited below 0.1ppm). The mixtures were loaded and sealed in an evacuated quartz tube.
This quartz tube was then heated to 700$^\circ$C quickly in a sintering furnace and kept at this temperature for 48h, before being slowly cooled down
to 450$^\circ$C(3$^\circ$C/h), and finally being quenched into cold water. Large pieces of dark-gray plate-like PtBi$_2$ single crystals of typical
7-8 mm in length were harvested.
Energy dispersive x-ray (EDX) spectrometry confirms the stoichiometric ratio of the chemical composition (32.8 : 67.2 $\pm$ 3.0\% in molar percentage
for Pt:Bi). The structure of crystals was characterized by powder x-ray diffraction (XRD) at room temperature using a Rigaku diffractometer with Cu
$K$$\alpha$ radiation and a graphite monochromator. Lattice parameters were obtained by Rietveld refinements. The magnetization was measured by
vibrating sample magnetometry using a Quantum Design MPMS-5 system. Measurements of MR and Hall effect were performed on the same sample by changing
the field polarities. Signal even in field was defined as MR and the odd component was calculated as Hall resistivity.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm,keepaspectratio=true]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Panels (a) and (b) represent the powder XRD patterns and single crystal XRD diffraction peaks, respectively. The asterisks in
panel (a) mark the possible impurity phases. The optical image of a single-crystal sample is shown in the inset of panel (b).} \label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9.2cm,keepaspectratio=true]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Zero-field resistivity curve down to 2K. The low-$T$ resistivity fits to $\rho=\rho_0+AT^2$ very well below $\sim$35K
(see the upper-left inset). (b) and (c) show the in-plane and inter-plane susceptibility under a field of 5koe, respectively.} \label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\label{Results}
The schematic view of the crystal structure of PtBi$_2$ is shown in Fig. 1. It crystallizes in a hexagonal structure with the space group P-3
(No.147). Its structure consists of alternate stacking of 2D Pt layers and bismuth bilayers along the $c$-axis. In one primitive unit cell, there are
three Pt atoms, one being located at the corner of the polyhedron and the other two labelled as Pt(1) and Pt(2) in Fig. 1. The Bi atoms are
trigonally-coordinated. The XRD pattern of PtBi$_2$ crystal is presented in Fig.2. A small trace of impurity phase, marked by the asterisks in panel
(a), was detectable in the powder X-ray pattern and only (00$\ell$) diffraction peaks were observed in the single-crystal X-ray, indicating good
$c$-axis orientation of the as-grown samples. The calculated lattice parameters are $a$=$b$=6.553$\AA$, $c$=6.165$\AA$, in consistence with previous
reported results\cite{book-PtBi2}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=18cm,keepaspectratio=true]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The magnetoresistance (upper panel) and Hall resistivity (lower panel), both measured on the same crystal with the same
electrical contacts, at several selected temperatures. The red solid curves delineate the fits to two-band carrier model.} \label{Fig4}
\end{figure*}
Zero-field in-plane resistivity is plotted in Fig. 3. The room temperature resistivity is about 0.12 m$\Omega$cm and it is metallic down to the
lowest temperature we measured (2K). The residual resistivity ratio is approximately 50 for our samples, indicative of good sample quality. The
sample is better characterized by the susceptibility measurements thereafter. Remarkably, the magnetization of the sample shows large anisotropy with
respect to the field orientations. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the in-plane magnetization $\chi_{ab}$ is diamagnetic and varies little with $T$ down to
20K, below which it displays a significant upturn, whereas the inter-plane $\chi_c$ is paramagnetic instead and increases linearly with decreasing
$T$, followed by a downward trend below 20K. The origin of these intriguing magnetization behaviors is not clear.
The magnetoresistive and Hall response of a material can open a avenue for exploring the dispersion and dynamics of the charge carriers. First, in
PtBi$_2$, it is noted that the absolute value of the MR, defined as $\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho}$, is rather large, reaching $>$400\% at 2K in a magnetic
field of 9T. This large MR implies a rather large electron mean free path, hence a long relaxation time. However, this MR is damped very fast with
increasing $T$, as seen from the upper panels of Fig. 4. Second, in single-band metals, the MR at small fields is usually quadratic and the Hall
resistivity varies linearly with field. However, in the two-band Drude model, on the assumption of the field-independent carrier density and
relaxation time, $\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho}(H)$ and $\rho_{xy}(H)$ can be written as\cite{Greene07,Rullier-Albenque09,Hussey10,Rullier-Albenque12}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho}=\frac{\sigma_h\sigma_e(\sigma_hR_h-\sigma_eR_e)^2H^2}{(\sigma_h+\sigma_e)^2+\sigma_h^2\sigma_e^2(R_h+R_e)^2H^2}\label{eqn:one}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{xy}(H)=\frac{\sigma_h^2R_h+\sigma_e^2R_e+\sigma_h^2\sigma_e^2R_hR_e(R_h+R_e)H^2}{(\sigma_h+\sigma_e)^2+\sigma_h^2\sigma_e^2(R_h+R_e)^2H^2}H\label{eqn:two}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\sigma_e(h)$ and $R_e(h)$ are electrical conductivity and Hall coefficient for electron (hole) band, respectively. The MR and the
Hall signal for PtBi$_2$ sample are exemplified in Fig 4 at some selected temperatures. Although the individual curves can be fitted with the above
two-band equations reasonably well, plotted as the red solid line in each panel, we failed to model these two transport coefficients simultaneously
with the same set of four parameters. These difficulties may arise from the simple assumption of the field independent charge carrier density and
scattering, in analogy to the case in cuprates\cite{Greene07}. Nevertheless, given the quality of our fitting and the strong non-linearity of the
Hall resistivity, we strongly believe that the transport properties of this compound are governed by two-band charge carriers.
In standard metals, the MR $\Delta \rho$/$\rho$ at a certain temperature under a field $H$ has a general form known as the Kohler's
rule\cite{Kohler1938,NieLuo02}: $\Delta \rho$/$\rho$=$f$($H/\rho$). This rule can be derived from Boltzmann transport theory, on the assumption of
constant carrier number with $T$ and a single scattering rate on the Fermi surface. From this rule, $\Delta \rho$/$\rho$ is literally independent of
$T$ such that the plots of $\Delta \rho/\rho_0$ as a function of $H/\rho$ at distinct temperatures will collapse onto a single curve. Interestingly,
this rule, albeit its semiclassical origin, was found to be well obeyed in a large number of metals from conventional metals to some quantum matters.
These involve the metals with two types of carriers\cite{NieLuo02}, the pseudogap phase of the underdoped cuprates\cite{Greven14},
quasi-one-dimensional metals\cite{Narduzzo07,Xu15} as well as some topological semimetals\cite{Coldea}. We examined this rule in PtBi$_2$ (Fig. 5)
and found that it is well obeyed in this material, over a wide field range (up to 9T) and a broad $T$ window (2K-100K. Above 100K, the MR tends to be
negligible). Moreover, the longitudinal MR in PtBi$_2$ (H $\|$ I $\|$ $ab$) also shows two types of charge carriers and the validity of the Kohler's
rule (data not shown).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm,keepaspectratio=true]{fig5.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The Kohler's plot for the MR data from Fig. 4. } \label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussions and Conclusion}
\label{Discussions}
In recent work by Sakano \textit{et al.}, several topologically-protected surface states were observed by spin-resolved ARPES in the TS candidate
$\beta$-PdBi$_2$\cite{Sakano15}. These non-trivial surface bands include one crossing the Fermi level and the other one forming the Dirac cone state
2 eV below the Fermi level. It was noted that these topological surface states are \textit{all} derived as a consequence of SOI, although their
respective microscopic details may be different. In PtBi$_2$, the SOI ought to be stronger. Owing to its good metallicity, however, the electrical
transport is \textit{overall} dominated by its bulk electrons and it looks more like a conventional good metal from transport perspective. In this
material, the possible quantum linear MR arising from the degenerate Dirac fermions in the quantum limit is not observed up to
9T\cite{Abrikosov98,Ong10}. Interestingly, this material was reported to superconduct below 150 mK\cite{PtBi2-0.15K}, $\sim$40 times lower than $T_c$
in PdBi$_2$. How the SOI changes the electronic structure of PtBi$_2$, and induces the non-trivial surface states, if any, await more investigations,
both theoretically and experimentally.
To summarize, we synthesized the single crystals of stoichiometric bismuthide PtBi$_2$ by a solid-state reaction method. The samples were carefully
characterized by combined procedures of XRD, (magneto-)transport and susceptibility measurements. This compound shows prominent two-band transport
behaviors with no clear signature from the possible surface states. However, the high-quality single crystals are now ready for prospective advanced
experiments, especially for ones with more surface sensitivity.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank C. M. J. Andrew, A. F. Bangura for stimulating discussions. This work is sponsored by the National Key Basic Research
Program of China (Grant No. 2014CB648400), and by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11474080, U1432135, 11611140101). X.X.
would also like to acknowledge the financial support from the Distinguished Young Scientist Funds of Zhejiang Province (LR14A040001) and an open
program from Wuhan National High Magnetic Field Center (2015KF15).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In comparison to main-sequence stars, subgiant and giant stars have a higher observed occurrence of exoplanets but have fewer close-in giant planets \citep{bowler2010,johnson2010,reffert2015}. To explain the lack of close-in planets orbiting these stars, there are currently two main theories. In one scenario, close-in planets are destroyed by tidal evolution: they spiral into their host stars as they transfer angular momentum, a process that is expected to be stronger for evolved stars than for main-sequence stars \citep[e.g.][]{rasio1996,villaver2009,schlaufman2013}.
In another scenario, the lower occurrence rate of short-period gas giant planets orbiting evolved stars is a result of the systematically higher mass of the observed evolved stars compared to the observed main-sequence stars. The shorter lifetime of the inner protoplanetary disks around these more massive stars causes the lower occurrence rate of gas giant planets at short orbital periods \citep[e.g.][]{burkert2007,kretke2009,currie2009}.
Detections of planets around evolved stars are challenging because of additional noise sources in the stellar Radial Velocity (RV) signal \citep[see e.g.][]{reffert2015}, and because the larger stellar radii result in shallower planetary transits. There are currently only four evolved stars ($R \geq 3.5~\mathrm{R_\odot}$) known to host short-period ($\leq 100$ days) transiting planets.
One example is Kepler-91b \citep{lillobox2014}, whose validity as a genuine planet was debated \citep[e.g.][]{sliski2014} until RV confirmation ruled out false positive scenarios \citep{lillobox2014rv,barclay2015}. Kepler-56 is host to two short-period transiting planets \citep{huber2013kepler56}. Kepler-391 is likely an evolved star with two short-period planets (7 and 20 days) that were statistically validated \citep{rowe2014}. Finally, Kepler-432b is an eccentric Jupiter-sized planet orbiting its giant star in 52 days \citep{ciceri2015,quinn2015,ortiz2015}.
Here, we report on the discovery and characterization of K2-39b (EPIC~206247743b), a transiting planet in a 4.6 day orbit around a subgiant star, making it the shortest period planet orbiting such a star known to date. Its transits were observed by the K2 mission \citep{howell2014} in Campaign~3. The transits in this system have also been recently reported by \cite{vanderburg2015firstyear}, who assigned it the status of `planetary candidate'. We conducted radial velocity follow-up observations using HARPS \citep{mayor2003}, FIES \citep{telting2014}, and PFS \citep{crane2010}, which result in a $5\sigma$ measurement of the mass, both confirming the planetary nature of the system and constraining its bulk density. This work is part of the \textit{Equipo de Seguimiento de Planetas Rocosos INterpretando sus Tr\'ansitos} (ESPRINT) project \citep[see][]{sanchisojeda2015,vaneylen2015k2,hirano2015}.
In Section~\ref{sec:observations}, we describe the observations used in this work. In Section~\ref{sec:modeling} we describe the way these data were modeled. In Section~\ref{sec:results} we present the results and in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} we discuss and conclude.
\section{Observations}
\label{sec:observations}
\subsection{Photometry}
\label{sec:photometry}
The K2 observations \citep{howell2014} are extracted from the raw pixel files, detrended, reduced, and searched for planets following the procedure outlined in \cite{vaneylen2015k2} and using the pipeline publicly available on GitHub\footnote{\url{https://github.com/vincentvaneylen}}. We summarize the important features here.
The aperture that was used to generate a light curve for K2-39 is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:aperture}, and includes all pixels that have a flux level that is at least six times the median flux value in the pixel mask. The light curves are detrended using a polynomial fit of time $T$ and flux $F$ to the centroid positions ($X_c$ and $Y_c$), to remove instrumental effects. Specifically we fit the model $M$, with fitting parameters $t_i$, $x_i$, $y_i$, and $z_1$:
\vspace{-1em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
M = t_0 + t_1 T + x_1 X_c + x_2 X_c^2
+ y_1 Y_c + y_2 Y_c^2 + z_1 X_c Y_c.
\end{eqnarray*}
We note that this is a lower-order polynomial than was used by \cite{vaneylen2015k2}, which we found to result in higher-quality photometry in this case. The light curve was fitted in chunks of 650 data points each. We also compared the resulting light curve with one obtained following \cite{sanchisojeda2015}, and found it to be consistent. An initial orbital period is determined using a box least-square (BLS) search algorithm \citep[e.g.][]{kovacs2002}, which is later refined during the fitting procedure (see Section~\ref{sec:orbital}). The final, phase-folded transit light curve is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:transit}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{aperture_206247743}}
\caption{Pixel mask for K2-39. The grey scale indicates the electron count, going from black (high) to white (low). The red line encircles the aperture used to generate the photometry, which includes all pixels with counts more than six times the median flux value.\label{fig:aperture}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{epic206247743_phot}}
\caption{Reduced and phase-folded K2 transit photometry. The best fitted model is shown with a solid line, as well as the residuals after subtracting the model. Error bars are omitted for clarity, but a representative error bar is shown in the top panel.\label{fig:transit}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Imaging follow-up observations}
\label{sec:imaging}
The photometric aperture of K2-39 contains many pixels ({28 in total,} see Figure~\ref{fig:aperture}) and each K2 pixel spans $3.98 \times 3.98$ arcsec. This implies that ground-based imaging is needed to assess the presence of nearby, contaminant stars that may be associated with the system or aligned by chance.
We performed lucky imaging observations with the FastCam camera \citep{oscoz2008} at the 1.55-meter Telescopio Carlos S\'anchez (TCS). FastCam is a very low noise and fast readout speed EMCCD camera with 512 $\times$ 512 pixels (with a physical pixel size of 16 microns, a scale of 42.5 mas per pixel, and a FoV of $21.2'' \times 21.2''$) and it is cooled down to -90$^\circ$C. On July 30th, 10,000 individual frames of K2-39 were collected in the I-band, with an exposure time of 50~ms for each frame. In order to construct a high resolution, long-exposure image, the individual frames were bias-subtracted, aligned and co-added. In Figure~\ref{fig:fastcam}, we present a high resolution image that was constructed by co-adding the best 50\% of images, so that it has a 5~sec total exposure time.
\begin{figure
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fastcamEPIC206247743}}\\
\resizebox{0.495\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fastcamEPIC206245553}}
\resizebox{0.495\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fastcamEPIC205947161}}
\caption{Top: shift-and-add FastCam image of K2-39, constructed by combining the 50\% best individual TCS/FastCam frames. The orientation is North-up and East-right. Bottom: stars observed just before (left) and just after (right) the target, during the same night. The image on the left shows the same distortion, indicating the distortion is likely caused by instrument defocus.\label{fig:fastcam}}
\end{figure}
We find no evidence for a contaminant star within the field of view. The target star shows a deviation from spherical symmetry. To assess if it may be instrumental in nature, we looked at other targets observed during the same night. The target observed just before K2-39 shows the same elongated shape (see Figure~\ref{fig:fastcam}), indicating that the cause of the asymmetry is likely instrumental in nature, due to a defocus.
We further gathered an Adaptive Optics (AO) image using the Subaru telescope{'s Infrared Camera and Spectrograph (IRCS)}, which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:aoimage} together with the achieved $5\sigma$ contrast limits. The seeing without AO was estimated at 0.4 arcsec, but a cirrus clouds may have degraded the AO performance at the 0.1 arcsec level, as suggested by the PSF of a standard star (FS151) observed during the same night {(see Figure~\ref{fig:aoimage})}.
\begin{figure
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{aotargetstar_log}}\\
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{aostandardstar_log}}\\
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{contrast_EPIC206247743}}
\caption{Adaptive optics image using the Subaru telescope. The orientation is North-up and East-left, as in Figure~\ref{fig:fastcam}. In the top figure, the image for K2-39 is shown. The middle figure shows a standard star {(FS151)} observed during the same night, which has a slightly non-circular shape, suggesting a degraded AO performance. The bottom image shows the $5\sigma$ contrast ratio the image provides.\label{fig:aoimage}}
\end{figure}
The AO image reveals no companion objects{, but shows a distortion to the North-East of about $0.2$ arcsec.} The standard star FS151 shows a distortion as well, suggesting the cause for this effect may be instrumental. This asymmetry in the AO observations does not follow the same orientation as the asymmetry in the lucky imaging, and does not have the same scale, so that they are unlikely to have the same origin.
An alternative explanation for the observed asymmetry in the AO image is the presence of a very nearby companion star. If this is the case, such a companion would influence our measurement of the planetary radius, by diluting the transit light curve. {Assuming the distortion is caused by a stellar companion, we can estimate its flux by fitting two two-dimensional Gaussian functions to the image. This method is not ideal because the `companion star' is not well-separated from the target star, but after trying different fitting methods and Gaussian function parameters, we consistently find it to be 4-7 times fainter than the target star. Assuming the companion is associated with the target star, so that it has the same distance, this implies that the companion star would likely be less evolved than the target star, to explain the lower flux contribution. As discussed in detail in Section~\ref{sec:activity}, we find no evidence of such a star (or any other star) in the spectroscopic observations.
Therefore, we proceed here under the assumption that no companion star is present. We caution that, if there is indeed a nearby star, this would influence the derived planetary parameters.}
\subsection{Spectroscopic follow-up observations}
\label{sec:spectroscopy}
We carried out high-precision RV follow-up observations of K2-39 using the HARPS, FIES, and PFS instruments.
We started our observations using the FIES spectrograph \citep{frandsen1999,telting2014} mounted at the 2.56-m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) of Roque de los Muchachos Observatory (La Palma, Spain). We used the FIES \texttt{high-res} mode (R\,$\approx$\,67\,000) and collected 17 high-resolution spectra from July 2015 until January 2016. We set the exposure time to 15-20 minutes, which resulted in an average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 40 per pixel at 5500\,\AA. We acquired long-exposed ($T_\mathrm{exp}$ $\sim$30\,sec) ThAr spectra right before and after each science exposure to trace the RV drift of the instrument. We used the method by \cite{gandolfi2015} to analyze the data.
{Between 21 August and 13 September 2015,} we observed the system using the HARPS spectrograph at the ESO 3.6-m telescope at La Silla. We acquired 7 high-resolution spectra, using an exposure time of 10 minutes per data point. At order 50, they have an average SNR of 30. The HARPS observations were analyzed using the standard data reduction pipeline \citep{baranne1996,pepe2000}.
We also acquired data using the PFS at the Magellan II Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory. Between and 23 August and 4 September 2015 we obtained 6 high-resolution spectra. Each exposure lasted 20 minutes and resulted in a SNR of 80-100.
PFS uses the iodine technique for calibration and radial velocities were derived using an updated version of the algorithm outlined in \cite{butler1996}.
All RV data points and their observation times are listed in Table~\ref{tab:rvdata}.
\section{Modeling}
\label{sec:modeling}
\subsection{Stellar parameters}
\label{sec:stellar}
We co-added the HARPS spectra and determined the atmospheric parameters following \cite{takeda2002}. We find that the effective temperature $T_\mathrm{eff} = 4881 \pm 20$ K, surface gravity $\log g = 3.44 \pm 0.07$ (cgs), metallicity [Fe/H] = 0.32 $\pm$ 0.04, and a microturbulent velocity of $\xi=0.97 \pm 0.11$ km s$^{-1}$, based on the measurement of equivalent widths of iron lines and on the excitation and ionization equilibria. Following \citet{hirano2012}, we also derive the stellar rotation velocity by fitting the combined HARPS spectrum to obtain $v\sin i_\star = 2.0 \pm 0.5$ km s$^{-1}$.
From the stellar atmospheric parameters, we then determine the stellar physical parameters using $Y^2$ isochrones \citep{yi2001}, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:isochrones}. K2-39 is found to be a metal-rich subgiant star ($M_\star = 1.53^{+0.13}_{-0.12}~\mathrm{M_\odot}$, $R_\star = 3.88^{+0.48}_{-0.42}~\mathrm{R_\odot}$) with an age of $3.09^{+0.92}_{-0.70}$ Gyr.
Since the stellar parameters of evolved stars are known to be sensitive to the adopted isochrones (evolutional tracks), we also checked the consistency of the derived parameters in two ways. Firstly, we also derived stellar atmospheric parameters using the VWA software\footnote{\url{https://sites.google.com/site/vikingpowersoftware/home}} \citep{bruntt2012}. Again using the effective stellar temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$), surface gravity ($\log g$), and metallicity ([Fe/H]) as input, we infered the stellar mass, radius, and age using BaSTI evolution tracks\footnote{\url{http://albione.oa-teramo.inaf.it/}} following the SHOTGUN method \citep{stello2009}. We found the results to be consistent. Secondly, we check the results by employing the empirical relations of \citet{torres2010}. Consequently, we found $M_\star = 1.39^{+0.11}_{-0.10}~\mathrm{M_\oplus}$ and $R_\star = 3.69^{+0.43}_{-0.38}~\mathrm{R_\oplus}$, which agree with the isochrone-based values within $1\sigma$. We adopt the values derived using the
$Y^2$ isochrones for the remainder of this work, and list these parameters in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{isochrones}}
\caption{{{$Y^2$ isochrones for [Fe/H] = 0.32, where the blue lines represent the evolution tracks for different stellar masses, and the black curves are curves of constant radius. K2-39 is shown as the red point with its error bars.}}
\label{fig:isochrones}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Asteroseismology}
Because the star is evolved and relatively bright, we searched the frequency power spectrum of the corrected light curve for indications of stellar oscillations. We performed a search for indications of a seismic power excess using frequency-power spectra prepared using corrected light curves from the K2-Photometry-Pipeline \citep[K2P$^2$][]{lund2015} and the KASOC filter \citep{handberg2014}. No such signal was found. This agrees with the spectroscopic parameters, from which we estimate a frequency of maximum power ($\nu_{\rm max}$) of ${\sim}338 \pm 55\, \rm\mu Hz$ using the $\nu_{\rm max}\propto g/\sqrt{T_{\rm eff}}$ scaling relation \citep{brown1991,kjeldsen1995}. This is
above the Nyquist frequency of $\nu_{\rm Nyq}\approx 283~\mu \rm Hz$ for K2 long-cadence observations, and conforms with the detection limits presented in \cite{stello2014} for K2 observations.
With an independent estimate of the effective temperature one may use such a non-detection of seismic signal to place a lower-limit on $\log g$ \citep[see][]{campante2014}. {However, without observations in short-cadence, we are limited by the Nyquist frequency,} and can only set a lower limit of $\log g>3.36$ dex. However, the fact that no signal is seen from back-reflected seismic power in the ``super-Nyquist'' regime (i.e., above $\nu_{\rm Nyq}$) could indicate that $\nu_{\rm max}$ is as high as $400~\mu \rm Hz$ \citep{chaplin2014}, hence $\log g\geq3.5$ dex (consistent with findings from spectroscopy, see Section~\ref{sec:stellar}).
\subsection{Orbital and planetary parameters}
\label{sec:orbital}
We derive the planetary parameters following the procedure outlined in detail in \cite{vaneylen2015k2}. We highlight the key points here.
\paragraph{Photometric model}
We model the planetary transits assuming a constant orbital period {(linear ephemeris)}, without transit timing variations, and using the analytical model by \cite{mandel2002}. The model was binned to 30 minutes to match the finite integration time of the observations (20 hours of observations around each transit were used), and contains the following parameters: orbital period ($P$), mid-transit time ($T_{\rm mid}$), stellar radius divided by semi-major axis ($R_\star /a$), planetary radius divided by stellar radius ($R_\mathrm{p}/R_\star$), the cosine of the orbital inclination ($\cos i_\mathrm{o}$), and two limb darkening parameter ($u_1$ and $u_2$) which determine a quadratic law.
\paragraph{RV model}
We model the RV observations by fixing the eccentricity to zero and modeling the projected stellar reflex motion ($K_\star$). In addition, we fit for a systemic velocity offset between the different spectrographs ($\gamma_{\rm spec}$). We furthermore include a quadratic drift (using two parameters, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$) as a function of time, relative to an arbitary zero point ($t_0$). We tested whether allowing non-zero orbital eccentricity would affect the derived parameters, and found that not to be the case (see also Section~\ref{sec:results_parameters}).
As a result, the RV model we fit for is
\begin{equation}
\textrm{RV}(t) = \phi_1(t-t_0) + \phi_2(t-t_0)^2 + \gamma_{\rm spec} + \mathrm{RV_{planet}}
\end{equation}
To account for our incomplete knowledge of stellar activity, we add stellar ``jitter'' to the internal uncertainties of the RV points, so that the minimum reduced $\chi^2$ for the data obtained by each spectrograph is close to unity. Note that two data points were observed in-transit, and we assume the star is aligned with the planet in our model. {Even if the star and planet were misaligned, the effect of this would be below the photon noise.}
\paragraph{Prior information}
We place a Gaussian prior with a width of $0.1$ and a center value derived from the tables by \cite{claret2011} on the sum of the limb darkening parameters ($u_1 + u_2$), while holding the difference ($u_1 - u_2$) fixed at the tabulated value. For the K2 bandpass, we find $u_1 = 0.5902$ and $u_2 = 0.1395$, using $T_\mathrm{eff} = 5000$~K, $\log g = 3.5$ (cgs) and [Fe/H] = 0.3. When we try an eccentric fit, the stellar density (see Section~\ref{sec:stellar}) is used as a Gaussian prior and helps constrain $e$ and $\omega$ \citep[see, e.g.,][]{vaneylen2015}. In this case we furthermore assume an eccentricity prior of $\frac{dN}{de} \propto \frac{1}{(1+e)^4} - \frac{e}{2^4}$ \citep[see][]{shen2008}, and require that the orbits of planet and star do not cross, and sample uniformly in $\sqrt{e} \cos\omega$ and $\sqrt{e} \sin\omega$ to avoid a positive bias \citep[see e.g.][]{lucy1971}. All other parameters have flat (uniform) priors.
\begin{figure*
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{epic206247743_rv_time}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{epic206247743_orbit_vrad_1_1_1_0_0}
\caption{RV observations over time (left) and phased (right). The best fitting model is shown with a solid line as well as the residuals after subtracting the model. The internal RV uncertainties are indicated by the black error bars; the gray error bars include an additional ``stellar jitter'' term as explained in the text. \label{fig:rvs}}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Parameter estimation}
We model the planetary transit and the stellar RV signal simultaneously using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method \citep{tegmark2004}, and following the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. We run three chains of $10^6$ steps each, with a step size adjusted to obtain an acceptance rate of approximately 25\%. We employed a burn-in phase of $10^4$ points, which were removed from each chain prior to the analysis. We checked for convergence using the Gelman and Rubin diagnostic \citep{gelman1992}.
The chains are merged and uncertainty intervals encompassing $68.3$\% of the total probability are calculated by excluding the $15.85$\% quantiles on both sides, while median values are used as best estimates. All parameters are reported in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{System parameters \label{tab:parameters}}
\smallskip
\begin{tabular}{l r@{$\pm$}l }
\tableline\tableline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Parameter & \multicolumn{2}{c}{K2-39 (EPIC 206247743)} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Basic properties} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
2MASS ID & \multicolumn{2}{c}{22332842-0901219} \\
Right Ascension & \multicolumn{2}{c}{22 33 28.414} \\
Declination & \multicolumn{2}{c}{-09 01 21.97} \\
Magnitude (\textit{Kepler}) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{10.58} \\
Magnitude ($V$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{10.83} \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Stellar parameters from spectroscopy} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Effective Temperature, $T_{\rm_{eff}}$ (K) & $4881$ & $20$ \\
Surface gravity, $\log g$ (cgs) & $3.44$ & $0.07$ \\
Metallicity, [Fe/H] & $0.32$ & $0.04$ \\
Microturbulence (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $0.97$ & $0.11$ \\
Projected rotation speed, $v \sin i_{\star}$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $2.01$ & $0.50$ \\
Assumed Macroturbulence, $\zeta$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $2.61$ & $0.39$ \\
Stellar Mass, $M_{\star} $ ($M_{\odot}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1.53^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$}\\
Stellar Radius, $R_{\star} $ ($R_{\odot}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$3.88^{+0.48}_{-0.42}$} \\
Stellar Density, $\rho_\star$ (g cm$^{-3}$)$^{\rm a}$ & $0.036$ & $0.011$ \\
Age (Gyr) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$3.09^{+0.92}_{-0.70}$} \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Fitting (prior) parameters} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Limb darkening prior $u_1 + u_2$ & $0.73$ & $0.1$ \\
Stellar jitter term HARPS (m\,s$^{-1}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{10} \\
Stellar jitter term FIES (m\,s$^{-1}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{7} \\
Stellar jitter term PFS (m\,s$^{-1}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{8} \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Adjusted Parameters from RV and transit fit} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Orbital Period, $P$ (days) & $4.60543$ & $0.00046$ \\
Time of mid-transit, $T_{\rm mid}$ (BJD$-2450000$) & $6980.8236$ & $ 0.0039$ \\[3pt]
Orbital Eccentricity, $e$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0$ (fixed)} \\[3pt]
Cosine orbital inclination, $\cos i_{\rm o}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.167$^{+0.075}_{-0.069}$} \\[3pt]
Scaled Stellar Radius, $R_\star/a$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.293^{+0.045}_{-0.030}$} \\[3pt]
Fractional Planetary Radius, $R_{\rm p}/R_\star$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.01925^{+0.00099}_{-0.00076}$} \\ [3pt]
Linear combination limb darkening parameters (prior \& transit fit), $u_1+ u_2$, & $0.773$ & $0.083$ \\ [3pt]
Stellar Density (prior \& transit fit), $\rho_\star$ (g\,cm$^{-3}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.036^{+0.014}_{-0.012}$} \\ [3pt]
Stellar radial velocity amplitude, $K_\star$ (m\,s$^{-1}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$14.4^{+2.6}_{-2.6}$} \\ [3pt]
Linear RV term, $\phi_{1}$ (m\,s$^{-1}$/day) & $-0.313$ & $0.052$ \\
Quadratic RV term, $\phi_{2}$ (m\,s$^{-1}$/day) & $0.0063$ & $0.0012$ \\
Systemic velocity HARPS, $\gamma_{\rm HARPS}$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $24.4688$ & $0.0052$ \\
Systemic velocity FIES, $\gamma_{\rm FIES}$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $24.5458$ & $0.0056$ \\
Systemic velocity PFS, $\gamma_{\rm PFS}$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $-0.0196$ & $0.0044$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Indirectly Derived Parameters} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Impact parameter, b & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.57^{+0.15}_{-0.20}$} \\ [3pt]
Planetary Mass, $M_{\rm p} $ ($M_{\oplus}$)$^{\rm b}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$50.3^{+9.7}_{-9.4}$} \\ [3pt]
Planetary Radius, $R_{\rm p} $ ($R_{\oplus}$)$^{\rm b}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$8.2^{+1.1}_{-1.1}$} \\[3pt]
Planetary Density, $\rho_{\rm p}$ (g\,cm$^{-3}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.50^{+0.29}_{-0.17}$} \\
Semi-major axis, $a$ (AU) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.062^{+0.010}_{-0.012}$} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\tableline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{3}{l}{{\sc Notes} ---}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$^{\rm a}$ This value is used as a prior during the fitting procedure.}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$^{\rm b}$ Adopting an Earth radius of $6371$~km and mass of $5.9736\cdot10^{24}$~kg.}\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Planet confirmation and properties}
\label{sec:results_parameters}
We determine a planetary radius of $8.2^{+1.1}_{-1.1}~\mathrm{R_\oplus}$ and a planet mass of $50.3^{+9.7}_{-9.4}~M_{\oplus}$. We obtain a planetary bulk density of $0.50^{+0.29}_{-0.17}$~g\,cm$^{-3}$. The planet is very close to its star, with $R_\star/a = 0.293^{+0.045}_{-0.030}$. We note that if there is an unseen companion star contaminating the light curve (see Section~\ref{sec:imaging}), the planet would be larger and its density would be lower.
During the fitting procedure, we assumed a circular orbit, because the orbital period of 4.6 days suggests that tidal effects have circularized any initial eccentricity. Out of caution, we also try a solution in which we allow non-circular orbits. We find that a circular orbit is favored, with an upper limit (at 95\% confidence) of $e = 0.24$. The resulting planetary mass, $53.8^{+10}_{-9.9}~\mathrm{M_\oplus}$ is consistent with the circular fit. We adopt the values from the circular solution in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}. The best transit fit is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:transit} and the radial velocity observations are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rvs}. The RMS values of the RVs from each spectrograph after the best fitting model is subtracted are 8.6~m~s$^{-1}$ (HARPS), 7.3~m~s$^{-1}$ (FIES), and 4.4~m~s$^{-1}$ (PFS).
{For a circular orbit, the transit duration directly constrains the mean stellar density. Following the procedure used by \cite{vaneylen2015} to validate Kepler-449b/c and Kepler-450b/c/d, we find that a transit fit constrains the bulk density of the host star to $[0.026,0.14]$~g~cm$^{-3}$ at 95\% confidence, assuming the planet has a circular orbit. The stellar density derived from the transit for a circular orbit is furthermore fully consistent with the bulk density of K2-39 derived from spectroscopy ($0.036 \pm 0.011$~g~cm$^{-3}$), giving further credibility to the fact that this star is indeed the host of the planet.
More generally, the transit duration provides independent evidence that the planet is orbiting an evolved star. For example, we find that if the planet would orbit a star with a solar mean density ($1.408$~g~cm$^{-3}$), it would require the planet to have an eccentricity in the interval $[0.78,0.94]$ at 95\% confidence. Given the short orbital period, we find such a scenario not to be feasible. }
We find evidence of a long-period companion, which we modeled as a quadratic trend with $\phi_1 = -0.313 \pm 0.052$ m\,s$^{-1}$\,d$^{-1}$ and $\phi_2 = 0.0063 \pm 0.0012$ m\,s$^{-1}$\,d$^{-1}$, with $t_0 = 2457300$ BJD. We check whether the data warrants the inclusion of both parameters, and find this to be the case. Including the quadratic term, we find $\chi^2 = 552.1$, while only including a linear term $\chi^2 = 579.6$. Calculating the Bayesian Information Criterian (BIC) with 12 and 11 degrees of freedom, respectively, and 30 RV data points, we find that the quadratic term is clearly favored (with a BIC of 593, versus 617 for the linear case). If we count all photometry data points as well, the BIC numbers change but the quadratic term remains clearly favored. Nevertheless, the trend is dependent on the two latest observations, so that more observations are needed to fully interpret it. Assuming the trend is caused by a companion object, it has a period that is longer than the time span of the data.
As a result, its true orbit and amplitude are difficult to constrain. {We attempted to do so by allowing a second body in the MCMC fit, rather than the quadratic trend, but find that the orbit is consistent with all orbital periods longer than 125 days, and amplitudes corresponding to objects at least as massive as Jupiter. Further observations may help determine if the trend is caused by an additional planet or a self-luminous companion object. We note that the AO image (see Section~\ref{sec:imaging}) suggests there may be a nearby companion star. If we roughly estimate this potential companion to be at an angular distance of about 0.2 arcsec, and use 255~pc as the distance between an observer and the star as estimated by RAVE distance calibrations \citep{kordopatis2013,francis2013}, this would imply a minimum distance of $\sim$50~AU between the two stars. This would imply an orbital period of order hundred years, making it unlikely that the quadratic trend observed in a time span of only a few
months is caused by such an orbit.}
\subsection{Stellar activity and light blending}
\label{sec:activity}
We check if any observed RV signal could be caused by stellar activity, by calculating the bisectors (BIS) as defined by \cite{queloz2001} for the HARPS and FIES observations. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bisectorplot}. We calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient. For HARPS, this is 0.66 with a p-value of 0.11, with 7 data points and 5 degrees of freedom. For FIES, this is -0.03 with a p-value of 0.91, with 17 data points and 15 degrees of freedom. This implies that in neither of the data sets is there any evidence for a correlation at a significance level of 0.01.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{epic206247743_HARPS_BIS}}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{epic206247743_FIES_BIS}}
\caption{{{Bisectors (BIS) from HARPS (top) and FIES (bottom) CCFS are plotted versus the stellar RVs. The color code indicates the signal-to-noise ratio in the stellar spectra obtained around a wavelength range of $5560$\,\AA. There is no evidence for correlations. The BIS uncertainties are taken to be three times the RV uncertainties. The mean BIS values for HARPS and FIES are 49 m~s$^{-1}$ and -4.6 m~s$^{-1}$, respectively.}}
\label{fig:bisectorplot}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{epic206247743_HARPS_FWHM}}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{epic206247743_FIES_FWHM}}
\caption{{{Full-width at half maximum (FWHM) from HARPS (top) and FIES (bottom) CCFS are plotted versus the stellar RVs. The color code indicates the signal-to-noise ratio in the stellar spectra obtained around a wavelength range of $5560$\,\AA. There is no evidence for correlations. The mean FWHM values for HARPS and FIES are 6,813 m~s$^{-1}$ and 11,552 m~s$^{-1}$, respectively.}}
\label{fig:fwhm}}
\end{figure}
We furthermore check if there are any correlations between the Mount Wilson activity index and the RV observations. For the HARPS observations, we have 7 data points and find a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.23 with a p-value of 0.66, indicating no evidence for correlation. For the PFS data, we have 6 data points and find a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.24 with a p-value of 0.64. As for the bisector data discussed above, the Mount Wilson measurements show no evidence that the RV variation is caused by stellar activity.
We checked the K2 light curve for evidence of a rotational modulation signal, but could not clearly determine any period of stellar rotation. This may be due to systematic effects in the photometry.
{If an unseen stellar contaminant would have a $v\sin i$ and RV which are very similar to that of K2-39, this may remain undetected in the measured bisectors. However, such a hypothetical companion would still influence the shape of the cross-correlation function (CCF), which can be measured through the Full-Width at Half Maximum \citep[FWHM, see e.g.][]{santerne2015}. We calculate these values for the HARPS and FIES observations and compare them with the RV measurements, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fwhm}. For HARPS, we find a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.10 with a p-value of 0.83, while for FIES we find a Pearson coefficient of 0.12 and a p-value of 0.64, implying there is no evidence for a correlation in either data set. We also checked if the FWHM measurements showed any correlation with the long-term trend seen in Figure~\ref{fig:rvs}, but found no evidence for that either.}
{We further checked the high-resolution spectroscopic observations (see Section~\ref{sec:spectroscopy}) for the presence of a second set of spectral lines, which would be caused by a companion star of a different stellar type. To do so, we looked at the cross-correlation function and found no evidence of any companion star. We furthermore did a visual inspection of the $H_\alpha$ lines for any features caused by a contaminant star, and found no evidence of this. We have also visually inspected the spectrum at 6079-6084 $\AA$, and again found no evidence of any secondary features as deep as $> 10\%$ of the spectrum continuum.}
\subsection{Optical phase curve}
The K2 photometry also provides some information on the out-of-transit variation. In general, such variations can be caused by light emitted or reflected by the planet, as well as ellipsoidal modulation of the star caused by the planet, and Doppler beaming \citep[see e.g.][]{esteves2015}. The latter two effects are very small for this system. Given the quality of the data we neglect them here. We model the emitted and reflected light by a Lambert sphere model and fix the nightside temperature to zero. By assuming a circular orbit, we fix the occultation to occur at $\phi = 0.5$ and with a duration equal to that of the primary transit. In this simple model, we fit the light curve (out of the transit and occultation) for a single parameter, the amplitude $F_0$:
\begin{equation}
F = F_0 \frac{\sin z + (\pi - z) \cos z}{\pi},
\end{equation}
where $z$ is defined as $\cos z = -\sin i \cos(2\pi\phi)$, with $\phi$ describing the orbital phase calculated from mid-transit. {To remove long-term residual trends in the photometry, we run a moving median filter with a width of twice the orbital period before modeling the data.} After doing so, a simple MCMC analysis results in $F_0 = 26.0^{+5.3}_{-5.6}$ ppm and this model is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:phasecurve}. {Such an amplitude would imply a maximum geometric albedo of the planet $A_\mathrm{g}~=~F_0 (a/R_p)^2$ in the interval $[0.64, 0.98]$ within 68\% confidence, or a maximum brightness temperature of the planet of $3050 \pm 100$~K. However, it is clear from the figure that this simple model does not adequately describe the observations, in particular around $\phi = 0.25$. We know of no astrophysical effect that can easily explain the observed dip at this phase, so that the origin is likely instrumental. To check if a different analysis method can avoid this, we compare our data with
the photometry extracted by \cite{vanderburg2015} using a different method. However, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:phasecurve}, we find that these data show a similar trend.}
\begin{figure}[!bth]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{phasecurve}}
\caption{Reduced and phase-folded K2 photometry for K2-39b (transit excluded). \textit{Top:} the K2 observations are shown in grey, with 100-point bins in black circles. \textit{Bottom:} as before, bins in black circles, the best fitted model is shown with a solid red line, and photometry extracted by \cite{vanderburg2015} shown in grey squares. The duration of the occultation is fixed to the duration of the transit, which is the case for circular orbits.\label{fig:phasecurve}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*
\centering
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{Rstar_a}}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{logg_a}}
\caption{K2-39b versus other confirmed planets, with transiting planets (open circles) and non-transiting planets (open stars) taken from exoplanets.org (accessed on 20 February 2016, error bars omitted for clarity). Short-period transiting planets orbiting evolved stars are indicated with filled blue circles, with values taken from: Kepler-91 \citep{lillobox2014}, Kepler-56 \citep{huber2013kepler56}, Kepler-391 \citep{rowe2014}, Kepler-432 \citep{ciceri2015}, and HD 102956b \citep{johnson2010}. \textit{Left:} stellar radius versus semi-major axis, where the dotted line indicates $R_\star = a$. Of all evolved stars, K2-39 has a planet with the shortest semi-major axis. \textit{Right:} $\log g$ versus semi-major axis. The dotted line indicates the (empirical) border line defined by \cite{nowak2013}. Only Kepler-91b orbits inside of the line, while K2-39b falls exactly on top of it.\label{fig:contextplots}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We reported on the discovery and characterization of a giant transiting planet orbiting a subgiant star with a short period. There are only a few known cases of such systems, which are thought to be rare. Of these systems, K2-39b, reported here, has the shortest orbital period.
By combining the K2 transit photometry with high resolution spectroscopic measurements from HARPS, FIES, and PFS, we are able to measure the planetary mass and mean density. The system shows a long-term quadratic trend indicative of an additional body in the system. The current data do not span enough time to characterize the properties of this body.
{We now discuss the importance of this planet in the context of planet (re)inflation in Section~\ref{sec:reinflation}, and in the context of planet evolution in Section~\ref{sec:discussion_tides}.}
\subsection{(Re)inflation?}
\label{sec:reinflation}
{Measuring the inflation of planets orbiting giant stars is interesting, as it may help distinguish between inflation mechanisms \citep{lopez2016}. \cite{lopez2016} suggest that planets with an orbital period of 10-20 days are likely not inflated while their host star is on the main sequence, but may become inflated as their host star evolves.}
{Despite its low density, K2-39b is not inflated in the sense that its radius is not larger than what would be expected for a pure H/He planet \citep{fortney2007} with this mass. With a mass of $50.3^{+9.7}_{-9.4}$~M$_\oplus$, the planet is likely too small to fall into the regime where inflation is important. With an orbital period of 4.6 days, the planet has received high radiation even when the host star still resided on the main sequence, unless its orbital period used to be longer. We note that the adaptive optics image presented in Figure~\ref{fig:aoimage} cannot rule out a nearby self-luminous companion, although we find no evidence of such a hypothetical companion contributing significant flux in the high-resolution spectroscopic observations. However, if a companion star nevertheless exists, this may affect the planet mass and radius, and its derived mean density. Extreme adaptive optics observations would be needed to rule out such a close companion star.}
\subsection{Tidal evolution}
\label{sec:discussion_tides}
K2-39b joins a small sample of short-period transiting planets orbiting (subgiant) stars. This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:contextplots}, where K2-39b is shown together with Kepler-91b, Kepler-56b/c, Kepler-391b/c, and Kepler-432b. The only non-transiting planet in the same part of the diagram is HD~102956b \citep{johnson2010}. Of all these planets, K2-39b has the lowest semi-major axis and the shortest orbital period. K2-39b is closer to its host star than Kepler-91b, which orbits a more evolved star.
Because the scarcity of short-period planets orbiting subgiant stars may be a result of tidal destruction \citep{rasio1996,villaver2009,schlaufman2013}, it is interesting to investigate how long K2-39b can survive. Under the assumption that the planet remains in its current orbit, the stellar surface will reach the planet once $R_\star \approx 14~\mathrm{R_\odot}$. Based on the stellar mass of $1.53^{+0.13}_{-0.12}~\mathrm{M_\odot}$, the isochrones suggest this will happen in $150 \pm 90$ Myr. This provides a conservative upper limit on the remaining lifetime of the planet.
In addition to the evolution of the stellar surface, the planet may spiral inwards as its orbital period decays due to tides. Following \cite{schlaufman2013}, and Equation 11 therein, we can estimate the timescale of orbital decay:
\begin{equation}
t = 10~\mathrm{Gyr} \frac{Q_\star/k_\star}{10^6} \left(\frac{M_\star}{\mathrm{M_\odot}}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{M_\mathrm{p}}{M_\mathrm{Jup}}\right)^{-1} \left(\frac{R_\star}{\mathrm{R_\odot}}\right)^{-5} \left( \frac{a}{0.06\mathrm{AU}}\right)^{13/2}.
\end{equation}
Here, $Q_\star$ is the tidal quality factor of the star, and $K_\star$ its tidal Love number. These values are highly uncertain, but assuming a canonical value of $Q_\star/k_\star = 10^6$, we find that the decay time is $\approx 100$~Myr. If, however, $Q_\star/k_\star = 10^2$, as \cite{schlaufman2013} suggest may be the case for subgiant stars, then $t \approx 10,000$~yr. With such a short timescale, it would be an interesting coincidence to observe the planet in its current state. Interestingly, Kepler-91b \citep[e.g.][]{lillobox2014} has a tidal decay time scale that is of the same order of magnitude, but slightly shorter, because it orbits at a slightly higher semi-major axis but around a more evolved, larger star. Consequently, the existence of K2-39b and Kepler-91b appears to argue against the strong tidal dissipation suggested by \cite{schlaufman2013} to explain the under-abundance of short-period planets orbiting subgiant stars.
K2-39b may allow a direct test of the tidal dissipation strength in the future. Because $t = a/\dot{a} = P/\dot{P}$, we find that $\dot{P} = -4$~ms/yr for $Q_\star/k_\star = 10^6$, and $\dot{P} = -40$~s/yr for $Q_\star/k_\star = 10^2$. Very recently, $\dot{P} = (-2.56 \pm 0.40) \times 10^{-2}$ s~yr$^{-1}$ was measured for WASP-12b, based on ten years of transit observations, corresponding to a tidal quality factor of $2.5 \times 10^5$ for the (main-sequence) host star \citep{maciejewski2016}.
To aid future measurements of $\dot{P}$ for K2-39b, we report the times of the 15 individual transits observed by K2 in Table~\ref{tab:transittimes}. These times were measured by fitting the best transit model to individual transit observations, while the uncertainties were estimated through a bootstrap procedure, in which the residuals after the fit were resampled. The times and uncertainties reported in Table~\ref{tab:transittimes} are the mean and standard deviation of 4000 such fits to each transit.
We also fitted the current transit times to place an upper limit on period decay. Modeling the time of each transit ($T_n$) as
\begin{equation}
T_n = T_0 + n P + \frac{1}{2}n^2 P\dot{P},
\end{equation}
we fit for $T_0$, $P$ and $\dot{P}$ using an MCMC algorithm \citep{foremanmackey2013}, with uniform priors on $T_0$ and $\dot{P}$ and a Gaussian prior on $P$ based on the simultaneous transit and RV fit reported in Table~\ref{tab:parameters}. Within 95\% confidence, we find that $\dot{P} > -0.000071$, corresponding to a period decay less than 37~min/yr.
This provides a weak lower limit of $Q_\star/k_\star >\approx 1.8$. A longer baseline of observations could improve this constraint by orders of magnitude. Given the transit depth of $\approx~400$~ppm, observing future transits is difficult to do using ground-based observations. However, the TESS mission \citep[][]{ricker2014}, planned to observe in $\sim$2018-2019, or the CHEOPS mission \citep{broeg2013}, planned to observe in 2018-2020, should easily be able to observe the transits if they target this star. By this time, tidal strengths suggested by \cite{schlaufman2013} could lead to a period decay of several minutes, which should be well within reach of detectability.
Finally, we note that as K2 continues to observe, it may discover other rare systems similar to K2-39, allowing us to further constrain stellar structure and planet formation and evolution.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Times of individual transits.\label{tab:transittimes}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\tableline\tableline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Time [BJD]\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
2456980.8237 $\pm$ 0.0076\\
2456985.4232 $\pm$ 0.0081\\
2456990.010 $\pm$ 0.011\\
2456994.6438 $\pm$ 0.0086\\
2456999.2504 $\pm$ 0.0093\\
2457003.899 $\pm$ 0.011\\
2457008.4569 $\pm$ 0.0074\\
2457013.0664 $\pm$ 0.0083\\
2457017.6455 $\pm$ 0.0093\\
2457022.2631 $\pm$ 0.0081\\
2457026.8919 $\pm$ 0.021 \\
2457031.475 $\pm$ 0.010\\
2457036.084 $\pm$ 0.017\\
2457040.715 $\pm$ 0.020\\
2457045.292 $\pm$ 0.013\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Radial velocity observations. \label{tab:rvdata}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ cccccc }
\tableline\tableline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Time [BJD] & RV [m s$^{-1}$] & $\sigma_{\mathrm{RV}}$ [m s$^{-1}$] & FWHM [km s$^{-1}$] & BIS [km s$^{-1}$] & Instrument\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
$2457255.71433$ & $ 24507.93$&$ 2.66$&$ 6.823$&$ 0.053$ & HARPS \\
$2457256.65992$ & $ 24505.27$&$ 2.62$&$ 6.813$&$ 0.051$ & HARPS \\
$2457257.78349$ & $ 24485.83$&$ 1.31$&$ 6.809$&$ 0.047$ & HARPS \\
$2457258.70438$ & $ 24462.17$&$ 2.40$&$ 6.813$&$ 0.048$ & HARPS \\
$2457260.71027$ & $ 24501.40$&$ 2.28$&$ 6.817$&$ 0.049$ & HARPS \\
$2457276.75557$ & $ 24473.82$&$ 3.85$&$ 6.814$&$ 0.048$ & HARPS \\
$2457278.74939$ & $ 24500.67$&$ 1.88$&$ 6.799$&$ 0.054$ & HARPS \\
$2457235.66962$ & $ 24557.22$&$ 6.99$&$ 11.538$&$ -0.021$ & FIES \\
$2457239.50242$ & $ 24580.43$&$ 5.65$&$ 11.549$&$ 0.003$ & FIES \\
$2457239.57252$ & $ 24582.36$&$ 5.52$&$ 11.560$&$ -0.013$ & FIES \\
$2457239.65383$ & $ 24576.87$&$ 6.13$&$ 11.547$&$ -0.011$ & FIES \\
$2457240.51866$ & $ 24581.82$&$ 4.81$&$ 11.558$&$ -0.003$ & FIES \\
$2457240.62475$ & $ 24575.68$&$ 5.84$&$ 11.551$&$ -0.020$ & FIES \\
$2457241.55160$ & $ 24590.82$&$ 7.26$&$ 11.573$&$ -0.002$ & FIES \\
$2457241.64591$ & $ 24595.43$&$ 5.24$&$ 11.546$&$ 0.005$ & FIES \\
$2457248.67838$ & $ 24565.10$&$ 18.44$&$ 11.552$&$ 0.015$ & FIES \\
$2457249.58312$ & $ 24575.34$&$ 6.52$&$ 11.548$&$ -0.006$ & FIES \\
$2457261.53317$ & $ 24577.38$&$ 6.00$&$ 11.545$&$ -0.008$ & FIES \\
$2457262.66662$ & $ 24554.68$&$ 7.26$&$ 11.578$&$ -0.009$ & FIES \\
$2457342.42953$ & $ 24539.24$&$ 6.00$&$ 11.546$&$ 0.003$ & FIES \\
$2457343.42036$ & $ 24556.29$&$ 9.07$&$ 11.531$&$ 0.018$ & FIES \\
$2457344.41133$ & $ 24544.61$&$ 7.31$&$ 11.559$&$ -0.014$ & FIES \\
$2457394.32683$ & $ 24583.37$&$ 5.60$&$ 11.556$&$ -0.020$ & FIES \\
$2457395.31999$ & $ 24581.37$&$ 5.30$&$ 11.546$&$ 0.004$ & FIES \\
$2457257.79909$ & $ 0.73$&$ 1.64$& -- &-- & PFS \\
$2457258.77452$ & $ -9.97$&$ 1.57$&--&-- & PFS \\
$2457261.80523$ & $ 0.00$&$ 1.46$&--&-- & PFS \\
$2457267.70240$ & $ -20.64$&$ 1.40$&--&-- & PFS \\
$2457268.78307$ & $ -5.45$&$ 1.51$&--&-- & PFS \\
$2457269.72528$ & $ 14.95$&$ 1.54$&--&-- & PFS \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\acknowledgements
{\small We thank the referee, Alexander Santerne, for helpful comments and suggestions which significantly improved this manuscript. We thank Saul Rappaport for helpful comments during the early stages of this project. We acknowledge kind help by Masayuki Kuzuhara for the analysis of Subaru IRCS data.
N.N. acknowledges support by the NAOJ Fellowship, Inoue Science Research Award, and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (No. 25247026) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sci- ence and Technology (MEXT) of Japan.
I. R. acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) through grants ESP2013-48391-C4-1-R and ESP2014-57495-C2-2-R.
A.V. is supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, Grant No. DGE 1144152.
This work was performed [in part] under contract with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech)/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) funded by NASA through the Sagan Fellowship Program executed by the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute.
This article is based on observations obtained with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. Further observations made with the 1.55-m Carlos S\'anchez Telescope operated on the island of Tenerife by the Instituto de Astrof\i sica de Canarias in the Spanish Observatorio del Teide. Observations with the HARPS spectrograph at ESO's La Silla observatory (095.C-0718(A)). Data gathered with the 6.5 meter Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile. Funding for the Stellar Astrophysics Centre is provided by The Danish National Research Foundation (Grant agreement no.: DNRF106). The research is supported by the ASTERISK project (ASTERoseismic Investigations with SONG and Kepler) funded by the European Research Council (Grant
agreement no.: 267864). We acknowledge ASK for covering travels in relation to this publication. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2013-2016) under grant agreement No. 312430 (OPTICON). This research has made use of the Exoplanet Orbit Database and the Exoplanet Data Explorer at exoplanets.org.}
\bibliographystyle{bibstyle}
|
\section{Introduction}
Collaborative Topic Regression (CTR) has been actively explored in recent years \cite{wang2011collaborative}. Instead of purely relying on Collaboretive Filgering(CF) approaches, CTR aims to leverages content-based techniques to overcome inaccurate and unreliable predictions with traditional CF methods due to data sparsity and other challenges. More specifically, CTR combines the idea of probabilistic matrix factorization (PMF) \cite{mnih2007probabilistic} for predicting ratings, and the idea of probabilistic topic modeling, e.g., Latent Dirchelet Allocation (LDA), for analyzing the content of items towards recommendation tasks. CTR has been shown as a promising method that produces more accurate and interpretable results and has been successfully applied in many recommender systems, such as tag recommendation \cite{wang2013collaborative,lu2015content}, and social recommender systems \cite{purushotham2012collaborative,kang2013ctr}.
Despite being studied actively \cite{wang2011collaborative,wang2013collaborative}, the existing CTR techniques suffer from several critical limitations. First of all, they are often designed to work in a batch mode learning fashion, by assuming that all text contents of items as well as the rating training data are given prior to the learning tasks. During the training process, both LDA and PMF models are usually trained separately in a batch training fashion. Such an approach would suffer from a huge scalability drawback when new data (users or items) may arrive sequentially and get updated frequently in a real-world online recommender system. Second, the existing CTR approach only leverages the content information to improve the CF tasks, but not reverse. The document-specific topic proportions of LDA are fed to the downstream PMF. This two-step procedure is rather suboptimal as the the rating information is not used in discovering the low-dimensional representation of documents, which is clearly not an optimal representation for prediction as the two methods are not tightly coupled to fully exploit their potential. Our work is motivated to explore more efficient, scalable, and effective techniques to maximize the potential exploiting extremes in dealing with data streams from real-world online recommender systems.
To overcome the limitations of traditional CTR, we propose a novel scheme of Online Bayesian Collaborative Topic Regression (OBCTR), which jointly optimizes a unified objective function by combining both PMF and LDA in an online learning fashion. In contrast to the original CTR model, OBCTR is able to achieve a much tighter coupling of both PMF and LDA, where both LDA and PMF tasks influence each other naturally and gradually via the joint optimization in the online learning process. This interplay yields item representations that are more suitable for making accurate and reliable rating prediction tasks.
To the best of our knowledge, the proposed OBCTR algorithm is the first online learning algorithm for solving CTR tasks with fully joint optimization of both LDA and PMF. Our encouraging results from extensive experiments on a large real-world data set show that the proposed online learning algorithms are scalable and effective, and the OBCTR technique not only outperforms the state-of-the-art methods for rating prediction tasks but also yields more suitable latent topic proportions in topic modeling tasks.
In the following, we first review some important related work, then present a formal formulation of CTR tasks and the novel Online Bayesian Collaborative Topic Regression algorithms. After that, we conduct extensive empirical studies and compare the proposed algorithms with the existing techniques, and finally set out our conclusions of this work.
\section{Related work}
In this section, we review two groups of studies related to our work, including (1) variants of CTR models and (2) online Bayesian inference.
\textbf{Variants of CTR model:} Researchers have extended CTR models to different applications of recommender systems. Some researchers extended CTR models by integrating with other side information. In CTR-smf \cite{purushotham2012collaborative}, authors integrated CTR with social matrix factorization models to take social correlation between users into account. In LA-CTR \cite{kang2013ctr}, they assumed that users divide their limited attention non-uniformly over other people. In HFT \cite{mcauley2013hidden}, they aligned hidden factors in product ratings with hidden topics in product reviews for product recommendations. Some researchers extended CTR to other recommendation tasks. In CSTR \cite{ding2013celebrity}, authors explored how to recommend celebrities to general users in the context of social network. In CTR-SR \cite{wang2013collaborative}, authors adapted CTR model by combining both item-tag matrix and item content information for tag recommendation tasks. There were also several works that attempted to extract latent topic proportions of text information in CTR via deep learning techniques \cite{wang2014collaborative,wang2015relational,van2013deep}. However, all of these work follow the same parameter estimation scheme as \cite{wang2011collaborative} in a batch learning mode.
\textbf{Online Bayesian Inference:} Although the classical regime of online learning is based on decision theory, much progress has been made for developing online variational Bayes \cite{hoffman2010online,hoffman2013stochastic,kingma2013auto,foulds2013stochastic}. Most of them have adopted stochastic approximation of posterior distribution by sub-sampling a given finite data set, which is unsuitable for many applications where data size is unknown in advance.
To relax this assumption, researchers in \cite{broderick2013streaming,ghahramani2000online} made streaming updates to the estimated posterior. The intuition behind this idea is that we could treat the posterior after observing $T-1$ samples as the new prior for the incoming data points. Specifically, suppose the training data $\{\mathbf{o}_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ are generated i.i.d. according to a distribution $p(\mathbf{o}|\mathbf{x})$ and the prior $p(\mathbf{x})$ is given. Bayes' theorem implies the posterior distribution of $\mathbf{x}$ given the first $T$ samples $(T \ge 1)$ satisfies
$
p(\mathbf{x}|\{\mathbf{o}\}^T_{t=0}) \propto p(\mathbf{x}|\{\mathbf{o}\}^{T-1}_{t=0})p(\mathbf{o}_T|\mathbf{x}).
$
For complex models, we can use approximate inference methods to compute the posterior. For example, \cite{broderick2013streaming} explored a mean-field variational Bayes algorithm for LDA inference. In addition, \cite{mcinerney2015population} introduced the population Variational Bayes (PVB) method which combines traditional Bayesian inference with the frequentist idea of the population distribution for streaming inference. \cite{shi2014online} proposed the Online Bayesian Passive-Aggressive (BayesPA) method for max-margin Bayesian inference of online streaming data. The high scalability of the above methods motivates us to propose Online Bayesian inference for CTR models.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\vspace{-0.2in}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\subfigure[CTR]{
\label{fig:CTR}
\centering
\tikz{ %
\node[const] (alpha) {$\alpha$} ; %
\node[latent, right=of alpha, xshift = -0.40cm] (theta) {$\theta$} ; %
\node[latent, left=of theta, xshift= 0.80cm, yshift = -0.90cm] (epsilon) {$\epsilon$} ;
\node[latent, right=of theta] (z) {z} ; %
\node[obs, right=of z] (w) {w} ; %
\node[latent, right=of w] (Phi) {$\Phi$} ; %
\node[const, below=of Phi,yshift =+0.02cm] (beta) {$\beta$} ; %
\node[obs, below=of z, yshift=-0.42cm, xshift=0.82cm] (r) {$r$} ; %
\node[latent, left=of r, yshift =0.42cm, xshift=-0.50cm] (v) {v} ; %
\node[latent, left=of r, yshift =-1.42cm, xshift=+0.50cm] (u) {u} ; %
\edge {alpha} {theta} ; %
\edge[color =black, line width =0.05cm, solid] {theta} {v} ; %
\edge[color =black, line width =0.05cm] {epsilon} {v} ; %
\edge {z} {w} ; %
\edge {Phi} {w} ; %
\edge {beta} {Phi} ; %
\edge {v} {r} ; %
\edge {u} {r} ; %
\edge {theta} {z} ; %
\plate[label={[label distance=-1.5cm,shift={(0,0.5)}, text width= 4cm, text=blue]2070:LDA-step}, dashed, line width= 1.6pt, color=blue, inner sep=0.15cm, yshift=0.2cm] {plated4} {(theta) (z) (w) (Phi)};
\plate[label={[label distance=-0.5cm, shift={(-2.5,0)},text=blue]2070:PMF-step}, dashed, line width= 1.6pt, color=blue, inner sep=0.15cm, yshift=0.2cm] {plated4} {(r) (v) (u)};
\plate[inner sep=0.25cm] {plate3} {(Phi)} {K};
\plate[inner sep=0.25cm, xshift=-0.12cm, yshift=0.02cm] {plate1} {(z) (w)} {$N$}; %
\plate[inner sep=0.1cm, xshift=0.05cm, yshift=0.02cm] {plate2} {(epsilon) (v) (r) (theta) (plate1)} {J}; %
\plate[inner sep=0.10cm, xshift=0.0cm, yshift=+0.26cm, label={[label distance=-0.5cm]2070:I}] {plate3} {(u) (r)}; %
}
}
\subfigure[OBCTR]{
\label{fig:OBCTR}
\centering
\tikz{ %
\node[const] (alpha) {$\alpha$} ; %
\node[latent, right=of alpha, xshift = -0.40cm] (theta) {$\theta$} ; %
\node[latent, left=of theta, xshift= 0.80cm, yshift = -0.90cm] (epsilon) {$\epsilon$} ;
\node[latent, right=of theta] (z) {z} ; %
\node[obs, right=of z] (w) {w} ; %
\node[latent, right=of w] (Phi) {$\Phi$} ; %
\node[const, below=of Phi,yshift =+0.02cm] (beta) {$\beta$} ; %
\node[obs, below=of z, yshift=-0.42cm, xshift=0.82cm] (r) {$r$} ; %
\node[latent, left=of r, yshift =0.42cm, xshift=-0.50cm] (v) {v} ; %
\node[latent, left=of r, yshift =-1.42cm, xshift=+0.50cm] (u) {u} ; %
\edge {alpha} {theta} ; %
\edge[color=black, line width =0.05cm] {v} {epsilon}; %
\edge[color=black, line width =0.05cm] {z} {epsilon}; %
\edge {z} {w} ; %
\edge {Phi} {w} ; %
\edge {beta} {Phi} ; %
\edge {v} {r} ; %
\edge {u} {r} ; %
\edge {theta} {z} ; %
\plate[inner sep=0.25cm] {plate3} {(Phi)} {K};
\plate[inner sep=0.25cm, xshift=-0.12cm, yshift=0.02cm] {plate1} {(z) (w)} {$N$}; %
\plate[inner sep=0.1cm, xshift=0.05cm, yshift=0.02cm] {plate2} {(epsilon) (v) (r) (theta) (plate1)} {J}; %
\plate[inner sep=0.10cm, xshift=0.0cm, yshift=+0.26cm, label={[label distance=-0.5cm]2070:I}] {plate3} {(u) (r)}; %
}
}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}\vspace{-0.2in}
\caption{The graphical models of CTR (left) and OBCTR (right). (a) CTR consists of two steps: (i) first runs LDA-step, and then feeds topic proportions $\bm\theta_j$ to the PMF-step. Note that it regards the item latent offset as $\mathbf{v}_j \sim \mathcal{N}(\bm\theta_j,\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\mathbf{I}_K)$ in the PMF-step. (b) OBCTR: jointly optimizing both LDA and CTR. We consider the effect of $\bm\epsilon_j \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{v}_j-
\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\mathbf{I}_K)$ on both topic modeling and matrix factorization for rating prediction.}
\label{fig:OBCTR1}
\end{figure*}
\section{Collaborative Topic Regression: Revisited}
Suppose there are $I$ users and $J$ items. Each data sample is a 3-tuple $(i,j,r_{ij})$ where $i \in \{1,2,\cdots,I\}$ is the user index, $j \in \{1,2,\cdots,J\}$ is the item index and $r_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}$ is the rating value assigned to item $j$ by user $i$. We assume the rating data arrives sequentially in an online recommender system. Let $\mathbf{R}$ denote the whole rating samples and the collection of $J$ items is regarded as a document set $\mathbf{W} = \{\mathbf{w}_j\}^{J}_{j=1}$. Let $\mathbf{Z}=\{\mathbf{z}_j\}^J_{j=1}$ and $\mathbf{\Theta} =\{\bm\theta_j\}^J_{j=1} $ denote all the topic assignments and topic proportions of each item. We represent users and items in a shared latent low-dimensional space of dimension $K$, which is equal to the number of topics, user i is represented by a latent vector $\mathbf{u}_i \in \mathbb{R}^K$ and item j by a latent vector $\mathbf{v}_j \in \mathbb{R}^K$.
Figure \ref{fig:CTR} shows the graphical model of CTR. Basically, the CTR model assumes that each item is generated by a topic model and additionally includes a latent variable $\bm\epsilon_j$ which offsets the topic proportions $\bm\theta_j$ when modeling the user's latent vector. This offset variable $\bm\epsilon_j$ can capture the item preference of a particular user based on their ratings. Assume there are $K$ topics $\mathbf{\Phi}=\{\bm\phi_k\}^{K}_{k=1}$. The generative process of the CTR model is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each user $i$, draw user latent vector\\$\mathbf{u}_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{\sigma_u^2}\mathbf{I}_K)$
\item For each item $j$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item Draw topic proportions $\bm\theta_j \sim Dirichlet(\alpha)$.
\item Draw item latent offset $\bm\epsilon_j \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\mathbf{I}_K))$ and set the item latent vector as $\mathbf{v}_j = \bm\epsilon_j+\bm\theta_j$.
\item For each word $w_{jn}$($1\le n \le N_j$),
\begin{enumerate}
\item Draw topic assignment $z_{jn} \sim Mult(\bm\theta_j)$.
\item Draw word $w_{jn} \sim Mult(\bm\phi_{z_{jn}})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\item For each user-item pair $(i,j)$, draw the rating
$
r_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{u}_i^T\mathbf{v}_j,\frac{1}{\sigma_r^2}).
$
\end{enumerate}
In step 2 (c) ii. $\bm\phi_{z_{jn}}$ denotes the topic selected by the non-zero entry of $z_{jn}$. The topics are random samples drawn from a prior, e.g., $\bm\phi_k \sim Dirichlet(\beta)$. Note that $\mathbf{v}_j = \bm\epsilon_j+\bm\theta_j$, where $\bm\epsilon_j \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\mathbf{I}_K)$, is equivalent to $\mathbf{v}_j \sim \mathcal{N}(\bm\theta_j,\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\mathbf{I}_K)$. Given the document set $\mathbf{W}$ and rating data $\mathbf{R}$, we let $\mathbf{U}=\{\mathbf{u}_i\}^I_{i=1},\mathbf{V}=\{\mathbf{v}_j\}^J_{j=1}$, the goal of CTR is to infer the posterior distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{objective1}
&p(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta} |\mathbf{W}, \mathbf{R}) \propto p_0(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}) \nonumber\\
&p(\mathbf{W}|\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi})p(\mathbf{Z}|\mathbf{\Theta})p(\mathbf{V}|\mathbf{\Theta}) p(\mathbf{R}|\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V}).
\end{eqnarray}
Because computing the full posterior of $\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}$ directly is intractable, CTR proposed a heuristic two-stage batch learning method for approximate inference . First, CTR approximately infers posterior $p(\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}|\mathbf{W})$ of LDA model via variational inference method \cite{blei2003latent}. Then, it applies ALS algorithm \footnote{CTR adopts the ALS algorithm \cite{hu2008collaborative} to solve an implicit feedback problem. In our context, we use the SGD algorithm \cite{koren2009matrix} since ratings data are explicit.} for learning the posterior $p(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V}|\mathbf{R}, \mathbf{\Theta})$ of PMF model by feeding the results of $\mathbf{\Theta}$ in the first step. This batch learning approach only leverages the content information to improve the CF tasks, but not reverse and tends to get trapped into local optimum.
\section{Online Bayesian Collaborative Topic Regression}
\label{OCTRbad}
Before introducing our novel online parameter estimation method of Online Bayesian Collaborative Topic Regression (OBCTR), we first modify the graphical model of CTR as shown in Figure \ref{fig:OBCTR1} to jointly optimize both LDA and PMF and adapt to our online learning method. It is worth noting that this minor modification \ref{fig:OBCTR} does not break the main structure of CTR, and our online parameter estimation method could be applied to the various variants of CTR introduced in Section 2.
CTR depicts the generative process of $\mathbf{v}_j$ with $\mathbf{v}_j \sim \mathcal{N}(\bm\theta_j,\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\mathbf{I}_K)$. In their parameter estimation method, topic proportions $\bm\theta_j$ (result of LDA) provide features for $\mathbf{v}_j$ in PMF, but information flow is one-way, which ignores that $\mathbf{v}_j$ could provide feedback to guide the extraction of topic proportions $\bm\theta_j$ (they estimates $\bm\theta_j$ via traditional LDA algorithm which only based on $\mathbf{W}$ not $\mathbf{v}_j$). To address this limitation, we first assume that the item latent vector $\mathbf{v}_j$ is directly close to $\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j$, where $\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j$ is a vector with element $\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j=\frac{1}{N}\sum^N_{n=1}\mathbb{I}(z^k_n=1)$ and $\mathbb{I}$ is the indicator function that equals to 1 if predicate holds otherwise 0. In this way, $\mathbf{v}_j$ can directly influence topic assignments $\mathbf{z}_j$ during the procedure of inferring LDA model (variable $\mathbf{z}_j$ plays a key role in LDA since other hidden variable $\mathbf{\Phi}$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}$ depend on $\mathbf{z}_j$ and we can easily derive the update rule of them based on $\mathbf{z}_j$). Second, we replace the generative process of $p(\mathbf{v}_j|\bm\theta_j)$ with $p(\epsilon_j|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\mathbf{v}_j)$, $\bm\epsilon_j \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{v}_j-\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\mathbf{I}_K)$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:OBCTR1}. In our setting, $\mathbf{v}_j$ and $\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j$ are conditionally dependent, which means their probability of occurrence depends on either event's occurrence and allows two-way interation. In addition, instead of learning two point estimates of coefficients $\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j$, we take a more general Bayesian-style approach and learn the posterior distribution $q(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j)$ in an online method. For rating prediction, we take a weighted average over all the possible latent vectors $\mathbf{u}_i$ and $\mathbf{v}_j$, or more precisely, an expectation of the prediction over $q(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j)$ which is defined as $\hat{r}_{ij}\triangleq \mathbb{E}[\mathbf{u}_i^\top\mathbf{v}_j]$.
Finally, Algorithm \ref{OBCTR} summarizes the detailed framework of the proposed OBCTR algorithm. At each round t, we receive data sample and update both the parameters of LDA and PMF. The following discusses the optimization and each step of the algorithm in detail.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{The Online Bayesian CTR (\textbf{OBCTR})}
\label{OBCTR}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\textbf{Initialize} $\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z}$ randomly.}
\FOR {t = 1 \TO $\infty$}
\STATE{Receive data sample $(i,j,r_{ij},\mathbf{w}_j)$}
\STATE{Draw samples $\mathbf{z}_j^t$ from Eq. (\ref{updatez})}
\STATE{Discard $B$ burn-in sweeps, use the rest samples to update $\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j,\mathbf{\Phi}$ following Eq. (\ref{updateu}),(\ref{updatev}),(\ref{updatePhi})}
\ENDFOR
\STATE {\textbf{Output:} $\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Now, we propose our novel online parameter estimation method of Online Bayesian Collaborative Topic Regression (OBCTR) which is efficient and scalable for learning from data streams. Let us first review the objective function of CTR defined in (\ref{objective1}), from a variational point of view, this posterior is identical to the solution of the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\label{objective}
&\min\limits_{q(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta})} KL[q(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta})\|p_0(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}))] \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad-\mathbb{E}_q[\log p(\mathbf{W}|\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi})p(\mathbf{V}|\mathbf{\Theta}) p(\mathbf{R}|\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V})] \nonumber\\
&\quad\qquad s.t.\quad q(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}) \in \mathcal{P},
\end{align}
where $KL(q\|p)$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence, and $\mathcal{P}$ is the space of probability distributions. If we add the constant $\log p(\mathbf{W})p(\mathbf{R})$ to the objective, it is the minimization of $KL(q(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta})\|p(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}|\mathbf{W},\mathbf{R}))$, which is similar with the variational formulation of original LDA \cite{blei2003latent}.
Formally, we formulate our OBCTR model as the optimization problem below:
\begin{align}
\label{objective}
&\min\limits_{q(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta})} KL[q(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta})\|p_0(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}))] \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad-\mathbb{E}_q[\log p(\mathbf{W}|\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi})p(\bm\epsilon|\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{V}) p(\mathbf{R}|\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V})] \nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad s.t.\quad q(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{V},\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}) \in \mathcal{P},
\end{align}
where $p(\bm\epsilon|\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{\Theta})=\prod^J_{j=1}p(\bm\epsilon_j|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\mathbf{v}_j)$. Inspired by streaming Bayesian inference \cite{broderick2013streaming,ghahramani2000online}, on the arrival of new data $(i,j,r_{ij},\mathbf{w}_j)$, if we treat the posterior after observing $t-1$ samples as the new prior, the post-data posterior distribution $q_{t+1}(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j,\mathbf{z}_j,\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta})$ is equivalent to the solution of the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\label{onlineobjective}
&\min\limits_{q} KL[q(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j,\mathbf{z}_j,\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta})\|q_t(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j,\mathbf{z}_j,\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}))] \nonumber \\
&\quad\quad-\mathbb{E}_q[\log p(\mathbf{w}_j|\mathbf{z}_j,\mathbf{\Phi}) p(\bm\epsilon_j|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\mathbf{v}_j)p(r_{ij}|\mathbf{u}_i^\top\mathbf{v}_j)] \nonumber \\
&s.t. \quad q(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j,\mathbf{z}_j,\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{\Theta}) \in \mathcal{P}.
\end{align}
This problem is intractable to compute. With the mean field assumption that $q(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{v}_j,\mathbf{z}_j)=q(\mathbf{u}_i)q(\mathbf{v}_j)q(\mathbf{z}_j)$, we can solve this problem via an iterative procedure that alternatively updates each factor distribution as follows in detail.
\textbf{For $\mathbf{u}_i$:} By fixing the distribution $q(\mathbf{v}_j)$, we can ignore irrelevant terms and solve
\begin{align}
\min\limits_{q(\mathbf{u}_i)} KL[q(\mathbf{u}_i)q(\mathbf{v}_j)\|q_t(\mathbf{u}_i)p(r_{ij}|\mathbf{u}_i^\top\mathbf{v}_j)]. \nonumber
\end{align}
The optimal solution has the following closed form solution:
\begin{align}
q_{t+1}(\mathbf{u}_i)\propto q_t(\mathbf{u}_i)\exp(\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{v}_j)}[\log p(r_{ij} |\mathbf{u}_i^\top\mathbf{v}_j)]). \nonumber
\end{align}
If initial prior is normal $q_0(\mathbf{u}_i)=\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{u}_i;\mathbf{m}_{ui}^0,\Sigma_{ui}^0)
$, by induction we can show that the inferred distribution at each round is also a normal distribution. Let us assume $q_t(\mathbf{u}_i)= \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{u}_i; \mathbf{m}_{ui}^t,\Sigma_{ui}^t)$. Then, we have
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{t+1}(\mathbf{u}_i) \hspace{-0.25in}&& \propto \exp(-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{u}_i-\mathbf{m}_{ui}^t)^\top(\Sigma_{ui}^t)^{-1}(\mathbf{u}_i-\mathbf{m}_{ui}^t) \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{0.15in}+\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{v}_j)}[-\frac{(r_{i,j}-\mathbf{u}_i^\top\mathbf{v}_j)^2}{2\sigma_r^2}]) \nonumber \\
&& = \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{u}_i;\mathbf{m}_{ui}^\ast,\Sigma_{ui}^\ast),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where the posterior parameters are computed as
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{updateu}
&&\Sigma^\ast_{ui} = ((\Sigma^t_{ui} )^{-1}+\frac{\mathbf{m}_{vj}\mathbf{m}_{vj}^
\top}{\sigma_r^2\mathbf{I}_K})^{-1}, \\
&&\mathbf{m}^\ast_{ui} = \mathbf{m}^t_{ui} + \frac{r_{i,j}-\mathbf{m}_{vj}^\top\mathbf{m}^t_{ui}}{\sigma_r^2+\mathbf{m}_{vj}^\top\Sigma^t_{ui}\mathbf{m}_{vj}}\Sigma^t_{ui}\mathbf{m}_{vj}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
To make it more efficient, we only update the diagonals of covariance matrix $\Sigma_{ui}^\ast$.
\textbf{For $\mathbf{v}_j$:} The update rule of $\mathbf{v}_j$ is similar to $\mathbf{u}_i$ except adding a Gaussian distribution $p(\bm\epsilon_j|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\mathbf{v}_j)$, a constraint about the distance between $\mathbf{v}_j$ and $\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j$, that explains the difference between topic assignments in content and item preference based on ratings. By fixing the distribution of $q(\mathbf{u}_i)$ and $q(\mathbf{z}_j)$, we have the update rule
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-0.2in}&&\hspace{-0.2in}q_{t+1}(\mathbf{v}_j)\propto q_t(\mathbf{v}_j)\exp(\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{z}_j)} [\log p(r_{ij}|\mathbf{u}_i^\top\mathbf{v}_j) p(\bm\epsilon_j|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\mathbf{v}_j)]) \nonumber \\
\hspace{-0.2in}&&\hspace{-0.2in} \propto \exp(-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{v}_j-\mathbf{m}_{vj}^t)^\top(\Sigma_{vj}^t)^{-1}(\mathbf{v}_j-\mathbf{m}_{vj}^t) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-0.2in}&&\hspace{-0.2in}+\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{u}_i)q(\mathbf{z}_j)}[-\frac{(r_{i,j}-\mathbf{u}_i^\top\mathbf{v}_j)^2}{2\sigma_r^2}\hspace{-0.03in}-\hspace{-0.03in}\frac{(\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j-\mathbf{v}_j)^\top(\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j-\mathbf{v}_j)}{\sigma^2_\epsilon\mathbf{I}_K}])\nonumber \\
\hspace{-0.2in}&&\hspace{-0.2in}= \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{v}_j;\mathbf{m}_{vj}^\ast,\Sigma_{vj}^\ast),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where the posterior parameters are computed as
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{updatev}
&&\hspace{-0.25in}\Sigma_{mix}=(\Sigma_{vj}^{-1}+\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2})^{-1}, \\
&&\hspace{-0.25in}\Sigma^\ast_{vj} = ((\Sigma^t_{vj} )^{-1}+\frac{1}{\sigma^2_\epsilon\mathbf{I}_K} + \frac{\mathbf{m}_{ui}\mathbf{m}_{ui}^
\top}{\sigma_r^2\mathbf{I}_K})^{-1}, \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.25in}\mathbf{m}_{vj}^\ast = \Sigma_{mix}\Sigma_{vj}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{vj}^t + \Sigma_{mix}\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j-\Sigma_{mix}\frac{1}{\sigma_r^2}\mathbf{m}_{ui}\nonumber\\ &&\hspace{0.15in}(\frac{\mathbf{m}_{ui}^\top\Sigma_{mix}\Sigma_{vj}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{vj}^t + \mathbf{m}_{ui}^\top\Sigma_{mix}\frac{1}{\sigma_\epsilon^2}\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j-r_{ij}
}{1+\mathbf{m}_{ui}^\top\Sigma_{mix}\frac{1}{\sigma_r^2}\mathbf{m}_{ui}}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
Besides, we adopt the same strategy that only updating the diagonals of covariance matrix $\Sigma_{vj}^\ast$.
\textbf{For $\mathbf{\Phi}$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}$:} By fixing the distribution $q(\mathbf{Z})$, the update rule for Dirichlet distribution $\mathbf{\Phi}$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}$ is similar to the original LDA, that is,
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{updatePhi}
\theta_{jk} = \frac{C_j^k+\alpha}{\sum^K_{k=1}C_j^k+K\alpha}, \quad \Phi_{kw} = \frac{C^w_k+\beta}{\sum^{D}_{w=1}C^w_k+D\beta},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where $D$ is the vocabulary size, $C_j^k$ is the number of times that terms being associated with topic k within the j-th item, $C^w_k$ is the number of times the term $w(1\le w \le D)$ being assigned to topic $k$ over the whole corpus.
\textbf{For $\mathbf{z}_j$:} Given the distribution of other variables, the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{z}_j$ is:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\hspace{-0.35in}q_{t+1}(\mathbf{z}_{j}|\mathbf{v}_j,\mathbf{\Phi},\mathbf{w}_j)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.35in}\propto q_t(\mathbf{z}_{j})\exp( \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{\Phi})q(\mathbf{v}_j)}[\log p(\mathbf{w}_j|\mathbf{z}_{j},\mathbf{\Phi})p(\bm\epsilon_j|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j,\mathbf{v}_j)]) \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.35in}\propto q_t(\mathbf{z}_t)\exp(\sum_{n \in [N_j]}\Lambda_{z_{jn},w_{jn}}-\mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{v}_j)}[\frac{(\mathbf{v}_j-\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j)^\top(\mathbf{v}_j-\bar{\mathbf{z}}_j)}{\sigma^2_\epsilon\mathbf{I}_K}])\quad
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where $\Lambda_{z_{jn},w_{jn}}= \mathbb{E}_{q(\Phi)}[\log (\mathbf{\Phi}_{z_{jn},w_{jn}})]$. We can do Gibbs sampling to infer $q(\mathbf{z}_j)$ by canceling out common factors. This hybird strategy has shown promising performance for LDA \cite{mimno2012sparse,shi2014online}. Specifically, the conditional distribution of one varibale $z_{jn}$ (the topic assignment of the n-th word in item $j$ ) given others $\mathbf{z}_{j\neg n}$ is
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{updatez}
&&\hspace{-0.3in}q(z_{jn} = k | \mathbf{z}_{j\neg n},\mathbf{v}_j, \mathbf{\Phi}, w_{jn}=w)\\
&&\hspace{-0.3in}\propto (\alpha+C^{k}_{j\neg n})\exp(\Lambda_{k,w_{jn}}+\frac{1}{2\sigma_\epsilon^2N_j} (2m_{vjk}- \frac{1+2C^{k}_{j \neg n}}{N_j})),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where $\mathbf{z}_{j\neg n}$ is the topic assignments in item $j$ (except the n-th word) and $C^{k}_{j \neg n}$ is the number of words in item $j$ (except the n-th word) that are assigned to topic $k$.
\section{Experimental Results}
Our experiments were conducted on an extended MovieLens dataset, named as ``MovieLens-10M-Plot"\footnote{We will release the dataset after the paper is accepted.}, which was originated from the MovieLens 10M\footnote{http://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/}. Specifically, the original MovieLens 10M dataset provides a total of 10,000,053 rating records for 10,681 movies (items) by 69,878 users. However, the original dataset has very limited \textit{text} content information. We enrich the dataset by collecting additional text contents for each of the movie items. Specifically, for each movie item, we first used its identifier number to find the movie listed in the IMDb\footnote{http://www.imdb.com} website, and then collected its related text of ``plot summary".
We then combine the ``plot summary" text together with each movie's title and category text given in the MovieLens-10M dataset as a text document to represent each movie. For detailed text preprocessing, we follow the same procedure as the one described in \cite{wang2011collaborative} to process text information. Finally, we form a vocabulary with 7,689 distinct words. Note that we did not consider the CiteUlike dataset \footnote{http://www.citeulike.org/faq/data.adp} as used in the previous study \cite{wang2011collaborative}, because their dataset only provides ``like" and ``dislike" preference, which is kind of implicit feedback and thus unsuitable for our regression task. By contrast, the MovieLens-10M dataset has explicit feedback with ratings ranging from 1 to 5.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering\vspace{-0.1in}
\subfigure[]{
\resizebox{1.61in}{!}{
\input{obctr_rmse_5}
}
\label{fig:obctr_rmse_5}
}
\subfigure[]{
\resizebox{1.61in}{!}{
\input{obctr_rmse_10}
}
\label{fig:obctr_rmse_10}
}
\subfigure[]{
\resizebox{1.61in}{!}{
\input{obctr_rmse_20}
}
\label{fig:obctr_rmse_20}
}
\subfigure[]{
\resizebox{1.61in}{!}{
\input{likelihood}
}
\label{fig:likelihood}
}
\caption{Figure (a)(b)(c) show the evaluation of RMSE performance by different online algorithms after seeing different training data streams. Figure (d) demonstrates the online per-word predictive log likelihood comparisons between OBCTR and Online LDA}
\label{fig:rmse}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Experimental Setup and Metric}
The dataset has more than 10-million rating records. For each experiment, we randomly shuffle the rating records, and then divide them into two parts: the first 90\% of the shuffled rating records are used as the training data, and the rest 10\% rating data are used as test set. We also randomly draw 5\% out of the training data as the validation set for parameter selection. To make fair comparisons, all the algorithms are conducted over 5 experimental runs of different random permutations. For performance metric, we evaluate the performance of our proposed method for prediction task by measuring Root Mean Square Error (RMSE).
In the online learning experiments, we evaluate the RMSE performance on the test set after every 50,000 online iterations. In addition, we also evaluate the performance of topic modeling via the log-likelihood of each word in text collection \cite{hoffman2010online}.
\subsection{Baselines for Comparison and Experimental Settings}
In our experiments, we evaluate the proposed OBCTR algorithms for rating predictions by comparing with some important baselines as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{PA-I}: An online learning algorithm for solving online collaborative filtering tasks by applying the popular online Passive-Aggressive (PA) algorithm \cite{blondel2014online};
\item \textbf{CTR}: the existing Collaborative Topic Regression \cite{wang2011collaborative} . In our context, we replace the ALS algorithm \cite{hu2008collaborative} with SGD algorithm \cite{koren2009matrix} since ratings data are explicit, and keep the rest same as the original CTR (note that the LDA step is still performed in a batch manner);
\item \textbf{OCTR}: To evaluate the efficacy of joint optimization. We propose a simplified variant of OBCTR, named OCTR, which runs online LDA \cite{hoffman2010online} for LDA part and SGD for PMF part (but without joint optimization as OBCTR) sepearately. OCTR closely resembles the original CTR --- the most important difference is that we extract topic proportions from LDA part, and then feed it to the downstream update of PMF part every time data sample arrives;
\item \textbf{OBCTR}: The proposed Online Bayesian CTR algorithm in Algorithm~\ref{OBCTR}.
\end{itemize}
Besides, to evaluate the topic modeling performance, we also compare our method with the typical Online LDA method:
\begin{itemize}\vspace{-0.05in}
\item \textbf{Online-LDA}: an online Bayesian variational inference algorithom for LDA model\cite{hoffman2010online}. We take it as a baseline to evaluate how well the model fits the data with the predictive distribution.\vspace{-0.05in}
\end{itemize}
For parameter settings, we fix $\alpha=K^{-1},\beta=K^{-1}$ and find the optimal parameters for different algorithms (PA-I, CTR and OBCTR). Specifically, the parameters including $c$ in PA-I, $\sigma_u$, $\sigma_v$ and $\rho$ in CTR and OCTR, and $\sigma_\epsilon$ and $\sigma_r$ in OBCTR. All of these parameters are found by performing a grid search as follows: $ \sigma_\epsilon,\sigma_r \in \{0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32\}$, $c \in \{0.01,0.1,0.2,0.5,1\}$, $\rho \in \{0.01,0.05,0.1,0.2,0.5\}$, $\sigma_u, \sigma_v \in \{0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.16, 0.32\}$ and $K \in \{5,10,20\}$.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
K &5 &10 &20 \\ \hline
PA-I &\small{0.9176} \tiny{$\pm$0.0004} &\small{0.9085} \tiny{$\pm$0.0002} &\small{0.9148} \tiny{$\pm$0.0003} \\ \hline
CTR &\small{0.8874} \tiny{$\pm$0.0003} &\small{0.8812} \tiny{$\pm$0.0005} &\small{0.8947} \tiny{$\pm$0.0007} \\ \hline
OCTR &\small{0.9034} \tiny{$\pm$0.0006} &\small{0.9054} \tiny{$\pm$0.0008} &\small{0.9085} \tiny{$\pm$0.0002} \\ \hline
OBCTR &\textbf{\small{0.8763}} \tiny{$\pm$0.0006} &\textbf{\small{0.8788}} \tiny{$\pm$0.0001} &\textbf{\small{0.8747}} \tiny{$\pm$0.0006} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{RMSE results after a single pass over training set}\vspace{-0.2in}
\label{finalresult}
\end{table}
\subsection{Evaluation of Online Rating Prediction Tasks}
Figure \ref{fig:obctr_rmse_5},\ref{fig:obctr_rmse_10},\ref{fig:obctr_rmse_20} compares the online performance of the above methods in $K=5$, $K=10$ and $K=20$. We note that the CTR method took at least 6 hours \footnote{For the vanilla LDA inference method, a larger K value often needs more time for computation.} to precompute the parameters $\mathbf{\Theta}$ and $\mathbf{\Phi}$ by a batch variational inference algorithm. Figure \ref{fig:rmse} shows only its performance in the downstream collaborative filtering phase.
As we can see from Figure \ref{fig:obctr_rmse_5},\ref{fig:obctr_rmse_10},\ref{fig:obctr_rmse_20}, the CTR-based approaches outperform the online CF algorithm (PA-I) for most cases, which is in line the experiments in \cite{wang2011collaborative} and validates the efficacy of leveraging additional text information to improve the performance of PMF for online rating prediction tasks. Second, among different CTR-based approaches, the proposed OBCTR consistently outperforms the other algorithms for most cases. This validates the importance of jointly optimizing both online PMF and online LDA to achieve tight coupling of the two techniques. Moreover, it is interesting to find that the gap between the proposed OCTR variant and OBCTR tends to become more significant when $K$ is smaller. We conjecture that this is because when $K$ is small, the PMF performance is relatively inaccurate and thus including the joint optimization becomes more critical for enhancing the unreliable PMF prediction performance.
Finally, Table \ref{finalresult} summarizes the final test-set RMSE results after finishing the whole online learning tasks (by a single pass over the training set). Similar observations can be found , in which OBCTR achieves the lowest RMSE result on the test set for rating prediction among all the algorithms. In addition, CTR has better performance than OCTR. This is because CTR directly takes the batch LDA results (pre-computed $\mathbf{\Theta}$ and $\mathbf{\Phi}$) as input for leveraging online PMF task, while online CTR may converge relatively slowly (without the tight coupling). This again shows that it is crucial for the joint optimization in OBCTR.
\subsection{Performance on Online Topic modeling Tasks}
Figure \ref{fig:likelihood} shows the results about online average predictive log likelihood for OBCTR and Online LDA. Online learning allows us to conduct a large-scale comparison. We can see that OBCTR exhibits consistently better performance than Online LDA, which ignores ratings information, regardless of how many topics we use. That is due to the utilization of rating information to discover the low-dimensional topic proportions, where OBCTR yields additional benefit on this task.
\subsection{Evaluation of Parameter Sensitivity}
Figure \ref{fig:parameter} shows how RMSE is affected by the choice of two key parameters $\sigma_\epsilon$ and $\sigma_r$ in OBCTR.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\resizebox{1.45in}{!}{
\input{parameter_vr}
}
\label{fig:parameter}
}
\subfigure[]{
\resizebox{1.6in}{!}{
\input{parameter_k}
}
\label{fig:modelsize}
}
\caption{(a) shows the evaluation of parameter influences ($\sigma_r$ and $\sigma_\epsilon$). (b) demonstrates the evaluation of OBCTR result by varying K}
\end{figure}
As observed from Figure \ref{fig:parameter}, at the beginning, increasing $\sigma_\epsilon$ leads to decrease the RMSE quickly. After arriving some optimal value, increasing $\sigma_\epsilon$ further may increase the RMSE gradually. Second, we found the optimal value of $\sigma_\epsilon$ also largely depends on the setting of the parameter $\sigma_r$. When $\sigma_r$ is smaller, the optimal value of $\sigma_\epsilon$ is relatively smaller.
However, after reaching the optimal value, the further performance changing becomes limited. This indicates that overall, it is relatively easy to choose a good value of $\sigma_\epsilon$ given a fixed $\sigma_r$ setting due to its less sensitivity in the range of optimal values. Our results were consistent to the similar phenomena observed in \cite{wang2011collaborative}.
Figure \ref{fig:modelsize} demonstrates the effect of increasing model complexity $K$. This investigation is done by selecting the best achievable RMSE and log-likelihood during the grid parameter search process. As shown in the diagram, increasing the complexity of models (higher $K$ values) leads to improvement of both RMSE and log-likelihood results. However, the gain of predictive performance is paid by a significant computational overhead for more complex models (as shown in Table \ref{time}). In a practical online recommender system, one may want to choose a proper value of $K$ to balance the tradeoff between accuracy and computational efficiency.
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$K$ &5 &10 &20 &50 &100 \\ \hline
Time Ratio & 1.00 &1.29 &2.62 &5.64 &11.43 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Running time consumed for each model size ($K$). Time Ratio indicates the amount of time required compared with that of the simplest model ($K=5$). }
\label{time}\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
This paper investigated online learning algorithms for making Collaborative Topic Regression (CTR) techniques practical for real-world online recommender systems. Specifically, unlike CTR that loosely combines LDA and PMF, we propose a novel Online Bayesian CTR (OBCTR) algorithm which performs a joint optimization of both LDA and PMF to achieve a tight coupling. Our encouraging results showed that OBCTR converges much faster than the other competing algorithms in the online learning, and thus achieved the best prediction performance among all the compared algorithms. Our future work will analyze model interpretability and theoretical performance of the proposed algorithms.
\bibliographystyle{named}
|
Subsets and Splits